Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 24

BRICS+ of Gold

By
Meaghan Whyte
-
1

Jim Rickards, an esteemed American investment banker and author with expertise in finance and precious metals, recently brought to light an intriguing prediction regarding the BRICS+ countries:

“I recently revealed that the so-called “BRICS+” countries will announce the creation of a new currency at its annual leaders’ summit conference on August 22–24. This will be the biggest upheaval in international finance since 1971 … the world is unprepared for this geopolitical shock wave. It appears likely that the new BRICS+ currency will be linked to a weight of gold. This plays to the strengths of BRICS+ members Russia and China. These countries are the two largest gold producers in the world, and are ranked sixth and seventh respectively among the 100 nations with gold reserves.”

Understanding BRICS+

BRICS+ is a group of states consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. “BRIC” was coined in 2001 for fast-growing, potentially dominant forces in the global economy by 2050. South Africa’s later inclusion expanded it to BRICS+.

Over 17 years, BRICS+ has endeavoured to become a counterbalance to western hegemony. Its institutions like the New Development Bank (NDB) and Contingent Reserve Arrangement are alternatives to the World Bank and the IMF.

This alliance boasts:

  • Combined economic influence and abundant resources
  • Seven countries in the membership queue, with 13-14 awaiting consideration

Come August, Saudi Arabia’s inclusion will mark:

  • 50% of the global population within BRICS+
  • 30% of global landmass
  • 54% of global GDP
  • Two top oil producers: Russia and Saudi Arabia
  • 15%-20% of global gold reserves.

Moreover, an amalgamation involving the Eurasian Economic Union and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation seems on the horizon.

After their first formal meeting in 2009, BRICS+ asserted the necessity for “a stable, predictable, and diversified international monetary system.” Rickards postulates that BRICS+ is gearing up to unveil its currency.

BRICS+ Currency

Recently, Rickards gave a fascinating interview on the YouTube channel Wealthion. In this interview, he was adamant that the BRICS+ currency, (which he termed a BRIC, for convenience), “is not a gold standard”. 

“The value of the BRIC is not determined with reference to any other currency. It is determined with reference to gold, by weight of gold”.

The implication of the BRICS+ currency being tied to a weight of gold means that, regardless of anything else going on financially and economically in the world:

1 unit of BRICS+ currency = specified weight in gold

Trade between 50% of the world’s population will transition to BRICS+ currency, which will be defined in gold, so half the world’s trade will be transacted in BRICS+ currency.

Gold’s Unwavering Stature

Warren Buffet, an investment giant, once opined on gold: “Gold…has two significant shortcomings, being neither of much use nor procreative.”

Despite Buffet’s scepticism, gold’s reputation as a store of value has persisted for 5,000 years. He is missing the point of gold. Gold is not an investment, it is real money, unlike the 600 odd fiat currencies in the history of the world that have gone to zero.

Gold fulfills money’s 6 characteristics:

  • Durability
  • Portability
  • Divisibility
  • Uniformity
  • Limited Supply
  • Acceptability.

BRICS+’ gold linkage suggests, in the medium to long term, a potential for spikes in gold demand and the nominal currency price of gold.

A Waning USD?

Let’s take a look at the world’s current world currency, the U.S. dollar. The USD does not fulfill the attributes of money.

The U.S. dollar’s decline is palpable. In 1913, when the US Federal Reserve was established, the fixed price of gold was US$20.67. President Nixon infamously broke the gold peg that was US$35 in 1971. Today, gold hovers around $1,914 per ounce. The dollar’s worth is now 1.8% of what it was in 1971, a staggering 98% fall over 52 years.

Rickards’ analysis paints a bleak dollar future, in contrast to the BRICS+: “This is a bet that the dollar is going to collapse against you over time. I think that’s a very good bet … this is not a three-month forecast … you want to launch this new currency and you say hey long term the dollar is going to collapse in terms of gold. I’ll hook my horse to this wagon called gold by weight, and I’ll just reap the benefits.”

Libertarian Lens

The essential question for libertarians is “What can we do, so that we and our families survive and thrive?”

