Saturday, December 22, 2007

In the spirit of Xmas: Hogwart's Hall of Fame Nomination for Conjuring Trick

"To Kevin Rudd. At a time when Australia was suffering an unprecedented shortage of skilled labour (truck drivers were earning $100,000 in the Pilbara, for example), Kev managed to persuade the electorate that workers were being persecuted under Australian workplace agreements. If St Kev and La Jool carry out their election promise and hand bargaining power back to the trade unions, Australia will enjoy a sharp burst of wage inflation. The media chorus who have been singing hallelujahs ever since election night will doubtless manage to explain how this wasn't Kev's fault."
Pierpont's Dubious Distinction Awards for 2007. AFR December 21-27, 2007.


Sinclair Davidson said...

How I miss Pierpont. The most astute election observation the Fin Review has published all year.

Bring Back CL's blog said...

please explain how a 'wage breakout occurs when wage rises only come by EBAs and common law contracts?

what evidence is there for this assertion?

None,, well well

I just love it when 'economists' parade accountants as the fountain of all knowledge

whyisitso said...

"I just love it when 'economists' parade accountants as the fountain of all knowledge"

Give me those any time over the value of anything Homer has ever spat out.

Bring Back CL's blog said...

Whyisitso,, a person who believes that everything will go well if we leave the market alone except being unable to understand without agencies such as the ACCC markets don't work properly.

Try talking to anyone who lived in the 60's old son and mention a little thing like resale price maintenance to them

Tell them they could charge any price for the good they were selling and they would rightfuully laugh in you face.

Another example of people who supposedly believing in the market having no idea how it works.
Usually happens with lawyers

whyisitso said...

I well remember the seventies when we were inflicted with the Prices Justification Tribunal which resulted in the greatest bout of inflation this country ever had.

When Krudd gets his promised price control on petrol in action, you can forget about ever buying petrol below $1.60 a litre even if the price of oil goes down and the Oz dollar escalates massively against the greenback.

Apu said...

Hope the golf in Sydney is good and the scores bearable.
In October you said this and much besides:

"I also thought the Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews handled the issue with propriety and implemented the Immigration Act correctly."

Nothing further to add to this after the court's recent ruling HC?
Your comments from back when an innocent, law abiding member of society (tax paying - does that add greater importance in your value system?)was being subjected to the gravest of challenges - to his reputation, to his ability to earn and function within a globalised society, were at best due to your inability to understand the tremendous harm state power can cause and at worst a sign that racism, fear and division are part not only of the late lamented conservative governments stock in trade but also that of it's supporters.

Anyhoo - merry christmas, and on this the birth anniversary of that famous palestinian, hope you have a good new year.

Bring Back CL's blog said...

Whyisitso, if we had no ACCC we would be back in the 60s with little competition.

It is ironic but we need Governments to ensure competitive market outcomes.

Bringing in the PJT is irrelevant.

whyisitso said...

You should try just a little bit not be such a total goose all the time, Homer. The PJT was the high-water mark of inefficient, ideological "management" of the economy by government that occurred during the Whitlam error (sic).

hc said...

Actually Apu I think Haneef was treated correctly under the law. The Labor Party has said it reserves the right to introduce new legislation to exclude people of questionable character if the recent judgment limits this.

In doing this it is showing customary leftist hypocrisy - claiming that Kevin Andrews acted without good reason but then moving to legislate if it cannot make similar judgments itself.

You still after 10,000 repetitions cannot distinguish between prosecuting someone under the Migration Act (where questionable associations are grounds for revoking a visa to a visitor here) and finding that person guilty of some crime. That is not required under the Act.

As I said initially I hope Haneef is innocent but believe there were reasonable suspicions (not proof) of links with terrorism. That is all the law required.

I think the judges have made an error in disputing the previous Minister's rights to act though I accept - if new evidence is provided - that Haneef has the right to appeal for reinstatement of his visa.

Haneef has already indicated he wants his visa reinstated and wants money as compensation.

Bring Back CL's blog said...

Whyisitso. A brief tutorial.

The PJT was about controling prices.

the ACCC is about facilitating a comeptitive market.


Spiros said...

