March 2005 Archives

Miranda Divine's at it again. This time she's having a dig at the Kyoto protocol, citing a local environmental dispute in NZ as evidence of the negative consequences of signing the treaty.

Apparently, a power company wants to divert water from a local river to supplement the supplies for a local hydro power station. The locals are understandidly concerned that the lost water will effect the ecology of the river downstream of the pumping. She takes the word of a local deer farmer that the project makes little economic sense.

Miranda also cites Maori beliefs as a reason not to go ahead with the plan.

It also violates the Maori belief in "mauri", the vital essence of water, which holds that waters from different valleys should not be mixed, says Martin, [the deer farmer] who is of Maori descent.

I can imagine what Miranda's ilk would say if Aboriginal beliefs were used as an argument to halt a project in Australia.

In short, the dispute is similar to any number of protests where the locals are concerned of the effect of industrial development. No doubt the protests will take their course and may well halt the project, as is reasonable if the environmental consequences are too severe.

This dispute is special only because it involves money from carbon credits. Miranda's argument is that the Kyoto protocol is flawed because of episodes like this.

This silly sniping at the moves to reign in global carbon emissions completely ignores the dire global consequences if carbon emissions are allowed to continue increasing. Of course there are going to be adjustments as the global carbon trading system kicks in.

Miranda gives some idea of the task when she has a jab at environmentally aware consumers.

There is an Australian company, Greenfleet, to which consumers can pay a sort of carbon tax to plant trees on their behalf to make up for driving a car or flying in a plane. For instance, $40 gets you one year's guilt-free driving as Greenfleet will plant 17 native trees to counteract the greenhouse gases produced by the average car.

Multiply five-hundred million vehicles globally by 17 planted trees per year to sink the carbon produced and you realise the magnitude of the problem.

Would it be a good idea to sell all the national highways to a trucking company? Most people would see the conflict of interest; the controlling trucking company could make things very difficult for other trucking companies wanting to use its roads. It would be easy to charge an amount that would make the opposition uncompetitive. A government body would need to regulate the highway owner to ensure that the competition got a fair go. There'd be constant arguments about what constitutes a fair price for highway use. A ridiculous situation.

The sale of Telstra in its entirety is just such a ridiculous situation. The government proposes to give control of the service component (the trucks) and the hardware component (the roads) of the information infrastructure to the same company.

Since the deregulation and part privatisation of Telstra, there's been constant battles as competitors which use Telstra infrastructure accuse them of charging prices which make their services uncompetitive. It's been difficult for the regulator to sort out the real cost of running the network to force Telstra to set reasonable prices. This is while the company is still 51% government owned. Imagine what it will be like when it's 100% in private hands.

The National Party is correct in being worried that Telstra's interest in serving the regions will wane after it gains total control. There's no profit in servicing remote areas.

The sty doesn't have a problem with the idea of Telstra being privatised as long as the resulting company competes on a level playing field. Telstra should be split up with the infrastructure either (preferably) being held in government ownership or sold to a company that doesn't have an interest in telephony services.

Privatising Telstra while it provides communications services and controls the means of distribution is going to result in an organisation that can stymie competition and have little incentive to develop new communications innovations.

Work, the Easter Long Weekend, the start of the AFL season and a lull in the inspiration department have prevented any posts over the past week or so.

Things will resume soon. Thanks to Mark for filling the void.

Am looking after hostel solo for next month thus my not so regular posts may become less than not so regular. See you on the other side.

Last night, the ABC's Four Corners program broadcast a BBC Panorama documentary about a recently discovered phenomena called 'Global Dimming.'

No, this is not about the global intellectual decline since the right wingers took the political ascendancy. It's much more frightening than that.

'Global Dimming' is the gradual reduction over the past 50 years of sunlight reaching the earth due to atmospheric pollution. Apparently, man made particles in the atmosphere cause solar energy to be reflected away to space rather than warm the globe. Measurements have shown that light reaching the earth has declined by up to 20% in some regions.

