Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Economics

    Home Economics Page 2

    AI Dystopia

    By
    Damon Hayhow
    -
    0

    Many voices are warning about the impending dangers of artificial intelligence (AI). They fear everything from mass unemployment to societal collapse, the destruction of humanity by ‘the singularity’, the malicious, sentient AI boogieman (boogie-robot?) from so many science fiction novels and films. 

    It only takes a brief play with publicly available AI tools, such as Chat GPT, to understand the fear and excitement. It is shockingly impressive. In many ways interacting with LLM (Large Language Model) based AI feels like interacting with a person; an impressively articulate person with astonishing knowledge. It truly can seem sentient.

    But this AI is actually far more artificial than intelligent. In many ways, the LLM based AI’s seem to have been designed specifically to pass the Turing Test: to fool users into believing they are interacting with a real person.

    What little liberty we have left in western so-called ‘democracies’ is being taken from us by corrupt, incompetent and seemingly deranged bureaucracies.

    The LLM-based AI tools can be likened to a person with a photographic memory reading an entire library of books in a language that they cannot speak. When presented with a question, they can write a seemingly intelligent reply, despite having no comprehension of either the question or answer. Their answer is constructed by recognising the patterns of letters and words in the question and matching them to related patterns that they recall from the books. The reply is not reasoned or abstracted; it is not even understood. It is simply plagiarised from the combined mass of documents available. 

    Because of the way this AI works, replies tend to reflect the most commonly repeated consensus viewpoint, not necessarily the cogent or correct viewpoint. Also, as people use AI to generate more and more content, that content becomes the learning data that AI uses to generate future content, in a perpetually self-reinforcing loop. Isn’t there a saying about telling a lie often enough? 

    Obviously, not all AI solutions are LLM based. But the foundations of current AI technologies are broadly related. The most important point is that the technologies that we are currently calling AI are not progressing toward a sentient consciousness. What is being called ‘AI’ is still an application of mathematical algorithms to data. The AI ‘revolution’ has more to do with the ever increasing pool of data available, and the speed at which it can be processed, than a fundamental change to the process of computing. 

    Understanding conceptually how AI does its thing is vital to understanding the real threat of AI. An omniscient computer is not going to consciously decide to destroy all of us. We can all rest easy knowing that any decision to drop nuclear bombs, poison the water, cut off the food supply, switch off the power grid, or engage in any other method of genocide will continue to be the conscious decision of humans in governments.

    Many voices are warning about the impending dangers of artificial intelligence (AI).

    Nonetheless, there is evidence that we are headed toward an AI-driven dystopia that could be every bit as miserable and tyrannical as science fiction.

    WEF founder, Klaus Schwab, describes a future of “fusing the physical, digital and biological worlds”. He is so fanatically obsessed with AI technology that he genuinely believes he will live forever in a robot body after digitising his consciousness (ie downloading his brain). Meanwhile, his lead advisor, Yuval Harari, is on record lamenting what ‘they’ will do with all the “useless people” that AI renders “worthless”?

    Listening to Schwab and Harari is disturbing. But world leaders and CEOs of the world’s largest corporations seem to take them seriously. DEI, ESG, CBDCs, carbon taxes, online censorship laws, hate-speech laws, forced vaccinations, WHO treaty, etc all either came from the WEF or are being promoted by it. And, the WEF is the official strategic partner of the UN to assist with the implementation of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for “Sustainable Development”. The WEF has clout.

    Join Mailing List

    Western Governments, including Australia’s, are onboard with all of the WEF’s tyrannical plans. They have passed (or are passing) laws to censor our speech, detain us without charge, block or steal our bank accounts, revoke our professional licenses, “reeducate” us, prevent us travelling, lock us in our homes and force-medicate us. They are increasingly spying on us, 24/7, to police our every action and thought. And they are currently building and applying AI tools to analyse all of that collected data to automatically find anything that could be considered “dangerous” behaviour or thought to apply those laws.

    What little liberty we have left in western so-called ‘democracies’ is being taken from us by corrupt, incompetent and seemingly deranged bureaucracies and ostensibly put in the virtual hands of a technology that is, in fact, unintelligent, inherently prone to error, and easily manipulated. A sentient computer might have been better. At least Skynet would realise the politicians are the problem.

    Broken Systems and the Deteriorating Psyche of Our Nation.

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    2

    Australia is on life support – politicians “and” the people are both to blame.

    Few people could deny that Australia is not well.

    The cost of living is unacceptably high. Home ownership is a long-lost dream. Our mental health is deteriorating rapidly. We are at war with one another over almost every issue. Polite debate has disappeared from our public discourse, and in many cases, from our personal interactions. 

    Who is to blame? Because, hey, we must have someone or something to blame. It simply cannot be our own fault! 

