Comments on Paul Hubbard "China takes the lead on the silk road", 5/08/2015
In relation to the following paragraph, China should reject the US offer politely, given it is not a member of the AIID:
"Nevertheless, the United States and Japan both chose not to become founding members of the bank. This was driven partly by concerns that the AIIB would undermine the lending standards of the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, which these powers have traditionally led. But despite early lobbying from the United States, key allies — including Australia, South Korea and the United Kingdom — eventually joined the rush to the new institution. And the United States has pledged to ‘engage directly with China’ to help the AIIB implement the high-quality standards it seeks."
There is no point for the US, that is not interested in joining the AIID, to preach how it can help with its high quality standards. That is not too much different from the actions of hypocrisy, self indulgence and arrogance.
Showing posts with label governance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label governance. Show all posts
2015-08-02
A crude joke - the head of the Remuneration Tribunal as co-chair to review politicians travel entitlements
Comments on Michelle Grattan "Bronwyn Bishop finally resigns as speaker", 2/08/2015
It is disappointing to have the head of the Remuneration Tribunal John Conde included in the review panel as the co-head, along side with former head of the Finance department David Tune.
The Remuneration Tribunal has long lost its creditability due to its granting of extremely generous salary increases to Australian politicians in the past when the government in both main political persuasion did not allow the increase in the wages and salaries of APS employees to allow for inflation, and ask them to demonstrate productivity improvement.
As a result, to have the head of that tribunal to review the extraordinary costs of politicians's entitlements, about half of billion dollars as reported recently is a bit of joke, given the tribunal's role in the proliferations of politicians remunerations.
It is a crude joke to have the head of the Remuneration Tribunal as the co-chair to conduct such a review. The Remuneration Tribunal and the politicians seem to have extraordinarily conflict of interests.
Perhaps there should be a review of the Remuneration Tribunal actions in the past in the context of the wages and salaries of APS employees.
I have no knowledge how members of that tribunal are appointed, but they seemed to act out of steps with the Australian community in general.
It is disappointing to have the head of the Remuneration Tribunal John Conde included in the review panel as the co-head, along side with former head of the Finance department David Tune.
The Remuneration Tribunal has long lost its creditability due to its granting of extremely generous salary increases to Australian politicians in the past when the government in both main political persuasion did not allow the increase in the wages and salaries of APS employees to allow for inflation, and ask them to demonstrate productivity improvement.
As a result, to have the head of that tribunal to review the extraordinary costs of politicians's entitlements, about half of billion dollars as reported recently is a bit of joke, given the tribunal's role in the proliferations of politicians remunerations.
It is a crude joke to have the head of the Remuneration Tribunal as the co-chair to conduct such a review. The Remuneration Tribunal and the politicians seem to have extraordinarily conflict of interests.
Perhaps there should be a review of the Remuneration Tribunal actions in the past in the context of the wages and salaries of APS employees.
I have no knowledge how members of that tribunal are appointed, but they seemed to act out of steps with the Australian community in general.
2015-06-21
Time will tell if there is a China model
Comments on David Dollar "What institutions do Asian countries need to keep growing?" 31 May 2015
The next decade or two may prove one way or another whether there is a China model or not. While Dollar argues historical evidence is likely to be against China’s authoritarian system for its next stage of development, the current indication is that China is unlikely to say goodbye to it any time soon. As a result, we will likely to see either a China model with authoritarian government that successfully defy the historical evidence that Dollar relies, or China falls into the middle income trap including possibly a scenario where the authoritarian government is forced to give up its power in favour of the traditional democracy.
China, however, has a unique feature that is lacking in many other countries, that is, it has the largest population and it’s economy will soon be the largest in the world. Can China create a new way, that is a new model? That is a question no one can answer with absolute certainty, but will be fascinating to see for many over the next decade or two.
The next decade or two may prove one way or another whether there is a China model or not. While Dollar argues historical evidence is likely to be against China’s authoritarian system for its next stage of development, the current indication is that China is unlikely to say goodbye to it any time soon. As a result, we will likely to see either a China model with authoritarian government that successfully defy the historical evidence that Dollar relies, or China falls into the middle income trap including possibly a scenario where the authoritarian government is forced to give up its power in favour of the traditional democracy.
