In a featured article in The Australian Financial Review today, 28/05/2010, page 58, John Roskan has an excellent exposition of Rudd's distorted and selective approaches to economics.
Roskam states that Rudd, in his economic essay published in the Monthly in February 2009, went so far in attacking the so called "neo-liberals and their belief in the efficient-market hypothesis", and branded their "economic modelling for causing the global financial crisis".
But now Rudd is using a never tried theoretic modelling involving many assumptions as the basis for his Resource Super Profits Tax.
What Roskam concludes is that "it seems Rudd has no qualms about theoretical models when it's social democrats instead of neo-liberals doing the modelling."
By the way, the AFR editorial, on the same page, is titled: "a way out of the quagmire" and has the following advice to Rudd and Swan and their government:
"The RSPT is nor so neutral after all. Another to dislike the silent partner model is that it merely postpones the risk of fiscal shocks."
"The government needs to examine all these options, and more."
Note: Those options include: Professor Garnaut's suggestion of replacing the RSPT with a version of the petroleum resource rent tax. The "neutral" mentioned above means the Brownian theoretical basis of the RSPT that it does not distorts investment incentives and decisions.
Showing posts with label Rudd essays. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rudd essays. Show all posts
2010-03-31
Authentic Rudd - are you kidding Paul?
Comments on Paul Kelly “Election's economic narrative reveals real Rudd”, 31/03/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/elections-economic-narrative-reveals-real-rudd/story-e6frg6zo-1225847684728
Paul, again, with respect I have to say it is wrong to even consider the concept of authentic Rudd.
His philosophy has been the foundation of his government's spending programs - his finger prints are everywhere from the pink batts, more than $10 billion BEU with arguably 20-30% waste, the $43 billion NBN with no business plan. You name it, what program has gone well?
What about the cash handouts at a time where government finance was going into deep deficit hole?.
His incomplete and partial health reform plan in which many details are still in the making?
So on what basis can people believe he is authentic?
Paul, again, with respect I have to say it is wrong to even consider the concept of authentic Rudd.
His philosophy has been the foundation of his government's spending programs - his finger prints are everywhere from the pink batts, more than $10 billion BEU with arguably 20-30% waste, the $43 billion NBN with no business plan. You name it, what program has gone well?
What about the cash handouts at a time where government finance was going into deep deficit hole?.
His incomplete and partial health reform plan in which many details are still in the making?
So on what basis can people believe he is authentic?
2010-03-08
Rudd committed to governance - are you kidding?
Comments on Andrew MacIntyre “Anticipating Obama’s visit to Indonesia and Australia”, 7/03/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/07/anticipating-obamas-visit-to-indonesia-and-australia/
First things first, the author says: "Rudd remains strongly committed to strengthening the institutional framework for regional cooperation in Asia. Explicit support from Washington would be helpful now in accelerating this cause. While the precise institutional form for achieving this outcome remains an open question, anything that enhances America’s ability to advance its core interests in Asia is likely to find favour with Obama."
If Australians are forgiving enough for Rudd's governance style and the outcomes such as the pink batts fatalities and ETS fiascos, as well as the cash handouts, the $43 billion NBN without business case study, a half cooked product for health reform after two years in the making and 8 months later than his pre-election promise, so far after just two years with his governance, it is by no means certain that peoples in other countries would believe his governance capability, even probably his very desire after his firstly declaration of fiscal/economic conservative before the last election and only then having a huge assault in his economic essay to advocate big government.
Even within Australia, he has been questioned and he has confessed he did not anticipate how hard it is to deliver services/policies.
Does he anticipate how hard it will be for international affairs, after his role as one of the friends of the chair in making the draft at Copenhagen? Or is it easier to spin politically internationally than domestically, perhaps some other nations may not be as intelligent as Australians in his eyes?
It is interesting to see there is still some loving affairs from some circle of the academia for a failed prime minister. Are they eagerly waiting for the MyUniversity website, perhaps?