In these circumstances you'd expect the world would be cooling. In fact, the opposite has happened, and the globe has become warmer due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The implications are that the calculated effect of extra carbon-dioxide in the air has been understated due to the effect of Global Dimming. As technology improves, the burning of fossil fuels now creates less particulate matter, lessening the cooling effect. Global warming may accelerate much faster than previously thought.

Instead of five degrees average increase in temperatures by the end of the century, it may be double that amount. Those levels would see the melting of the Greenland icecap, resulting in a five metre rise in sea levels, and the destruction of equatorial rain forrests.

The time window in which the world can act to prevent runaway global warming due to C02 emissions may be much shorter than previously calculated.

Has the Hon J W Howard ever sanctioned anyone due to impropriety?

I was a habitual dope smoker for four years, and a casual one for two years or so on either side of that. Eight years 1995-2002, in which time I also casually ingested every other narcotic under the sun, barring heroin and methodine (because I don't like needles and Trainspotting freaked me out). In that sense I feel quite qualified making statements regarding the issue.

Weezil's comments regarding user preference trends are one hundred percent true; generally, if it wasn't bud it wasn't worth smoking, and had next to no market value. I remember once that we got a shopping bag of leaf for 10 bucks from a guy who just wanted to get rid of it. What he doesn't mention (or only touches upon lightly) is the huge variation in strength from leaf and stem to bud. Sure, this is partially where the 'cannabis is stronger these days' comes from, but it does absolutely nothing to change the issue: that smoking a little dope these days is a lot different to doing the same twenty years ago, and thus that the short and long term affects are also going to be more exaggerated. He also fails to touch upon the issue of whether or not hydroponically grown dope is stronger or the differing effects that it has to that naturally grown. Levels of THC aside (consider the analogy of the potency of alcohol depending on what it is mixed with) I can tell you that hydro knocks you around a bit more. You also have to consider whether your source has laced your little plastic sachet with a little chaser of speed, cocaine or acid, as a treat or sometimes an incentive, sometimes it can be a nasty surprise. Generally, in my opinion, a little dope'll do you no harm, but ONLY if it's come from a source you know. (i.e. someone you know personally has grown it.) Apart from that, dabble at your own risk.

There is no doubt in my mind that drug consumption, in any shape or form - dope, ecstacy, alcohol, caffeine - affects the personality of the user, and rarely in a positive manner. When I came across marijuana I was looking for an escape, for some kind of purpose, and as I am prone to saying to people (generally much to their annoyance) if you're looking for something, then that's what you'll find. I found a little world that I could escape into, with myself or with my friends, and though there were a lot of good times to be had, there is always the other side of the coin. For a dramatic example, take a look at ecstasy, which provides a lovely feeling of out-of-this-world euphoria but then has the downside of making you feel the complete opposite as you 'come down'. A common phrasing amongst people on the 'dance party drugs' was Suicide Tuesday, generally when you felt the worst after a weekend on the pills. The 'schizophrenia' thing is probably the peak of the mountain - as for me in that regard best to ask after I've seen a shrink - but these isolated excesses should not be smoke and mirrors clouding the milder, perhaps more subtle side-effects of cannabis use, which I feel are more damaging in the long run.

These days, with my personal zero tolerance approach, I still suffer the after-effects of my previous habit: I am prone to paranoia, I have difficultly relating to other people, and I also find it extremely hard to motivate myself to do anything, especially affecting change in my life. At it's height, being stoned is like riding a wave on cruise control, and I personally am an expert on riding life - I just roll along casually and see where it takes me. All of these things, though perhaps present to a degree in my personality previously, were compounded, extended and enforced across my years of drug abuse. At the end of the day I succeeded in turning minor personality 'defects' into major issues, and spent a good deal of time not coming to terms with anything. It's a lot harder to learn, or unlearn things the older we get.

I do recommend, though, without encouraging, experimentation. The different perspective and appreciation I have on many things (music, film, nature, life) were largely brought upon by my experiences, and I wouldn't give those up for anything in the world. That there was a downside seems only fair, and to a large extent I relish these challenges and know that once I have passed through them all I will be a better, stronger, (fitter, happier, more productive) fella than if I'd never had the experience.

