Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Now my first reaction was sheer annoyance. So much for my plans. Getting out towels, I started to clean the mess up feeling very annoyed. Then I thought. If I had jumped straight into bed, I could have been badly scalded. So I should feel grateful.
At first I didn't. It is hard to feel grateful when you are mopping up moisture over a bed that was your sleep destination. Finally realizing that I and that bed could not cohabit that night, I left for the spare bedroom. Snuggling down, finally warm and listening to the wind and rain, I thought that I was lucky to actually have a spare bedroom. Then I felt grateful.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
For practical reasons, I am treating this post as the Monday Forum post. I want to be able to respond to discussion.
In an earlier post, Economics, public policy and the importance of the small, I referred to the New Zealand model. At the time, I wrote: "Two weeks ago, I was at a meeting. Listening to the discussion, I suddenly said that if we are going to apply the New Zealand model, we needed to be clear on its implications. Nobody had mentioned New Zealand, but most people knew what I meant."
I have since discovered that I was wrong. Most people did not know. Too much time had passed for it to remain in living memory. The head nods meant that I hear you, not that I understand or agree. This lead me to dust off an earlier 2006 post, Changes in Public Administration - the New Zealand Model.
In the eight years since I wrote that post, many things have changed. Even then, knowledge of the New Zealand model was drifting into history. The difficulty is that concepts and constructs survive as current objects that affect thinking.and hence action. This need not matter if those concepts and constructs have been reworked, re-integrated, refreshed to form a new whole.I'm not sure that that's the case here.
Something similar arises with economic models. By their nature, these models are simplifications of the real world. Their results depend critically on the assumptions used. Sometimes those assumptions become beliefs, carried forward regardless. In this context, Leon Berkelmans had an interesting easy to read short piece in the Lowry blog, Is capital globally mobile?.
Berkelman points out that the Australian Treasury frequently makes the assumption of perfect international capital mobility. This means there is only one worldwide after-tax (risk-adjusted) rate of return on capital. If there were anywhere that offered a better deal, perfect capital mobility would imply that capital would flow into that area, until the return differential was arbitraged away. Similarly, if anywhere offered a worse deal, capital would flow out until, again, returns were equalised.
In fact, there is a very tight correlation over time between domestic savings and investment, something that appears to contradict the assumption of perfect international capital mobility. If capital were perfectly mobile internationally, you would expect much greater variation in the difference between domestic savings and investment.
This may sound very dry, but it is important because key parts of tax modelling and the policy conclusions drawn from it in areas such as the effect of dividend imputation or changes to company tax rates depend crucially on the international capital mobility assumption. To use an example from our little blogging village, some of the conclusions and prescriptions contained in Winton's recent posts are based on the modelling done using the international capital mobility assumption. Over to you Winton!
More broadly, in some of the discussions including those that triggered my comments on the New Zealand model, I try to apply what I think of as the Bob Gregory principle. At seminar after seminar, I saw Bob ask very simple basic questions intended to test and clarify the underlying assumptions and arguments. Bob was not trying to attack, just intellectually curious and seeking to understand. Time after time, I saw intellectual edifices teeter and sometimes fall under this gentle questioning.
Bob's a fair bit brighter than I am. I find the Gregory approach difficult to follow. Sometimes its not just appropriate because things are set in stone. You can't challenge, only modify at the margin. At other times, it can be very hard to articulate the simple questions that will test because the whole edifice seems cloudy, disconnected. Still, I do try, and sometimes (just sometimes), I get a result. Then I smile.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Goldman destroys iron ore, RIO forecast.
This graphic shows the Goldman Sachs' forecast, back to the 1983-2004 average. It also shows the sheer scale of the iron ore price boom.
Will iron ore prices go back to the long term average price? Probably not, although it may be a lot lower than the peak.
This is my forecast for what it's worth. The big three are ramping up production. That will, as GS suggests, drive many of the midsize producers out of the market. As prices stabilise, the big producers will stabilise production. They will then reduce production to around the point at which the rising per unit costs flowing from reduced volume equals the rise in price. Beyond that point, profits fall.
Of course, it won't be as exact as that. If prices really skyrocket, they will expand production to damp price increases and to stop others entering the market place.If they get it really wrong, we will have another boom. .
Thursday, April 16, 2015
This is a photo of Belshaw asleep on the job. It's taken a long time ago. I still have hair! It's taken during a break on one of the digs at the Seelands rock shelter near the Clarence River.
Trying to get back on track with my history of New England, I have focused over the last two weeks on the first chapter in the Aboriginal section, Prehistoric New England. This focuses primarily on the archaeological material. The next chapter, New England on the Dawn of Invasion, focuses on the ethnohistorical material backed by the archaeological analysis. I am probably quite close to being an expert now. Certainly I have enough material to tell a coherent story that you won’t have heard before. But I am also sad.
Go back to the explosion of interest in Aboriginal history and culture during the 1960s. It was an exciting time. Then, somehow, things seemed to collapse. I actually have to research and write this properly, for it’s part of my story. But let me give it to you as it seems now, raw, unvarnished and unbalanced.