Another interesting piece from the author is: “Surprisingly, there may be greater gains to be had from cooperation in the security sphere. For more than a decade, the Leahy Act, prohibiting the US from training military units with a history of human rights abuse, has meant that security cooperation with Indonesia has been limited to police-based counter-terrorism efforts. Both sides now want to move beyond this. Driven by China’s growing regional weight, Obama seems prepared to go further than Bush in finding ways to restart military-to-military engagement. There are signs that the Obama administration may seek to re-establish training programs with Indonesia’s controversial elite commando unit, Kopassus, by engaging with younger officers who could not have participated in past abuses.”
Is there any principle in either some of the US approaches in the past or the author’s advocacy, or just hypocrisy?
People’s memories are fortunately not that short: Saddam was backed and supported by the west led by the US earlier and only to be overthrown by the invasion of a circle of friends including Australia led by the US, at the expense of any international institutional mandate.
Maybe, this is a show of governance or good international institution framework at work from the author point of view?
Academia, poor academia!
People often use "out of touch" to describe some politicians, like prime ministers/presidents, etc. It is interesting to observe that some other people including academia sometimes can also be suitable candidates for this dubious title.
Those academics who are really out of touch should get out of their lovely ivory towers and know what the real world is and how it looks like.
In that way they may increase their relevance.
Of course, people in China often describe universities have been institutionalised to have equivalent ranks as government officials. Understandably, some university administrators may be fairly good in that contest so they either don't have or have lost their academia capacities.
In economics, that is perhaps called specialisation!
I am really getting forgetful!
Oh, I forgot the Prime Minister’s handling of the Sri Lanka boat people on the Oceanic Vikings and its effect on the relations between Australia and Indonesia, a clear demonstration of the PM's diplomatic skills and resolves.
Another example is what; the 2020 summit after the PM became the PM? A millennium event! In addition to many photo opportunities and media coverage, a thousand ideas were generated from those preeminent people/participants at the summit. It was a success, maybe.
What happened afterwards? Isn't that the case that about 9 ideas were planned to be acted upon? What are they? Are they the best for Australia among the thousand?
Only time can tell, but some people probably already cast their doubts at the time when the 9 was announced, perhaps rightly so!
First things first, the author says: "Rudd remains strongly committed to strengthening the institutional framework for regional cooperation in Asia. Explicit support from Washington would be helpful now in accelerating this cause. While the precise institutional form for achieving this outcome remains an open question, anything that enhances America’s ability to advance its core interests in Asia is likely to find favour with Obama."
If Australians are forgiving enough for Rudd's governance style and the outcomes such as the pink batts fatalities and ETS fiascos, as well as the cash handouts, the $43 billion NBN without business case study, a half cooked product for health reform after two years in the making and 8 months later than his pre-election promise, so far after just two years with his governance, it is by no means certain that peoples in other countries would believe his governance capability, even probably his very desire after his firstly declaration of fiscal/economic conservative before the last election and only then having a huge assault in his economic essay to advocate big government.
Even within Australia, he has been questioned and he has confessed he did not anticipate how hard it is to deliver services/policies.
Does he anticipate how hard it will be for international affairs, after his role as one of the friends of the chair in making the draft at Copenhagen? Or is it easier to spin politically internationally than domestically, perhaps some other nations may not be as intelligent as Australians in his eyes?
It is interesting to see there is still some loving affairs from some circle of the academia for a failed prime minister. Are they eagerly waiting for the MyUniversity website, perhaps?
Another interesting piece from the author is: “Surprisingly, there may be greater gains to be had from cooperation in the security sphere. For more than a decade, the Leahy Act, prohibiting the US from training military units with a history of human rights abuse, has meant that security cooperation with Indonesia has been limited to police-based counter-terrorism efforts. Both sides now want to move beyond this. Driven by China’s growing regional weight, Obama seems prepared to go further than Bush in finding ways to restart military-to-military engagement. There are signs that the Obama administration may seek to re-establish training programs with Indonesia’s controversial elite commando unit, Kopassus, by engaging with younger officers who could not have participated in past abuses.”
Is there any principle in either some of the US approaches in the past or the author’s advocacy, or just hypocrisy?
People’s memories are fortunately not that short: Saddam was backed and supported by the west led by the US earlier and only to be overthrown by the invasion of a circle of friends including Australia led by the US, at the expense of any international institutional mandate.
Maybe, this is a show of governance or good international institution framework at work from the author point of view?
Academia, poor academia!