In conclusion, I think parents, and we as a whole, have a right to be concerned about cannabis - they don't make it like they used to - just as we should by all narcotics (legal or otherwise) and the effect they have on our society. Personally, I think cannabis should be legalized, or at the very least decriminalized. We should remember though, that the most important thing is not the potency, legality, manufacturing techniques or otherwise of these substances, but rather whether the ones we love have a stable enough environment and support systems available to be able to pass through adolescence, experimenting or otherwise, and come through smiling on the other side.

The End

I read somewhere once that it's advisable to leave what you've written for an hour or so, and reread it before mailing. I should have done that with my previous post.

It reads as if I don't think anyone should consider entering a trade .... that's not what I meant. Obviously, a trade can be a rewarding job and suits many people. However, many metalworking trades similar to the one I was learning were dying, and there were many better options for obtaining a career.

The moral is to choose your trade carefully.

It's ironic now that my old trade, fitting and machining, is one of those that are experiencing labour shortages. After declining for years, there's now a demand that can't be met.

Government and industry wring their hands as they lament the lack of willing apprentices, and suggest all sorts of measures to cure the problem. They never mention the one that would have any effect, ie, raising pay rates to levels that satisfactorily reward the skills needed to do the job.

Get the pay levels right, and you'll get the participants.

SWMBO is a Registered Nurse, and does not work in her profession for exactly the same reasons.

Isn't it interesting how market forces are good for everything, except increasing workers' standard of living?

Work commitments prevented any posts for the last week or so. Disappointing really, because there's a lot happening that's worth commenting on.

John Howard's exhortation for country's youth to leave school in year ten to do an apprenticeship certainly raised a few grunts at the sty. He's got to be joking! Been there and done that.

Well, I did go through to year 12, but the rest is history. Having a technical bent and not enough marks or inclination to go to university, I took a mechanical apprenticeship at a large government run organisation. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

I was one of over 100 apprentices taken on that year. It was at the height of the Whitlam government, and the facility had 3000 employees and a dedicated apprentice school. (30 years later, the place is now in private hands, employs 300 workers, a handful of apprentices, and outsources labour when needed.)

Working conditions were uncomfortable to say the least. Workshops were in large open buildings with no climate control. You broiled in summer and froze in winter. The work was dirty and dangerous. There were several horrific injures and one death during my time. Contact with asbestos was common.

The social disparity between trades and white collar workers was obvious. Trade employees in this particular government industry had an inferior award compared with other public servants. They had a longer working week, 40 hours compared to 36.75 flexible working hours for the office workers.

I completed my trade but left soon after to travel overseas. Apart from a short stint in London, I never returned to it. The writing was on the wall for manufacturing. Service industries were on the rise. Electronics and computers were the way to go.

I'd like to think the shortage of trades people will see trades' wages and social standing increase. In reality, the government's tightening of industrial law is designed to keep the lid on pay and conditions. (Unless you're an executive, of course.)

When the current economic boom ends, as it must eventually, trades people will be the first to lose their jobs.

I certainly won't be encouraging my kids to take on a trade.

Kicked myself when I came online yesterday and saw that I'd missed last week's drugs debate. Here's me traipsing around in the snow with a bottle of rum on my hip when there's a topic I feel qualified to speak on bouncing around the pig sty! So, I'll be bringing it back up in a couple of days time, at your grace, when I've had the time to pull my thoughts together.

Just to let you know, I'll only be speaking from my point of view; I'm not a scientist, a parent, or a politician. I can write a bit, but I'm no journalist; I'm not going to research much, if at all, and if you see me quote one statistic I'll eat my shoes (but not the hiking boots). Basically I'll be saying what I think, my experience qualifying me to chuck in a cent or two I reckon.

Been busy for the past few days. Back soon.

One thing that hasn't really concerned me about my kids becoming teenagers in a couple of years time is the thought of them coming into contact with marijuana. After all, when I was a teenager, using it was a common social past-time, considered relatively harmless.

Of course, there were people who abused the stuff, but we all grew out of it with no (obvious) long term effects.

Like many of my generation, I've been more concerned about booze and dance party drug use by our adolescents.

After watching last night's Four Corners program, I'm thinking again. Seems that the combination of super strength, hydroponically grown ganja, early adoption by the users, and chronic use can be a factor in triggering psychosis later in life.

Times have changed. Yet another thing to worry about.

An update to my previous post on this subject ..... have just received a letter from our mortgage provider (the instigator of the transfer) slugging me another $25 because of the refusal by my bank to pay.

grrrr! Total cost now $60.

Not much I can do about it at the moment. Will have to wait and see the response to my request to have the original fee refunded.

Charles again, sorry, now he's in New Zealand being confronted by a barebreasted protest after supposedly being offended by some aboriginal dancers doing the same. One wonders whether Camila's now decided to can her wedding night surprise dance.

In yesterday's SMH by Clive Hamilton. It really needs to be read in its entirety, but the following extract sums it up ....

The Howard Government has ridden the extraordinary debt binge to resounding political success and has been loath to spoil the party with the sobering advice and policy signals that any responsible government should have dispensed.

As long as it was riding high, it was never going to warn the public that their overspending was unsustainable; that sooner or later spending more than you earn must be matched by earning more than you spend; that the price of one asset - houses - cannot get too far out of kilter with the price of other assets; and that capitalist economies have always been subject to business cycles, and always will be.

The Government has profited from the financial illiteracy of great swathes of Australians blinded by the promise of instant wealth and egged on by tax rules that stimulated massive investment in rental property.

Optimists will hope that the country can go through the coming readjustment without too much pain.

The cynics at the Sty are battening down the financial hatches.

I'm not particularly a follower of any things royal, though it is hard to ignore sometimes. So Charles didn't eat the witchetty grub saying: 'The last time I was here I had raw seal - I'm older and wiser now.' He's going to want Australia to be a Commonwealth pretty soon I reckon, because he'll be up for Sashimi next time.

I particularly liked the journos heckling him outside the eco-toilet, saying, 'don't be shy' and 'don't forget to flush.' Nice to see that their humour involves shit and piss jokes like the rest of us, a nice follow on from the Hand of Keating. And I kinda liked this headline (mock, I'm assuming), sent to me by a friend:

CAMILLA TO WED CHARLES: declines offer from the Queen of a weekend in Paris with car and driver

Bad taste? Yes... but quite Australian.

One of my pet hates are bank fees, and I'll search high and low to find financial organisations that shun them. Although I'm not in the habit of posting product endorsements at the Pigs, it amazes me that more people don't protest at the shoddy way their financial institutions treat them by taking their business elsewhere. Therefore, I suggest if you are looking for alternatives, then look at HSBC's online account for your banking, and Virgin for your credit card.

The point of this is that no matter how careful you are, it's easy to get slugged when it's least expected.

It happened to me when I deposited a 'bank' cheque into our bank account at a postoffice. Thinking that the cheque would clear within the three business days, I organised a direct debit against the funds on the fifth day.

Well, you guessed it. They disallowed the transfer, and slugged me $35 in the process.

Bastards!

Phoning to see what had happened, I was informed that cheques take longer to clear if deposited at a post office. Being a 'bank' cheque, which the issuing bank would not have issued without covering funds in place, was not considered in the rejection process.

Well, I'm not taking this lying down! Rejecting the urge to vandalise the bank's head office, I've instead written a letter to the bank explaining what happened and asking for my $35 back.

Watch here for developments!

I've been thinking for some time about the flavours of governments and the economic cycles in which they rise and fall. As it happens, some other commentators have already written about this, but, hey, it's my blog and I'll rehash if I want to.

As I push into my 50th year, I've seen the cycles come and go.

It's such a broad and complicated subject that books have be written on it, but I think you can make two broad assumptions with regard to economics:

Labor governments reform, Liberal governments do not. I accept that this a gross generalisation.

