Comments on John Lee "Knock down this great wall of lies" 14/08/2012, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/knock-down-this-great-wall-of-lies/comments-e6frgd0x-1226449575760
Though John has a point, he has unfortunately stretched the facts, argument and logic too far.
While it is true that there were many wars throughout China's history, is there any country in the world with a very long history that has not seen/experienced many wars?
If leaving ideologies, human rights and other things aside for the moment, in terms of China's strengths and weaknesses in the past 200 years or so, the period China under CCP has been arguably the strongest. Does John disagree with that?
In terms expansionism or not, has China conquered any other country even under the CCP rule? Or has it invaded and occupied any other countries for a long period over the past 200 years or so, including under the CCP rule?
Further, again leaving the ideologies aside, does what the CCP say in terms of China's history over the last 200 years or so facts or fiction?
On the other hand, John seems to create his own fictions here. He seems very good at practicing what Mao's saying - oppose whatever the enemies support and support whatever the enemies oppose, even though he criticise Mao a lot.
As a result, his view is too much distorted and has become fictions itself in terms of China.
In that he is misleading his readers.
Showing posts with label basic logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label basic logic. Show all posts
2012-08-14
2012-02-24
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.
2011-04-08
Truth about ETS and carbon tax
Comments on Henry Ergas “Treasury should know better about an ETS”, 8/04/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/treasury-should-know-better-about-an-ets/story-e6frgd0x-1226035611467
Good point, Ergas.
Maybe another way to put it more clearly would be that either the government, not Treasury can't honestly and truthfully tell how much the costs of energy would be for consumers under an ETS to achieve the 5% reduction in emissions.
Further and arguably, ETS won't be able to tell exactly whether a target of reduction in percentage terms is achievable or not, given the fact that surely certain sectors or activities will be excluded or not included in the ETS as the original one indicated. That ETS can only tell the parts that are included and that is only a partial as opposed to a full account emissions in the target reduction.
So, it is good politics to hide the costs and not to tell the public about hit pocket costs (leave that to the market, that is their argument of course).
But that is not transparent and honest politics with the public, nor will that provide any certainty to business in terms of investment decision, because the future price of carbon is unknown even though on any day the ETS market may give you a current price.
Any argument of business certainty was, is and will be fanciful thinking and self delusion.
It is good politics too clever by half.
Good point, Ergas.
Maybe another way to put it more clearly would be that either the government, not Treasury can't honestly and truthfully tell how much the costs of energy would be for consumers under an ETS to achieve the 5% reduction in emissions.
Further and arguably, ETS won't be able to tell exactly whether a target of reduction in percentage terms is achievable or not, given the fact that surely certain sectors or activities will be excluded or not included in the ETS as the original one indicated. That ETS can only tell the parts that are included and that is only a partial as opposed to a full account emissions in the target reduction.
So, it is good politics to hide the costs and not to tell the public about hit pocket costs (leave that to the market, that is their argument of course).
But that is not transparent and honest politics with the public, nor will that provide any certainty to business in terms of investment decision, because the future price of carbon is unknown even though on any day the ETS market may give you a current price.
Any argument of business certainty was, is and will be fanciful thinking and self delusion.
It is good politics too clever by half.
2010-12-21
A nonsensical logic from Huisten
Comments on Ron Huisten “China and the DPRK: With friends like these….”, 20/12/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/12/20/china-and-the-dprk-with-friends-like-these/#more-15928
Ron Huisten's blame of China for the current situations of the Korean peninsula simply ignores the fact that China has had no troops stayed in the peninsular since the truce of the war while the US has a strong presence in South Korea.
He also ignores the fact South Korea is much stronger than the North economically and in terms of larger population.
What about tactic nuclear arsenals sometimes on the peninsular by the stronger side?
So how balanced or convincing is Ron Huisten's analysis, or more correctly speculation?
Let's look at one example from his post: At least the revelation from the Wikileaks was based on more certain factors than Ron Huisten's pure speculation on what China might have done, re, "It is even possible that Beijing did go down this path ("to revitalise the security assurances that prevailed in the Cold War days would be rejected by Pyongyang and involve a massive loss of face for Beijing") and was rejected, and that we simply do not know about it."