People often use "out of touch" to describe some politicians, like prime ministers/presidents, etc. It is interesting to observe that some other people including academia sometimes can also be suitable candidates for this dubious title.
Those academics who are really out of touch should get out of their lovely ivory towers and know what the real world is and how it looks like.
In that way they may increase their relevance.
Of course, people in China often describe universities have been institutionalised to have equivalent ranks as government officials. Understandably, some university administrators may be fairly good in that contest so they either don't have or have lost their academia capacities.
In economics, that is perhaps called specialisation!
I am really getting forgetful!
Oh, I forgot the Prime Minister’s handling of the Sri Lanka boat people on the Oceanic Vikings and its effect on the relations between Australia and Indonesia, a clear demonstration of the PM's diplomatic skills and resolves.
Another example is what; the 2020 summit after the PM became the PM? A millennium event! In addition to many photo opportunities and media coverage, a thousand ideas were generated from those preeminent people/participants at the summit. It was a success, maybe.
What happened afterwards? Isn't that the case that about 9 ideas were planned to be acted upon? What are they? Are they the best for Australia among the thousand?
Only time can tell, but some people probably already cast their doubts at the time when the 9 was announced, perhaps rightly so!
2009-10-20
Rudd - nothing more than a political chameleon
Comments on Malcolm Colless “Behold a tough new PM”, 20/10/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26232383-5015019,00.html
Rudd has shown already and will be recorded in history as a political chameleon, pursuing short term popularity and wanting to project himself as a true statesman but having no ability to be one.
His essay just shows he does not have the judgement and analytical ability of a statesman to deal with hard issues, unfortunately.
The sad thing for Australians is that the longer this guy stays in the national scene, the more damages he will do to the nation because of his inability to deal with real and hard issues.
Public hospitals are mentioned as an example. Education revolution is another. There is also the whole NBN drama of $43 billion without a business case.
You name it, what has his government really achieved? Probably there is none.
Rudd has shown already and will be recorded in history as a political chameleon, pursuing short term popularity and wanting to project himself as a true statesman but having no ability to be one.
His essay just shows he does not have the judgement and analytical ability of a statesman to deal with hard issues, unfortunately.
The sad thing for Australians is that the longer this guy stays in the national scene, the more damages he will do to the nation because of his inability to deal with real and hard issues.
Public hospitals are mentioned as an example. Education revolution is another. There is also the whole NBN drama of $43 billion without a business case.
You name it, what has his government really achieved? Probably there is none.
2009-10-09
Rudd needs to heed warning from Garnaut
Comments on Michael Stutchbury “Garnaut warns PM on stimulus”, 9/10/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/currentaccount/index.php/theaustralian/comments/garnaut_warns_pm_on_stimulus/
Garnaut is a highly reputable and respected economist with experiences in advising the highest office in the land. His view on the government stimulus is pretty much spot on.
Having said that, I personally think that some of Garnaut’s view may be questionable, like those about structural deficit and adjustments in Australia in the near future. That argument is convenient to put, but ignores the nature of the fact that government and consumers have imperfect information.
Now let’s get back to the government and Rudd. The main problem with the Rudd government is that the Prime Minister has a narrow and distorted view of the economic history of the past 30 years, as reflected in his essay in the Monthly in February 2009.
While the great financial crisis and the great recession shows some problems with ineffective regulations or supervisions in the US, especially the mal-practice of sub-mortgage lending and excessive gearing, it is far fetch to say it is the consequence of neoliberal economics in everywhere.
It is unclear whether Rudd really interpreted the economic history incorrectly or merely uses the crisis as an excuse to implement big government and strong government interventions. Different causes may have different consequences.
If he wrongly interpreted the history, then there is a chance that he may realise it one day and correct it.
If strong government interventions are his belief, then there is little hope that he will get the government’s economic policies and some other public policies right. And that would be a pity.
Garnaut is a highly reputable and respected economist with experiences in advising the highest office in the land. His view on the government stimulus is pretty much spot on.
Having said that, I personally think that some of Garnaut’s view may be questionable, like those about structural deficit and adjustments in Australia in the near future. That argument is convenient to put, but ignores the nature of the fact that government and consumers have imperfect information.
