School funding - Gonski Review

Comments on Judith Sloan "It would be fairer and cheaper for some rich schools to lose funds", 28/02/2012, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/it-would-be-fairer-and-cheaper-for-some-rich-schools-to-lose-funds/story-fnbkvnk7-1226283265715

I think the second last paragraph is the key for this review to work and be adopted in 2014 finding.

The reconciliation of the government proposition of no loss of $1 per student and the percentage funding of non-government schools can only be done by transitional arrangements.

Further, total $ amount per student recommended in the review report should and must be state specific, given the huge differences in costs of education between the states.

Lastly, the percentage funding should be different for catholic and independent schools in general and should be adjusted by the relative resources of schools accordingly. Maybe a floor per student percentage should be considered.

Both US and China need to consider win-win mentally

Comments on Nick Bisley “An assertive China rattles the region”, 24/02/2012, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/02/24/an-assertive-china-rattles-the-region/

Apart from agreeing to Professor Bisley's analysis, I would add that an economic terminology here to describe the situations that I think they fundamentally reflect a behaviour of adaptive expectations as opposed to rational expectations.

By that I meant that those reactions by some of the East Asian regional players as well as the US appear to me a backward looking as opposed to forward looking in their fundamental nature.

The US behaviour is not too different from many earlier powers behaviour before they exited their past colonies.

Some regional players are reluctant to accept the rise of China as a world power with its regional implications and hope the US influence will continue. But that is hardly unsustainable, as China will replace the US as the world's largest economy with the power necessary to protect its economic interests.

Nothing has been more contrast in the fact that China has been experiencing a rapid growth in both its economy and a largely proportional increase in its military budget and the fact that the US has been struggling with both its economy and the cuts of military budget as part of its reactions to reducing its huge government debts.

Besides, the US has a wide spread in its military interests and China of course is much more focused on its surrounding areas as opposed to global reach.

So in terms of regional power strengths and weaknesses, the real differences between the US and China undoubtedly lie in the ultimate deterrence of nuclear power while the gaps between the US superiority the rise of China in Asia in conventional military is rapidly closing.

In terms of nuclear power, it is hardly imaginable that either is willing to risk, even though there is a huge gap in their strengths.

What implications of all these changes and ongoing changes between the US and China have, while with considerable uncertainties, are likely to be in favour of China's continued rise in both economic, political and military strengths relative to that of the US.

If the US continues to put obstacles on the path of China's rise, how it and China will resolve the unavoidable clashes and skirmishes is unclear.

Will that have to come to a military confrontation, or a conflict to set a score to see the changed comparison? I hope not.

There is no need to have another Korea war style battle to show they would have a draw and both have to settle for a truce.

Both the US and China will need to recognise that neither of them can resort to nuclear conflict and it is also unlikely that in any conventional conflicts that either side will have a clear victory.

But the US seems to be forcing China into a position of put up or shut up with its recent behaviours.

For China, it must take the current international order into account in shaping one for the future. For the US, it must recognise that the rise of China means it cannot defeat China in militarily and has to give some ground in accommodating China's and other world power aspirants' legitimate demands.

Only in that way, everyone can have a win-win outcome.

A point of logic on a Lardy analysis

Comments on Nicholas Lardy “China’s rebalancing will not be automatic”, 22/02/2012, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/02/22/china-s-rebalancing-will-not-be-automatic/

While I am highly likely to be in no position to analyse the various data and/or studies to support different and often opposing argument, I wish to make a point on perhaps one small aspect explicit or probably more implicitly in Lardy's post, on a logic or reasoning basis.

It seems to me that Lardy's implicit underlying logic foundation is on "equilibrium level" or "purity" in terms of balance and imbalance. In another word, if it is not in the balance at the equilibrium level, it poses a problem. Fundamentally, it relies on equilibrium and statics.

That kind of logic can be contrasted with a change concept, that is, a gradual improvement or moving towards something, say equilibrium.

In physics or mechanics terms, he emphasises much more on the level of "speed", and much less so on the change in speed or "acceleration".

There is no need for me to say too much more on this, given that most readers would be familiar with these concepts and the relationship between speed and acceleration.

So in my view he is both correct and incorrect, depending how one looks at the issue.

Having said that, I seem to remember that Lardy is an accomplished US scholar on the Chinese economy and my comments is by no means to discount his contributions in this area.

Why Australian have to pay higher interest rates and higher retail prices?

Comments on David Uren "Politicians make lousy bankers" 7/02/2012, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/politicians-make-lousy-bankers/story-e6frg9qo-1226264125617
I've lost the copy of my comments but will get it when it is available from the Australian.

Reward practical solutions to significant issues

Comments on Dick Smith's population award, 7/02/2012, see http://dicksmithpopulation.com/2010/08/11/wilberforce-award-announced/

This is my second time to visit this page about this award and my urge has become stronger that the age restriction would not be helpful to finding real and the best solution to the population sustainability issue.

While it is clearly good to encourage young people to think about it, the smaller feasibility area does constraint the optimal results, unless the best result in the unrestricted optimisation coincides with this smaller feasible area optimisation.

If Mr Dick Smith is not only interested in encouraging young talent but also in finding the best solutions, then the award should not be restricted to young persons aged 30 or below.

Having said that I would have to say that Mr Smith's setting up a award for such a social and policy issue is outstanding thinking and should be highly commended.

Australia will definitely be a better place if more awards for solutions to important social and policy issues, such as mitigation of floods and bush fire damages in Australia, practical and optimal taxation and social welfare, Indigenous education, health and economic participation, optimal monetary and fiscal policies (i.e. why Australians have to pay so high interest rates), why Australians have to pay so much higher prices for virtually many things (i.e. the price differences between here and that in the US)?

It would be nice to award practical solutions and people who make outstanding contributions to practical solutions to important social and policy issues.

Both the public sector (government) and the private sector including private citizens should join such effort to improve Australians' welfare and well beings.

The public services and bureaucrats have their roles, but experience shows that many real constraints (such as political, operational and organisational constraints) have put a significant limit to their roles.