A Purity Ball - The New York Times
Hey, I'm as much for young unmarried people not having sex as the next conservative, but even so I can't help but cringe at the symbolism used at the "Purity Ball" shown as a slideshow linked above.
It's all too much setting themselves up for a fall, if you ask me. Just go and stay a virgin quietly.
Monday, May 19, 2008
A history of Pebble Bed Reactors
There's a blog run by Robert Hargraves devoted entirely to Pebble Bed Reactors. It was dormant for a while, but he appears to have revived it recently, and he's got a link to an interesting recent article by an engineer about the history of the reactors. Well worth a read, and I'll add the blog to my links soon.
McCain has fun
Found via the always interesting Tigerhawk, here's John McCain doing an amusing short sketch on Saturday Night Live:
Glad to see he doesn't take himself too seriously.
Glad to see he doesn't take himself too seriously.
Just as I said
Rudd and Swan fudged paltry spending cuts | smh.com.au
My initial reaction to the budget was to call it a con, because of the difference between how it was spun and what it actually did.
Ross Gittins today makes out a very convincing and detailed case that I was right.
My initial reaction to the budget was to call it a con, because of the difference between how it was spun and what it actually did.
Ross Gittins today makes out a very convincing and detailed case that I was right.
Bring it on
Turnbull denies fuel excise leak | NEWS.com.au
I didn't see Insiders yesterday, but heard part of it on the radio. Gerard Henderson was being scathing of Nelson's petrol tax excise policy. Now it appears the preliminary fun and games of a leadership challenge are probably underway.
I guess the plan may well be to see if Nelson can increase his approval rating to anything significant in the next poll. If he is still Mr Around-Ten-Percent, I really can't see the point of letting him hang around any longer, even if the ideal may have been to let Turnbull get more experience as shadow treasurer first.
Nelson is a liability as leader; he should go.
I didn't see Insiders yesterday, but heard part of it on the radio. Gerard Henderson was being scathing of Nelson's petrol tax excise policy. Now it appears the preliminary fun and games of a leadership challenge are probably underway.
I guess the plan may well be to see if Nelson can increase his approval rating to anything significant in the next poll. If he is still Mr Around-Ten-Percent, I really can't see the point of letting him hang around any longer, even if the ideal may have been to let Turnbull get more experience as shadow treasurer first.
Nelson is a liability as leader; he should go.
Eye candy
Wild China, a 6 part BBC nature documentary, started on the ABC last night, and it was spectacularly good to look at. Why is the BBC so accomplished at this sort of thing?
Highly recommended.
Highly recommended.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Begging to differ
Shirley Hazzard: Greatest novelist of the 20th century? - Times Online
Based on Bryan Appleyard's high regard for Shirley Hazzard, I recently bought her last novel "The Great Fire." Now Bryan's gone and interviewed her (see above link), and his admiration is set out clearly there.
Sadly, I am almost half way through the novel and am finding it close to unbearable; last night I nearly decided to simply give up.
I don't mind the more ornate style of writing of your typical mid 20th century author: I have read nearly everything of Evelyn Waugh, and quite admire Brideshead Revisited in particular. In the last few years, I finally got around to The Great Gatsby, and while I felt the material was somewhat slight, I thought the writing had some of the same appeal as Waugh's. Going back further, Conrad can be a bit of struggle for me, but I could still understand him.
The problem with Hazzard, who is old enough to have started writing mid last century, is that I keep finding apparently carefully constructed sentences or paragraphs (she took 20 years to finish it) which none the less I have to re-read to discern the information or mood they are intended to convene. Even then I am not always successful in getting her point.
I don't think I am a particularly thick reader. As she has generally been very well reviewed, I have to give examples to try to validate my complaint.
This first paragraph is, I think, important to the theme of the novel, set shortly after the end of WWII; but that's only my guess, given the way it is written:
I learn from Appleyard's interview that much of the novel must have been inspired by Hazzard's real life adventures as a young women in post war Asia. She also makes it clear that she was an artistically inclined youth who longed to escape Australia, and that explains why she has one major character who views the country the same way:
No, I restrict my complaint to her prose style, which I guess is a result of what happens when an author keeps revising her writing over twenty years: it becomes elaborate but tedious and unclear.