How could an analyst engage in such pure speculation with no fact whatsoever?
Further, Ron Huisten states “The evidence available to us indicates that China made no attempt to test the option of security assurances as a means of diverting Pyongyang’s nuclear program.”
Let’s leave aside this assertion for the time being. However, what security assurance is he talking about, given that the US and the coalition of the willing has invaded Iraq out of false security information of the so called WMD?
In such an environment, few can be sure China’s security given that the US bombed it embassy in Serbia and killed its diplomatic personnel, the US spying planes flew at the Chinese border and its intimidation of Chinese cargoes at open seas and its encircling of China, how could China be able to convince the North Korea that its security can be guaranteed?
If the following statement by Ron Huisten is true, then it directly contradicts the point Ron Huisten argued in his post, namely, “Beijing may have calculated, at least for a time, that the risks of being dragged into a war by its unpredictable neighbour were too great.”
“This acquiescence eroded to breaking point over the course of 2010 with the US eventually signalling its assessment that China has ‘enabled’ Pyongyang in bringing the peninsula closer to renewed conflict than it has been for decades.”
It is an interesting but also appalling piece, I am afraid to say.
PS: Why doesn't Ron Huisten advocate for the US to offer security guarantee, such as withdrawal of, or reducing its troops in exchange for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program? Wouldn't that security guarantee be much more effective than what he said about a Chinese offering?
PS: I note that my comments were not shown in the EastAisaforum site, as of late 21/12/2010.
It is interesting but regrettable that my comments are not shown.
In my view, the post is very much biased in its analysis and selective use of facts and using speculations or assertion.
Not allowing comments to point that out is not a good sign.
It has the effect of promoting and perpetuating that particular view!
Is that what the forum moderators want or wish to do?
Ron Huisten's blame of China for the current situations of the Korean peninsula simply ignores the fact that China has had no troops stayed in the peninsular since the truce of the war while the US has a strong presence in South Korea.
He also ignores the fact South Korea is much stronger than the North economically and in terms of larger population.
What about tactic nuclear arsenals sometimes on the peninsular by the stronger side?
So how balanced or convincing is Ron Huisten's analysis, or more correctly speculation?
Let's look at one example from his post: At least the revelation from the Wikileaks was based on more certain factors than Ron Huisten's pure speculation on what China might have done, re, "It is even possible that Beijing did go down this path ("to revitalise the security assurances that prevailed in the Cold War days would be rejected by Pyongyang and involve a massive loss of face for Beijing") and was rejected, and that we simply do not know about it."
How could an analyst engage in such pure speculation with no fact whatsoever?
Further, Ron Huisten states “The evidence available to us indicates that China made no attempt to test the option of security assurances as a means of diverting Pyongyang’s nuclear program.”
Let’s leave aside this assertion for the time being. However, what security assurance is he talking about, given that the US and the coalition of the willing has invaded Iraq out of false security information of the so called WMD?
In such an environment, few can be sure China’s security given that the US bombed it embassy in Serbia and killed its diplomatic personnel, the US spying planes flew at the Chinese border and its intimidation of Chinese cargoes at open seas and its encircling of China, how could China be able to convince the North Korea that its security can be guaranteed?
If the following statement by Ron Huisten is true, then it directly contradicts the point Ron Huisten argued in his post, namely, “Beijing may have calculated, at least for a time, that the risks of being dragged into a war by its unpredictable neighbour were too great.”
“This acquiescence eroded to breaking point over the course of 2010 with the US eventually signalling its assessment that China has ‘enabled’ Pyongyang in bringing the peninsula closer to renewed conflict than it has been for decades.”
It is an interesting but also appalling piece, I am afraid to say.
PS: Why doesn't Ron Huisten advocate for the US to offer security guarantee, such as withdrawal of, or reducing its troops in exchange for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program? Wouldn't that security guarantee be much more effective than what he said about a Chinese offering?
PS: I note that my comments were not shown in the EastAisaforum site, as of late 21/12/2010.
It is interesting but regrettable that my comments are not shown.
In my view, the post is very much biased in its analysis and selective use of facts and using speculations or assertion.
Not allowing comments to point that out is not a good sign.
It has the effect of promoting and perpetuating that particular view!
Is that what the forum moderators want or wish to do?
2010-12-16
Consistency in argument and market efficiency
Comments on John Daley and Tristan Edis “Market best to reduce carbon”, 16/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/market-best-to-reduce-carbon/story-e6frg6zo-1225971753541
While the argument of using a market approach is correct, some of the arguments are problematic.
Firstly, there are market failures and the emissions issue in terms of climate change is such a typical example.
Secondly, it seems the second point in the suggested policy design may have been based on a linear assumption or projection of the effects of emissions, that is, any emissions of greenhouse gases are universally bad, and the best is no emissions at all. That is likely to be speculation and lacks scientific evidence.
Further, the advocate of a price floor is highly questionable. If the objective of dealing with climate change is achieved, then why is there a need for a floor price for emissions to raise unnecessarily the costs of processes that involve emissions? That is exactly the very issue the authors argued against, that is, government interventions can often be inefficient and in this instance it would be attempting to overdo it in emissions reduction to deviate from optimality.
We'd do a better job by being consistent ourselves in our argument and approaches. Otherwise we may be self defeating.
PS: The following is my comments on their article on ClimateSpectator on the same day - http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/let-markets-lead-way Their article there has some nice graphs, though.
I have commented on their article on The Australian entitled "Market best to reduce carbon".
The very problem we are having with emissions and climate change has been the failure of the market in accounting the real costs of emissions.
That fundamental fact cannot and should not be ignored.
So, both the market and government policy are needed to reduce emissions.
In that broad context, the best option for government policy in terms of efficiency and innovative incentives for businesses is to have a carbon tax.
Further, the global nature of emissions and climate change requires a global approach and common actions by many countries especially the major economies with largest emissions.
While the argument of using a market approach is correct, some of the arguments are problematic.
Firstly, there are market failures and the emissions issue in terms of climate change is such a typical example.
Secondly, it seems the second point in the suggested policy design may have been based on a linear assumption or projection of the effects of emissions, that is, any emissions of greenhouse gases are universally bad, and the best is no emissions at all. That is likely to be speculation and lacks scientific evidence.
Further, the advocate of a price floor is highly questionable. If the objective of dealing with climate change is achieved, then why is there a need for a floor price for emissions to raise unnecessarily the costs of processes that involve emissions? That is exactly the very issue the authors argued against, that is, government interventions can often be inefficient and in this instance it would be attempting to overdo it in emissions reduction to deviate from optimality.
We'd do a better job by being consistent ourselves in our argument and approaches. Otherwise we may be self defeating.
PS: The following is my comments on their article on ClimateSpectator on the same day - http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/let-markets-lead-way Their article there has some nice graphs, though.
I have commented on their article on The Australian entitled "Market best to reduce carbon".
The very problem we are having with emissions and climate change has been the failure of the market in accounting the real costs of emissions.
That fundamental fact cannot and should not be ignored.
So, both the market and government policy are needed to reduce emissions.
In that broad context, the best option for government policy in terms of efficiency and innovative incentives for businesses is to have a carbon tax.
Further, the global nature of emissions and climate change requires a global approach and common actions by many countries especially the major economies with largest emissions.
2010-12-15
Gittins' one extreme against another!
Comments on Ross Gittins “Only a small part of our good fortune is down to minerals “, 15/12/2010, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/only-a-small-part-of-our-good-fortune-is-down-to-minerals-20101214-18wqm.html
I note Gittins says that "our material standard of living is around average for the rich countries", as well as more on the average.
This is despite we have been exporting a lot of mining products and agricultural products that all are related to our natural endowment.
Would we still be able to be on the average if we did not have that lucky natural endowment?
So, let's don't use one line of extreme argument against another line of extreme argument, Mr Gittins.
I note Gittins says that "our material standard of living is around average for the rich countries", as well as more on the average.
This is despite we have been exporting a lot of mining products and agricultural products that all are related to our natural endowment.
Would we still be able to be on the average if we did not have that lucky natural endowment?
So, let's don't use one line of extreme argument against another line of extreme argument, Mr Gittins.
2010-12-10
Questioning a few of Asher's statements/arguments
Comments on Mukul G. Asher “Ageing Asia’s social protection imperative”, 9/12/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/12/09/ageing-asias-social-protection-imperative/comment-page-1/#comment-311738
I have some questions for Professor Mukul Asher as follows.
Firstly, what does the following statement mean without supplying the information on total population growth in the two regions, Asia and the rest of the world?
"Asia’s share of world population aged 60 or over will increase from 54 per cent in 2010 to 60 per cent in 2030. Asia will more than double its population above the age of 80 over this period."
If population growth is more rapid, doesn't it mean naturally Asia's share of all age groups could be higher?
Secondly, what does the next statement mean? “In China and India by the year 2050 the largest single age cohort will be women over 70 years of age, implying feminization of the elderly.” What are those other cohorts to compare to and where are the boundaries for each of them?
Thirdly, is the next statement correct? “Second, in global terms, there is little accumulated experience in designing and administering pension and health care systems for such large elderly populations. The only way for Asian countries to gain the relevant experience is to invest in social protection themselves.” Don’t we have the experience of population aging in many industrialised countries with pension and health care systems as the experience that could be applied to Asia in the future?
Another question: Why should the next statement be necessarily the case, if social and cultural backgrounds as well as public policies are very different between Asia and the rest? "First, Asian countries should reform their civil service and military pensions, bringing benefits more in line with the rest of the economy."
Why don't you ask the other way round?
PS addition: Professor Asher replied to my questions on the EastAsiaForum site and it is appreciated by me.
I have some questions for Professor Mukul Asher as follows.
Firstly, what does the following statement mean without supplying the information on total population growth in the two regions, Asia and the rest of the world?
"Asia’s share of world population aged 60 or over will increase from 54 per cent in 2010 to 60 per cent in 2030. Asia will more than double its population above the age of 80 over this period."
If population growth is more rapid, doesn't it mean naturally Asia's share of all age groups could be higher?
Secondly, what does the next statement mean? “In China and India by the year 2050 the largest single age cohort will be women over 70 years of age, implying feminization of the elderly.” What are those other cohorts to compare to and where are the boundaries for each of them?
Thirdly, is the next statement correct? “Second, in global terms, there is little accumulated experience in designing and administering pension and health care systems for such large elderly populations. The only way for Asian countries to gain the relevant experience is to invest in social protection themselves.” Don’t we have the experience of population aging in many industrialised countries with pension and health care systems as the experience that could be applied to Asia in the future?
Another question: Why should the next statement be necessarily the case, if social and cultural backgrounds as well as public policies are very different between Asia and the rest? "First, Asian countries should reform their civil service and military pensions, bringing benefits more in line with the rest of the economy."
Why don't you ask the other way round?
PS addition: Professor Asher replied to my questions on the EastAsiaForum site and it is appreciated by me.
2010-09-05
Arguments without substance
Comments on Meganomics Blog “Giving a little will gain a lot more”, 4/09/2010, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/meganomics/index.php/theaustralian/comments/giving_a_little_will_gain_a_lot_more/
There are very different and opposing views on the mining tax, that is, the RSPT.
We've seen a bunch of so called leading or eminent economists writing an open letter in supporting it and the Greens asking for an even higher mining tax on the one hand. On the other, we've seen some arguing that it was a stupid idea coming out of some Canberra bureaucrats with no sense of the real world and that international investors were holding their investments and many talked about the so called sovereign risks.
So problems with such a serious divide lie in that they haven't got or don't have a clear and consistent set of criteria what a good tax is to judge the RSPT.
Those economists and commentators arguing it was a good idea or tax just compared the two cases superfacially that left many details out, that is, a tax on resources either based on either price or profit. Obviously that kind of approach clearly has a problem. For example, no one would/could argue for an 100% tax rate, but that is among the profit based tax set.
Those on the other side haven't articulated a clear set of criteria to base their case either.
There was a lack of quality there.
That has been a serious problem in that debate.
There are very different and opposing views on the mining tax, that is, the RSPT.
We've seen a bunch of so called leading or eminent economists writing an open letter in supporting it and the Greens asking for an even higher mining tax on the one hand. On the other, we've seen some arguing that it was a stupid idea coming out of some Canberra bureaucrats with no sense of the real world and that international investors were holding their investments and many talked about the so called sovereign risks.
So problems with such a serious divide lie in that they haven't got or don't have a clear and consistent set of criteria what a good tax is to judge the RSPT.
Those economists and commentators arguing it was a good idea or tax just compared the two cases superfacially that left many details out, that is, a tax on resources either based on either price or profit. Obviously that kind of approach clearly has a problem. For example, no one would/could argue for an 100% tax rate, but that is among the profit based tax set.
Those on the other side haven't articulated a clear set of criteria to base their case either.
There was a lack of quality there.
That has been a serious problem in that debate.
2010-06-25
Pirate's logic
Comments on Wendy Dobson “The G8/G20 in Canada—what can we expect?” 24/06/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/06/24/the-g8g20-in-canada%e2%80%94what-can-we-expect/
We have heard over and over again about the imbalances and the need for rebalance.
I think the argument and stresses of international imbalances appears to be a disguised form of merchantism.
Jus consider what caused the GFC and its effects on the world economies of both the GFC causing economies and their victims. Was that the imbalances, or the so called excessive savings of those surplus countries, or the mal-practice and excessive leverage and gearing and misallocation of low cost capitals in some of the borrowing countries the sources of problems that caused the GFC?
Isn't it a pirate's logic for borrowers to say that it was the fault of those savers that lent their savings to them for them to use at their own wills? Why should people using mortgage complain and blame depositors for making the funds available for them to use?
Isn't any different to a drunk to say it was the retailer that sold the alcohol that was the problem of his being drunk?
Were they forced to borrow?
Why didn't they use the low cost capital to more productive purposes?
Didn't they need better infrastructure, like upgrading hospitals, roads and power stations?
Didn't they need to build low emission energies?
Now while it has been all too easy to argue one way or another and blame others for own problems in the wake of the GFC just a drunker could do, the originators of the GFC are not in a strong position to argue that others should save less and consume more and import more from them while their own economies reduced their imports by phenomenal percentages and caused havoc to economies over the whole world.
Isn’t it the case that the most important thing is to restore, stabilise and encourage growth in trade, while maximise world welfare by taking optimal paths of adjustment for the international economies?
Why should that necessarily be an immediate rebalance in international trade?
We have heard over and over again about the imbalances and the need for rebalance.
I think the argument and stresses of international imbalances appears to be a disguised form of merchantism.
Jus consider what caused the GFC and its effects on the world economies of both the GFC causing economies and their victims. Was that the imbalances, or the so called excessive savings of those surplus countries, or the mal-practice and excessive leverage and gearing and misallocation of low cost capitals in some of the borrowing countries the sources of problems that caused the GFC?
Isn't it a pirate's logic for borrowers to say that it was the fault of those savers that lent their savings to them for them to use at their own wills? Why should people using mortgage complain and blame depositors for making the funds available for them to use?
Isn't any different to a drunk to say it was the retailer that sold the alcohol that was the problem of his being drunk?
Were they forced to borrow?
Why didn't they use the low cost capital to more productive purposes?
Didn't they need better infrastructure, like upgrading hospitals, roads and power stations?
Didn't they need to build low emission energies?
Now while it has been all too easy to argue one way or another and blame others for own problems in the wake of the GFC just a drunker could do, the originators of the GFC are not in a strong position to argue that others should save less and consume more and import more from them while their own economies reduced their imports by phenomenal percentages and caused havoc to economies over the whole world.
Isn’t it the case that the most important thing is to restore, stabilise and encourage growth in trade, while maximise world welfare by taking optimal paths of adjustment for the international economies?
Why should that necessarily be an immediate rebalance in international trade?
2010-05-07
A case of as if it is too goo to be true!
Comments on news report by Adam Cresswell “Effective health IT can 'save 5000 lives'”, 7/05/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/effective-health-it-can-save-5000-lives/story-e6frgczf-1225863378188
The news report says:
“AN estimated 5000 deaths, two million GP and outpatient visits and 310,000 hospital admissions could be prevented every year if an effective IT system were rolled out - saving up to $7.6 billion in health costs annually, according to an analysis for release today.
The biggest share of the savings, worth $2.6bn each year, would come from reducing medication errors, while a further $2.3bn would come from improved care and prevention, according to the analysis of how greater computerisation could benefit Australia's health system.”
“The new report, by management consultants Booz and Company, says other benefits of improved IT would include cutting duplication - reducing the number of lab tests performed by more than 7.3 million, and the number of X-rays by more than three million. However, improved IT would cost between $4bn and $8.5bn, the report warns. The rollout would give governments a 68 per cent ($5.2bn) share of the estimated savings.”
Note the two important numbers: “saving up to $7.6 billion in health costs annually”, and “improved IT would cost between $4bn and $8.5bn”.
Even assuming the cost is on the high side of $8.5 billion, then it can be almost recovered from the cost saving in one year, and then the annual saving will continue and go on for many years!
If that is true, why don’t people, business or government do it?
It begs belief, doesn’t it?
Is it a case of too good to be true, or there are some profound market failures?
It would be interesting to see what will happen after this “enlightenment”.
The news report says:
“AN estimated 5000 deaths, two million GP and outpatient visits and 310,000 hospital admissions could be prevented every year if an effective IT system were rolled out - saving up to $7.6 billion in health costs annually, according to an analysis for release today.
The biggest share of the savings, worth $2.6bn each year, would come from reducing medication errors, while a further $2.3bn would come from improved care and prevention, according to the analysis of how greater computerisation could benefit Australia's health system.”
“The new report, by management consultants Booz and Company, says other benefits of improved IT would include cutting duplication - reducing the number of lab tests performed by more than 7.3 million, and the number of X-rays by more than three million. However, improved IT would cost between $4bn and $8.5bn, the report warns. The rollout would give governments a 68 per cent ($5.2bn) share of the estimated savings.”
Note the two important numbers: “saving up to $7.6 billion in health costs annually”, and “improved IT would cost between $4bn and $8.5bn”.
Even assuming the cost is on the high side of $8.5 billion, then it can be almost recovered from the cost saving in one year, and then the annual saving will continue and go on for many years!
If that is true, why don’t people, business or government do it?
It begs belief, doesn’t it?
Is it a case of too good to be true, or there are some profound market failures?
It would be interesting to see what will happen after this “enlightenment”.
Fundamental inconsistency embedded in John Lee's argument
Comments on John Lee “China will not be tamed”, 7/05/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/China-power-economic-west-foreign-relations-policy-pd20100506-579DV?OpenDocument&src=sph
It seems that John Lee, while arguing for democracy on the one hand, does not really understand what democracy means internationally or in a multiple governments environment, does he?
Lee is deeply entrenched with the existing order in the current environment and is not comfortable with any changes or evolution of it as the environment changes.
As environment changes, one can expect that existing orders may change as well. That should not be too different from the case the case when a child grows up, he will have a fuller say on many issues he has not got, such as drinking, voting rights and etc.
One has to wonder if Lee's thinking or views or beliefs, no matter how dear they might be to him, are really realistic.
Further, one has to think if the fundamentally inconsistency deeply embedded in his argument reflects some sort of shortcomings in his belief.
And, that goes equally to his analysis, I am afraid to say.
It seems that John Lee, while arguing for democracy on the one hand, does not really understand what democracy means internationally or in a multiple governments environment, does he?
Lee is deeply entrenched with the existing order in the current environment and is not comfortable with any changes or evolution of it as the environment changes.
As environment changes, one can expect that existing orders may change as well. That should not be too different from the case the case when a child grows up, he will have a fuller say on many issues he has not got, such as drinking, voting rights and etc.
One has to wonder if Lee's thinking or views or beliefs, no matter how dear they might be to him, are really realistic.
Further, one has to think if the fundamentally inconsistency deeply embedded in his argument reflects some sort of shortcomings in his belief.
And, that goes equally to his analysis, I am afraid to say.
2009-07-22
Need to argue consistently and correctly, Ms Janet Albrechtsen
Comments on Janet Albrechtsen “Be like Garrett, ditch your ideals”, 21/07/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/
The arguments by Janet Albrechtsen may be convincing if Garrett really did what he now believes and actually ditched his earlier ideals. But judged from what Garrett said to the media, he did what was required by a team player, not according to his ideals. So the whole arguments of Janet Albrechtsen’s look very shaky indeed. As a result, the title of that article does not fit into the story, or is a misfit.
What Garrett has been through is nothing short of a tragedy. He should not have been put into that sort of troubles in the first place. That reflects a misjudgment by the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Garrett should have been given a different role in the government, as opposed to the environment minister.
It also reflects some potential lack of leadership skills by Garrett himself. He should be able to negotiate a better and more suitable role for himself.
They have not been done in the first place and that was regrettable. But it is not too late to make a change to relieved Garrett from his agony.
The arguments by Janet Albrechtsen may be convincing if Garrett really did what he now believes and actually ditched his earlier ideals. But judged from what Garrett said to the media, he did what was required by a team player, not according to his ideals. So the whole arguments of Janet Albrechtsen’s look very shaky indeed. As a result, the title of that article does not fit into the story, or is a misfit.
What Garrett has been through is nothing short of a tragedy. He should not have been put into that sort of troubles in the first place. That reflects a misjudgment by the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Garrett should have been given a different role in the government, as opposed to the environment minister.
It also reflects some potential lack of leadership skills by Garrett himself. He should be able to negotiate a better and more suitable role for himself.
They have not been done in the first place and that was regrettable. But it is not too late to make a change to relieved Garrett from his agony.
2009-07-10
What does not ring true, Mr Stewart?
Comments on Cameron Stewart "Stern Hu spy call does not ring true", 10/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25759160-5013871,00.html
The following is his article in The Australian.
CHINA'S allegations that Australian citizen and Rio Tinto employee Stern Hu is involved in espionage and stealing state secrets are almost certainly baseless.
If they were not - and Mr Hu were a spy for the Australian government - these events would be most unlikely to have unfolded in the public domain.
The biggest clue that Mr Hu is not on the payroll of the Australian government is in the cryptic but deliberate language used by Foreign Minister Stephen Smith. He referred repeatedly to being "very surprised" by the allegations of espionage.
Even the game of espionage is played by a rough set of rules.
Most countries have declared spies and undeclared spies. China would know the identities of some of Australia's intelligence officers stationed there, and not the identities of others.
If Mr Hu were an undeclared government agent, there is no way the Foreign Minister would be commenting on it in public.
An example of how real spy games unfold was in 1993 when a Russian turncoat told the CIA there was a large Russian spy ring operating in Canberra under diplomatic cover. The CIA told ASIO, which told the Keating government, which quietly expelled six Russian agents from Australia. Their expulsion was never publicly announced.
How shallow and illogic is this whole article!
Why must a spy to be working for a government or on a government's payroll? Why can't a spy work for some companies and organisations? Why can't espionage be for commercial reasons?
All the arguments in the article are as the article title says - do not ring true. They are baseless, and wrong.
It is interesting to see that this nonsensical and illogical piece can be published in The Australian. The value of the newspaper is thereful also questionable.
The following is his article in The Australian.
CHINA'S allegations that Australian citizen and Rio Tinto employee Stern Hu is involved in espionage and stealing state secrets are almost certainly baseless.
If they were not - and Mr Hu were a spy for the Australian government - these events would be most unlikely to have unfolded in the public domain.
The biggest clue that Mr Hu is not on the payroll of the Australian government is in the cryptic but deliberate language used by Foreign Minister Stephen Smith. He referred repeatedly to being "very surprised" by the allegations of espionage.
Even the game of espionage is played by a rough set of rules.
Most countries have declared spies and undeclared spies. China would know the identities of some of Australia's intelligence officers stationed there, and not the identities of others.
If Mr Hu were an undeclared government agent, there is no way the Foreign Minister would be commenting on it in public.
An example of how real spy games unfold was in 1993 when a Russian turncoat told the CIA there was a large Russian spy ring operating in Canberra under diplomatic cover. The CIA told ASIO, which told the Keating government, which quietly expelled six Russian agents from Australia. Their expulsion was never publicly announced.
How shallow and illogic is this whole article!
Why must a spy to be working for a government or on a government's payroll? Why can't a spy work for some companies and organisations? Why can't espionage be for commercial reasons?
All the arguments in the article are as the article title says - do not ring true. They are baseless, and wrong.
It is interesting to see that this nonsensical and illogical piece can be published in The Australian. The value of the newspaper is thereful also questionable.
2009-05-19
No use to resort to the “fear of terror” to push for the illogic - even for "the age of terror"
Comments on Hal G. P. Colebatch “Domino theory for the age of terror”, 19/05/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25502849-5013479,00.html
Dear Mr Hal G. P. Colebatch, nice title for your article and good analogues used in it as well. Congratulations!
However, one doubts about the likelihood of the spread of power by the Taliban from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Yes there are pockets of Taliban strongholds in Pakistan, but they are relatively insignificant compared to the Pakistan armed forces. This situation is far from similar to that of South versus North Vietnam during the Vietnam era.
Further, at the time of the Vietnam War, the North had strong and powerful international backers, such as China and the former USSR. There is no such powerful international forces existing today to support the Taliban and the world is almost unified in against international terror.
It seems your domino theory for the age of terror will always remain to be just that – a theory, and no more than that! The time and situations are so different now and there is no use to be so alarming and hysterical at this time. Yes, it would be ideal if the international forces can defeat the extreme Taliban, but it will not be a disaster if they can’t.
Further, if the Taliban can be contained to stay in their limited areas, that could also be an acceptable outcome of the war against terror. Extreme as it is and so horrific to many outside people, the Taliban has some support as a religion. It is not the value of most others, but there are internationally accepted governments that may not perform any better than the Taliban. We have got to recognize that, no matter how uncomfortable or even painful it is.
Nice title and good analogue again, but we need to be little aware of the different context between them. Mechanical or illigical inferences are no use and potentially very harmful.
Dear Mr Hal G. P. Colebatch, nice title for your article and good analogues used in it as well. Congratulations!
However, one doubts about the likelihood of the spread of power by the Taliban from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Yes there are pockets of Taliban strongholds in Pakistan, but they are relatively insignificant compared to the Pakistan armed forces. This situation is far from similar to that of South versus North Vietnam during the Vietnam era.
Further, at the time of the Vietnam War, the North had strong and powerful international backers, such as China and the former USSR. There is no such powerful international forces existing today to support the Taliban and the world is almost unified in against international terror.
It seems your domino theory for the age of terror will always remain to be just that – a theory, and no more than that! The time and situations are so different now and there is no use to be so alarming and hysterical at this time. Yes, it would be ideal if the international forces can defeat the extreme Taliban, but it will not be a disaster if they can’t.
Further, if the Taliban can be contained to stay in their limited areas, that could also be an acceptable outcome of the war against terror. Extreme as it is and so horrific to many outside people, the Taliban has some support as a religion. It is not the value of most others, but there are internationally accepted governments that may not perform any better than the Taliban. We have got to recognize that, no matter how uncomfortable or even painful it is.
Nice title and good analogue again, but we need to be little aware of the different context between them. Mechanical or illigical inferences are no use and potentially very harmful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