As Murray Rothbard insightfully shared, “I see a great future for gold and silver coins as the currency people may increasingly turn to when paper currencies begin to disintegrate.”

Allowing for one year’s living costs in cash, keep spare gold in hand (not as ETFs or in banks, which carry counterparty risks).  Then, you have a store of value that has well and truly proven itself over millennia. 

Gold never takes its promises lightly.

Retaining The Bargaining Chip of Indemnities For Vaccine Companies

By
Kenelm Tonkin
-
4

Should we legislate to stop a government offering indemnities to vaccine manufacturers?

This was a matter which came before the Senate last week in a private members bill.

Some of the reasons given for the Bill were:

  • “Companies work for shareholders first and it is profits that motivate their decision and actions. People should always be put before profits”;
  • “Indemnification has created an incentive for risk-taking in the pharmaceutical industry which is not aligned with the fundamental principles of medicine. Where indemnity exists, it is human nature to take larger risks, whether it be a conscious decision or subconscious, the outcomes are poor”; and
  • “The pharmaceutical industry has a taste for your money.”

Vivid language for the impressionable mind!

The most amicable and well-meaning of senators championed the cause with a rousing speech. A personal friend of mine adroitly negotiated it behind the scenes. It was a case study in politicking, and even attracted the support of one Libertarian state division.

Then with the support of all but Labor, it went to committee for investigation and so will become news again soon. Yes, the centre-right crossbench attracted the Greens and even Senator Thorpe for a moment.

What is not to love?

Against such a juggernaut of consensus, this simple libertarian fig farmer has his misgivings. Have sympathy for me. It’s in my DNA to search for a principle.

We libertarians are fond of paraphrasing John Stuart Mill’s 1859 Harm Principle with phrases like “live and let live, as long as you don’t harm others.”

We are not so persistent in reminding our parliamentary friends that the Harm Principle requires that we ‘weigh such harms.’

The great horror of the last 3 years was that our leaders did not do this. Ignore psychological damage to infant school children plastered with a mask. Ignore the cheap, unhealthy food on the dinner table of a family with dual incomes lost to mandates. Ignore the evaporated life savings of ‘non-essential’ small business owners. Ignore the suicides and mental health flair-ups caused by lockdowns. Ignore the business collapses.

It was one flu-like covid-19 harm, all other harms be damned!

One must weigh the harms.

The problem with the Bill is that it applies a blanket ban and fails to weigh harms.

Just say the next virus is more potent. Let’s say it’s Ebola or something with a 50% mortality rate!

In the end, we need politicians who apply John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty in full. Live and let live as long as you don’t harm others. When there are competing harms, weigh them and choose the least harmful option.

I want our government to have the same commercial tool as any private sector party. Indemnification, or the transfer of risk, is used by outdoor adventure operators, mining equipment hire companies, and many others. Why ban the government?

As a libertarian, I prefer my government to be able to transact like the private sector.

As a libertarian, I prefer my government to be ready to act in the case of genuine pandemic threat. As established, I want the government to potentially offer indemnity to vaccine providers in the case of emergency.

And as a libertarian, I want politicians who’ll use skilled negotiators so offering indemnity won’t be necessary.

Further …

As a libertarian, I’m unimpressed by populist attacks on free enterprise, especially pharmaceutical companies which keep us alive. As a libertarian, I’d be more curious to know why anyone believes a vaccine company should absorb near sovereign-level risk for a government intent on releasing vaccines before they pass the government’s own safety standards. As a libertarian, my focus is on that government maladministration, not the vaccine company.

As a libertarian, I’d prefer my government weren’t both umpire, with its TGA vaccine approval processes, and player, being the acquirer and dispenser of vaccines. I’d prefer to eliminate this conflict of interest.

As a libertarian, I’d like to rollback government from healthcare delivery, replace tired old public hospitals with private hospitals, and to protect charities which run hospitals.

And as a libertarian, I’d prefer our allies in parliament did not run adrift philosophically into the dangerous and choppy waters of the anti-capitalist. I am left in little wonder why the Greens and Senator Thorpe kept the Bill alive.