The review of the book at Slate I can partially agree with. It notes that:
Actually, now that I read more of the reviews, a lot of them do seem to acknowledge flaws, yet somehow they still come around to forgiving them. Take this from another review:
Bryan Appleyard wonders why she isn't better known, but it doesn't surprise me at all.
Based on Bryan Appleyard's high regard for Shirley Hazzard, I recently bought her last novel "The Great Fire." Now Bryan's gone and interviewed her (see above link), and his admiration is set out clearly there.
Sadly, I am almost half way through the novel and am finding it close to unbearable; last night I nearly decided to simply give up.
I don't mind the more ornate style of writing of your typical mid 20th century author: I have read nearly everything of Evelyn Waugh, and quite admire Brideshead Revisited in particular. In the last few years, I finally got around to The Great Gatsby, and while I felt the material was somewhat slight, I thought the writing had some of the same appeal as Waugh's. Going back further, Conrad can be a bit of struggle for me, but I could still understand him.
The problem with Hazzard, who is old enough to have started writing mid last century, is that I keep finding apparently carefully constructed sentences or paragraphs (she took 20 years to finish it) which none the less I have to re-read to discern the information or mood they are intended to convene. Even then I am not always successful in getting her point.
I don't think I am a particularly thick reader. As she has generally been very well reviewed, I have to give examples to try to validate my complaint.
This first paragraph is, I think, important to the theme of the novel, set shortly after the end of WWII; but that's only my guess, given the way it is written:
In the pattern of disruption that had been Aldred Leith's life for years, arrival had kept its interest. Excitement dwindled, curiosity had increased. Occasion revived an illusion of discovery, as if one woke in a strange room to wonder afreash not only where but who one was; to shed assumptions, even certainties. On the sea that evening, such expectation was negilible. Earlier in the day, in the swaying train, Leith had written to a wartime comrade: 'Peace forces us to invent our future selves.' Fatuity, he thought now, and in his mind tore the letter up. There was enough introspection to go round, whole systems of inwardness. The deficiency didn't lie there. To deny the external and unpredicatable made self-possession hardly worth the price. Like settling for a future without coincidence or luck.I hope someone out there agrees with me, but I find that to be a semi-opaque mess; not good writing at all.
I learn from Appleyard's interview that much of the novel must have been inspired by Hazzard's real life adventures as a young women in post war Asia. She also makes it clear that she was an artistically inclined youth who longed to escape Australia, and that explains why she has one major character who views the country the same way:
He and Rysom had been raised on the Australian myths of desecration - on tales of fabulous vomiting into glove compartments or punch bowls, of silence ruptured by obscene sound: the legends of forlorn men avenging themselves on an empty continent, which, in its vast removal, did not hear or judge them.Of course, this section makes Hazzard sound like a snob too; but who knows, maybe I would not have been entirely happy in mid 20th century Australia either.
These things, Peter Exley knew, who had been born and raised to it all, and endangered by it. Who had released himself into the lavish hospitality of art. Because of his own hairbreadth escape, the condition did not excite his compassion: the attack on whatever withheld itself in mystery - a woman, a culture, a work of art; the sense of private self. All could be exorcised with a beer and a jeer; the mockery, like the drink, being passing assuagement only, of the wound that would not heal.
No, I restrict my complaint to her prose style, which I guess is a result of what happens when an author keeps revising her writing over twenty years: it becomes elaborate but tedious and unclear.
The review of the book at Slate I can partially agree with. It notes that:
For all her subtlety and depth, Hazzard does not create memorable or particularly believable characters, or, if she manages to, she doesn't seem to favor them....Her style is described as "oblique", whereas I definitely would say "opaque".
Moreover, all of Hazzard's characters lapse at intervals into unconvincingly poetical speech: "Decent people, but the place is laconic. Surprised by peace" is how the old scholar describes conquered Hiroshima to Leith upon first acquaintance.
