Comments on James Laurenceson “Four vital things Australian commentators don’t understand about China’s economy” 17/07/2012 https://theconversation.edu.au/four-vital-things-australian-commentators-dont-understand-about-chinas-economy-8262
While all the factors that James mentioned matter, also important is the way people's expectations change over time that influence both culture and history.
I am surprised that it wasn't mentioned that adaptive expectations could also explain many of what have been the imbalance issues with the Chinese economy.
When a developing economy changes very rapidly with considerable uncertainties, many consumers, particularly historically poor ones that are the cases with developing economies, are adaptive to the rapid change in the economy and the rise in income, so their expectations are somewhat influenced by their past low income and won't spend as much as people in rich and economically relative stable developed countries.
Another factor is the role of surplus labor has played in depressing the real wages, at least until now. While many economists, including some in China, take the market as sacred on the one hand, they leave the market force aside in analysing the imbalance in the Chinese economy. They say it was the Chinese government policy that was pro investment and pro exports.
How cynical and illogical can they be?
People need to use their creativity in research, not simply and wholly rely on existing theories or what conventional line of views.
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
2010-12-29
Illogical, irrational and nonsensical arguments
Comments on Michael Hitchens “Our 5 per cent accord pledge is more than enough”, 29/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/our-5-per-cent-accord-pledge-is-more-than-enough/story-e6frg6zo-1225977423500
I find Michael Hitchens view incredibly misleading, to say the best of it.
Let's start with his last or concluding sentence, that is, "There is no evidence yet that would support Australia going beyond 5 per cent in Durban next year."
How could he say whether there is evidence or not for next year? Isn't complete and utter nonsense? Does he have a crystal ball to gaze into the future?
Secondly, his third paragraph is just incomprehensibly confusing. He must have misquoted or misrepresented what the government's publicly stated stance.
Thirdly, how can he justify for demanding developing countries to reduce emissions absolutely now, given that they only emit a fraction of what the developed countries' in per capita level? Why didn't he say that the developed countries reduce their emissions to the level of the developing countries' first before demanding the latter to reduce theirs?
The whole post is illogical, irrational and nonsensical.
I wonder why the Australian find it any use to publish this nonsense.
I find Michael Hitchens view incredibly misleading, to say the best of it.
Let's start with his last or concluding sentence, that is, "There is no evidence yet that would support Australia going beyond 5 per cent in Durban next year."
How could he say whether there is evidence or not for next year? Isn't complete and utter nonsense? Does he have a crystal ball to gaze into the future?
Secondly, his third paragraph is just incomprehensibly confusing. He must have misquoted or misrepresented what the government's publicly stated stance.
Thirdly, how can he justify for demanding developing countries to reduce emissions absolutely now, given that they only emit a fraction of what the developed countries' in per capita level? Why didn't he say that the developed countries reduce their emissions to the level of the developing countries' first before demanding the latter to reduce theirs?
The whole post is illogical, irrational and nonsensical.
I wonder why the Australian find it any use to publish this nonsense.
2010-12-19
Peter van Onselen is correct indeed!
Comments on Peter van Onselen “Self-interest proves strongest motivator”, 18/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/self-interest-proves-strongest-motivator/story-e6frg6zo-1225972909179
While your argument is not too bad, it is not convincing to say "If, however, some people must blame others and can't bring themselves to hold nature alone responsible, they should focus their energies on the brutal dictators of overseas regimes asylum-seekers flee from, or indeed the people-smugglers who trade on human misery, not a democratically elected prime minister who has a different public policy outlook than they do."
It is obviously not nature alone - there are other factors included in them is the government's ineffective border protection policy.
Yes, it would be true that if there were no those governments there would be no asylum seekers boat arrivals.
Also true that if the weather were good, this tragedy would not have occurred.
But it would be equally true that if the government has an effective border protection policy in place, there would not be so many boat arrivals as we have been seeing over the past three years!
It may be illogical to push your point with your own self interest in mind while ignoring other important points that may contradict your argument!
On this point, the title you used seems so appropriate and relevant! Congratulations Peter!
While your argument is not too bad, it is not convincing to say "If, however, some people must blame others and can't bring themselves to hold nature alone responsible, they should focus their energies on the brutal dictators of overseas regimes asylum-seekers flee from, or indeed the people-smugglers who trade on human misery, not a democratically elected prime minister who has a different public policy outlook than they do."
It is obviously not nature alone - there are other factors included in them is the government's ineffective border protection policy.
Yes, it would be true that if there were no those governments there would be no asylum seekers boat arrivals.
Also true that if the weather were good, this tragedy would not have occurred.
But it would be equally true that if the government has an effective border protection policy in place, there would not be so many boat arrivals as we have been seeing over the past three years!
It may be illogical to push your point with your own self interest in mind while ignoring other important points that may contradict your argument!
On this point, the title you used seems so appropriate and relevant! Congratulations Peter!
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.
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
Everyone needs a little logic, it seems
Comments on Christian Kerr “Spin in overdrive drowns out debate”, 19/05/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/houserules/index.php/theaustralian/comments/spin_in_overdrive_drowns_out_debate/Dear
Mr Christian Kerr, I don't see any necessity, reason, or logic in that "THE private health insurance rebate means test is absolutely necessary to guarantee the future of the age pension.”
Government has so many avenues in raising revenue to fund whatever is needed to be funded, why is that “absolutely necessary”? It appears that we need to be a little logical and not be so ideologically driven as equally being so impotent as the spins used by the government! Let’s be self critical a little and be self-disciplined a little as well!
Even current tax can't meet projected future needs, government can and will find new sources of taxes to do so. They can also repriporitise different expenditure spending to focus on the most important ones. There is always unlimited wants, but needs are met with available resources. That has been the case and that is likely to remain the case for the future.
Mr Christian Kerr, I don't see any necessity, reason, or logic in that "THE private health insurance rebate means test is absolutely necessary to guarantee the future of the age pension.”
Government has so many avenues in raising revenue to fund whatever is needed to be funded, why is that “absolutely necessary”? It appears that we need to be a little logical and not be so ideologically driven as equally being so impotent as the spins used by the government! Let’s be self critical a little and be self-disciplined a little as well!
Even current tax can't meet projected future needs, government can and will find new sources of taxes to do so. They can also repriporitise different expenditure spending to focus on the most important ones. There is always unlimited wants, but needs are met with available resources. That has been the case and that is likely to remain the case for the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
