Comments on Robert Carling “Tax policy devised by party that is green with envy”, 3/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/tax-policy-devised-by-party-that-is-green-with-envy/story-e6frg6zo-1225913534872
While the GFC may have caused people to reflect on the far right approach or market fundamentalism, the far left like the Greens in Australia are by no means the solution to the problems/issues that contributed to the GFC.
Unfortunately for Australia, we've just got a hung parliament and the Greens are in a very strong position to explore the situation to its advantage to move Australia to the Left's agenda.
The gutless current government has been so keen to embrace the support of the Greens for alliance to form the next government.
That is bad for the nation, and for the ALP itself in the media to long run.
It is likely that the ALP will see more of its supporters to move to the Greens at the next election.
Showing posts with label the Left. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the Left. Show all posts
2010-08-14
Gillard and the Greens
Comments on Paul Kelly “Gillard leans to the Left”, 14/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/gillard-leans-to-the-left/story-e6frgd0x-1225905084394
I like Gillard as a person, but have some questions on her policy approaches. More specifically, I found the way she defended the BER programs spending and wastes unsatisfactory and unacceptable. That was a typical politician's way.
While Gillard may be a competent leader, the move to Left can be dangerous and bad to taxpayers because she has been closely involved in those government decisions that resulted in huge wastes and failures.
The Left is associated with big spending and welfares using taxpayers' money. They don't care too much about the costs and impact on efficiency.
The combination of a Gillard government with the extreme Left Greens having the power of balance in the Senate will be very bad for taxpayers indeed.
That is the worst combination of Australia federal politics. I'd like and hope that won't happen!
I like Gillard as a person, but have some questions on her policy approaches. More specifically, I found the way she defended the BER programs spending and wastes unsatisfactory and unacceptable. That was a typical politician's way.
While Gillard may be a competent leader, the move to Left can be dangerous and bad to taxpayers because she has been closely involved in those government decisions that resulted in huge wastes and failures.
The Left is associated with big spending and welfares using taxpayers' money. They don't care too much about the costs and impact on efficiency.
The combination of a Gillard government with the extreme Left Greens having the power of balance in the Senate will be very bad for taxpayers indeed.
That is the worst combination of Australia federal politics. I'd like and hope that won't happen!
2010-03-12
Left and Leftist thinking!
Comments on Nick Dyrenfurth “The battle for the Left”, 12/03/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-battle-for-the-left/story-e6frg6zo-1225839752277
It appears that the author confused himself very deeply and in the course also effected confusion for the readers.
He confused The Australian economic fundamentals with Labour's superficial management role - if no recession is proof of good economic management, many current governments in the world are much better economic managers, but are they really? What about the gifts from decades of economic reforms and prudential management by its predecessors? Further, what are the true and unnecessary costs to the budget and government debt?
He confused the already discredited Rudd/Wong ETS with real market based approach - what are those free handouts of the rights to pollute to polluters and inequitable subsidies?
In terms of thinking logic, one has to wonder the author is not an “extreme left” himself!
But certainly some sorts of extremist.
It appears that the author confused himself very deeply and in the course also effected confusion for the readers.
He confused The Australian economic fundamentals with Labour's superficial management role - if no recession is proof of good economic management, many current governments in the world are much better economic managers, but are they really? What about the gifts from decades of economic reforms and prudential management by its predecessors? Further, what are the true and unnecessary costs to the budget and government debt?
He confused the already discredited Rudd/Wong ETS with real market based approach - what are those free handouts of the rights to pollute to polluters and inequitable subsidies?
In terms of thinking logic, one has to wonder the author is not an “extreme left” himself!
But certainly some sorts of extremist.
2009-09-26
More fundamental factors in play in history
Comments on Robert Manne “Past another turning point in history”, 26/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26124842-7583,00.html
While your view of the left and the right in the west may have some truth, your have ignored some important points of their evolutions. You only noticed the bad aspects of the former USSR and ignored its any merits, even though you are a professor in history.
I am not a historian as you are. But it appears to me that there have been some more fundamental factors in play than what you have relied on for your argument.
I think one has got to look at the history more objectively, in the context of both longer history and wider social and international perspectives.
Did the rise of Keynesian have anything to do with the creation of the Soviet Russia and the USSR as a competing social system?
Did the re-emergence of the right or neo-liberalism have anything to do with the inability of government intervention based on the Keynesian aggregate demand management, or the failure of the both Keynesians and monetarists to come up with more effective macroeconomic tools to deal with the supply side macroeconomic problems as a result of the first oil shock?
Will the current crisis and the success of some developing economies in the east generate other new economic and social thinking beyond the confines of the left and the right in the west?
While your view of the left and the right in the west may have some truth, your have ignored some important points of their evolutions. You only noticed the bad aspects of the former USSR and ignored its any merits, even though you are a professor in history.
I am not a historian as you are. But it appears to me that there have been some more fundamental factors in play than what you have relied on for your argument.
I think one has got to look at the history more objectively, in the context of both longer history and wider social and international perspectives.
Did the rise of Keynesian have anything to do with the creation of the Soviet Russia and the USSR as a competing social system?
Did the re-emergence of the right or neo-liberalism have anything to do with the inability of government intervention based on the Keynesian aggregate demand management, or the failure of the both Keynesians and monetarists to come up with more effective macroeconomic tools to deal with the supply side macroeconomic problems as a result of the first oil shock?
Will the current crisis and the success of some developing economies in the east generate other new economic and social thinking beyond the confines of the left and the right in the west?
2009-05-11
More importantly crisis needs a third voice than the other two
Comments on Christian Kerr “Crisis needs some more name-calling from the Right”, The Australian, 11/03/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/houserules/index.php/theaustralian/comments/crisis_needs_some_more_name_calling_from_the_right/
Kerr talked about the need for a voice from the opposite to the Left, namely the Right, to come out to defend capitalism in the current economic crisis under capitalism. That was fair enough, and an interesting point. Any show of fighting would not be interesting and dull if it is one sided without an opponent on the stage.
So far into the crisis there have been a lot of noises from the Left or possibly from some innocent people. Some have been too eager to denounce the sins of capitalism, normally disguised in the names such as neo-liberalism, market fundamentalism, and the like. The article mentioned Rudd, Australian PM, as one of the more vocal voices.
Kerr tried very hard to find some voices from the opposite. Under that attempt, Andrew Alexander came to light. However, Alexander’s argument got lost, impertinent and impotent when he argued that “the primitive urge for the direction and regulation of all economic activity, what the economists call statism, is of course the basis for socialism.” As his opponents from the Left have shown so far Alexander had equally misdirected the point. Arguing for more regulations is not “urge for the direction and regulation of all economic activity”.
Similarly, the Left has been wrong in that the crisis, albeit very serious, does not mean the end or death of:
capitalism itself; or
the market economy; or
free international trade; or
international capital flows; or
economic integration; or
globalization.
Capitalism consists a broad spectrum and the main stream capitalism has never meant that there should be no government regulations for many decades. Yes there have been and still are wide views among economists, some may argue for more regulations and some for less. Only few argue for no regulations.
To be more to the point, there is no question that the chaotic and rotten practices of some of the sub-mortgage lenders of their agents in the US contributed to causes of the current financial and economic crisis. However, were they a true reflection of main stream capitalism? Besides, some of the accounting standards, though with good intentions and some merits, exacerbated the herd behavior under imperfect information.
Imperfect information will always exist, irrespective under which system. The other issues can be rectified by slightly tightening regulations to have every agent to bear the risks of their doing or changing some of the accounting standards to make them both more transparent and be more resilient in market cycles, that is, not pro-cyclic if possible counter-cyclic or at least cyclic neutral.
Both the Left and the Right have been wrong and exaggerate their cases. There need a third voice and this is the main stream silent majority. The main stream should never be distracted by either extreme. No economic system is perfect, and capitalism is no exception. It works well generally, but does have the tendency to cause problems of one sort or another from time to time, such as the great depression and the current financial and economic crisis. However, those problems can be greatly moderated by prudent government regulations.
Since the birth of Keynesian macroeconomics, the world economy had generally behaved reasonably well until the recent financial crisis. We experienced stagnation in the 1970s due to supply side disturbances that presented some challenges to economists. Though they responded and made headway progress in theories by brining the rational expectations revolution, no new macroeconomic policy tools were produced. In that context, economists had still not had that challenge resolved in terms of bring effective supply side policy tools.
The recent crisis, though very serious, was largely attributable to the rogue behavior of some sub-prime mortgages lenders and/or their agents and the undesirable effects of the mark-to-the-market accounting rule. It should not be too difficult to change those.
Having said that, I would boldly say that economist at large as a profession remain under strong siege. They need to produce more effective tools to tackle some macroeconomic problems. On top of the supply side disturbances in the 1970s, now they have got another one onto their hands in the realm of serious monetary ineffectiveness and impotence to stimulate credit flow and finance.
Economists, we need you to stand up to the current challenges. Economists can help the cause of the third voice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