I believe the correct approach for a libertarian here is to vote against the Bill. In our current system, the Government needs to make it easy for vaccine production to occur in the event of a genuine calamity.

Our government already has one hand tied behind its back running a socialised system. Let’s not tie the other one by banning the free-enterprise bargaining chip of indemnities.

How To Overhaul Universities’ Reliance On Foreign Students

By
Dimitri Burshtein
-
1

Recently, Commonwealth Education Minister Jason Clare announced plans to overhaul Australian universities to reduce their reliance on international students.  In making his announcement, Clare said “That’s the power of education: it changes lives.” 

In many respects Clare is correct; education does changes lives.  But what doesn’t change lives is administration.

The Group of Eight (Go8) represents Australia’s “leading research-intensive universities”.  But looking at the financial accounts for the Go8 members, one might wonder what these universities are really about.  Based on the most recent financial accounts of these 8 universities (sadly, ANU is yet to lodge their 2022 accounts), almost half of their salary expenses have nothing to do with academics – the people who conduct the research and teach the students.  On average, 48% percent of salaries are expended on “non-academic” personnel.  That’s over $4.3 billion a year; on average $11,800 for each of the 365,000 full time equivalent students attending these institutions.  A breathtaking amount.

To put this into context, imagine if a bank spent 50% of its salaries on “non-bankers”, or a construction company spent 50% of its salaries on “non-construction workers”.  The core purpose of a university is to teach students and to undertake research, yet near 50% of its salary expenses are not for this purpose.

According to the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, our governments provide about $14,000 in funding per public school student.  At the same time, $11,800 is spent on administration per university student.

No doubt some public school funding is consumed on “non-teaching” resources, but if it was of a similar proportion to that which Universities spend, education outcomes would be even worse.

If Minister Clare wanted to reduce the reliance of universities on foreign students, he should first look at ways to reduce their reliance on administration.

5 Policy Responses To The Covid-19 Vaccination Disaster

By
Caroline White
-
1

Recently I attended the Australian Medical Professional Society’s Curing the Corruption of Medicine event in Melbourne. The keynote speaker was British cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra.  

Double vaccinated with Pfizer, Dr Malhotra initially supported the vaccine rollout and encouraged the vulnerable to take the injection on national TV in January of 2021.  

His stance soon changed when, amongst other concerning research and reports, his father, also double vaccinated, died suddenly of a heart attack. With a strong understanding of his medical history and current health condition, Dr Malhotra couldn’t comprehend how his father’s coronary arteries were shown in the autopsy to have narrowed so quickly. 

After some of the world’s top scientists published an independent reanalysis of the original Pfizer and Moderna clinical trial data, which found that patients are more likely to suffer serious harm from the vaccine including hospitalisation, disability or a life changing event than what they are to be hospitalised from Covid, he now believes ”these (mRNA) vaccinations should never have been approved for use in a single human”, and is calling for their suspension. 

Governments across Australia have spent hundreds of millions of dollars frightening the pants off our population, promoting and enforcing Covid 19 vaccinations with no end in sight. Despite AstraZeneca having been quietly pulled from the shelves earlier this year and ATAGI no longer recommending Covid 19 vaccines for healthy under 65-year-olds, the government is still relentlessly promoting vaccination to young, fit, healthy adults. There are taxpayer funded, daily reminders to get your jab on TV commercials, Youtube ads, and road signs on main arterials – nearly two and a half years on.

There is just no reprieve from the Covid mania.

Covid 19 mandates ravaged the foundations of the medical industry. I had a local GP tell me they were making a mockery of his profession. Informed consent ceased to exist with a paternalistic approach as patients were coerced into a medical procedure without being informed of potential risks or able to make a decision based on their individual circumstances. Bodily autonomy and medical privacy were disregarded and doctors who dared to raise concerns were threatened with deregistration.

Robust discussion was censored as the government intruded into the doctor patient relationship. We were even denied basic health benefits such as vitamin D due to government restrictions that had us locked in our houses for 23 hours a day. Any ounce of trust I had left for Big Pharma and the government has been completely eroded as a consequence. 