When I was young (the 60s), the Liberals were in, and the economy was booming. The good times were built on agricultural exports (mainly wool) and manufacturing industries protected by high tariffs.

The conservative's policies did little to make the country's industries more efficient. If competition started to harm an industry, they could apply to have tariffs raised.

They completely ignored new technology. Australia was at the forfront of computing and electronics research during the 50s. This was never exploited. Golden opportunities lost.

When the Liberals were eventually thrown out in 1972, the Labor party took over an economy that was outdated and inefficient.

During the termoil of the Whitlam years, tariffs rates were reduced by 25%. Looking back, it may have been the first major step taken to modernise the economy. Whitlam also introduced the Trade Practices Act, a landmark reform in the field of corporate behaviour.

In 1975, Labor was out and the conservatives did little to introduce any meaningful economic reform. Enter in 1978 a Labor government headed by Bob Hawk and his treasurer, Paul Keating.

It was the Hawk / Keating Labor government that did the hard yards in reforming the economy. Against a hostile Senate, they deregulated the financial markets, floated the dollar and introduced a new, cooperative approach to industrial relations.

We all know that period was painful. During the reform process, there were a couple of nasty recessions, but the ground work was laid in reforming the economy; reforms which have resulted in more than a decade of continuous growth.

So, what have the conservatives done to maintain the modernisation of the economy during their decade in office? Not that much. Not enough to encourage research and development. No policies about trying to keep and develop industries in Australia.

They gave a free kick to the tax avoidance industry by halving capital gains tax, a move which set off a real estate boom. They allowed conditions where it was easy to fund consumption on the back of rising property prices.

Rather than continue to foster a cooperative industrial environment, the conservatives are resorting to increase the power of the employers and create conditions that will see the erosion of worker entitlements. That just about sums it up .... where the former Labor government was interested in exploring ways to make the economy more efficient and share the spoils, the conservatives are interested in gaining efficiency by reducing the wages and conditions of the least advantaged in the community.

The present day conservative economic legacy is a record current account deficit financed by debt borrowed against wildly overprised real estate.

And this is how it's alway been. Hard reforms by the left, and lazy policies of growth by speculation by the right.

Makes you pine for Paul Keating's 'Banana Republic' days.

Yesterday, Australia recorded its worst ever trade performance.

Today, the RBA raised interest rates, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that the economy grew by just 0.1 per cent in the December quarter, and the government authorised health funds to raise fees by eight percent.

It's not looking good for a government re-elected on its economic credentials.

The RBA claims that the economy has to be slowed because it's reaching its limits of production. The government should take some responsibility for this. By halving capital gains tax in a climate of low interest rates, it created the conditions of a property boom that diverted cash away from more productive investments. A lot of the population borrowed heavily to buy homes or investment properties.

The problem for the RBA and the government is that these people are up to their eyeballs in debt. So much so that they are paying a similar proportion of their incomes in debt repayment as were people under Keating's 18% interest rates. There's not much room for rate rises this time round.

The risk is that pushing interest rates too high will cause much pain to Howard's inspirational voters in the outer suburbs. In these circumstances, property values would fall. Some may have to sell in the unenviable situation where their debt is greater than the value of the asset.

Raising interest rates also work against our poor trade performance by underpinning the high value of the Australian dollar; the double whammy of cheap imports and uncompetitive exports.

In short, there's not much that the RBA or the Government can do to rein in the economy without risking major economic pain to large sections of the population. Perhaps the economic slowdown will do the job for them, or perhaps it will make it worse.

After 12 years of continuous economic growth, a period where property and stocks rose to dizzy levels, it's not inconceivable that we're headed into a painful economic correction.

I feel we are in for some nasty economic times. I hope I'm wrong.

Was wondering how multi-cultural people think Australia really is? Sitting around the campfire I thought that there are a lot of different cultures represented and perhaps this is enough to fall under that umbrella, but the way people say it they seem to think that we are culturally diversified. I don't think we are. All through high school and university ethnic groups, whities are an ethnic group too ;-), would hang-out with each other. There were exceptions, but in the real sense of the word. Thoughts?