Actually, now that I read more of the reviews, a lot of them do seem to acknowledge flaws, yet somehow they still come around to forgiving them. Take this from another review:
Hazzard's prose is crisp and whittled, sometimes even cryptic. We never get a fully fleshed story of Leith's heroics, nor of the mysterious mentor, a former Japanese prisoner who, on his deathbed, presciently foretells Leith's passage back to a personal life. Horrors are hinted at but never dwelt upon. Hazzard revels in oblique distillation, but she is by no means a minimalist. Her sentences are rich in clauses, and her observations run deep, as do her characters' self-awareness and interior lives.There's that word "oblique" again. And I would not say that her prose is "sometimes" cryptic; it happens on about every second page, and I just find that intolerable.
Bryan Appleyard wonders why she isn't better known, but it doesn't surprise me at all.
Confusing Fisk
It's hard to tell why The Independent continues to pay Robert Fisk. His style is increasingly confused, and in dire need of editing. Here are some recent examples.
First, talking about a nice meal he was able to have despite the recent violence in Lebanon:
If you need more convincing of his self-indulgent and increasingly opaque style, try the latest column. It contains such gems of journalism such as this:
First, talking about a nice meal he was able to have despite the recent violence in Lebanon:
But I brought up the tiny matter of the little massacre in northern Lebanon in which 10 or 12 militiamen were captured and then murdered before being handed over to the Lebanese army. Their bodies were – I fear this is correct – mutilated after death.Fisk should have more self loathing about his writing style than his choice of lunch."They deserved it," the elegant woman on my left said. I was appalled, overwhelmed, disgusted, deeply saddened. How could she say such a thing? But this is Lebanon and a huge number of people – 62 by my count – have been killed in the past few days and all the monsters buried in the mass graves of the civil war have been dug up.
I chose escalope du veau at the Cocteau – I am sickened by how quickly I decided on it – and tried to explain to my dear Lebanese friends (and they are all dear to me) how much fury I have witnessed in Lebanon.
If you need more convincing of his self-indulgent and increasingly opaque style, try the latest column. It contains such gems of journalism such as this:
Then, talking about an exhibition of Lebanese civil war posters, he writes:So let us start at the beginning (be that the Ottoman, French, post-Versailles beginning of Lebanese history). Or let us begin yesterday, when it was broadcast that two Hizbollah members (for which read Shia Muslims) were knifed to death in Aley by Druze Muslims. Outrageous, if true. So let us begin with the statement that the Lebanese army command has decided to let Brigadier General Wafiq Chucair remain in command of security at Beirut airport. And that the Lebanese army commander – General Michel Sulaiman (the favourite for president if parliament, after 18 sittings, decide to choose one) – was determined to restore "law and order".
Thus (if the reader is not already confused) we should advance to the near-present.
Whatever you think of his politics, you would surely have to agree that his writing has become awful.And when I walked round that exhibition, I thought – yes – that this war could never be recreated. I even contemplated an article saying that there would not be another civil war here. On reflection, I should have sent that story to this paper. For despite everything that we have witnessed these past three days (or two years, or the 30 years or 2,000 years, you take your pick), I don't think the Lebanese want another civil war.
Five days ago, I recorded an interview for Saad Hariri's Future channel about my new book, and told my interviewer that I did not think there would be another civil war in Lebanon. Because Hizbollah has cut the cables of the channel, there will be no programme. "You did it for nothing," the young Lebanese woman interviewer told me yesterday. Yes, I think she was right. But I still suspect that the Lebanese will not tolerate another civil conflict.
Now it's engineers
High-Tech Japanese, Running Out of Engineers - New York Times
First, it was doctors, now it's engineers. Of course, the basic problem is, Japan is going to run out of people soon. It's one of the nations that forgot to have children, and it's kind of sad to watch.
First, it was doctors, now it's engineers. Of course, the basic problem is, Japan is going to run out of people soon. It's one of the nations that forgot to have children, and it's kind of sad to watch.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Television love
My five hours with Sony's amazing XEL-1 OLED television.