During Dr Malholtra’s nearly one-and-a-half-hour-long talk, he outlined policy making as a main factor in improving the current state of play. You know we have a serious problem when even the wokest journalist from The Age (who felt virtuous getting his 5th booster) is questioning why government policy sees Covid 19 vaccines given away to young people at the expense of the taxpayer. 

The idea of the government staying out of people’s medical decisions is rooted in the concept of individual liberty. Here are my policy ideas for reform –  

Whistle blower protection for the healthcare industry. Doctors should be able to speak up without fear of losing their job. 

Stop Covid 19 vaccine and mRNA manufacturing subsidies. All over the world highly vaccinated countries are recording uncommonly high excess deaths. Dr Malhotra is of the opinion, and the data suggests, that Covid 19 vaccines have a role to play. Pending further investigation, the mRNA vaccines should be suspended. The government should also stop subsidising mRNA manufacturing. 

Ban taxpayer funded spend on advertising pharmaceutical products. If Big Pharma wants to make a profit by selling products that are not properly tested, surely they can afford to pay for their own promotions. 

Remove remaining mandates & get our unvaccinated workers back in the work force immediately. With the current staff shortages, particularly in healthcare, it’s unconscionable that unvaccinated workers, police officers and firefighters are unable to work, with compliance still taking precedence over the safety of our community. 

Big Pharma companies fund compensation schemes, not the Australian taxpayer. It’s absolutely ludicrous that Australian taxpayers are footing the bill for damage and deaths caused by pharmaceutical companies. 

Sacred Geese and Rousing Speeches

By
Gerardine Hoogland
-
0

Who would have thought that quacking geese could help save the Roman Republic from a Gallic horde in 390 BC?

It prompts the question: could a stirring speech on liberty help save Australia from its government in 2023 AD?

The Roman Republic was born when a warrior gathered his family from the ashes of Troy and founded a city destined to become one of the greatest civilisations in history. But its emergence was not without repeated struggles.

Grappling with rapid growth and accumulated power, the Republic was in danger of being crushed by Gallic invaders. Rome had conquered most of her neighbouring Italian lands, but chronic infighting among the Senate and Tribunes distracted it from the rising threat outside the empire.

The ancient historian, Livy, in The Early History of Rome, wrote of a warning which was ignored because it came from a plebeian of no consequence.

“The Gauls are coming!”

And they were. Gallic armies decimated vast swathes of Roman territory.

In a final siege to sack Rome, Gallic troops climbed the Citadel wall, which was minimally defended as an exodus to neighbouring provinces had occurred. The people slept. Not even the dogs were alerted; it took the screeching of sacred geese to wake the people from their slumber and quickly act to repel the enemy.

Australia in 2023 is facing its own enemy at the gate. It goes by the name of Government.

While we don’t suffer from screeching geese in our parliaments – albeit some may like to draw a comparison – our representatives are in a prime position to sound the alarm.

The government’s surveillance tentacles are reaching so far into our lives that we soon may not be able to breathe without its consent. Citizens are facing censorship of their thoughts, speech, and actions with the impending ACMA Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, a direct threat to our democracy.

The Censorship Industrial Complex – A Threat to Democracy

In the Parliament of New South Wales, on 28 June 2023, one newly elected MP laid down the stakes for liberty, delivering a rousing endorsement of the natural rights and abilities of the people, and a scathing assessment of government interference. 

In his maiden speech, John Ruddick articulated the essence of free market capitalism:

“We believe in the inherent morality of capitalism simply because, that is what people will spontaneously do when left alone. The worst atrocities of history were not the result of drought, flood, pestilence, or plague but of big government throwing its weight around like an elephant stomping on ants.”

One would think such a passionate defence of liberty would be welcomed in a democratic nation.

Alas, YouTube swiftly took it down.

Was it the mention of “anarcho-capitalism” that offended the senses of the censorship tzars? Perhaps too radical an idea for our modern and progressive world to embrace. Sadly, this term is misunderstood. Where it is demonised as being violent in meaning and action, it is really the opposite.

As Mr Ruddick said:

“Anarcho-capitalism has a favourable view of human nature and an unlimited belief in our potential. I am increasingly attracted to the view that we will tap humanity’s highest potential via a government-free voluntary-based society.”

Great speeches won’t save a nation from ruin, but they can affect how people begin to consider the world around them.

Livy tells us that “Destiny had decreed that the Gaul’s were still to feel the true meaning of Roman valour.”

Let our citizens record that the enemy of liberty is still to feel the true meaning of Australian spirit and enterprise.

Sacred geese did not prevent Rome from being invaded by the Gauls, but their screeching put Romans on notice.

Perhaps Mr Ruddick’s speech will serve as a warning for Australians in the face of monumental government overreach, reminding them of the value of our inalienable individual rights and freedoms, and how voluntary associations and agreements are by far the preferred mode of human interaction.

The Ministry of Truth

By
James Hol
-
4

The Government recently released its exposure draft of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023. It is just as Orwellian as it sounds – if not more.

The Bill empowers the even more Orwellian-sounding Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to not only engage in fascistic partnerships with social media giants, but to impose industry-wide standards and codes to ensure “misinformation” is not spread online.

MISINFORMATION

The obvious question is, what is misinformation? The Bill, in its infinite wisdom, defines misinformation as “false, misleading or deceptive” content that “is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm.”

Harm is given a broad definition, including disseminating “hatred against a group in Australian society” and harming Australia’s health or environment. Of course, we are no wiser as to how “serious” this harm must be.

It is clear what this Bill aims to do: shut down anti-government sentiment and the dissident class.

Posting uncomfortable facts about a pandemic? Now you are harming the health of Australians.

Advocating a vote against the Voice to Parliament on social media? Now you are disseminating hatred against a group based on race.

Doubting the climate narrative online? Now you are harming the Australian environment. Remember, you do not even need to be causing this “harm”; merely contributing to it.

IT GETS WORSE

Now I am sure esteemed readers of Liberty Itch are already well aware of what I have outlined, but many are under the mistaken assumption that this will only apply to social media giants. In fact, it will apply to every single website that provides “news content” and has an “interactive feature”.

If you think you can avoid the Ministry of Truth by simply starting your own social media platform or providing content on your own website, you’d be advised to have no interest in a comments section or posting video content, otherwise that website will also be captured by these draconian laws. Indeed, this Liberty Itch masthead will be at threat of fines in the millions of dollars should this Bill become law.

Perhaps some hope to escape the law by hosting servers or establishing companies overseas. But no: ACMA are wise to that. The Bill includes an extra-territorial provision, meaning hiding outside Australia’s borders won’t stop ACMA from fining you.

AN AFFRONT TO OUR VALUES

As well as the government seeking to extend its tentacles outside its own jurisdiction, which is becoming increasingly common in modern law-making, ACMA has taken many longstanding precedents to the shredder with this Bill.

While unfortunately not enshrined in our Constitution, Australians are endowed with the right not to incriminate themselves. If this Bill passes Parliament, that will no longer apply to instances of online “misinformation”.

While the Bill gives lip service to our constitutionally implied freedom of political communication, it attempts to circumvent it by creating a fascistic partnership between ACMA and private entities. Instead of ACMA enforcing speech, it makes digital service providers do its dirty work – at threat of significant fines.

However, ACMA can impose industry-wide standards and codes if digital service providers go rogue and dishonour their fascistic agreements. Hoping for a safe haven at Elon Musk’s Twitter (now called X), might be more pipe dream than reality.

This Bill also does away with another long-held precedent: serving legal notices in person. Under this Bill, ACMA is now empowered to serve legal notices, including summons, electronically.

 

THE FIGHT OF OUR LIVES

Perhaps the only good thing about this Bill is that it is in the relatively early stages of drafting. Public submissions have been invited by ACMA and I implore all readers to give their feedback. A massive outpouring of concern and a public backlash might force ACMA to reconsider  its brazen destruction of our fundamental liberties. Continued activism will also be required to ensure whatever subversive version of this Bill the government thinks they can get away with never reaches the floor of Parliament.

Above all, non-compliance is necessary. This is where we must draw a line, stand strong in the face of overbearing penalties and defend everything we stand for with everything we have.

Have your say! Fight for liberty!