    Mostly we blame the politicians, but we also hear a lot of talk about how broken the system is, as if the system itself is responsible. 

    Systems don’t break themselves, just as they don’t build themselves. They are created from human endeavour, and they collapse from the impact of human force and negligence. 

    The tragedy is that we do not lack examples on how to avoid disaster. 

    Our political systems and institutions are only as good or bad as the people who construct and manage them. While it is easy to blame the politicians – those who we elect – for the decimation of the framework that was designed to serve us all well, blame must also land on we the people for not paying more attention to how it works, and the calibre of those we send to serve us. 

    Most people look to Great Britain for the roots of our Westminster system, but in fact the Western world inherited the core principles of our representative democracy from the ancient Romans. Not only were they brilliant builders and engineers, but they created a political system that would endure for two thousand years. 

    It was comprised of three levels of government – Consuls, Senate, and the People. The Ancient Greek historian, Polybius, described it as the best form of Constitution due to its interdependence and reliance on all three elements. 

    “For whenever some common external threat compels the three to unite and work together, the strength which the state then develops becomes quite extraordinary.” 

    What a rousing endorsement this is! 

    While it served Rome well enough during its rise and dominance of the then known world, it deteriorated steadily from the second century BC through lack of preservation, and eventually was replaced by an Empire. Polybius cites its demise as owing to the cycle of political revolution:

    “…the law of nature according to which constitutions change, are transformed, and finally revert to their original form.”

    Our political systems and institutions are only as good or bad as the people who construct and manage them. 

    Cicero, however, places its downfall squarely on the shoulders of men.

    “Thus, before our own time, the customs of our ancestors produced excellent men, and eminent men preserved our ancient customs and the institutions of their forefathers. But though the republic, when it came to us, was like a beautiful painting, whose colours, however, were already fading with age, our own time not only has neglected to freshen it by renewing the original colours, but has not even taken the trouble to preserve its configuration and, so to speak its general outlines. 

    For the loss of our customs is due to our lack of men, and for this great evil we must not only give an account, but must even defend ourselves in every way possible, as if we were accused of capital crime.  For it is through our own faults, not by any accident, that we retain only the form of the commonwealth, but have long since lost its substance…”

    Mankind envisions, and they destroy. And most often the destruction occurs dramatically fast. Cue what we are witnessing now in our own time. 

    It remains debatable as to whether it is intentional or a result of sheer incompetence. I argue it is a lethal combination of both. 

    The tragedy is that we do not lack examples on how to avoid disaster. The Roman historian, Livy, said it best:

    “The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; and in that record you can find for yourself and your country both examples and warnings; fine things to take as models, base things, rotten through and through, to avoid.”

    Join Mailing List

    Democracy is a cautionary tale. I’ve presented here examples from the past by some of the finest historical minds, gifted to us in the hope we may learn from their mistakes and misfortunes. 

    Alas, the cycle continues. We rise, and we fall. I ponder if there will ever rise a generation who can put a spoke in the wheel of this endless ignorance. Of course, that would require a fundamental shift in the willingness to heed lessons from the past and apply only those new principles where they are truly needed.

    The Tax Power

    By
    Adam Craig
    -
    0

    The Commissioner of Taxation has too much power. 

    Libertarians consider tax to be either theft or, at best, should be low and flat to cover bare necessities. It certainly shouldn’t be as complex as it is or run to thousands of pages. 

    Most mainstream tax reform proponents have grandiose visions that would only add complexity and likely raise the overall tax burden. Libertarians rightly oppose those ideas as they come. 

    However, there is an easy win that ought to be important to libertarians: we need to limit the Commissioner of Taxation’s powers. It’s not exciting work, like developing new systems, but it is significant. 

    First, the Commissioner has too much power to amend assessments. 

    Australia has a self-assessment tax system. That means we declare income and allowable deductions, which the Commissioner accepts but can then amend if he considers the taxpayer was wrong. 

    Libertarians can demand fairer amendment periods, a fairer burden of proof, and less funding for the Commissioner. 

    For individuals the Commissioner can amend an assessment within two years. For businesses, it is usually four years. 

    However, the relevant section of the law for income tax – leaving aside equivalent sections for other taxes – is around 3000 words– because it contains “ifs” and “buts” to protect the Commissioner. 

    For example, if the Commissioner makes a tax avoidance determination, he can have four years instead of two years to change an assessment. If the Commissioner believes there has been fraud or evasion, he has an unlimited amendment period. If the Commissioner believes a particular section of the tax law relating to trusts applies, he again has an unlimited amendment period.  

    These powers predate most of this century’s technological advances, which enable the Commissioner to work more efficiently and collect more data. Also, many amendments to the tax law in recent years have made it easier for the Commissioner to apply the law, including changes to avoidance laws favouring the Commissioner.

    It must be a libertarian position to reduce amendment periods. 