Haneef doesn't have to appeal anything about his visa, and no new evidence is required. His old visa is valid.

The law says that the minister had the right to cancel Haneef's visa if he had an "association" with terrorists. But as the judges said, it had to be a sinister association, not merely the fact that Haneef knew them. This was the Andrews' mistake.

Suppose, Harry, that you belonged to the same golf club as Tony Mokbel. Every so often you might play in a foursome with him, as members of a golf club do. Would it be right to taint you (and deport you if you were a non citizen) because of this "association"? According to Kevin Andrews, it would be. According to the judges, you would need to be associated with Mokbel's criminal activities.

Which would you prefer?

hc said...

Spiros, My comment was on the hypothetical. I believed Andrews acted correctly and that his decision should not have been overturned. But I agree that Haneef should have to right to appeal his decision.

Mokbel isn't my cousin and I wouldn't have telephoned him shortly after he committed a major crime and asked whether things were all right.

So the choice you offer is not comparable.

I cannot be deported as I am a citizen not a visitor. Haneef was a guest in this country on a visa. He has less rights under the law than citizens because the Migration Act applies to him.

I am a bit tired of arguing the Haneef case. People seem unreasonable about it - they want to infer something sinister about Australian actions with respect to him - there is a chorus of disapproval. I don't see that.

Terrorists commit motiveless crimes that are extremely difficult to prevent or deter. I strongly agree with tough policies to prevent such actions. The Labor Party - despite its hypocrisy - agrees.

whyisitso said...

Homer, the PJT was set-up by your fellow socialists because they perceived what in their eyes was a "market failure" in that the share of wages versus profits in the economy at that time was too low. They engineered a wages explosion (27% in one year) and attempted to control prices through the PJT (even though the Federal government had no constitutional power over prices) in order to induce a permanent re-apportionment of wages vis-a-vis profits. They did succeed in depressing prices to an extent because they were able to cow business to submit to the PJT via the covert (and sometimes overt) threat of government-protected union action if they didn't comply.

Yes Homer, governments do have a habit of interfering in the market to correct "market failure" and much more often than not get it wrong and thus make things far worse.

Actually I am in favour of laws against collusion among competitors (eg Visy and Amcor). These are just variants of general laws against theft and fraud. It's not an attempt to correct market failure any more than are laws against bank robbery. Just law and order like traffic regulations.

Unfortunately the 21st century version of the PJT that Rudd has promised with petrol as its first exercise will succeed very well because the Feds are likely to be delegated authority to control prices by the States, being all in ALP hands. An perfect example of collusion among monopolists if ever there were one!

The result will in due course be acute shortages of petrol because no-one will try to extend refinery capacity or import refined petrol to this country. Of course the left will cheer because of their devotions to the great god AGW.

Bring Back CL's blog said...

interesting, YOU bring up the PJT , not me how it relates to the ACCC I don't know.

however I can tell you in terms of petrol you are as usual incorrect.

They will not be regulating anything.

But they wil be highlighting daily petrol prices for consumers.

Hmm sounds like they are encouraging consumer sovereignty to me

whyisitso said...

wtf Homer. I already have sovereignty on petrol - I buy on Tuesdays. I don't need the ACCC to look out for me. I suggest you do the same. Oh I forgot, you get around Eastwood on your tricycle.

Bring Back CL's blog said...

well done WHYisitsso,

I buy on tuesdays as well but unlike you I ddo not know where theproce is the cheapest and I am huessing few people do.

Gee fancy giving consumers that information so they can make an informed decision.

It is called faciltating the market old son whereas the old PJT which you erroneously brought up hindered the market

whyisitso said...

I don't drive 10km to save 2 cents a litre, Homer. If I'm driving to the North Shore I might divert to Caltex on the corner of Wicks Road and Epping Highway to use a Woolies docket if I can be bothered with the queues. But one thing I don't need is nanny gubmint holding my hand.

Bring Back CL's blog said...

your very obstinate whyisitso.

A government will enable consumers to have more information to make a rational decision and you think it is nannyism.

Try to endeavour to understand the difference between facilitating the market and opposing it.

Sir Henry said...

Ah yes, the patron and mentor of Christopher Skase. Pip, pip!