This is a pretty amusing article by someone who is deeply impressed by the picture quality of the small Sony OLED TVs that you can now buy overseas. He writes:
This is a pretty amusing article by someone who is deeply impressed by the picture quality of the small Sony OLED TVs that you can now buy overseas. He writes:
Like some awesome hybrid of a plasma screen, an LCD, and a Holodeck, the picture on the OLED (it stands for organic light-emitting diode, which means, I think, that the TV is alive) is demonstrably clearer than anything I've seen before. The movie Hairspray is playing when I arrive, and its crisp luminosity makes me forget that Hairspray is absolutely terrible. A colonoscopy video would be compelling on OLED.The article doesn't mention, though, the question marks raised about the display's longevity. (Sony claims 30,000 hours to get to half-brightness, but a test company claims it will be more like 17,000.) Still, I guess if you're rich enough to buy an 11 inch screen TV for US$2,500, you're reach enough to buy something better in 8 years anyway.
There are about 20 big-screen televisions lining the walls of the room, high-definition LCDs and plasmas and whatnot. Compared with the OLED, they all look like they're covered in thin layers of gauze.
A deeper conspiracy
Unleashed: Unanswered 9/11 questions
What's this? ABC Unleashed is now open to spreading the poisonous blatherings of 9/11 Truthers? This is how my taxpayer funded ABC is using it's money?
Ah, but I suspect there is actually a deeper conspiracy going on. Just how seriously can anyone take a conspiracist with the first name "Hereward"?
What's this? ABC Unleashed is now open to spreading the poisonous blatherings of 9/11 Truthers? This is how my taxpayer funded ABC is using it's money?
Ah, but I suspect there is actually a deeper conspiracy going on. Just how seriously can anyone take a conspiracist with the first name "Hereward"?
Christine Kerr on the alcopops
The real motive behind the alcopops tax hike | The Australian
Christian Kerr sets out a very strong case for very strong cynicism over the alcopops tax increase.
I had been wondering what proportion of alcopops are based on rum and dark spirits, which are almost exclusively marketed to men. Kerr supplies the answer: about 75%.
This indicates that the increase is largely off target, if the concern is to reduce binge drinking in women in particular.
It may also mean that the move is much more unpopular with the electorate than I first imagined, so something good may come from it after all...:-)
Christian Kerr sets out a very strong case for very strong cynicism over the alcopops tax increase.
I had been wondering what proportion of alcopops are based on rum and dark spirits, which are almost exclusively marketed to men. Kerr supplies the answer: about 75%.
This indicates that the increase is largely off target, if the concern is to reduce binge drinking in women in particular.
It may also mean that the move is much more unpopular with the electorate than I first imagined, so something good may come from it after all...:-)
Friday, May 16, 2008
Warning: religion
Tonight's very distressing scenes on the television from the earthquake affected areas of China reminded me of a recent article at First Things, inspired by the recent Burma tragedy, about theodicy.
Wikipedia explains that theodicy is " a specific branch of theology and philosophy that attempts to reconcile the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God, i.e., the problem of evil."
There are several ways a Christian can seek to explain the problem of evil, but I think I am probably now more inclined to take the Jewish/Kantian view, as explained in the Wikipedia article, that it is a bit presumptuous for humans to believe they can work it out at all.
Still, the First Things article I mentioned struck me as expressing very elegantly the emotional power of a theodicy that is based on a traditional Christian belief in real evil and a Fallen creation. It is written by David B Hart, said to be an Eastern Orthodox theologian, and while it is all worthwhile reading, the last paragraph sums it up nicely:
Wikipedia explains that theodicy is " a specific branch of theology and philosophy that attempts to reconcile the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God, i.e., the problem of evil."
There are several ways a Christian can seek to explain the problem of evil, but I think I am probably now more inclined to take the Jewish/Kantian view, as explained in the Wikipedia article, that it is a bit presumptuous for humans to believe they can work it out at all.