    Second, the Commissioner does not need to prove anything in litigation. The starkest example of this rule operating unjustly is when the Commissioner has amended a taxpayer’s assessment because he believes fraud or evasion has occurred. 

    The Commissioner need only believe there has been fraud or evasion. 

    He can form this opinion about any year – 2003, for example. And if he goes back to 2003, he will likely repeat that for many subsequent years, and he will apply penalties and interest. 

    Most mainstream tax reform proponents have grandiose visions that would only add complexity

    Suppose the matter is in the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Federal Court of Australia. The Commissioner will not need to prove the truth of his opinion. Also, it doesn’t matter if the taxpayer proves the Commissioner’s opinion was wrong. The taxpayer’s task, two decades later, is to show that its accounting was correct. Not surprisingly, most people do not have records that go back that far. 

    It must be a libertarian position to oppose the power to simply deem fraud, and to demand a time limit on the exercise of the fraud or evasion power. The Commissioner should have an obligation to prove fraud or evasion has occurred before the taxpayer must prove its accounts. 

    Third, the Commissioner is emboldened to use his amendment powers through funding. The Commissioner receives substantial funding to run the Australian Taxation Office. 

    Libertarians would rightly want that funding limited. 

    However, there is also a perpetual cycle of giving the Commissioner additional funding to use his amendment powers, particularly under the auspices of tax avoidance.   

    Join Mailing List

    Libertarians would want that funding limited because it encourages the Commissioner to use his firmest amendment powers. It also raises questions about the management of public finances – should the Commissioner be “rewarded” with additional funding for things he should already be doing? 

    Libertarians can demand fairer amendment periods, a fairer burden of proof, and less funding for the Commissioner. 

    It would be hard to think that most taxpayers would not be libertarians regarding these issues.

    The Federal Government Should Deliver a Decade of Surpluses

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    1

    A government’s balance sheet indicates whether it is engaging in intergenerational redistribution. If the government has negative net assets it is leaving future generations with more obligations than benefits. A government with positive net assets is leaving future generations with more benefits than obligations.

    Governments have no advantages over individuals in making decisions about what to leave to future generations, so should leave those decisions to individuals. This means that governments should have zero net assets; their balance sheets should be balanced.

    Governments in Australia do not have balanced balance sheets. The Commonwealth has a significantly negative net asset position and each of the states and territories has a significantly positive net asset position.

    When it comes to setting fiscal policy, governments should ignore short-term Keynesian distractions, and focus on long-term intergenerational neutrality.

    This is shown in Chart 1. It depicts public sector net asset positions relative to the size of the related economies. Commonwealth net assets are shown relative to Australia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while each state or territory’s net assets are shown relative to the relevant state or territory’s Gross State Product (GSP). Each jurisdiction’s public sector includes government-owned businesses such as government-owned banks.

    The Commonwealth’s negative net asset position means that it is choosing to leave future generations with obligations in excess of benefits. In essence, the Commonwealth Government has locked in benefits for future generations, like security from the military assets it has accumulated to date, but has racked up far greater obligations, like obligations to pay back Commonwealth debts and fund the superannuation of retired Commonwealth public servants. 

    This decision of the Commonwealth Government to beggar the future is unlikely to represent the preference of Australians.

    The Commonwealth Government’s intergenerational redistribution should stop, so as to leave intergenerational decisions to individuals. In other words, the Commonwealth Government should convert its negative net asset position to a zero net asset position.  This should be done through a decade of surplus budgets (or surplus ‘operating results’ to be more precise) of around 2 per cent of GDP. 

    This could be readily achieved, for example by reducing Commonwealth Government transfers to the state and territory governments. These transfers are particularly odd given that each state and territory government is wealthier than the Commonwealth Government.

    Each state and territory government’s positive net asset position means that it is choosing to leave future generations with benefits in excess of obligations. It is teeing up more benefits for future generations, like their enjoyment of public land holdings and use of infrastructure like roads, than it is racking up future obligations, like State Government debts and funding the superannuation of retired State public servants.

    While leaving future generations with benefits in excess of obligations sounds nice, this is something that individuals are perfectly capable of doing without government.  

    Governments have no advantages over individuals in making decisions about what to leave to future generations

    And the current generation may well be of the view that the degree of generosity to future generations shown by each of the state and territory governments is excessive. If there is a difference of opinion between a government and the individuals it represents, then it is the government that is wrong. 

    State and territory government intergenerational redistribution should be put to a stop by each government reducing its positive net asset position to net zero. This should be done through a decade of deficit budgets (or deficit ‘operating results’ to be more precise) of around 4 per cent of GDP on average.

    Such deficits could be achieved by abolishing inefficient taxes like stamp duties, or by giving away assets. (Such give-aways count as losses that detract from the operating result.)

