Comments on Andrew Leigh’s little blog “Free Trade Helps Families and Kids” and Russell’s comments, http://andrewleigh.com/?p=2101#comments
Three points about this. First, there is an alternative to free trade that can help families and kids, as well as local writers and publishers if and assuming there is value in fostering local writers and publishers. Have a low tariff on imported books and use the income to subsidise those locals. As long as the tariff and subsidies can be right tuned, there should be a point where the national welfare is optimal.
My second point is about partial or general equilibrium. Though partial is interesting in some areas and for some purposes, it is incomplete and misses the important links that general equilibrium is and has. So there may be case to have both general and partial equilibrium studies.
Lastly, about Russell's point. Russell seems to have made two points, the first one is the quality of that study is not good. For that I can't comments, because I have not read that report. Russell's second point is a more general one that I like to make a comment on. What Russell seems to suggest is that the report is not general enough and missed some important issues that should be included in that study. This may or may not correct.
Any study has a focus and has its limitations, otherwise you can't finish any study since there are always issues that could be related and not included. One has to define the most appropriate scope of a study, and include the most important and relevant issues and leaves some out. Russell would make a stronger and more pertinent point if he uses specific examples from the report. That would be more helpful.
2009-06-09
Andrew Leigh is proud of the wrong arguments
Comments on Andrew Leigh’s own blog on the 21 economists’ letter, June 2009, http://andrewleigh.com/?p=2104
With due respect, I think that letter is full of nonsense. I sent part one of my comments on that letter to AFR, though the letter facility, but I don't know if they will publish that. I have posted in a blob as:
http://mrlincolns.blogspot.com/2009/06/21-prominent-aussie-economists-half.html
I am preparing part two of my comments on that letter which will focus on more specific points of that letter. When it is finished I will advise you.
I think that letter has problems with simple logic. It is confusing at the best and deeply misleading at the others. The first part of my comments deals with the letter's quote of Krugman and Blanchard. To quote from famous economist to start off the letter is weak at the best and to use them as supports for own illogical arguments is laughable. You and other can have a look how those quotes are problematic, from part one of my comments.
I provide the following brief comment, to give you a flavour why that letter is wrong. The main point is that the letter misses the point of the current debate on the government debt. The main issue is not about whether it is necessary to have a debt, but what level of it. Related to it is whether every government fiscal measure is necessary and effective in stimulating the economy and cost effective.
With due respect, I think that letter is full of nonsense. I sent part one of my comments on that letter to AFR, though the letter facility, but I don't know if they will publish that. I have posted in a blob as:
http://mrlincolns.blogspot.com/2009/06/21-prominent-aussie-economists-half.html
I am preparing part two of my comments on that letter which will focus on more specific points of that letter. When it is finished I will advise you.
I think that letter has problems with simple logic. It is confusing at the best and deeply misleading at the others. The first part of my comments deals with the letter's quote of Krugman and Blanchard. To quote from famous economist to start off the letter is weak at the best and to use them as supports for own illogical arguments is laughable. You and other can have a look how those quotes are problematic, from part one of my comments.
I provide the following brief comment, to give you a flavour why that letter is wrong. The main point is that the letter misses the point of the current debate on the government debt. The main issue is not about whether it is necessary to have a debt, but what level of it. Related to it is whether every government fiscal measure is necessary and effective in stimulating the economy and cost effective.
Frustrated Gottliebsen is desperate now!
Comments on Robert Gottliebsen “OZ in self-sabotage?” 8/06/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/OZ-in-self-sabotage-pd20090608-STFB8?OpenDocument&src=sph&alerts&loc=center
Mr Gottliebsen has now gone a step further along his chosen road of interfering OZ businesses, after his earlier failed attempts to do so. He is advocating for OZ to go into administration.
Mr Gottliebsen, aren't you ashamed that you have failed so miserably on this issue? Now you still can’t face up with and don’t concede your failure, and are resorting to a disgraceful public sabotage of the OZ board you have consistently said that it did a good job just because it has not listened to your failed idea or advice?
You really think you alone are better than the board, don’t you? Who and what has given your that right and self confidence or indulgence?
You self-claim that you are for the shareholders of OZ. Why don’t give those shareholders a fair chance for them to decide what is best for their interest and the best course to take by themselves, rather than messing up and confusing the issue, mudding the water, stirring up irresponsibility?
There are significant uncertainties surrounding the mere survival of OZ. Commonwealth Bank of Australia is just one of the syndicate as the creditors to OZ. Morris oral saying is not good enough for the board to take it as a secure undertaking of all creditors. You yourself said that there are some rebel creditors. Who can guarantee the finance can be secured with certainty?
You advocated for administration. Have you calculated what that means for the shareholders?
It is interesting what you real motives are and what purpose you want to achieve. I think you should shut up and mind your own business. Don’t talk nonsense and vent your frustration. You are not a board member and have no responsibility for the shareholders of OZ.
Mr Gottliebsen has now gone a step further along his chosen road of interfering OZ businesses, after his earlier failed attempts to do so. He is advocating for OZ to go into administration.
Mr Gottliebsen, aren't you ashamed that you have failed so miserably on this issue? Now you still can’t face up with and don’t concede your failure, and are resorting to a disgraceful public sabotage of the OZ board you have consistently said that it did a good job just because it has not listened to your failed idea or advice?
You really think you alone are better than the board, don’t you? Who and what has given your that right and self confidence or indulgence?
You self-claim that you are for the shareholders of OZ. Why don’t give those shareholders a fair chance for them to decide what is best for their interest and the best course to take by themselves, rather than messing up and confusing the issue, mudding the water, stirring up irresponsibility?