Still, the First Things article I mentioned struck me as expressing very elegantly the emotional power of a theodicy that is based on a traditional Christian belief in real evil and a Fallen creation. It is written by David B Hart, said to be an Eastern Orthodox theologian, and while it is all worthwhile reading, the last paragraph sums it up nicely:
As for comfort, when we seek it, I can imagine none greater than the happy knowledge that when I see the death of a child I do not see the face of God, but the face of His enemy. It is not a faith that would necessarily satisfy Ivan Karamazov, but neither is it one that his arguments can defeat: for it has set us free from optimism, and taught us hope instead. We can rejoice that we are saved not through the immanent mechanisms of history and nature, but by grace; that God will not unite all of history’s many strands in one great synthesis, but will judge much of history false and damnable; that He will not simply reveal the sublime logic of fallen nature, but will strike off the fetters in which creation languishes; and that, rather than showing us how the tears of a small girl suffering in the dark were necessary for the building of the Kingdom, He will instead raise her up and wipe away all tears from her eyes — and there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor any more pain, for the former things will have passed away, and He that sits upon the throne will say, “Behold, I make all things new.”I feel a little sorry for people who have never felt the emotional appeal of such a belief system.
Solar for the poor means solar for no one
Solar power rebate change cools public demand | The Australian
Seems a good point. While there was an argument for changing the rebate system, this method seems a bit perverse.
On talk back radio yesterday, I heard a caller who was about to install a 2 kilowatt system at an (after rebate) cost of $14,000 arguing that it was only the higher income home owners who would even consider installing panels at this cost. He said he was only doing it to make his contribution to reducing greenhouse gases; not because it was economically viable.A DECISION to break a pre-election promise on solar panel rebates is already reaping havoc, with cancelled orders and staff laid off.
Phillip May and his partner, Sophia Moody, are seething after the decision in Tuesday's budget to introduce a means test for an $8000 rebate when household income exceeds $100,000.
Adding to the insult, the rebate introduced by the Howard government first came about because Labor had promised one and that it would be available for households earning less than $250,000.
"This has kicked the guts out of our company," Mr May said last night.
The two directors of small Queanbeyan-based installation firm Solartec have been fielding calls all day from would-be clients who now won't go ahead with energy-saving panels.
Seems a good point. While there was an argument for changing the rebate system, this method seems a bit perverse.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Pointless replies
Why is there prominence given to Budget replies, especially when the Opposition is years away from regaining power in the lower house? I never watched a Labor one during the Howard years, and I didn't watch Nelson tonight.
The Coalition's decision to oppose the "alcopop" tax increase is not going to win much public favour, and I doubt that the 17 - 25 year old demographic of young women who will most appreciate the move are the Coalition's natural constituency anyway.
Did Nelson mention pensions? It seemed to me, listening to talkback radio on the first couple of days after the Budget, that the most common complaint was that the nation had a spare $20 billion that the government wanted to save for future spending, but it couldn't increase aged pensions.
So, what can you do with a spare few billion dollars? According to this Liberal Party publication from 2007 (which is actually full of interesting graphs and stuff about how the Coalition was benefiting pensioners), Australia is spending about $24 billion a year on the aged pension for about 2 million recipients.
A 10% increase in the pension would therefore appear to cost roughly $2.4 billion. Of course, with the aging population, such an increase might be more problematic for the future; but then again, when will all that superannuation sloshing around start to help the government bottom line?
So, yes it does seem there was some room for improvement to pension rates, although I guess it would be better to add the support in some other fashion than a straight rate rise.
The Coalition's decision to oppose the "alcopop" tax increase is not going to win much public favour, and I doubt that the 17 - 25 year old demographic of young women who will most appreciate the move are the Coalition's natural constituency anyway.
Did Nelson mention pensions? It seemed to me, listening to talkback radio on the first couple of days after the Budget, that the most common complaint was that the nation had a spare $20 billion that the government wanted to save for future spending, but it couldn't increase aged pensions.
So, what can you do with a spare few billion dollars? According to this Liberal Party publication from 2007 (which is actually full of interesting graphs and stuff about how the Coalition was benefiting pensioners), Australia is spending about $24 billion a year on the aged pension for about 2 million recipients.
A 10% increase in the pension would therefore appear to cost roughly $2.4 billion. Of course, with the aging population, such an increase might be more problematic for the future; but then again, when will all that superannuation sloshing around start to help the government bottom line?