Offence Is Taken, Not Given

By
David Leyonhjelm
-
1

Nobody forces us to fall in love, to dislike another person, or to prefer a certain type of music. One person could spend six months sailing around the world and not feel lonely for a moment, while another can feel desperately lonely in the midst of a crowd.

In the Australian vernacular, being called a ‘bastard’ can be intended as a serious insult, a minor criticism or a term of endearment, yet someone may find the term offensive irrespective of the intent of the person making the comment.

The same is true when it comes to comments about political beliefs, sexual orientation, appearance, gender identity, age, religious values or many other factors that are variously claimed to give rise to offense. Nobody can say with certainty how a comment might be received.

In tort and criminal law, a person can be liable for all the consequences resulting from activities that lead to injury to another person, even if the victim suffers unexpectedly serious damage due to a pre-existing vulnerability. Known as the egg shell rule, it means liability may be severe if a person suffers injury as a result of assault or negligence and has a skull as delicate as the shell of an egg.

This relates only to physical injury though, and there is no such rule regarding verbal matters. Nonetheless, there is a growing tendency to attribute blame for the consequences of offence at the feet of those who utter the words, irrespective of the circumstances of the person claiming to be offended. Indeed, there is an absolute epidemic of mental illness and PTSD for which others are being blamed.

The Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”, and yet whether anyone is indeed offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated is up to the receiver of the message. Given an inability to know in advance how the recipient might choose to feel, the only option is to avoid saying anything much at all.

This can have significant consequences for the way we speak. In America, and increasingly now here, it has become common to wish everyone happy holidays rather than Merry Christmas on the assumption that non-Christians may feel offended.

Filmmakers, cartoonists, artists and authors are reluctant to tackle certain subjects because individuals or groups claim to be offended, sometimes even responding with violence.

We must now also deal with accusations of hate speech, which are typically nothing more than statements with which someone disagrees and has decided is offensive.

Feeling offended is an emotion, similar to anger, frustration and loneliness. But while they can be powerful, emotions are within our control. Apart from clinical depression perhaps, none can be blamed on someone else.

Even when a comment is intended to be hurtful, or there is indifference as to whether hurt is caused, how we respond depends on the beliefs we have accumulated over a lifetime. We can take offence at the slightest remark, or remain serene in the face of a serious insult.

Why then do we blame others if we take offence? If we are responsible for our feelings in some cases, surely we are responsible in all cases.

Because there is no cause and effect, the right of free speech does not require the right to offend. That does not mean we should ignore cultural norms like good manners and consideration for the feelings of others, but we do not need the law to tell us that the wrong response to the question ‘does my bum look big in this?’ can lead to problems.

The very notion that someone else can govern the way we feel diminishes our independence and self-ownership. If nobody can force us to think in a particular way, nobody can make us feel offended.

No matter how bigoted, ill-informed or obnoxious, our reaction to someone else’s words is always up to us. Unless words are coercive, by threatening, tricking or forcing us to do something against our will, we are responsible for how they are received. If we feel offended, we have the option of choosing another feeling.

Talkin’ About My Generation (Part 1)

By
Bob Day
-
7

In his excellent Liberty Itch post Golden Years last week, Max Payne writes, “By the time today’s young people are finally ready (or allowed) to retire, they may find they face a double challenge. First, their superannuation funds might have been ransacked by previous generations; second, the availability of quality care may be limited due to the challenge of delivering high-standard care without a large tax-base – especially in times of slowing productivity.”

In their hit song My Generation, English rock band The Who – Pete Townshend on guitar, Roger Daltrey on vocals, John Entwistle on bass, and Keith Moon on drugs – err, I mean drums – sang, “…things they do look awful cold …. hope I die before I get old.”

It is reported that German economists are baffled by reports from Australia that rising house prices are deemed to be ‘good news’. In Germany, inflation in house prices – like inflation in energy prices or food prices – is considered to be just the opposite.

“How can it be good news?”, they ask, “when it takes two incomes to support a mortgage when previously young couples could buy a home and raise a family on one income? Or that homebuyers will pay many hundreds of thousands of dollars more in mortgage payments and government taxes and charges than would otherwise be the case?”