Start with Aboriginal languages. In 1967, there were still original speakers of many New England languages, many old. A conference held at the height of the enthusiasm concluded that we must record this material before it is too late. Then nothing happened. By the time interest resurfaced, much had been lost.
Now go to archaeology. The last synthesis of New England prehistory was published in, I think, 1974. Today outside digs and survey missions associated with development proposals, there appear to be fewer people working on the archaeology of Northern New South Wales, or indeed Australia in general, than there were in the 1960s or early 1970s.
What went wrong? I think, I stand to be corrected, that the whole area got hijacked. In the 1970s, the fashion became black-white contact history. You simply couldn’t get money nor was their interest in documenting Aboriginal languages as compared to other topics.
In archaeology, the focus was dominated by Aboriginal self-determination and heritage protection. It became harder and harder to undertake archaeological work. So from the viewpoint of archaeologists and their students, why bother when it was just so much easier (and rewarding) to dig in Greece or Egypt? At the same time in Northern NSW, the sea change urban phenomenon was happening, wiping sites out. Yes. there was increased protection, but it was too lagged and too late.
The losers in all this? The Aboriginal people. Yes, it’s partly their own fault. Their obsession with self-determination and with the preservation of uncertain perceived cultural values blocked work that would have given them the story of their past that they really wanted. But it still makes me sad.
I know that Aboriginal people want to know about their past, I can tell them part of the story. But sadly, both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities have blown the chance to extend the story in the way that seemed possible in the 1960s and 1970s.
Switching from the glass half empty to that half full. Sitting here in the early morning hours looking at carbon dates against a backdrop of climatic change including huge shifts in sea levels, I can see a pattern that explains variances in dates. There is still enough to write a synthesis for further test.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
The central premise behind creating shared value is that the competitiveness of a company and the health of the communities around it are mutually dependent. Recognizing and capitalizing on these connections between societal and economic progress has the power to unleash the next wave of global growth and to redefine capitalism.That's a big claim. I mention is now because Mark Kramer has been in Australia as guest speaker at a conference arguing that:
The Australian government should outsource social services to the private sector by providing tax breaks to corporations behind business ideas that help the vulnerable, leading US business scholar Mark Kramer has said.
The co-founder and managing director of US-based social impact advisory firm FSG said the government played a key role in galvanising companies to come up with services that would be both lucrative for the provider, and beneficial to the disadvantaged and neglected sectors of society – a concept he labelled "shared value".
On the surface, the idea that Governments should provide tax breaks to galvanise the private sector to come up with innovative solutions has little to do with the original concept of creating shared values. That focused on business doing things because, in the end, business would benefit, a very different concept from providing tax subsidies to unleash business creativity to solve social problems.
I mention this now in part because I am interested in the evolution of ideas about the role of business in society and the way this translates to rules and structures, more because it links to a very current trend, the search for "innovative solutions" in meeting social needs at a time when government action is increasingly constrained by the combination of cash constraints changing views about the role of government.
I call it the search for a magic bullet, and it doesn't work. This doesn't mean that I am necessarily opposed to the concepts of either corporate social responsibility or the creation of shared vales. It's just that I find current discussions very confused. Certainly they confuse me!.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
A week earlier, at the end of March, the Australian Government's tax white paper was released. It's being called a white paper in reporting, but it's more accurately a tax discussion paper. The introduction states:
The Government is committed to ensuring that everyone is paying their fair share of tax. This year, we are continuing to work with the G20 on the modernisation of international tax rules to address tax avoidance by multinational companies.
But that is just the start. We want to have an open and constructive conversation with the community on how we can create a better tax system that delivers taxes that are lower, simpler, fairer (italics in original).
To deliver lasting, workable reforms, the community needs to be on board and engaged in the conversation. That’s why the Government is committing to a comprehensive and inclusive process. Releasing this tax discussion paper marks the start of what we hope will be a broad conversation about the current tax system and the issues confronting it. All are encouraged to take part. This conversation will support the development of a tax system to build jobs, growth and opportunity — a better tax system to deliver taxes that are lower, simpler, fairer.
Down in Canberra on Wednesday 8 April, Thursday 9 April a Senate Committee held hearings on the matter.The links will carry you through to the Hansard transcripts for the two days. They make quite interesting reading.
Staying in Canberra, the Productivity Commission is inquiring (among other things) into workplace relations. Meantime, preparation continues on the Reform of the Federation White paper.
You can see that there are a lot of inquiries and studies under way. I have only listed a few! They take place against a background of apparently deteriorating Australian economic conditions; the headlines here are the decline in Chinese growth and the collapse in the iron ore price.
Meantime, over at his place, Winton Bates has continued his discussion on the problems and prescriptions as he sees them (most recently, Should young Australians be more concerned about their futures?, What tax and spending reforms might be feasible in Australia?) I notice that Winton doesn't get a lot of comments. That's a pity. His topics can be dry, his responses written from a particular and consistent perspective, but his posts are thoughtful and represent a significant contribution to debate.