There are significant uncertainties surrounding the mere survival of OZ. Commonwealth Bank of Australia is just one of the syndicate as the creditors to OZ. Morris oral saying is not good enough for the board to take it as a secure undertaking of all creditors. You yourself said that there are some rebel creditors. Who can guarantee the finance can be secured with certainty?
You advocated for administration. Have you calculated what that means for the shareholders?
It is interesting what you real motives are and what purpose you want to achieve. I think you should shut up and mind your own business. Don’t talk nonsense and vent your frustration. You are not a board member and have no responsibility for the shareholders of OZ.
Time for Australia to have a fixed term election system
Comments on Malcolm Colless “Kevin Rudd to strike while numbers are hot”, 9/06/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25607086-5015019,00.html
The point of the article just makes a mockery of the current federal election system. It highlights the stupidity of the current system and how out of date it has been.
It is high time to reform that system to remove the lazy and opportunistic options available to the governing party and to have a fixed term federal election system.
A fixed term will put hard and necessary constraints on any governing party to work harder to address any issues faced the government of the day. That will be good for all Australians.
While any governing party would not like to lose the political convenience available under the current system, all the parties should agree before the next federal election that Australia should and will have a fixed term election cycle, either three or four years.
I am not sure whether the 1000 or so 2020 ideas gathered at the Australia 2020 meeting last year has included the reform to the federal election system or not. Hope it has been. But the Rudd government’s choice of ideas for funding and implementation among the 1000 ideas did not include this one, clearly.
The media and commentators should voice this simple but very important reform and push it urgently onto the political agenda. They should take it as their responsibility and obligation to do so. If you people do that, you will be applauded for your contribution to a better national welfare.
The point of the article just makes a mockery of the current federal election system. It highlights the stupidity of the current system and how out of date it has been.
It is high time to reform that system to remove the lazy and opportunistic options available to the governing party and to have a fixed term federal election system.
A fixed term will put hard and necessary constraints on any governing party to work harder to address any issues faced the government of the day. That will be good for all Australians.
While any governing party would not like to lose the political convenience available under the current system, all the parties should agree before the next federal election that Australia should and will have a fixed term election cycle, either three or four years.
I am not sure whether the 1000 or so 2020 ideas gathered at the Australia 2020 meeting last year has included the reform to the federal election system or not. Hope it has been. But the Rudd government’s choice of ideas for funding and implementation among the 1000 ideas did not include this one, clearly.
The media and commentators should voice this simple but very important reform and push it urgently onto the political agenda. They should take it as their responsibility and obligation to do so. If you people do that, you will be applauded for your contribution to a better national welfare.
2009-06-08
Basic logic versus clearly defined national interest
Comments on comments by hc on Peter Drysdale’s “Australia needs to get its act together on China, and fast", 7/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/07/australia-needs-to-get-its-act-together-on-china-and-fast/
It is not clear to me that your point that this outcome was not politics but basic economics, in conjunction with your other statements. Those statements include: the Rudd Government on this occasion seems to have moved behind the scenes to limit the deal; that deal would have been advantageous to Rio but disastrous for Australia; Rio could have extracted more from Chinalco than BHP.
What your statements mean that the Rudd government played a role in deal the death blow to the Chinalco - Rio deal, against Rio's own interest. If that is not politics but economics, what is politics but not economics? Your arguments seem to defy basic logic, even though they started with a suggestion that Peter Drysdale's analysis seems miss some basic things. I am really puzzled by your construction of an interesting logic.
Very few objective minded people will disagree with you on the point that Australia's foreign investment policy is to safeguard its national interest. But the real questions are: how you define national interest? how you make sure it is non-discriminatory; how transparent your review processes are? whether your review has been used as a political issue rather than done by clearly define national interest criteria?
You say we should make it clear that we won’t allow major Australian resource suppliers to be owned by major consumers of these resources. What is your definition of ownership? None at all, 10%, 15%, 20%, 49% as the QANTAS case, 50% or more, or what? Is it good enough just say no foreign country ownership if there are also customers from that country? Please be more specific and clearer, because that is important and often missed, as in your case.
Further, how do you distinguish an investor from a customer country that is independent of those customers from that country from other investors from non-customer countries? Should they be treated differently or in the same way? Is Telstra the same as or different from Optus in Australia, the same country?
It is not clear to me that your point that this outcome was not politics but basic economics, in conjunction with your other statements. Those statements include: the Rudd Government on this occasion seems to have moved behind the scenes to limit the deal; that deal would have been advantageous to Rio but disastrous for Australia; Rio could have extracted more from Chinalco than BHP.
What your statements mean that the Rudd government played a role in deal the death blow to the Chinalco - Rio deal, against Rio's own interest. If that is not politics but economics, what is politics but not economics? Your arguments seem to defy basic logic, even though they started with a suggestion that Peter Drysdale's analysis seems miss some basic things. I am really puzzled by your construction of an interesting logic.
Very few objective minded people will disagree with you on the point that Australia's foreign investment policy is to safeguard its national interest. But the real questions are: how you define national interest? how you make sure it is non-discriminatory; how transparent your review processes are? whether your review has been used as a political issue rather than done by clearly define national interest criteria?
You say we should make it clear that we won’t allow major Australian resource suppliers to be owned by major consumers of these resources. What is your definition of ownership? None at all, 10%, 15%, 20%, 49% as the QANTAS case, 50% or more, or what? Is it good enough just say no foreign country ownership if there are also customers from that country? Please be more specific and clearer, because that is important and often missed, as in your case.
Further, how do you distinguish an investor from a customer country that is independent of those customers from that country from other investors from non-customer countries? Should they be treated differently or in the same way? Is Telstra the same as or different from Optus in Australia, the same country?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