So, yes it does seem there was some room for improvement to pension rates, although I guess it would be better to add the support in some other fashion than a straight rate rise.
In other movie news...
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes
Early reviews for Prince Caspian are pretty positive. Yay!
I don't know why they chose to open a few days ahead of the Indiana Jones movie. It's being absolutely swamped in publicity terms.
I guess the hope is that the pretty rock solid American Christian audience that I suspect accounted for a lot of the first Narnia movie's box office success is pretty much guaranteed to see this sometime during summer, regardless of when it opens. (Of course, The Lion,the Witch and the Wardrobe deserved its success anyway.)
Early reviews for Prince Caspian are pretty positive. Yay!
I don't know why they chose to open a few days ahead of the Indiana Jones movie. It's being absolutely swamped in publicity terms.
I guess the hope is that the pretty rock solid American Christian audience that I suspect accounted for a lot of the first Narnia movie's box office success is pretty much guaranteed to see this sometime during summer, regardless of when it opens. (Of course, The Lion,the Witch and the Wardrobe deserved its success anyway.)
Least anticipated film of the season
Florist detour and frock stars come up smelling of roses - Film - Entertainment
The only point I can see in having a "Sex and the City" movie made is for women to have some sort of clear test as to their new boyfriend's sexuality. The number of straight men willingly in a cinema to see it (or, at least, there at their own suggestion) will be vanishingly small .
And really, was there ever a worse look in a dress than the open cut thing that bony-chested what's-her-name is wearing in the photo at the link? (Oh dear: I have commented in a bitchy sounding way on women's fashion. No, no, I don't want to see the movie, honest.)
UPDATE: here's a pretty funny column on the same topic, which repeats this comment which apparently appeared after the movie's review in The Times:
The only point I can see in having a "Sex and the City" movie made is for women to have some sort of clear test as to their new boyfriend's sexuality. The number of straight men willingly in a cinema to see it (or, at least, there at their own suggestion) will be vanishingly small .
And really, was there ever a worse look in a dress than the open cut thing that bony-chested what's-her-name is wearing in the photo at the link? (Oh dear: I have commented in a bitchy sounding way on women's fashion. No, no, I don't want to see the movie, honest.)
UPDATE: here's a pretty funny column on the same topic, which repeats this comment which apparently appeared after the movie's review in The Times:
I don't think SATC is just for girls. I am a reasonably well-adjusted bloke and I am looking forward to seeing the film with my girlfriend. I am then looking forward to poking my eyes out with red-hot pokers, burning my skin off, and rolling around in salt for a while."—Phil Mann, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Devine Vs Wodak
Puff goes the drug liberaliser - Miranda Devine - Opinion - smh.com.au
It's interesting watching the argument between Miranda Devine and Dr Alex Wodak on the question of marijuana laws. Seems to me Miranda is clearly winning.
It's interesting watching the argument between Miranda Devine and Dr Alex Wodak on the question of marijuana laws. Seems to me Miranda is clearly winning.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Didn't Nicola get the memo?
On the 7.30 Report on Monday, Kerry O'Brien had this exchange with Health Minister Nicola Roxon:
Also in the Kerry O'Brien interview, there's a sign that he's starting to get sick of the way the Rudd government media manipulation works:
KERRY O’BRIEN: Have you consulted the States on this? You've told them of your decision are they relaxed and comfortable about the prospect of up to 400,000 extra people coming back into the public hospital net?On the ABC today:
NICOLA ROXON: Those are estimates from the health insurance industry. They haven't provided us with the basis upon which they make those estimates or whether, in fact, those people will present at public hospitals.
KERRY O’BRIEN: At least they've given us some figures, you haven't given me any.
It's about time our PM had them both in his office for a cup of tea and introduction, isn't it?Treasurer Wayne Swan has confirmed his own department predicts 485,000 people will dump their private healthcare cover under changes to the Medicare surcharge that were confirmed in last night's Federal Budget.
The figure is well above what the industry was predicting as a result of the surcharge income threshold doubling to $100,000 for singles and $150,000 for couples.