Take Does the McClure report provide a basis for sensible welfare reform? This provides a succinct explanation of the New Zealand investment approach. I think that one of the challenges faced by Winton (or me for that matter) is to set our analysis in a context that will explain significance to a time limited non-technical reader. The McClure report with its use of the New Zealand model is an example.
At one level, you can look back and set the New Zealand investment model in a context set by previous New Zealand thinking. Does this matter? Why should New Zealand thinking be relevant? Well, New Zealand thinking has actually had a profound effect on Australian policy thinking.
Two weeks ago, I was at a meeting. Listening to the discussion, I suddenly said that if we are going to apply the New Zealand model, we needed to be clear on its implications. Nobody had mentioned New Zealand, but most people knew what I meant.
This is the second level. Forget the headline stuff. That sets a context. We are, in fact, making key decisions now that will set the next part of Australia's public policy future. Those decisions are being set in a variety of discussions taking place at State and Federal level on the system architecture of future policy positions.
This is dry stuff, but it's also important.
When I look at the constant chatter that marks public political and policy debate with its now focus, most misses the point. From a long term perspective, it doesn't matter if the iron ore price falls to $US35. So what? We still have the iron ore. Firms that go broke will end up by writing off their debt. With that adjustment in place, with financing costs removed or at least reduced, economic mines will reopen, production will expand to meet the future increase in demand
What really matters are all the smaller longer term decisions we are making now, and those decisions are set withing a mental frame holding in multiple small meeting rooms around the country. It is that frame that we need to understand.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
I knew that I had written something before, so searched around to find the posts. The Tiwi Island references date back to 2007 and were more fragmentary than I had expected.
One of the posts I found dated to 23 June 2007, Mr Howard, Mr Brough and Australia's Aborigines - 1. Is it really almost eight years since the intervention?
I felt a little sad reading the post, partly for personal, partly for professional, reasons.
At a personal level, I remember just where I was when I wrote. Other posts of the time contain references to the daily round of domestic duties as the primary child carer - Clare's hockey, cooking meals for the girls, the school runs etc.I miss it now.
At a professional level, so little has changed since the intervention. There have been advances, but we seem stuck in an endless loop destined to constantly repeat. I am not talking just about the problems in Aboriginal communities, but about the way that discussion within the Aboriginal community and beyond constantly circles.
I found that first Brough post to be good. It took a very long time to write because I was constantly checking sources, trying to provide the chronology of events. I think that the later posts were good too.
In checking the post, I found that formatting errors had crept in. Later when Google changed its system, a side quirk was the transformation of large slabs of text into red. I use red in quotes, but somehow the red then carried on into the text following the post, creating a big editorial correction problem.
I called the post up and started editing, checking the links as I did so.
In a recent comment, Winton commented about the problem of broken links in older posts. I agreed, suggesting that the problem was worst in the Government sector because of constant changes. Now in checking the links in the post I found that every Government link was dead.
There is enough detail in the post to follow the story without checking the sources. I left the links in the post with a footnote apology so that people would understand that it was based on research. However, you have to take my word without being able to check the original source material.
Having now revisited, I think it time to check all the posts in the series and provide a central entry point. The posts are not perfect, but they do provide a useful record.
Thursday, April 02, 2015
Wednesday, April 01, 2015
In this case, I have no idea what was legal or illegal, what was un-ethical as compared to illegal. In grandstanding in the way they did at the start of the case, the politicians and ASADA blurred the line between legal and illegal and between ethics, regulation and public policy. It was a failure in due process.
This was not the first such case we have seen, nor will it be the last. It's just another example of the public policy and personal mess created by created by current approaches.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
You get a good feel for this from Professor Doug Munro's well written review of Hugh Gault's 2011 biography of Fay, The Quirky Dr Fay: A Remarkable Life. The photo of Fay comes from the much later period when he was invited to give a series of lectures by the Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Munro's review begins:
Old historians, like old soldiers, don’t die; they simply fade away. A paradox of the historical profession is the widespread disregard shown towards ancestors. We all aspire to write groundbreaking work that will pass the test of time, but the sad truth is a given monograph will have a short shelf life and quickly join what G. M. Trevelyan called ‘the great unread’
History is really, ironically, the least grateful of disciplines … it’s difficult for a historian to be remembered for his history. Historians tend to after 20 or 30 years, after a book is published, to throw it on the proverbial dust bin. And we don’t read our old historians like those in literature read their old greats. I mean in the field of history, we’re far more embarrassed by our past than we should be. You know, we don’t look back to our Melvilles or to our Emersons like those in literature do. And so really ironically, history is one of the least historical of the humanities in that respect.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Good conversation this forum. In passing, kvd referred to a site that I had actually forgotten, Leann Richards' History of Australian Theatre. He was particularly struck by the story of Minnie Everett.I can see why. .