    The biggest deficits should come from the wealthiest state governments, in Queensland and Victoria.

    The wealth of the Victorian state government may come as a surprise. The Victorian state government has a stronger net asset position and a weaker net financial asset position than many of its counterparts (see Chart 2). It has done a lot of borrowing, which has weakened its net financial asset position, but it has done this to invest in non-financial assets.  Overall this generates a positive, or at least neutral, impact on net assets.

    Unfortunately for the Victorian state government, credit rating agencies tend to ignore a government’s net assets and instead focus on its net financial assets. Even more stupidly, lenders take these credit ratings into account when lending to governments. If a state or territory government wanted to defend its credit rating so as to ensure continued access to low-cost borrowing, it could still run significant deficits in line with my recommendation. It would just need to achieve these deficits by giving away non-financial assets, like land, so as to leave its net financial asset position unchanged.

    Join Mailing List

    When it comes to setting fiscal policy, governments should ignore short-term Keynesian distractions, and focus on long-term intergenerational neutrality.

    The Global Online Safety Regulators Network: A Global Surveillance State?

    By
    Jaimie Stevenson
    -
    1

    The journalist Michael Schellenberger recently discovered that there is a formal government censorship network called the “Global Online Safety Regulators Network” (GORSN).  Australia’s top Internet censor, Julie Inman Grant, an American, described it at the World Economic Forum. The group includes censors from Australia, France, Ireland, South Africa, Korea, the UK, and Fiji. 

    This is a concerning development for anyone who values freedom of speech and privacy. The initiative aims to create a global coalition of regulators to combat harmful online content. However, in reality it is a veiled attempt at global censorship of the internet, aimed at circumventing the protections provided by Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

    At its core, GORSN seeks to coordinate censorship efforts across international borders. Libertarians and advocates of free expression have long warned against concentrated government control, arguing that it almost inevitably leads to abuse and suppression of dissenting voices.

    The network’s capacity to enforce censorship and surveillance across borders is a direct threat to individual freedoms and the right to privacy.

    Grant outlined the significant powers that regulators within the GORSN have at their disposal. She said that GORSN members can block internet service providers (ISPs), compel content takedowns, fine individuals or platforms that host offensive content, and impose other punitive measures as deterrents. Additionally, Grant discussed a new legislative framework that allows regulators to enforce basic online safety expectations. This framework’s scope suggests that GORSN aims to exercise substantial control over the internet, raising concerns about censorship, regulatory overreach, and the broader impact on freedom of expression and privacy.

    Another alarming aspect of GORSN is its potential to invade privacy on a global scale. Grant’s remark that the network had the power to compel “basic device information and account information” are a stark warning that the network could enable mass surveillance. For libertarians, privacy is a very high priority and the notion that regulators could gather personal data without appropriate oversight is a worrying development. Broad powers to compel information from tech platforms suggests that GORSN could become a mechanism for government surveillance on an international level.

    Grant’s mention of social media companies increasingly collecting phone numbers and email addresses raises the spectre of a surveillance state, where governments can easily track individuals and monitor their online activities. This level of intrusion into personal privacy should be of concern to anyone who believes in the right to remain anonymous and free from unwarranted government scrutiny.

    GORSN’s push for global identity requirements and restrictions on VPNs is a direct assault on digital autonomy. VPNs are essential tools for maintaining privacy and accessing information freely, especially in countries with oppressive internet regulations. Any move to limit their use would further erode individual freedoms and strengthen authoritarian regimes.

    The centralised control proposed by GORSN threatens to undermine the fundamental principle of a decentralised internet where individuals can maintain their anonymity and exercise their rights without fear of government intrusion, leading to an internet that is more tightly monitored and regulated by governments with varying degrees of respect for freedom and democracy.

    GORSN seeks to coordinate censorship efforts across international borders

    The sheer scope of GORSN’s power, including the ability to fine content hosts, compel takedowns, and block ISPs, is a classic case of regulatory overreach. When governments are given this level of authority, the risk of abuse is high. Such power can be used to suppress dissent, stifle criticism, and enforce a particular worldview, all under the guise of “online safety.”

    From a libertarian perspective, the existence of GORSN is a troubling development that undermines the ideals of a decentralised internet. The network’s capacity to enforce censorship and surveillance across borders is a direct threat to individual freedoms and the right to privacy. Instead of a collaborative effort to address harmful content, GORSN represents a centralised approach that risks creating a global surveillance state.

    The Global Online Safety Regulators Network is a danger to internet freedom. Its focus on centralised control, coupled with its broad powers, sets a dangerous precedent for governments seeking to extend their reach into the digital world. As the network gains momentum, it is crucial that libertarians and other advocates of free speech push back against this overreach and defend the principles of a decentralised internet.

    Join Mailing List

    Platforms like X and Rumble have taken public stances opposing intrusive government requests for content takedowns and data collection. Chris Pavlovski, the founder of Rumble, highlighted this issue in a recent post on X, stating, “Rumble has received censorship demands from Australia, New Zealand, and other countries that infringe on everyone’s human rights. We are noticing a dramatic increase in global censorship unlike we’ve ever seen before.” Elon Musk, the owner of X, endorsed this sentiment, indicating a shared concern among tech leaders.

    But it takes more than a couple of tech leaders to fight censorship. To push back against government intrusion and censorship there are several measures that individuals can undertake. Support platforms that actively resist censorship and champion free speech, use VPNs to preserve online privacy and bypass censorship. Importantly, connect through servers in countries that are not part of the GORSN. This can help avoid unwanted surveillance and ensure a greater degree of anonymity while online.

    Pro-Natalist Policies – The Jury is Out

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    2

    “By 2050, over three-quarters (155 of 204) of countries will not have high enough fertility rates to sustain population size over time; this will increase to 97% of countries (198 of 204) by 2100.”

    Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021, Lancet.

    Fertility rates around the world are falling off a cliff. From 1950 to 2021, total fertility rate (TFR) more than halved from 4.84 to 2.23 globally. By 2021, over half of all countries and territories were below replacement level of two births per woman. 

    Prolonged fertility rates of 1.3 children per woman reduce a country’s population by half in less than 45 years. Many European countries have already reached this point. Australia’s current fertility rate is 1.63 births per woman. 

    The world is experiencing a real baby bust. 

    Robust fertility rates are essential for economic prosperity and societal stability. They ensure a continuous influx of a younger workforce, fostering economic growth through increased productivity and innovation. Moreover, higher fertility rates stabilise social systems by providing intergenerational support for older demographics. Additionally, growing populations drive consumer demand, promoting market expansion and providing business opportunities crucial for sustained economic development. 

    Economic downturns, including a lack of affordable housing, also often prompt couples to delay having children, at least temporarily.

    From a libertarian standpoint, robust fertility rates underscore individual freedom, allowing people to make autonomous decisions about family size without undue interference. Furthermore, they contribute to economic self-sufficiency, reducing reliance on government welfare programs and fostering a culture of personal responsibility. Sustainable population growth also maintains market dynamics, encouraging competition, innovation, and entrepreneurship organically, without the need for artificial population control measures.

    Governments know that a population in decline is a bad thing. In a bid to increase fertility rates, numerous countries have implemented pro-natalist policies. According to the United Nations, 10% of countries had such policies in 1976, 15% in 2001 and 28% in 2015 (being their most recent data). However, assessing the results of these is quite challenging. 

    Governments often fail to reevaluate their policies, including those designed to increase birth rates. This phenomenon was described by Milton Friedman: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” 

    Governments are spending big, but have not stopped to study the results of their pro-natalist policies. From the available evidence, it appears clear that pro-natalist policies result in small and transient effects on total fertility rates.

    The USSR pioneered the implementation of pro-natalist policies. Following the fall of the union, some countries in Central and Eastern Europe continued pro-natalist benefits in spite of severe economic conditions and budgetary pressures. 

    Two examples from 2005 – in Czechia, spending per child equalled 60.8% of GDP per capita, and 51.3% in Slovakia. These are twice the average of OECD high income countries, which was 26.8%. The birth rate increase in both countries was modest: Czechia’s birth rate in 2005 was 1.29; by 2010 it was 1.51 and by 2021 it was 1.83, still not at replacement level. Slovakia’s birthrate in 2005 was 1.25. By 2010, it was 1.34 and in 2023 it was 1.55.

    By 2021, over half of all countries and territories were below replacement level of two births per woman. 

    From 2007 to 2016, Russia offered mothers who had their second or third child 250,000 roubles (about US$12,000), approximately the average annual income. Evidence suggests that the birth rate for women aged 25-29 increased from 78.4 per 1000 women in 2006 to 99.8 in 2011. However, the annual birth rate change dropped from +2.460% in 2013 to -0.320% in 2014 and has remained negative ever since. In other words, it only had a short term effect. 

    Complex social and economic factors intersect to shape fertility patterns. These are far beyond the purview of government control. High-income countries particularly witness a steep decline in fertility rates, possibly influenced by increased educational opportunities and changing societal expectations. Later marriage, postponed childbearing and an increase in single motherhood all emerge as trends, as a country’s income levels increase. 

    We also see factors such as higher levels of education empowering women, and evolving cultural norms around marriage and career aspirations. This is particularly noticeable in the United States, which has decreased fertility rates among second-generation immigrants. 

    Economic downturns, including a lack of affordable housing, also often prompt couples to delay having children, at least temporarily. This has been seen in the United States, where fertility rates have been declining since 2008. 

    Join Mailing List

    From a libertarian perspective, declining fertility rates are of concern. However, the question is whether governments should continue to spend money on costly pro-natalist policies. For example, is spending billions on childcare and paid parental leave preferable to allowing single income families to split their income for taxation purposes? Not likely. 

    The government should concern itself with removing obstacles. By prioritising individual freedom and self-reliance, individuals would be encouraged and empowered to make their own decisions regarding their own family size, without government intrusion.

    By promoting a culture of autonomy and self-reliance, libertarian solutions would address declining fertility rates while respecting individual liberties and preserving economic vitality.

    Free Markets Work Better for Energy

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    0

    Energy is again front and centre in the news with the debate over the merits of nuclear energy becoming mainstream. But then last week the Prime Minister announced a new scheme to subsidise the manufacture of solar panels in Australia. One wonders whether this is to support industry or just to close down a debating point against solar – that only 1% of the hardware used in Australia is manufactured locally. 

    The push by governments worldwide to subsidise solar energy, under the banner of sustainable development and carbon neutrality, seems forlorn.  

    The truth is that free markets are more effective at capital allocation and problem solving than governments (assuming you accept there is a problem that needs solving). Free markets operate on profit incentives, driving businesses and individuals to invest resources where they are most efficiently used and valued, leading to innovation and optimal distribution of goods and services.

    The DeGrussa solar and battery project in Western Australia epitomises the sheer lack of commercial savvy possessed by government.

    Australia’s existing solar energy subsidies are an obvious illustration of the misaligned priorities and inefficiencies that can arise from government intervention. The Albanese government’s commitment to injecting $1 billion into domestic solar panel manufacturing, including in coal-rich areas like the Hunter Valley, is a classic example of the triumph of hope over experience.  

    Australia’s history is littered with government involvement in business sectors that wasted tax payer money through inefficiencies.   The proof of free market superiority was demonstrated when entities like the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was privatised (under Paul Keating), as was Telstra (under John Howard), and Qantas Airways (under Bob Hawke). Each became far more efficient and successful post-privatisation. 

    A particularly significant example is the case of Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, privatised under Paul Keating. Originally government-owned, CSL was started in 1916 to “serve the health needs of a country isolated by war”.  Fair enough perhaps.  

    The push by governments worldwide to subsidise solar energy, under the banner of sustainable development and carbon neutrality, seems forlorn. 

    CSL was privatised in 1994 and has since been transformed into a global biotechnology powerhouse. Post-privatisation, CSL significantly increased its operational efficiency, innovation capacity, and market reach, becoming a leading provider of vaccines and plasma products worldwide. CSL’s journey from a national vaccine manufacturer to a global biotech leader underscores the difference between how governments lose and free markets win.

    Albanese ought to learn lessons from Keating and Hawke on the superiority of private capital at solving public problems (banking, telecoms and aviation). Is energy so different?  And what does the Albanese government think it is going to achieve anyway with this $1bn investment?  How will Australian ventures compete with global giants, especially Chinese manufacturers which benefit from (ironically) cheaper electricity, lower labour costs, and economies of scale?

    The DeGrussa solar and battery project in Western Australia epitomises the sheer lack of commercial savvy possessed by government.   Funded in part (and thus enabled) by federal taxpayers, it is now being dismantled after just seven years, highlighting the precarious financial underpinnings of these subsidised solar ventures. This project, once a beacon for renewable energy in remote mining operations, became a financial quagmire, with the cost per tonne of avoided greenhouse gas exceeding market rates for carbon credits.  

    Join Mailing List

    The DeGrussa project serves as a cautionary tale.  There is a broader trend of hasty government interventions in the solar energy sector, driven by politics motives rather than economics. 

    While the drive towards renewable energy may be commendable (let’s buy into that for the sake of argument), the path to achieving it must be paved with prudent financial decisions and strategic planning – best executed by the free market. 

    The Rule of Law is Being Ignored by Conservatives

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    3

    The High Court recently ruled that:

    – if immigration detention is not a practical step towards a person being removed from the country, the detention amounts to punishment, and

    – governments can only mete out punishment if they are sentencing someone for a crime.

    This ruling led to the release of around 140 people who were in immigration detention but not on a path to removal from the country.

    Both the ruling and the release were positive developments.

    The people in question could not be lawfully removed from Australia because Australian law: 

    – requires another country to take them, and there was no country willing to do so,

    – deems them to be subject to persecution overseas and hence deserving of protection here, or

    – deems them to be physically or mentally unfit for removal.

    These laws are decent and should remain. 

    Some of the people in question have committed no crime. There is no justification for indefinitely detaining people like this, just as there is no justification for detaining citizens who are non-criminals.

    The hysteria surrounding immigration detention is part of a long line of unfounded crime wave fears stoked by conservative politicians. 

    Some of the people in question have committed crimes, but all of them have completed the sentences handed down for those crimes. There is no justification for continuing to detain people who have completed their sentences.