Why has housing become so expensive in Australia? Motor vehicles, whitegoods, kitchen appliances, widescreen TV sets, personal computers and mobile phones are consumed in abundance around the world, yet prices remain low. Why is a house, which like other manufactured goods is made from readily accessible components, so much more expensive than other consumer products?

No doubt demand stimulators like high immigration, low interest rates, capital gains concessions, negative gearing and first home buyer grants have increased demand for housing. However, increases in demand do not, of themselves, cause prices to rise. The exponential increases in demand for mobile phones, laptops and digital TVs did not lead to increases in their prices. In fact, the opposite occurred – prices fell – in some cases by more than half, due to increases in supply. The 1950s and ‘60s population explosion – the ‘baby boomer’ generation – likewise saw massive increases in demand for housing, yet house prices remained stable during that time because supply was able to keep up with demand.

So, what has gone wrong in recent years?

As most people know, over the past 20 years or so the actual cost of building a new house in Australia has roughly kept pace with inflation. Land prices, on the other hand, have skyrocketed.

By restricting the amount of land available on the urban fringe, state governments have sent the price of entry-level housing through the roof.

Land is the problem.

On the fringes of our cities there is more than an adequate supply of cheap, unzoned land.

Cheap land attracts not only home buyers but commercial interests as well, leading to more employment opportunities.

So why are houses and commercial developments not being built on this cheap land?

In short, manipulation of zoning laws.

(For Part 2, click https://libertyitch.com/2023/08/22/talkin-about-my-generation-part-2/)

Bureaucracy and The Australian Ethos

By
Lionel Orellana
-
3

“Perhaps the nature of every bureaucracy is to make functionaries and mere cogs in the administrative machinery out of men, and thus to dehumanise them”. 

Hannah Arendt.

The Royal Commission report into the Robodebt scandal has shone a spotlight on the leviathan that is now the Australian government. Not surprisingly, the Albanese government has distanced itself from the findings, portraying the ill-conceived scheme as a failure of their political opponents. Most of the media frame it as a failure of the Coalition government.

In neither case is the integrity and generosity of government as an institution ever questioned, nor its proper role in society. Bill Shorten made this clear when he said: “There is an ethos in Australia that the Government always has its people’s best interests at heart and, in legal matters, is a model litigant.”[1] From his perspective the Coalition betrayed this ethos.

It is a belief in which the Australian government represents the pinnacle of virtue. Not mere mortals pursuing their own self-interests, but a congregation of the anointed ones.

This ethos of government as inherently good is pervasive and has allowed it to become impervious to failure.

Yet we don’t have to look back too far to find a pattern of systemic government blunders, with substantial human and financial costs. Let us remember just a few within recent memory:

  • Green Loans Program (2009-2010). Thousands of assessors who invested their time and money were left with unfulfilled work promises.
  • Home Insulation Program (2009-2019). The death of 4 young installers sparked a Royal Commission which concluded it was a “serious failure of public administration”.
  • Building the Education Revolution (2009-2011). A $16.2 billion ‘stimulus package’ resulting in hugely inflated construction costs and waste.
  • Vocational Education and Training FEE-HELP Loans (2012-2016). Hundreds of vulnerable Australians were left with large debts for courses they never completed or started.
  • Jobactive Employment Services (2015-2022). Delivered high profits for job agencies and a bureaucratic nightmare for job seekers.

Much can also be said about the NBN rollout, the NDIS, Snowy 2.0 and the ongoing PwC tax leaks scandal. Time after time a series of scathing, damning, blistering reports, inquiries, audits, and Royal Commissions have analysed the reasons for each successive failure, the lessons learned, and the specific details that need to be corrected to ensure the good intentions of central planners are not botched by implementation mistakes.

In the wake of the Robodebt report there are calls for a change in the culture of the Australian Public Service: a renewed Code of Conduct and Values with an emphasis on stewardship and a primary focus on the people the APS is meant to serve.

Kathryn Campbell. The senior bureaucrat who implemented Robodebt, an algorithmic system which issued illegal social security debt notices.

