Club Troppo

The comment of the month award goes to Andrew Norton on Richard’s latest post (which is excellent by the way).

“The 1980s reform period was very controversial until about 10 years ago, when the argument that free markets aren’t working w[as]ere replaced with the argument that prosperity is bad for you.”

With the Troppo Mercedes at the smash repairers, Andrew will have the use of a Google self-driving car for the weekend which is currently being flown from California in the belly of a Boing 787 ‘Dreamliner’ on its second trip round the world. (Those 787s look very nice.)

Struggling Australians breathed a sign of relief today, when they read that the ‘relentless pressure‘ applied by Melbourne’s Herald Sun has forced a humiliating climb-down by the big banks and  delivered  the full interest rate reduction passed down from on high.

The paper reports that “Scrooge bank chiefs who had been silently sitting on the rate cut and gouging more than $4 million a day from their customers” faced a withering barrage of Twitter and Facebook incendiary bombs, eventually throwing up their hands and surrendering to the superior generalship of the editorial team at the Herald Sun, who generously gave the downtrodden a voice, and assured victory for the people.

Little Australian  kiddies, can now sleep soundly knowing that they will get the XBox 360 Kinect AND their own Hi-Def TV to play it on this Christmas, and their parents at least,  unlike our big  banks, will experience the joy of giving.

We’re not a religious lot we Australian’s, but this festive season, Australian’s will surely be whispering a little prayer. “Thank God for Melbourne’s  Herald Sun”.

Ken has already linked to Possum’s post on Australian Exceptionalism, but I have a distinct point I want to make about it. In a great part I agree with the sentiment, although I’d espouse most of the past 220 years rather than just the past three decades.  It’s far less the “Three Cheers school” of history than the “holy shit school” of history. That we became Australia rather than Argentina or the US South is astonishing, yet constantly overlooked in favour of petty events distinguished only by white on white violence.

A few years ago I had this missive printed on The Interpreter.

 

As much as I am wary of discussions of national character, there’s another aspect of cricket that I think relates to Australian character. This is the fretting that comes from unfavourable comparison with the unattainable.

There is a permanent dialogue about the fall of sportsmanship in cricket, the end of walking, players celebrating excessively etc. and an endless stream of scorn on players who are not saints. It never seems to be mentioned that no other sport would have an expectation that a player should disagree with the officials when he is favoured by them. What other sport would even conceive that the officials are a contingency plan against the teams’ disagreement rather than the first authority?

Likewise, following the generation after white settlement, Australia has consistently had among the highest standards of living and consistently been preoccupied with the weakness thereof, along with any other metric of national quality.

Who cares that the revealed preference of the world, expressed through net migration (people vote with their feet, after all) is overwhelmingly positive, nor that we have replaced Fair Verona as a literary fantasyland. Our kids aren’t learning! Our buildings are ugly! No one likes our films! We didn’t invent the computer! Our workers work less hours than the Koreans, are shorter than the Dutch, have fewer football skills than the Brazillians, do maths worse than the Chinese, make crappier cars than the Germans!

The deep insecurity about being less than perfect may be the greatest strength of both sport and country.

I really like the insecurity that obscures Australian achievement. I think it is a boon. It’s The Lucky Country Syndrome. Krugman once started a review of a Tom Friedman book with “Every few years a book comes along that perfectly expresses the moment’s conventional wisdom–that says pretty much what everybody else in the chattering classes is saying, but does it in a way that manages to sound fresh and profound.”.

XKCD

That’s how I feel about Donald Horne. It’s so strange that even today references to the book are always accompanied with boilerplate about how people misunderstood the title. I find it hard to think of a thesis so universally accepted in Australia, nor one so which is so universally believed to be not widely accepted. (Continued)

The Humbling of a Pretty Girl: When model and fashion writer Lauren Scruggs walked into a plane propeller the paramedics didn’t think she’d survive. "With the lacerations on her head and the skull fracture, we thought there would be significant brain damage", said one. At Zero at the Bone, Chally writes about the disturbing level of media interest in Scrugg’s ordeal. "We’re taught to admire, and to envy the pretty people", she writes. "We also know that such a hierarchy is unfair. And there’s a heavy pleasure in watching the pretty people be laid low."

When Bad Sex Work Drives out the Good: Many sex workers are victims of human trafficking, writes Marina Adshade. And a new study provides "very good evidence that legalization of prostitution increases human trafficking". Blue Milk also addresses the issue of sex work, provoking an extended conversation in the comments thread.

Obama’s Wonderfully Wrongheaded Speech: The Overdressed Anarchist hasn’t been won over by Obama’s Osawatomie speech. "If the President were serious about sending a message about equality, his Administration would be knocking on Wall Street’s door, SWAT teams in the rear", he writes.

Why the occupiers love Lincoln : When Obama attacked the Wall Street plutocracy he took cover behind Theodore Roosevelt. When Roosevelt attacked the plutocracy he took cover behind Abraham Lincoln. "Want to know what the Occupy Movement is all about? " asks Bejamin Gorman, "Abraham Lincoln knew 150 years ago." Read Lincoln’s First Annual Message from 1861 and you’ll understand why.

Robert Audi and the Separation of Church and State: According to liberal democrats, states must govern on the basis of principles all citizens accept. Religious principles are notoriously controversial so liberal democrats often argue that governments should avoid relying on religious reasons when making policy. Hence the commitment to the separation of church and state and the requirement that citizens bracket off their religious commitments when they take part in public life. But is idea that politics and religion should be kept separate noncontroversial? At New Books in Philosophy Robert Talisse interviews Robert Audi about his new book: Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State.