    If you are found guilty of a crime, you are sentenced by a court that has all the evidence before it. Years later, a panel or tribunal considering post-sentence punishment will be inherently less informed about your crime than the original court, and may end up punishing you for things you are yet to do and may not do. The injustice of this is exacerbated if post-sentence punishments were not part of the law when you committed the crime.

    In Western civilisation, a certain amount of surveillance and the availability of preliminary offences like conspiracy, aiding-and-abetting, and attempt, are balanced responses to the prospect of future crime. Preventative detention, continuing detention, curfews, and ankle bracelets are not.

    The High Court ruling and the subsequent release of people from detention are in line with the rule of law, decency, justice, and the tradition of Western civilisation.  Despite this, conservative politicians have suggested the ruling and release were bad outcomes.

    Liberal National politicians have suggested that the Labor Government should have maintained its long-standing lie to the courts that the people in question were on a path to removal from the country. 

    These politicians have called for public reporting on the location of people who have been released from immigration detention (without corresponding calls relating to citizens released from prisons). 

    They have also claimed that, under Labor, Australian women are at risk of being assaulted by foreign criminals.

    That said, Labor’s approach has been far from enlightened. Labor argued against, and has since opposed, the High Court ruling.  Labor has also punished and imposed constraints on the people released from detention without doing anything similar to citizens with the same criminal history (or absence thereof).

    Crime more generally

    The hysteria surrounding immigration detention is part of a long line of unfounded crime wave fears stoked by conservative politicians. 

    The High Court ruling and the subsequent release of people from detention are in line with the rule of law, decency, justice, and the tradition of Western civilisation.

    The Liberal National Coalition has recently proposed that those who make social media posts depicting violence, drug offences, or property offences be hit with up to two years’ imprisonment plus a ban from social media. 

    Conservative politicians regularly call for less bail, so that people are locked up despite not being convicted of a crime. They cite re-offending as a reason for more incarceration, when re-offending can just as readily serve as evidence of the failure of incarceration. They also justify calls for more police, based on claims that crime is out of control.

    As it happens, crime rates in Australia are low and falling.

    3.1 per cent of people older than 14 were victims of physical assault in 2008-09. In 2022-23 it was 1.7 per cent. 

    Over the same period, the rate for robbery went from 0.6 per cent to 0.2 per cent.

    3.3 per cent of households were victims of break-ins in 2008-09. In 2022-23 it was 1.8 per cent.

    Over the same period, the rate for malicious property damage went from 11 per cent to 3.7 per cent. 

    Join Mailing List

    Regarding youth crime, in 2008-09 the rate of offending by those aged 10 to 17 was 3,186.8 per 100,000. In 2022-23 it was 1,847.3 per 100,000.

    And with crime by people born overseas, such people make up 30 per cent of the population but only 17 per cent of the prison population. 

    It is incumbent upon those who are liberally-minded to oppose arbitrary detention and punishment, fanciful claims of crime waves, and the conservatives who perpetuate such madness.

    None of your Business

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    1

    Housing affordability is a perennial issue that seems to be spilling over into the political domain in a way that is more divisive and acute than ever. And as usual, the political class is more interested in sounding like they are engaging with the issue than actually addressing it.

    Oddly enough it is the left side of politics that has shown the most interest in the critical supply side of the equation. The Liberals on the other hand appear poised to double down on demand-side solutions by rehashing their ‘super for homes’ policy – as if there wasn’t already enough money flowing into property! Meanwhile everyone else on the right merely points to immigration.  

    There is no question that the heart of this issue is the fact that there is not enough housing being built to keep supply in step with demand – I previously hypothesised that more atomised living arrangements could be at least partly to blame, Bob Day suggested land supply was responsible.

    Politicians never talk about the amount of misallocated capital which has resulted from government intervention.

    There are other problems too – government intervention during Covid brought forward demand and deferred builder collapses, aggravated by inflation of material and labour costs. The affordability of borrowing to buy a house has also tightened – with mortgage repayments rising significantly due to interest rate hikes. 

    There has also been a long history of demand-side grants, subsidies, policies and exemptions that have aimed to increase affordability while also maintaining high prices. That’s before we even talk about how much state and local governments rely on higher house prices, particularly via stamp duty and council rates.  

    But there is something more fundamental at the heart of the property market – the extent to which government intervention directs investment away from more productive investment involving genuine innovation. Australia is anti-business, and Labor’s changes to stage 3 tax cuts indicate the punitive attitude government takes towards higher income earners. 

    Politicians never talk about the amount of misallocated capital which has resulted from government intervention. People respond to incentives – and there is very little incentive to invest in innovation and business, but plenty to invest in property – notwithstanding the current constraints.