Also in the Kerry O'Brien interview, there's a sign that he's starting to get sick of the way the Rudd government media manipulation works:
KERRY O’BRIEN: The decision on the health fund tax levy was leaked to both Fairfax and News Limited newspapers for Saturday morning and then Wayne Swan confirmed it on radio. Are you comfortable that this kind of media manipulation has now become commonplace? Why not, if you want it out, why not just announce it if you want it out there before the Budget? I would have thought that would be a more honest way to do it, wouldn't it?Why doesn't he ask pointed questions like this to Kevin Rudd himself, to whom he still gives a puzzlingly easy ride?
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Budget comments
Short summary: it's all a con.
A lot of the reaction tonight is pretty positive, but those taking a more cynical view seem to me (of course!) to have the more realistic take on it.
This summary here on ABC Online seems pretty right. It's not taking spending cuts seriously at all. Of course, as Turnbull had warned, severe spending cuts were not necessarily good in current circumstances anyway. However, (again as Turnbull complained tonight,) Swan was selling the need for "inflation fighting" spending cuts before today, but he hasn't really delivered on his own promise.
There was an economist writing in the Courier Mail today who argued that assessing the likely effect of a budget on inflation was extremely difficult and depends on assessing the effect of all cuts and spending programs in the entire budget. This makes a lot of common sense, but I can find no link.
In any event, it seems clear that the $2 billion net savings in the budget as delivered will make next to no difference to inflation. Are people forgetting that only a couple of days ago Access Economics was claiming that every $3 billion dollars saved would prevent a .25% interest increase? Some months ago, Ross Gittins claimed that it would take an extra $10 billion in surplus (or a surplus of 2.3% of GDP) to have the equivalent effect. I think I heard that this budget has a surplus of 1.8% of GDP. Therefore, even on Access Economics more 'optimistic' view of how effective spending cuts could be, any praise for this being an inflation fighting budget seems distinctly premature.
On the nature of some of the savings, Alan Kohler made this interesting point I haven't seen elsewhere:
As I say, all a con.
On the other big political issue of the week (the Medicare surcharge levy adjustment), there is no denying that there was a logical argument for increasing the limits, as there is with taking bracket creep into account in tax tables. But also as with tax bracket creep, governments that adjust too quickly are not really helping their bottom line.
Given that there was no adjustment for 10 years, some adjustment was justifiable now. But to take it from $50,000 to $100,000 for a single person is just ideology at work, not logic. (I've had a quick look at CPI figures for 97 to 07, and it looks to me like $67,500 would be the correct inflation adjusted figure.)
Isn't that effective "tax cut" going to have an inflationary effect?
There's no doubt a significant number of single people will first drop out of private health insurance because of this change, followed by more married couples when the funds increase their already barely tolerable premiums because of the loss of the single people.
It's the first case of a unexpected and clearly bad idea borne of Labor ideology for this government. As Tony Abbott ably argued, it is very likely to make dealing with the problems within the public health system much worse in the long run.
UPDATE: I typed this last night then forgot to post it. I see now that Andrew Bolt was making the same points. Peter Hartcher makes the case for it actually being bad for inflation.
UPDATE 2: I hear that Malcolm Turnbull is running with the case that it is actually going to stimulate inflation, and he may be right.
So, to get my criticisms in order:
It's not that I was looking for a budget that did cut into people's income (eg by not delivering the tax cuts,) but the government is trying to sell the budget on pure spin, as Bolt says.
Swan is selling increased tax as a "saving": does that really make sense? Some of the other savings may well be illusory too, as noted above.
Putting the surplus into funds to be spent in future might not be such a bad thing, provided the process of identifying infrastructure spending comes up with sound projects. From that point of view, the budget is a bit of a "wait and see" proposition, as it may or may work well in the future.
It's not a budget that deserves strong condemnation; on the other hand it is not one that deserves praise either.
It is definitely the most highly "spun" budget we have seen for many years.
A lot of the reaction tonight is pretty positive, but those taking a more cynical view seem to me (of course!) to have the more realistic take on it.