News isn’t the problem, it’s the advertising markets that are broken: By denying newspapers access to the old sources of advertising revenue the internet has thrown the news business into turmoil. So why is everyone so focused on how news is produced and distributed? According to Joshua Gans,"what we are seeing may not necessarily have anything to do with how news is produced per se but instead the mechanics of the supposedly unseemly advertising side of the equation."

Bank Tellers and ATMs: President Obama keeps saying that ATM are putting bank tellers out of work. Matthew Yglesias isn’t convinced.

I don’t imagine we’ll be running Best Blog Posts this year.  Certainly I won’t have time to be involved.

Moreover, we never actually anointed an annual winner in any event, just an undifferentiated group of 30 or 40 of the best from the non-MSM blogosphere.

However, if I WAS selecting a single best blog post for 2011, I wouldn’t have even a moment’s hesitation.  It would be Australian Exceptionalism by Scott “Possum Comitatus” Steel published this afternoon on Crikey. I had to stop myself from running into the street and shouting  “YES!!! EXACTLY!!! WHY COULDN’T I CRYSTALLISE IT ALL SO POWERFULLY? WHY CAN’T JULIA OR (GOD FORBID) KEV?”  It’s worth reproducing a substantial extract over the fold but do yourself a favour and read the whole thing. Moreover, although it’s a paean to Australia’s general excellence, all governments since Hawke/Keating and the Australian people generally are entitled to the credit:

(Continued)

Herewith my op ed from the Herald and Age today.

What is the good life and are we living it?

Assessing and measuring wellbeing has vexed us since ancient times. But a funny thing happened on the modern world’s way to the answer. The metric that economists used to dampen down the business cycle – Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – received such prominence that it ‘went viral’ as we say these days. It became the default measure of national progress.

But there’s lots wrong with GDP as a measure of economic wellbeing let alone more general wellbeing. Measuring gross activity, it ignores the growth and depreciation of assets – such as buildings, equipment, natural resources like farmland and mineral deposits, biodiversity and clean air. And that’s not to mention the greatest asset of all – our knowhow.

Moreover GDP is measured by money changing hands. So converting bread, mince and salad into a hamburger increases GDP in McDonalds but not at home. More starkly, an evening of passion and pleasure only adds to wellbeing as measured by GDP if it happens in a bordello! More broadly still, GDP takes no account of the distribution of income or of our physical or social wellbeing.

But considering how different all these phenomena are, how can we possibly measure their sum impact on national wellbeing in a single number? Because it would ‘dumb down’ complex issues, economics Nobel Laureate Amatya Sen initially refused to participate in the construction of a single index of human development to help guide development in poorer countries. But he relented because he appreciated that, however unsatisfactory a single wellbeing index might be, it was better than the alternative. Given the thirst for simple answers, the alternative is even more dumbing down as would occur if GDP yet again filled the vacuum. (Continued)

Both Judith Sloan and Ian Harper argue that Newstart Allowance is too low, particularly for recipients who are long-term unemployed. In the late 1980s, the Social Security Review also argued for an increase in unemployment payments. The review’s authors wrote:

… immediate priority should be given to bringing rates of payment to pension levels. There is absolutely no justification which can be given for providing a lower rate of payment to single individuals, whether short-term or long-term unemployed, who must not only support themselves but engage in active job search and maintain the mobility and social contacts necessary to ensure against labour market marginality (p292).

(Continued)

New article by me at CDU Law and Business Online (I’ve written on this topic before at Troppo but this one is aimed at law students and is therefore a bit more academic though hopefully still accessible and interesting for a general audience – feedback in that regard is invited).

Introducing Ellen Broad:

Hello Troppodillians.  As some of you know, I am the patron of the Australian Digital Alliance which, broadly speaking, represents users of copyright protected products. Its members include Google, Yahoo!, each of the national cultural institutions, libraries, schools, universities and individuals. It is one of the few organised voices trying to make the views and interests of copyright users known to the community and to government.

Ellen Broad is the Alliance’s copyright law and policy adviser and she’s energetically embracing her role. She’s worked on both sides of the copyright fence, with a background in creative writing and publishing before moving to Canberra and working for the National Film & Sound Archive and the National Library of Australia. She is in short, doing a great job. Given that she updates members on various IP issues of note, I invited her to post any items of more general interest on Troppo. And this is her first post.

Nicholas Gruen

“The basic conundrum for the copyright holder”, Justice Hayne commented on day 1 of the iiNet High Court Hearing, “is that…the prevention of unauthorised sharing of copyright works ultimately depends upon the individual choice of the user of the Net.” All that an ISP can do, he observed, to have an effect on the individual user’s choice, is switch off.

The dispute between iiNet and AFACT in the High Court is ultimately over who should bear the burden of policing copyright infringement by users on the internet. It’s expensive and ineffective to take action against individuals implicated in unauthorised file sharing, and so the content industries have worked hard to shift the burden of preventing copyright infringement to ISPs. To succeed in this  particular case, AFACT needs to show that in failing to take any steps at all against identified copyright infringements by users of their services, iiNet effectively authorised the continued uploading of copyright works on their watch.

This would be a significant expansion of the doctrine of authorisation in Australian copyright law, and AFACT have done their best to reframe it in terms of negligence on the part of ISPs  – that ISPs had a “duty of care” or “obligation to prevent” copyright infringement.

Whether the Australian copyright legislation confers a responsibility on ISPs to take positive steps to prevent copyright infringement is a question for the High Court to answer. Still, any discussion of a purported duty of care owed by ISPs begs the question: to what extent should ISPs bear the burden for business choices made by the content industries?

(Continued)