China, however, has a unique feature that is lacking in many other countries, that is, it has the largest population and it’s economy will soon be the largest in the world. Can China create a new way, that is a new model? That is a question no one can answer with absolute certainty, but will be fascinating to see for many over the next decade or two.
A better governing model for AIIB
Comments on Richard Kozul-Wright and Daniel Poon "Development finance with Chinese characteristics", 9/06/2015
I think that a new governing model for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) could be to seek a balance between economic weights or contributions to the AIIB and members' sovereignty.
Such a governing structure will have the feature of combining both the representative and senate structures in many Western democracies. It will have more desirable properties than both the current governing structures of the World Bank and the IMF. For example, it is more objective as opposed to the arbitrary nature of the existing ones.
Further, it gives an equal weight to each country in the sovereign part of the proposed structure. The objectiveness and fairness are superior to all the current models of governance.
If China and other countries are interested in successfully reforming the current international financing bodies, they are likely to have a much stronger argument should they carefully consider and device a better governing model and mechanism. The model proposed here can help them to advance their goals and endeavors in seeking to reform both the IMF and the World Bank.
I think that a new governing model for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) could be to seek a balance between economic weights or contributions to the AIIB and members' sovereignty.
Such a governing structure will have the feature of combining both the representative and senate structures in many Western democracies. It will have more desirable properties than both the current governing structures of the World Bank and the IMF. For example, it is more objective as opposed to the arbitrary nature of the existing ones.
Further, it gives an equal weight to each country in the sovereign part of the proposed structure. The objectiveness and fairness are superior to all the current models of governance.
If China and other countries are interested in successfully reforming the current international financing bodies, they are likely to have a much stronger argument should they carefully consider and device a better governing model and mechanism. The model proposed here can help them to advance their goals and endeavors in seeking to reform both the IMF and the World Bank.
India may play a greater role in AIIB than Bery argued
Comments on Suman Bery "Why the AIIB could work for India", 17/06/2015
Amomg the three spheres that Bery identified India’s interests could be partitioned, namely political, financial and intellectual, I share the author’s view on the last one completely that collaboration between China and India could be transformational. I would further add that other countries which have successfully transformed from low income to middle income and then high income countries such as Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan into the partners of collaboration intellectually, if they are the members of AIIB.
The second sphere, namely financial, I share Bery‘s view only partly. I would also include sovereign guarantee as a preferable criterion but not as the one that would veto if there is no such a guarantee.
On the political sphere, however, I have a different view from that of Bery's. Even though China and India are not allies in the same way as the USA and Britain have, the former do have strong shared common interests as emerging economies wishing to reform the outdated governance structure of some existing international institutions, such as the world bank and the IMF. It is these shared interests that have driven their formation of the BRICS and that will outweigh their political dissimilarities.
Amomg the three spheres that Bery identified India’s interests could be partitioned, namely political, financial and intellectual, I share the author’s view on the last one completely that collaboration between China and India could be transformational. I would further add that other countries which have successfully transformed from low income to middle income and then high income countries such as Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan into the partners of collaboration intellectually, if they are the members of AIIB.
The second sphere, namely financial, I share Bery‘s view only partly. I would also include sovereign guarantee as a preferable criterion but not as the one that would veto if there is no such a guarantee.
On the political sphere, however, I have a different view from that of Bery's. Even though China and India are not allies in the same way as the USA and Britain have, the former do have strong shared common interests as emerging economies wishing to reform the outdated governance structure of some existing international institutions, such as the world bank and the IMF. It is these shared interests that have driven their formation of the BRICS and that will outweigh their political dissimilarities.
In summary, I see that India is likely to play a greater role in AIIB than Bery envisaged.
2013-05-10
The ACT should adopt a new model of governing structure and model
Comments on Peter Jean "Assembly expansion plan hits a wall", 10/05/2013, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/assembly-expansion-plan-hits-a-wall-20130509-2jb4k.html
The ACT, as a small and compact city, should not simply follow the model of other state jurisdictions in administration. ACT government and the Legislation Assembly should think creatively and consider the most efficient and effective administration style and model to suit such a small city state/territory.
I would argue that one way is for the ACT to have a default or fallback position to use laws and policies in the NSW, and only to have a different one if there is a two third majority in both the assembly and the general ACT population. After all, the ACT is within NSW and a part of Australia and one would not expect there are so many different situations between it and NSW, apart from the ACT virtually does not have rural, agriculture, mining and is much simpler to administrate.
The ACT, as a small and compact city, should not simply follow the model of other state jurisdictions in administration. ACT government and the Legislation Assembly should think creatively and consider the most efficient and effective administration style and model to suit such a small city state/territory.
I would argue that one way is for the ACT to have a default or fallback position to use laws and policies in the NSW, and only to have a different one if there is a two third majority in both the assembly and the general ACT population. After all, the ACT is within NSW and a part of Australia and one would not expect there are so many different situations between it and NSW, apart from the ACT virtually does not have rural, agriculture, mining and is much simpler to administrate.
This means there would only be a need for front line services as opposed to duplication of unnecessarily so many central administrative agencies/politicians/bureaucrats staff for policy and central administration. The ACT government should effectively, largely and essentially be a city administration like a small council.
The two main sides of politics and the Greens should have the welfare of the ACT residents in mind and should endeavor to be more efficient in administration of the ACT affairs. It is not too dissimilar to the differences in business administration and management between large and small businesses.
In that context, the idea of further expansion reflects very poorly on the creativity of those proponents of such an bad idea.
2013-05-02
Euro zone may benefit from reforming the system
Comments on Oliver Marc Hartwich "Is Germany edging towards the exit", 2/05/2013, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/5/2/economy/germany-edging-towards-exit
While the euro zone has experienced significant difficulties in the wake of the GFC, there are some measures that could be taken to overcome or at least lessen the shortcomings of the current euro zone design.
For example, one measure is to create a fixed rate of dual euro currencies that can provide the flexibility for one or more euro members to effectively devalue within the dual euro currency zone. This is because the most significant shortcomings of current single currency is the lack of flexibility of members to devalue to adjust to a less competitive situation they may be caught in.
While the euro zone has experienced significant difficulties in the wake of the GFC, there are some measures that could be taken to overcome or at least lessen the shortcomings of the current euro zone design.
For example, one measure is to create a fixed rate of dual euro currencies that can provide the flexibility for one or more euro members to effectively devalue within the dual euro currency zone. This is because the most significant shortcomings of current single currency is the lack of flexibility of members to devalue to adjust to a less competitive situation they may be caught in.
Another second more effective measure is to issue euro bonds but charge different countries different rates according to its economic situations and macro economic management outcomes, so there is some accountability to avoid the moral hazard from arisen. At the same time, the other members will have some return or security for their collective guarantee of the euro bonds.
The second measure would utilise the strengths of the euro group of countries to lower costs of government funding, but still have disciplines in place for any national governments.
Nevertheless, all remedy measures need the courage of reforming the current system design, as opposed to stubbornly and stupidly stick with a flawed system design.
2013-02-09
Shameful for all involved in MRRT design
Comments on Sally Zou et al "Mining tax shortfall: the experts respond", 9/02/2013, http://theconversation.edu.au/mining-tax-shortfall-the-experts-respond-12105
When the truth comes to daylight and while we see the dreadful position and policy/taxation skills of the Treasurer and the PM, no one should forget those advisers and the economic and tax advisory institutions behind the scene who were involved in the design of the tax and its finalisation and provided the shameful and deceitful numbers to the public.
At the time, not many reporters, analysts and commentators questioned the numbers provided to the public, even though when both the tax bases and the rate had decreased as well as more generous deductions while the projected total tax didn't change much from the original Henry design.
An incompetent government is generally accompanied by equally incompetent advisers and related institutions.
A further shame is that is is equally likely that those advisers and key persons with the related institutions would have got their promotion similar to the way that the Treasurer became the deputy PM.
When the truth comes to daylight and while we see the dreadful position and policy/taxation skills of the Treasurer and the PM, no one should forget those advisers and the economic and tax advisory institutions behind the scene who were involved in the design of the tax and its finalisation and provided the shameful and deceitful numbers to the public.
At the time, not many reporters, analysts and commentators questioned the numbers provided to the public, even though when both the tax bases and the rate had decreased as well as more generous deductions while the projected total tax didn't change much from the original Henry design.
An incompetent government is generally accompanied by equally incompetent advisers and related institutions.
A further shame is that is is equally likely that those advisers and key persons with the related institutions would have got their promotion similar to the way that the Treasurer became the deputy PM.
2013-01-10
A method to make reforms easier to be introduced
Comments on David Uren “Swan searches for a surplus strategy”, 10/01/2013, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/swan-searches-for-a-surplus-strategy/story-e6frg6n6-1226550691942
It seems a mutually accept method for the most appropriate resourcing of the PBO is to make a law before an election and make that law effective after the election, so whoever is in the government of the day does not matter much. Then any changes to that legislation should meet a stronger and more stringent condition than simply majority in both houses.
For example, have a legislation to cap the ratio of government revenue to GDP, as well as certain accountability of government policies, can all be made in such a way.
In fact, many difficult policies that may favour or harm the government of the say can be made in such a way to neutralise its effects on the government of the day, but binding on future governments.
It seems a mutually accept method for the most appropriate resourcing of the PBO is to make a law before an election and make that law effective after the election, so whoever is in the government of the day does not matter much. Then any changes to that legislation should meet a stronger and more stringent condition than simply majority in both houses.
For example, have a legislation to cap the ratio of government revenue to GDP, as well as certain accountability of government policies, can all be made in such a way.
In fact, many difficult policies that may favour or harm the government of the say can be made in such a way to neutralise its effects on the government of the day, but binding on future governments.
2012-12-06
Government must have a budget constraint
Comments on David Uren "No doubt about it, taxes will have to rise", 6/12/2012, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/no-doubt-about-it-taxes-will-have-to-rise/story-e6frg9qo-1226530770321
I think government should establish a law similar to the California's but with a in-build flexibility, that is, to set a maximum percentage of all revenue to GDP, say 30%.
The current political landscape is unfair, with the ALP increasing spending and the size of government with no limit, while when the opposite political party is in government they reduce spending reduce debts.
It will be a fair game for political parties to have a hard budget constraint and it should be the same for both political sides.
If any party wants to go over that limit, it needs a referendum. If any party break the rules, the ministers and the caucus must pay from their own income and assets.
Only in that way, will political parties focus on creativity and innovation in policy to generate the maximum benefit to the nation for the given constraint.
Working families have to live within their means. Government should also live within its means. AND its means should only be a proportion of the size of the economy.
I think government should establish a law similar to the California's but with a in-build flexibility, that is, to set a maximum percentage of all revenue to GDP, say 30%.
The current political landscape is unfair, with the ALP increasing spending and the size of government with no limit, while when the opposite political party is in government they reduce spending reduce debts.
It will be a fair game for political parties to have a hard budget constraint and it should be the same for both political sides.
If any party wants to go over that limit, it needs a referendum. If any party break the rules, the ministers and the caucus must pay from their own income and assets.
Only in that way, will political parties focus on creativity and innovation in policy to generate the maximum benefit to the nation for the given constraint.
Working families have to live within their means. Government should also live within its means. AND its means should only be a proportion of the size of the economy.
2011-12-29
Protection versus caution
Comments on Karen Maley “Lagarde rings a euro alarm bell”, 29/12/2011, Karen Maley http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Lagarde-Italy-bonds-euro-debt-crisis-ECB-banks-pd20111229-PYSUE?OpenDocument&src=sph&src=rot
Perhaps it is helpful that there should be a distinction between appropriate caution and inappropriate protection.
One cannot expect either national parliaments or government not o exercise necessary caution and prudent measures when there are real risks, no matter it involves other governments or private sectors.
But at the same time, there are powerful governments and parliaments that take highly inappropriate protectionist policies or measures.
The US and EU, unfortunately, are among those powerful ones.
Nevertheless, the IMF shouldn't ask nations for their blind supports of bailing out some national governments without appropriate rewards.
This is especially so that the IMF has generally been biased more in favour of rich countries and more harsh towards developing countries in its history.
2011-08-25
An election sooner would be better
Comments on Rob Burgess “Labor can't wash off the stench of vice”, 25/08/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Labor-Craig-Thomson-government-Julia-Gillard-NSW-H-pd20110825-L2TR9?OpenDocument&src=rot
An election is due for good reasons. It will end an incompetent government that is further compromised by its alliance with the Greens and also heavily influenced by the independents so one person can have hugely disproportionate influence to make the system very poorly governed.
While the opposition has not outlined a comprehensive policy setting, the current government has shown its wasteful character and poor policy making and governing.
So, one is known to be poor and the other is potentially unknown poor but also potentially better.
In such circumstances, I think the majority of voters are likely to see a change of government.
There might be some tears in the minority of voters, but it will be good for the nation should an election be had sooner rather than later.
It is not a perfect world and it is unreasonable to expect the opposition be perfect.
One has to choose the lesser between two devils. On balance, the opposition seems a better bet.
2011-08-17
The carbon tax and governance
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Credibility joins carbon crusade”, 17/08/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/credibility-joins-carbon-crusade/story-e6frgd0x-1226116270286
The government would sound more credible if it hasn't used the carbon tax as a way for wealth/income redistribution as it has proposed in its carbon tax package, and it got a border carbon adjustment to not distort and reduce Australians' comparative advantage in trade of goods and services with other nations.
These fatal shortcomings of the government's carbon tax bill are related to ALP Robin Hood ideology and its cowardice to confront other powerful nations in terms of equal treatment.
Of course, the compensations for businesses should not be as generous to recognise that businesses can pass the higher costs due to carbon tax either fully or at least partially as they are proposed in the bill, and more compensations should be for households on an equal per capita basis to remove the income distribution effects.
Further, it is hard to understand why it will be necessary to move from a carbon tax system to an ETS, given that the former is more efficient and involves fewer transaction costs. Of course, some financial market participants would like to have an ETS for the addition financial opportunities created by that to benefit from it. Further, bureaucrats would like it to create more government jobs and powers for them.
Taken together, it shows the government is incompetent, out of date and out of touch. This is another reason that it would be better for the government to seek a mandate for its carbon tax and ETS at an election. I should say I am not politically biased and is not pro or against any of the major political parties and I just would like to see fairness in politics and in governance.
2011-08-12
Scared they've been on the run
Comments on Dennis Shanahan "erils for PM in hanging on to surplus", 12/08/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/perils-for-pm-in-hanging-on-to-surplus/story-e6frgd0x-1226113362948
Gillard and Swan and their government has been particularly stubbon in promoting the budget surplus line of argument, so much so that they have greatly damaged their images and lost touch with the public. the flood levy, for example, was completely unnecessary, especially in the context that they had also pledged a carbon tax to come and the public were uncertain and concerned about the impact of the carbon tax in the coming years. Consumer confidence as well as business confidence have further eroded by the persistence of the surplus pledge at the expense of prudent economic and budget management.
Of course, Gillard and her coleagues have been aware of their broken promises, particularly the one on carbon tax, and the potential damage of further broken promises. But one has to weigh the benefits and costs of each policy and the totality of all policies and make the best choices and choose the lesser evils.
Unfortunately, Gillard and her colleagues have been scared and have not been able to show they are able to do the best and right things. they have tended to make policy on the run and rush to announcements without fully consider ttheir effects, for the nation and for themselves.
What all these show that Gillard and her colleagues in government have been unable to show true leadership. And that is not good particuarly for Gillard.
PS: see also: Alan Kohler "A surplus of political stupidity", 12/08/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Wayne-Swan-budget-Julia-Gillard-economic-crisis-ma-pd20110812-KMSTR?OpenDocument&src=rot.
Gillard and Swan and their government has been particularly stubbon in promoting the budget surplus line of argument, so much so that they have greatly damaged their images and lost touch with the public. the flood levy, for example, was completely unnecessary, especially in the context that they had also pledged a carbon tax to come and the public were uncertain and concerned about the impact of the carbon tax in the coming years. Consumer confidence as well as business confidence have further eroded by the persistence of the surplus pledge at the expense of prudent economic and budget management.
Of course, Gillard and her coleagues have been aware of their broken promises, particularly the one on carbon tax, and the potential damage of further broken promises. But one has to weigh the benefits and costs of each policy and the totality of all policies and make the best choices and choose the lesser evils.
Unfortunately, Gillard and her colleagues have been scared and have not been able to show they are able to do the best and right things. they have tended to make policy on the run and rush to announcements without fully consider ttheir effects, for the nation and for themselves.
What all these show that Gillard and her colleagues in government have been unable to show true leadership. And that is not good particuarly for Gillard.
PS: see also: Alan Kohler "A surplus of political stupidity", 12/08/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Wayne-Swan-budget-Julia-Gillard-economic-crisis-ma-pd20110812-KMSTR?OpenDocument&src=rot.
2011-05-30
Bold reforms should start from government governance
Comments on Graham Bradley “We need to have faith in the government's sums”, 30/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/we-need-to-have-faith-in-the-governments-sums/story-fn59niix-1226065153933
Bold reforms are needed and leadership to reforms is essential.
If the federal government is serious in reforms, it should start from reforming the governance of the government as the first step, or at least in conjunction with other reforms.
In terms of reforming government governance, maybe a national commission on economic policy should be established. Such a commission should have a component in budget integrity, as well as other economic policies, such as the desirable macroeconomic setting for both fiscal and monetary policies.
In terms of other bold reforms, while the Henry review report could be used as the starting point, its shortcomings should be recognised, such as the exclusion of GST in the review, as well as the lessons learnt from the RSPT/MRRT processes.
The tax forum should also include the carbon tax and related compensation measures, or ETS in its agenda.
Further, there should be a body to make sure the forum produce good outcomes and be implemented, as opposed to the 2020 summit.
To meet the challenges from population aging, there must be enough incentives provided for people to work longer, save more and optimise spending on healthcare and other consumptions.
Bold reforms are needed and leadership to reforms is essential.
If the federal government is serious in reforms, it should start from reforming the governance of the government as the first step, or at least in conjunction with other reforms.
In terms of reforming government governance, maybe a national commission on economic policy should be established. Such a commission should have a component in budget integrity, as well as other economic policies, such as the desirable macroeconomic setting for both fiscal and monetary policies.
In terms of other bold reforms, while the Henry review report could be used as the starting point, its shortcomings should be recognised, such as the exclusion of GST in the review, as well as the lessons learnt from the RSPT/MRRT processes.
The tax forum should also include the carbon tax and related compensation measures, or ETS in its agenda.
Further, there should be a body to make sure the forum produce good outcomes and be implemented, as opposed to the 2020 summit.
To meet the challenges from population aging, there must be enough incentives provided for people to work longer, save more and optimise spending on healthcare and other consumptions.
2011-05-16
Chris Evans empty claims
Comments on Chris Evans “Industry backs our skills plan”, 16/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budgets/industry-backs-our-skills-plan/story-fn8gf1nz-1226056357593
Chris Evans is selectively using opinions to back up his claims.
One does not need Evans' post to know that business has always supported for higher immigration, because higher immigration benefits businesses in two ways:
1. It depresses wages as labour supply increases
2. It increases domestic market demand for goods and services
Of course the bottom line is to increase business profits.
However, if one looks from the welfare of Australians' point of view, the picture can be different. Real wages and productivity may not grow as rapidly with higher immigration. So wouldn't be their welfare and well being, as per capita income is diluted and infrastructure becomes inadequate, such as traffic congestions, worsening housing market.
Further, by increasing labour supply through immigration, government can hide its inadequacy and shortcomings in training and education of our own labour.
So political rhetoric, particularly selective use of opinions by politicians is harmful to our society and our collective welfare.
Chris Evans is selectively using opinions to back up his claims.
One does not need Evans' post to know that business has always supported for higher immigration, because higher immigration benefits businesses in two ways:
1. It depresses wages as labour supply increases
2. It increases domestic market demand for goods and services
Of course the bottom line is to increase business profits.
However, if one looks from the welfare of Australians' point of view, the picture can be different. Real wages and productivity may not grow as rapidly with higher immigration. So wouldn't be their welfare and well being, as per capita income is diluted and infrastructure becomes inadequate, such as traffic congestions, worsening housing market.
Further, by increasing labour supply through immigration, government can hide its inadequacy and shortcomings in training and education of our own labour.
So political rhetoric, particularly selective use of opinions by politicians is harmful to our society and our collective welfare.
2011-05-12
Gillard government is wasting taxpayer's money again - the set-top box program
Comments on Joe Kelly “PM defends 'quality' digital set-top box scheme for pensioners”, 12/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budgets/julia-gillard-defends-war-on-middle-class-welfare-in-budget/story-fn8gf1nz-1226054548578
Gillard is defending the indefensible: "Defending the value of the $350 per box scheme, the Prime Minster said the cost included installation, a lesson on how to use the technology and a 12-month support package.
The opposition has likened the scheme to the government's ill-fated insulation scheme, saying set-top boxes can be bought at electrical retailers for as little as $40."
The set-top box program by the government clear is not value for money and will never be.
This is not only common sense, but also back up by business people: "Retailer Gerry Harvey slammed the scheme as overpriced, saying he could sell the boxes and install them at far lower prices."
Gillard, its cabinet ministers especially those who have responsibilities for spending control and in the area of communication and businesses, should have some common sense back, get into the real world, and be responsible for taxpayer's money.
That program shows gross irresponsibility and is bordered on neglecting their duties to the taxpayers.
Clearly, they have not learned enough or at all from the government's disastrous home insulation program debacle. That was not too long ago and the memory should be still very fresh indeed.
PS: It should be interesting to know what government advicers have advised and recommended on this program, in terms of $350 per box. Freedom of information should allow one to access that information.
Gillard is defending the indefensible: "Defending the value of the $350 per box scheme, the Prime Minster said the cost included installation, a lesson on how to use the technology and a 12-month support package.
The opposition has likened the scheme to the government's ill-fated insulation scheme, saying set-top boxes can be bought at electrical retailers for as little as $40."
The set-top box program by the government clear is not value for money and will never be.
This is not only common sense, but also back up by business people: "Retailer Gerry Harvey slammed the scheme as overpriced, saying he could sell the boxes and install them at far lower prices."
Gillard, its cabinet ministers especially those who have responsibilities for spending control and in the area of communication and businesses, should have some common sense back, get into the real world, and be responsible for taxpayer's money.
That program shows gross irresponsibility and is bordered on neglecting their duties to the taxpayers.
Clearly, they have not learned enough or at all from the government's disastrous home insulation program debacle. That was not too long ago and the memory should be still very fresh indeed.
PS: It should be interesting to know what government advicers have advised and recommended on this program, in terms of $350 per box. Freedom of information should allow one to access that information.
2011-05-10
Way of efficiency cuts means lazy government and central agencies
Comments on Rob Burgess “Labor's efficiency cuts may backfire”, 10/05/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/federal-budget-Labor-Wayne-Swan-Julia-Gillard-poll-pd20110510-GPRZN?OpenDocument&src=sph&src=rot
The efficiency dividend policy has been a clever disguise of the government and top central bureaucratic agencies of their own incompetency and managing the budget and the public services.
It cuts the budgets of all agencies indiscriminately, so inevitably it will cause unnecessarily the decline of the much needed good services and that is an unnecessary price that all Australians are ended up in having to pay.
The other side of the problem is that it still leaves some wastage unaffected by much.
The government, assisted by the central agencies, should be able to identify where savings should be made and they should not to deliver better and improved outcomes and to be accountable to the taxpayers in terms of value for money!
Instead, they are lazy, and adopt this shamble and irresponsible policy of milking indiscriminately efficiency dividend of every agency.
The public is left bewildered on what the central agencies are doing as well.
2011-05-09
Question of least consequence?
Comments on Rob Burgess “The real reason to bash Swan”, 9/05/2011, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Wayne-Swan-Federal-Budget-2011-Treasurer-deficit-s-pd20110509-GNSW3?OpenDocument&src=sph
Question of least consequence, are you kidding?
Rob Burgess argues that questions about “how big is the deficit, could it have been smaller, and how long will it take to erase”, are the most likely source of the bashing for Swan’s fourth budget at the budget night, but they are also the question of least consequence.
I would question why?
One should ask a serious question of why those are the only main reasons for increasing budget deficits for 2010-11:
“From the MYEFO figure of $41 billion, the budget deficit is now expected to come in at $51 billion. Roughly a third of the blowout is from funding natural disaster relief in Queensland, Victoria and WA. The remainder is largely split between a drop in capital gains tax (housing falling, shares drifting) and weaker corporate tax receipts as the China-led terms-of-trade boom continues to punish non-resources-related businesses.”
Why shouldn’t one ask about the quality of budget in the first place? That is, why didn’t the government expect some possible impact on its revenue sources when it made that budget? Or was the government too optimistic than warranted at that time?
Besides, has there any positive side story of revenue impact that that should be included, or there has been none during 2010-11?
If one looks from this aspect, then those are not least consequence questions any more.
Question of least consequence, are you kidding?
Rob Burgess argues that questions about “how big is the deficit, could it have been smaller, and how long will it take to erase”, are the most likely source of the bashing for Swan’s fourth budget at the budget night, but they are also the question of least consequence.
I would question why?
One should ask a serious question of why those are the only main reasons for increasing budget deficits for 2010-11:
“From the MYEFO figure of $41 billion, the budget deficit is now expected to come in at $51 billion. Roughly a third of the blowout is from funding natural disaster relief in Queensland, Victoria and WA. The remainder is largely split between a drop in capital gains tax (housing falling, shares drifting) and weaker corporate tax receipts as the China-led terms-of-trade boom continues to punish non-resources-related businesses.”
Why shouldn’t one ask about the quality of budget in the first place? That is, why didn’t the government expect some possible impact on its revenue sources when it made that budget? Or was the government too optimistic than warranted at that time?
Besides, has there any positive side story of revenue impact that that should be included, or there has been none during 2010-11?
If one looks from this aspect, then those are not least consequence questions any more.
Ending government wastage
Comments on Henry Ergas “Ending waste even more important than deficit”, 9/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ending-waste-even-more-important-than-deficit/story-fn59niix-1226052136291
Ergas is obviously correct in stating that ending wastes is more important than ending deficits.
Both are required in general, although the general theory and practice for budget balance is over a reasonable timeframe to achieve.
Most western government, due largely short term politics and irresponsible fiscal policy have abused the general policy prescription and resulted in rather large government debts and persistent budget deficits.
Government wastes should by all means be avoided in the first place and eliminated when they are discovered, even though some would argue that they are impossible to completely avoid in the first place no matter how hard a government may try to do it.
Here the short term politics comes to play. Few governments if any are selflessly working in the interests of their whole nations and virtually all governments have their own political interests that are not necessarily always the same as their national interests.
When the two conflict with each other, many government can pursue their own political interests but do it in the disguise of the national interests, or they say are in the national interests.
Australia has some good examples of government wastes recently – the bungled home insulation programs, the wastes in BER programs, and the NBN is most likely to be a much larger measure of government wastage.
The government, however, have all its reasons. And that is hardly surprising, isn’t it?
In terms of budget deficits, if the benefits to the government of the day outweigh the costs to it, then it is not too difficult to understand the incentive to have it.
Ergas is obviously correct in stating that ending wastes is more important than ending deficits.
Both are required in general, although the general theory and practice for budget balance is over a reasonable timeframe to achieve.
Most western government, due largely short term politics and irresponsible fiscal policy have abused the general policy prescription and resulted in rather large government debts and persistent budget deficits.
Government wastes should by all means be avoided in the first place and eliminated when they are discovered, even though some would argue that they are impossible to completely avoid in the first place no matter how hard a government may try to do it.
Here the short term politics comes to play. Few governments if any are selflessly working in the interests of their whole nations and virtually all governments have their own political interests that are not necessarily always the same as their national interests.
When the two conflict with each other, many government can pursue their own political interests but do it in the disguise of the national interests, or they say are in the national interests.
Australia has some good examples of government wastes recently – the bungled home insulation programs, the wastes in BER programs, and the NBN is most likely to be a much larger measure of government wastage.
The government, however, have all its reasons. And that is hardly surprising, isn’t it?
In terms of budget deficits, if the benefits to the government of the day outweigh the costs to it, then it is not too difficult to understand the incentive to have it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