This summary here on ABC Online seems pretty right. It's not taking spending cuts seriously at all. Of course, as Turnbull had warned, severe spending cuts were not necessarily good in current circumstances anyway. However, (again as Turnbull complained tonight,) Swan was selling the need for "inflation fighting" spending cuts before today, but he hasn't really delivered on his own promise.
There was an economist writing in the Courier Mail today who argued that assessing the likely effect of a budget on inflation was extremely difficult and depends on assessing the effect of all cuts and spending programs in the entire budget. This makes a lot of common sense, but I can find no link.
In any event, it seems clear that the $2 billion net savings in the budget as delivered will make next to no difference to inflation. Are people forgetting that only a couple of days ago Access Economics was claiming that every $3 billion dollars saved would prevent a .25% interest increase? Some months ago, Ross Gittins claimed that it would take an extra $10 billion in surplus (or a surplus of 2.3% of GDP) to have the equivalent effect. I think I heard that this budget has a surplus of 1.8% of GDP. Therefore, even on Access Economics more 'optimistic' view of how effective spending cuts could be, any praise for this being an inflation fighting budget seems distinctly premature.
On the nature of some of the savings, Alan Kohler made this interesting point I haven't seen elsewhere:
One of the big savings measures is a bit of a fiddle though. The cancellation of the $959 million “Australia Connected” fund that was awarded to Singtel Optus and Elders has been counted as a saving, but the $4.7 billion National Broadband Network amount that replaces it is not counted as an expense because it hasn’t been spent yet and is not detailed in the forward estimates.And on the point of the "future funds," which really are there just to delay large infrastructure spending until the lead up to the next election, the Crikey budget blog notes this:
...Wayne Swan today indicated both the capital and interest would be spent on appropriate projects. Given the expected inflation environment over the next few years – and the fact that, when it comes to infrastructure, we are suddenly playing catch-up for years of State Government neglect – it’s hard to work out how expenditure by these funds won’t have a similar inflationary impact several years hence as they would now.The Opposition has made the point that its education endowment fund was a permanent fund that earned ongoing income to upgrade universities; it was not simply a pool of capital to be spent and disappear over a few years.
As I say, all a con.
On the other big political issue of the week (the Medicare surcharge levy adjustment), there is no denying that there was a logical argument for increasing the limits, as there is with taking bracket creep into account in tax tables. But also as with tax bracket creep, governments that adjust too quickly are not really helping their bottom line.
Given that there was no adjustment for 10 years, some adjustment was justifiable now. But to take it from $50,000 to $100,000 for a single person is just ideology at work, not logic. (I've had a quick look at CPI figures for 97 to 07, and it looks to me like $67,500 would be the correct inflation adjusted figure.)
Isn't that effective "tax cut" going to have an inflationary effect?
There's no doubt a significant number of single people will first drop out of private health insurance because of this change, followed by more married couples when the funds increase their already barely tolerable premiums because of the loss of the single people.
It's the first case of a unexpected and clearly bad idea borne of Labor ideology for this government. As Tony Abbott ably argued, it is very likely to make dealing with the problems within the public health system much worse in the long run.
UPDATE: I typed this last night then forgot to post it. I see now that Andrew Bolt was making the same points. Peter Hartcher makes the case for it actually being bad for inflation.
UPDATE 2: I hear that Malcolm Turnbull is running with the case that it is actually going to stimulate inflation, and he may be right.
So, to get my criticisms in order:
It's not that I was looking for a budget that did cut into people's income (eg by not delivering the tax cuts,) but the government is trying to sell the budget on pure spin, as Bolt says.
Swan is selling increased tax as a "saving": does that really make sense? Some of the other savings may well be illusory too, as noted above.
Putting the surplus into funds to be spent in future might not be such a bad thing, provided the process of identifying infrastructure spending comes up with sound projects. From that point of view, the budget is a bit of a "wait and see" proposition, as it may or may work well in the future.
It's not a budget that deserves strong condemnation; on the other hand it is not one that deserves praise either.
It is definitely the most highly "spun" budget we have seen for many years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)