Now let’s get back to the government and Rudd. The main problem with the Rudd government is that the Prime Minister has a narrow and distorted view of the economic history of the past 30 years, as reflected in his essay in the Monthly in February 2009.
While the great financial crisis and the great recession shows some problems with ineffective regulations or supervisions in the US, especially the mal-practice of sub-mortgage lending and excessive gearing, it is far fetch to say it is the consequence of neoliberal economics in everywhere.
It is unclear whether Rudd really interpreted the economic history incorrectly or merely uses the crisis as an excuse to implement big government and strong government interventions. Different causes may have different consequences.
If he wrongly interpreted the history, then there is a chance that he may realise it one day and correct it.
If strong government interventions are his belief, then there is little hope that he will get the government’s economic policies and some other public policies right. And that would be a pity.
2009-09-09
Rudd would be an excellent academia
Comments on Paul Kelly “Rudd aims spear at Liberals' heart”, 9/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26046003-12250,00.html
Rudd should be a lecturer in a university, to spear ahead his ideology and his view of government and contemporary Australian economic history. That is because in that way whatever he argues, it would not affect government policies and Australians’ well beings, while inviting a strong debate.
The problem is that he now occupies the office of the prime minister and that will surely cause a lot of pain and inflict unnecessary suffering to the nation.
Will any good university offer him an academic position soon, so he can consider his future in history seriously? That will only be good for everyone.
Rudd should be a lecturer in a university, to spear ahead his ideology and his view of government and contemporary Australian economic history. That is because in that way whatever he argues, it would not affect government policies and Australians’ well beings, while inviting a strong debate.
The problem is that he now occupies the office of the prime minister and that will surely cause a lot of pain and inflict unnecessary suffering to the nation.
Will any good university offer him an academic position soon, so he can consider his future in history seriously? That will only be good for everyone.
2009-08-31
Our would-be FDRs?
Comments on David Burchell “History, but only as we choose to remember it”, 31/08/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26003033-5015664,00.html
I agree totally and completely with the following:
"Our would-be FDRs, by adopting the mantle of nation-building without really comprehending its original purpose, have in effect played a joke upon themselves and us."
One is reminded of the essay of our own would-be FDR at the home ground about the economic crisis, some sort of attempt to write the history.
Billions and billions will be wasted, just in the political name of jobs, without cost and benefit analysis at all. Every spending and waste is justified by them with the name of maintaining and creating jobs, though the effects on jobs are a different story altogether.
Why as long as jobs are mentioned, all prudence is put aside? Where is government accountability?
We need honesty from politicians and government. They should stop using endless spins for their political advantages and advancing their own interest in the name of jobs.
I agree totally and completely with the following:
"Our would-be FDRs, by adopting the mantle of nation-building without really comprehending its original purpose, have in effect played a joke upon themselves and us."
One is reminded of the essay of our own would-be FDR at the home ground about the economic crisis, some sort of attempt to write the history.
Billions and billions will be wasted, just in the political name of jobs, without cost and benefit analysis at all. Every spending and waste is justified by them with the name of maintaining and creating jobs, though the effects on jobs are a different story altogether.
Why as long as jobs are mentioned, all prudence is put aside? Where is government accountability?
We need honesty from politicians and government. They should stop using endless spins for their political advantages and advancing their own interest in the name of jobs.
2009-08-04
Rudd - PM, leadership and essays
Comments on Greg Melleuish “Stick to day job and hold the essays”, 4/08/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25877024-5017272,00.html
Doing writings while in office should not be an offence itself, unless it really and demonstrably distracts one's governing duties and effectiveness in office. If a person can do both well at the same time, let him or her do it. So the real test of its appropriateness or otherwise is the person’s performance in office.
While Rudd has been very popular and successful politically, his real performance as a PM has been questionable. He seems to have too many spins and lack of substance in policy.
Cash handouts dressed as fiscal stimulus, wasteful school spending spree as education revolution, rush and stubborn on ETS, announcing NBN of $43 billion with no proper business study, many broken election promises like takeover of State public hospitals, all reflect his failures in public policy.
In this regard, Rudd has not got his priority right as the PM. He should spare his time from writing essays and focus on managing the country. As a result I agree with Melleuish on this point.
Doing writings while in office should not be an offence itself, unless it really and demonstrably distracts one's governing duties and effectiveness in office. If a person can do both well at the same time, let him or her do it. So the real test of its appropriateness or otherwise is the person’s performance in office.
While Rudd has been very popular and successful politically, his real performance as a PM has been questionable. He seems to have too many spins and lack of substance in policy.
Cash handouts dressed as fiscal stimulus, wasteful school spending spree as education revolution, rush and stubborn on ETS, announcing NBN of $43 billion with no proper business study, many broken election promises like takeover of State public hospitals, all reflect his failures in public policy.
In this regard, Rudd has not got his priority right as the PM. He should spare his time from writing essays and focus on managing the country. As a result I agree with Melleuish on this point.
2009-07-28
Better doing what you are good at, Mr Rudd
Comments on Michael Stutchbury “No market reform on Rudd’s recovery road”, 27/07/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/currentaccount/index.php/theaustralian/comments/no_market_reform_on_rudds_recovery_road/
With all respect for his prime ministership, Rudd seems, unfortunately, to be acting like a confused man at the best, or an extreme opportunist always seeking popularity at worse.
The question is why he has been so interested, eager and daring in venturing into an area he does not have the expertise to say or do anything in that field.
While he has used the excuse of the lack of the relevant language skill to veto the appointment of a senior diplomat as Australia’s ambassador to Germany, that itself was extraordinary, then why hasn’t he apply similar criterion on himself in terms of whether he understand economics and economic history?
Rudd would do credit to himself and good to the Australian public, if he can concentrate on managing his government better and on managing the country’s affairs based on sound advices from experts, as opposed to publish half-cooked economic essays.
That is what he was elected for. The voters voted for an alleged economic conservative, but did not vote him for doing an incompetent economic essay writer.
Self aware is important, not only for ordinary people, but more importantly so for politicians holding high offices.
With all respect for his prime ministership, Rudd seems, unfortunately, to be acting like a confused man at the best, or an extreme opportunist always seeking popularity at worse.
The question is why he has been so interested, eager and daring in venturing into an area he does not have the expertise to say or do anything in that field.
While he has used the excuse of the lack of the relevant language skill to veto the appointment of a senior diplomat as Australia’s ambassador to Germany, that itself was extraordinary, then why hasn’t he apply similar criterion on himself in terms of whether he understand economics and economic history?
Rudd would do credit to himself and good to the Australian public, if he can concentrate on managing his government better and on managing the country’s affairs based on sound advices from experts, as opposed to publish half-cooked economic essays.
That is what he was elected for. The voters voted for an alleged economic conservative, but did not vote him for doing an incompetent economic essay writer.
Self aware is important, not only for ordinary people, but more importantly so for politicians holding high offices.
2009-06-26
Both sides of politics and top bureaucrats all need to lift their games
Comments on Michael Costa “Mal, lose 'born to rule' style”, 26/06/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25690445-7583,00.html
Both the government and the opposition have shown remarkable incompetent economic and budget management. Turnbull's unlucky, rush and miscalculation in the Utegate affair has temporally delayed the inevitable fate of Swan to resign as Treasurer. He is incompetent as Treasurer and has been proven to have acted improperly and has misled the parliament. He should resign for either account. The nation just cannot afford to have an incompetent Treasurer at the helm of Treasury to be in charge of the budget and economic management.
Swan’s problems, however, does not appear to be his own alone – it appears to be a more deep problem of the current Labour government involving quite a few ministers. The minister for finance is responsible for federal expenditure. The minister for education is responsible for the expenditure on schools. The minister for communication is responsible for the NBN costs increase to $43 billion. Of course, the Treasurer is directly responsible for the cash handouts, if he could be excused for not directly for others at all. Of course, the prime minister, with his economic essay advocating for government intervention, is responsible for the combination of these expenditures or proposals.
The problems with the opposition have been that they were unable to hold the government to account for its reckless spending. The government, the prime minister and the treasurer, have been talking nonsense like that “the alternative is to do nothing”. The tragedy for the opposition is that it has been so ineffective in its attack on the government and the prime minister and the treasurer when they were talking nonsense. The argument is so weak and illogical. Yet the opposition could not fight that simple battle.
The winter recess of the parliament should be a good opportunity for both sides of federal politics to reflect and rethink their strategies and polices. They have performed extremely poorly and both need to lift their games.
There is also the question of the quality of advices from bureaucrats. The government’s problem in managing the budget and the economy call into question of what advices they got from Treasury and different departments. Were they the cases that the government were given quality advices and ignored them? Or were the advices, or at least some of them, of questionable quality, due to political pressure or incompetent top bureaucrats? The Utegate affair and the revelation of what Treasury officials have done and known appear to suggest the politicisation of public services and the involvement in activities that they should have not done in the ways they were handled.
So top bureaucrats, or government ministers also need to consider how to improve policy advices from bureaucrats to assist the government in managing the nation’s affairs, especially budgetary and economic affairs.
Both the government and the opposition have shown remarkable incompetent economic and budget management. Turnbull's unlucky, rush and miscalculation in the Utegate affair has temporally delayed the inevitable fate of Swan to resign as Treasurer. He is incompetent as Treasurer and has been proven to have acted improperly and has misled the parliament. He should resign for either account. The nation just cannot afford to have an incompetent Treasurer at the helm of Treasury to be in charge of the budget and economic management.
Swan’s problems, however, does not appear to be his own alone – it appears to be a more deep problem of the current Labour government involving quite a few ministers. The minister for finance is responsible for federal expenditure. The minister for education is responsible for the expenditure on schools. The minister for communication is responsible for the NBN costs increase to $43 billion. Of course, the Treasurer is directly responsible for the cash handouts, if he could be excused for not directly for others at all. Of course, the prime minister, with his economic essay advocating for government intervention, is responsible for the combination of these expenditures or proposals.
The problems with the opposition have been that they were unable to hold the government to account for its reckless spending. The government, the prime minister and the treasurer, have been talking nonsense like that “the alternative is to do nothing”. The tragedy for the opposition is that it has been so ineffective in its attack on the government and the prime minister and the treasurer when they were talking nonsense. The argument is so weak and illogical. Yet the opposition could not fight that simple battle.
The winter recess of the parliament should be a good opportunity for both sides of federal politics to reflect and rethink their strategies and polices. They have performed extremely poorly and both need to lift their games.
There is also the question of the quality of advices from bureaucrats. The government’s problem in managing the budget and the economy call into question of what advices they got from Treasury and different departments. Were they the cases that the government were given quality advices and ignored them? Or were the advices, or at least some of them, of questionable quality, due to political pressure or incompetent top bureaucrats? The Utegate affair and the revelation of what Treasury officials have done and known appear to suggest the politicisation of public services and the involvement in activities that they should have not done in the ways they were handled.
So top bureaucrats, or government ministers also need to consider how to improve policy advices from bureaucrats to assist the government in managing the nation’s affairs, especially budgetary and economic affairs.
2009-06-02
Rudd - a statesman or a bureaucrat?
Comments on the news report that “Rudd's secret spiked essay for Foreign Affairs journal”, The Australian, 2/06/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25573720-601,00.html
There is a news report on the Australian today on Rudd's unpublished essay related to his APC idea. The following two sources can serve as references:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25573720-601,00.html
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Rudds-secret-spiked-essay-for-Foreign-Affairs-magazine/
Presumably, Rudd in that essay would have elaborated on the idea more fully. But since it is not published yet, I don't know what his main arguments are. Anyone interested has to wait for its publication, if it ever has that day.
I just want to quote a short paragraph from the second report:
According to sources familiar with the essay it was considered by some at the magazine to be “overly bureaucratic”.
So, is Rudd a stateman or a bureaucrat? You be the judget.
There is a news report on the Australian today on Rudd's unpublished essay related to his APC idea. The following two sources can serve as references:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25573720-601,00.html
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Rudds-secret-spiked-essay-for-Foreign-Affairs-magazine/
Presumably, Rudd in that essay would have elaborated on the idea more fully. But since it is not published yet, I don't know what his main arguments are. Anyone interested has to wait for its publication, if it ever has that day.
I just want to quote a short paragraph from the second report:
According to sources familiar with the essay it was considered by some at the magazine to be “overly bureaucratic”.
So, is Rudd a stateman or a bureaucrat? You be the judget.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