    The affordability of borrowing to buy a house has also tightened – with mortgage repayments rising significantly due to interest rate hikes. 

    Would you start a small business and deal with endless red or green tape, the highest nominal minimum wage in the world, the above median corporate tax rate, and spiralling energy costs? 

    Given the government’s policy settings you’d be more likely to buy an investment property, write off the interest payments against your taxable income, and claim a capital gains discount if you decide to flip it or sell up later. Perhaps you’d even build a property portfolio by leveraging equity along the way. 

    You’d benefit from the legislative protection of inflated prices that has resulted from real estate becoming such a large pool of private wealth and key source of state and local government revenue. You’d bank on local council opposition to new development, and large public infrastructure projects tying up resources to halt new housing supply coming to market amidst ever growing demand. 

    Join Mailing List

    Australian property has become such a safe bet that it is now even a well-known vehicle for international money-laundering! 

    Talk of new housing supply, development, upzoning or adjusting the rules around capital gains tax and negative gearing won’t change the fundamentals. Australia is anti-business and anti-innovation. Housing is the only way to get ahead in the lucky country.

    The Everyday Libertarian

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    0

    In today’s politically charged atmosphere, evangelical libertarians often stray into polarising debates around topics like firearms or drug legalisation. Is there a subtler, more effective approach?  

    I suggest the “everyday libertarian mindset”. It involves reframing common complaints and concerns through the lens of smaller government and individual liberty.

    I often hear myself responding to complaints about government by saying “that’s why we need guns”.  When I say this, libertarians “get it”.  But this phrase causes our “normie” friends to switch off.

    Smaller government policies can foster the development of diverse and innovative energy sources, including nuclear power

    How about a more congenial conversational pivot:  “That’s why we need smaller government.”

    Picture this: A friend laments Australia’s low productivity. Instead of delving into a heated debate about employment policies, you respond calmly, “That’s why we need smaller government.” This simple phrase opens the door to a discussion about the role of government in the economy and the importance of prioritising individual liberties over interventionist agendas.

    Here are some instances where the everyday libertarian mindset shines:

    1. Healthcare costs: Rather than blaming the system for rising healthcare costs, discuss how government regulations inflate prices and limit choice in the healthcare market. Advocating for smaller government and increased competition can give individuals greater control over their healthcare decisions and costs. Would there be a shortage of doctors, hospitals, and other services if the government got out of the way? 

    2. Education quality: When concerns arise about education quality, highlight how government monopolies limit choice and innovation in education. By advocating for school choice and decentralising control over education, parents and students can access a wider range of educational opportunities tailored to their needs.

    3. Bureaucratic red tape: Encountering bureaucratic red tape or inefficiency? Emphasise the need for smaller government and streamlined regulations. By reducing the size and scope of government, individuals and businesses can navigate processes more efficiently.

    4. Personal freedoms: Discuss personal freedoms and civil liberties, emphasising the importance of limiting government power to protect individual rights. Smaller government leads to less intrusion into citizens’ lives and greater respect for individual autonomy.

    Rather than blaming the system for rising healthcare costs, discuss how government regulations inflate prices and limit choice in the healthcare market

    5. Publicly funded broadcasters: When discussing the publicly funded government broadcasters, such as the ABC and SBS in Australia, consider the implications of government involvement in media. Point out that taxpayer-funded media outlets compete with the private sector, which do not cost taxpayers anything. By advocating for smaller government and media independence, individuals can support a diverse and free press that serves the interests of the public rather than political agendas. Encourage exploring alternative funding models, such as private sponsorship or subscriber-based models, to ensure journalistic integrity and freedom of expression.

    6. Nuclear energy: Discuss the lifting of the ban on nuclear energy in Australia. Smaller government policies can foster the development of diverse and innovative energy sources, including nuclear power. Advocate for a free-market approach to energy production, where individuals and businesses have the freedom to pursue cleaner and more efficient energy solutions without burdensome government regulations hindering progress.

    Join Mailing List

    I find the phrase “that’s why we need smaller government” easy to apply to almost any situation.  Any mistake a government makes – “that’s why we need smaller government – less for these people to stuff up”.

    By incorporating these instances, we illustrate how the everyday libertarian mindset can be applied to a wide range of issues, promoting smaller government and individual liberty in everyday conversations. It’s about sparking thoughtful discussions and planting seeds of libertarian principles in the minds of others, one conversation at a time.

    123...10Page 2 of 10

    Popular Posts

    My Favorites

    The Libertarian Solution To Offshoring’s Inevitable Dilemma

    Nicholas Samios - 2
    Libertarian principles support free labour markets, highlighting the benefits of voluntary transactions and flexible negotiations for driving economic growth. However, excessive government intervention can...

    The Unknown Libertarian

    Best Ingredients To Have For Cooking

    Racial Friction in New Zealand

    Popular Categories

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv