Comments on Adam Carr “SCOREBOARD: Import binge”, 1/03/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/SCOREBOARD-Import-binge-pd20100301-355KJ?OpenDocument&src=sph
While Carr sees a rosy short term picture from trade, especially imports, the authorities need to think about policy issues on how to balance trade over the longer term.
It is not so rosy if looking at the fact that Australia's trade advantage in terms of terms of trade is probably above the historical average and its resources exports are good, but there are still fairly large trade deficits.
Both macro and micro economic policies need to pay attention to this situation.
We need to raise our productivity and international competitiveness.
That is where hard work has to be done.
There are implications for both monetary and fiscal policies.
2010-03-01
PM management style and leadership
Comments on Sue Cato “What Rudd can learn from Greiner”, 1/03/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/What-Rudd-can-learn-from-Greiner-pd20100301-354E8?OpenDocument&src=blb
It is not about just newish or inexperience. Rather, it is about common sense.
Overly being too confident to listen to others is immature.
High intelligence sometimes makes a person so stupid that many others but the person itself can see it.
Now Rudd seems now being faced with some reality.
He should not work the poor donkeys (public servants) to their deaths. He should learn how to empower people and have people work smarter and creatively, instead of limited by his (Rudd's) own shortcomings.
It is a matter of management culture.
The modern world is not a commanding system or a slavery system.
Superficial management style seemingly focused on one’s time worked is out of date.
Only with a fundamental shift in thinking can Rudd be a successful PM and statesman.
It is not about just newish or inexperience. Rather, it is about common sense.
Overly being too confident to listen to others is immature.
High intelligence sometimes makes a person so stupid that many others but the person itself can see it.
Now Rudd seems now being faced with some reality.
He should not work the poor donkeys (public servants) to their deaths. He should learn how to empower people and have people work smarter and creatively, instead of limited by his (Rudd's) own shortcomings.
It is a matter of management culture.
The modern world is not a commanding system or a slavery system.
Superficial management style seemingly focused on one’s time worked is out of date.
Only with a fundamental shift in thinking can Rudd be a successful PM and statesman.
Implications of different roles of international currencies
Comments on Yiping Huang “The future of the international currency system and China’s RMB”, 28/02/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/02/28/the-future-of-the-international-currency-system-and-chinas-rmb/
While I am not in any position to speculate on international currencies and potential roles of the RMB in it in the future, I was wondering if there is a case to have a distinction between international currencies and international reserves.
It seems so far most discussions do not make a distinction of the two roles and assume they will always be played by the same currencies.
I think there is a clear case for a separation of currencies versus reserves.
The role of international currencies should play is transactions. In this regard, it will be difficult to make a currency which is not widely used in the real world, such special drawing rights, to be used as an international currency.
The role of international reserves is wealth/reserve parking. In this regard, perhaps the IMF special drawing rights, or something similar, could be used much more widely as an international reserve. I guess that is the underlying message of the Mr Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People’ Bank of China.
So in my view, it would be better to define and distinguish the different roles of "currency".
While I am not in any position to speculate on international currencies and potential roles of the RMB in it in the future, I was wondering if there is a case to have a distinction between international currencies and international reserves.
It seems so far most discussions do not make a distinction of the two roles and assume they will always be played by the same currencies.
I think there is a clear case for a separation of currencies versus reserves.
The role of international currencies should play is transactions. In this regard, it will be difficult to make a currency which is not widely used in the real world, such special drawing rights, to be used as an international currency.
The role of international reserves is wealth/reserve parking. In this regard, perhaps the IMF special drawing rights, or something similar, could be used much more widely as an international reserve. I guess that is the underlying message of the Mr Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People’ Bank of China.
So in my view, it would be better to define and distinguish the different roles of "currency".
Advice for Rudd on the first day of March
Comments on David Burchell “A humble philosophy is worth more than a fair shake of the sauce”, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-humble-philosophy-is-worth-more-than-a-fair-shake-of-the-sauce/story-e6frg6zo-1225835359680, Dennis Shanahan “Kevin Rudd's mea culpa carries risks”, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/kevin-rudds-mea-culpa-carries-risks/story-e6frg6zo-1225835375757, Glenn Milne “Seeing through a poor performance”, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/seeing-through-a-poor-performance/story-e6frg6zo-1225835359749
I guess what the PM should do now is to take a thorough reflection of his strategies and employ some more competent key advisors and discuss with them and listen carefully to what they have to say.
He should refrain from some of his political and economic instincts like views about government for a while.
When these are done, he can combine the best advices from his new and more competent advisors and his media skills.
There is still time to pull together over a number of important fronts: promise of health and hospital takeover, the ETS and climate change policy, the recast of stimulus package, the NBN. Each should be manageable and needs to be well managed.
The question is: will he do it urgently enough?
I guess what the PM should do now is to take a thorough reflection of his strategies and employ some more competent key advisors and discuss with them and listen carefully to what they have to say.
He should refrain from some of his political and economic instincts like views about government for a while.
When these are done, he can combine the best advices from his new and more competent advisors and his media skills.
There is still time to pull together over a number of important fronts: promise of health and hospital takeover, the ETS and climate change policy, the recast of stimulus package, the NBN. Each should be manageable and needs to be well managed.
The question is: will he do it urgently enough?
Managing national public hospitals federally a better choice
Comments on "Rudd set to leave health to states", ABC report, 1/03/2010, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/28/2832348.htm?section=justin
With Australia's small population, it should be much more efficient to have one layer of administration of the national health system, removing duplications between the federal and the States, and the unaccountability or responsibility shifting between the two layers of government.
The key is that there should be an effective strategy to federally administer national public hospitals.
It will and should not be difficult. There are less than 25 million people in Australia, equivalent to a large city in many populous countries.
Why should run the hospitals that difficult? It is the geographic distribution. A nationally managed hospital system should be better in that regard.
But the key strategy for a national management system of public hospitals should lie in the following:
1. Funding nationally administered, assessed and allocated.
2. There can be a few regional offices or regional health boards. The regional hospital boards should be regionally elected by those people.
3. Each hospital of a group of hospitals can sign a contract with the federal health department.
4. Each hospital is independently run subject to funding from federal health department and is accountable for its outcomes.
5. The Health department and Productivity Commission will assess the performance of each hospital and publish the assessment each year and monitor them quarterly. Alternatively, some representatives from hospitals or regional boards can participate in the process of assessments.
6. The regional boards or each hospital staff committee should have the right to choose their board members, CEO and CMO.
7. If a hospital or hospitals in a region continue to fall below set standards, the federal health minister should intervene to appoint a new board.
8. Total hospital funding should be objectively planned and set every 5 years in advance.
9. Private hospitals can get funding if they perform public hospitals roles, with due funding implications for related public hospitals. This will introduce additional competition.
10. The GST to the States should be reduced accordingly and fairly.
11. The health minister should set advisory priorities for public hospitals as a whole and for come individual ones in particular. Those should be part of the assessment.
I think the above should be much better than the current system of State administered and with federal partial funding supports.
With Australia's small population, it should be much more efficient to have one layer of administration of the national health system, removing duplications between the federal and the States, and the unaccountability or responsibility shifting between the two layers of government.
The key is that there should be an effective strategy to federally administer national public hospitals.
It will and should not be difficult. There are less than 25 million people in Australia, equivalent to a large city in many populous countries.
Why should run the hospitals that difficult? It is the geographic distribution. A nationally managed hospital system should be better in that regard.
But the key strategy for a national management system of public hospitals should lie in the following:
1. Funding nationally administered, assessed and allocated.
2. There can be a few regional offices or regional health boards. The regional hospital boards should be regionally elected by those people.
3. Each hospital of a group of hospitals can sign a contract with the federal health department.
4. Each hospital is independently run subject to funding from federal health department and is accountable for its outcomes.
5. The Health department and Productivity Commission will assess the performance of each hospital and publish the assessment each year and monitor them quarterly. Alternatively, some representatives from hospitals or regional boards can participate in the process of assessments.
6. The regional boards or each hospital staff committee should have the right to choose their board members, CEO and CMO.
7. If a hospital or hospitals in a region continue to fall below set standards, the federal health minister should intervene to appoint a new board.
8. Total hospital funding should be objectively planned and set every 5 years in advance.
9. Private hospitals can get funding if they perform public hospitals roles, with due funding implications for related public hospitals. This will introduce additional competition.
10. The GST to the States should be reduced accordingly and fairly.
11. The health minister should set advisory priorities for public hospitals as a whole and for come individual ones in particular. Those should be part of the assessment.
I think the above should be much better than the current system of State administered and with federal partial funding supports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