Missing from the report and the discussion is the one recommendation that would ensure that Services Australia cannot continue to harm vulnerable Australians (especially in the age of AI): dismantle it.

Human tragedies, large and small, have been enabled by bloated centralised bureaucracies throughout history. The more concentrated the power structure, the bigger the tragedy. Hannah Arendt, reporting in 1961 on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a major Holocaust perpetrator, observed: “the court naturally conceded that such a crime could be committed only by a giant bureaucracy using the resources of government.”

In the context of a more dispersed power structure, a giant Australian bureaucracy is still capable of causing severe harm as we have seen with Robodebt and numerous other cases. The response should be to reduce the source of this harm to its minimum expression, not to defend it or reform it.

The fundamental mistake is to endow government with high moral values, higher than those of private citizens. A fair and just society is not built by abdicating social responsibilities and delegating them to an external agent, one with coercive powers and a perverse incentive structure.

Governments are not benign. In reality, “the individual bureaucrat is not attempting to maximize the public interest very vigorously but is attempting to maximize his or her own utility just as vigorously as you and I.”[2]

Acknowledging the primacy of self-interest is not incompatible with a natural tendency to help others and engage in charitable activities or mutual aid.

Australia has a proud history of friendly societies that provided vital financial and social support to many communities before they were crowded out by government welfare[3].

At the beginning of the twentieth century nearly half Australia’s population was connected to a friendly society[4].  How much good could civil society do today with a fraction of the resources removed by a confused bureaucracy mostly concerned with finding its own soul?

Despite being pushed aside and distorted by the expansion of government, Australia’s strong volunteer tradition never disappeared. We see it all around us, in the selfless actions of millions of people, each with their own unique talents, experiences, and circumstances.

We take care of our own.

That is an Australian ethos worth upholding.

[1] https://ministers.dss.gov.au/editorial/9661

[2] Tullock, Gordon; Seldon, Authur; Brady, Gordon L. Government Failure: A Primer in Public Choice.

[3] https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/australia-s-friendly-history

[4] The Seven Waves of Volunteering in Australia: a brief history. Melanie Oppenheimer and Sue Regan.

10 Therapeutic Applications For My Bulk-Purchased Superglue

By
Kenelm Tonkin
-
1
  1. He’s nearly always overseas anyway. Just glue the Prime Minister’s pants to his RAAF jet seat.

  2. They demand permanent work-from-home. Give it to them. Affix 14,000 Federal public servants’ bottoms to their home office chair. No three-hour gym sessions between 9am and 5pm.

  3. Glue ‘No More Oil’ protesters’ alarm clock to 10:59am. They never get out of bed before 11:00am. Dah da! Brunswick brunch-time traffic jams fixed.

  4. Stick Adam Bandt to a computer playing all 10 episodes of Milton Friedman’s “Free To Choose” series in perpetual loop.

  5. Affix “No Budget Blowout Here” stickers on NDIS offices.

  6. Make a lapel badge which illuminates red and says “Alert! Dictator Detector” whenever the wearer wants to ban books. Offer them as gifts to all politicians.

  7. Instead of them pouring filthy oil on an obscure part of the Flemington track, help the Greens win more publicity by gluing a few of themselves to some saddles in this year’s Melbourne Cup. That will shake them up a bit.

  8. If Mehreen Faruqi then complains about abuse of horses in the Melbourne Cup, temporarily glue her mouth shut just long enough to say “koalas” and “investment properties”.

  9. Stick it to socialists, by patting them on the back with superglued Post-Its reading, “Tax is theft”. (Thanks BM!)

  10. Glue a Commonwealth gold medal to Dan Andrew’s forehead for winning the “Biggest Civil Liberty, Diplomatic and Economic Disaster” event.


1...232425...38Page 24 of 38

Popular Posts

My Favorites

Caught! CCP captured in media sting interfering in the Adelaide City...

Fiona Hui - 0
The Adelaide Advertiser has just broken a story which should shock you. At least two candidates in the Adelaide City Council elections are pro communist....

Death, Taxes and … Death Taxes?

Every Colour Please

8 Reasons Liberal Democracies Should Never Ban Political Speech

Popular Categories

© Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv