Bleatings from exile by an Australian Expatriate

 
Taxi Poll

The Sydney Morning Herald has been running a regular blog called Cab Poll in which a cab-driving contributor asks passengers what they thought about the upcomiong state election.

This reminded me of the years when I studied for my honours degree in political science and then later my MBA. Both times I supplemented by student allowance with taxi driving on weekends - Friday and Saturday night. Being a very political animal I similarly ventured to discuss politics with my hapless captives.

I did drive on the evening of a poll in Sydney once and carried out a conscientious poll to check the grassroots feeling. Usually I started with a preamble to introduce the topic but by the end of the evening I felt the topic was so hot I just asked straight out - "Well who's gonna win tomorrow?". I was brought back to reality however when I got the guiless reply from one - "Well if this rain keeps up, the pitch will be totally wet, so it'll be hard to call the result".
Not everyone is as obsessed with politcs as I am.

But usually I harranged passengers with my economic rationalism and globalization ideas - trying to explain to people why Australia had been changing so drastically - that it wasn't just rolling back the gains of the past - it was taking Australia to the forefront of globalization and preparing it for a prosperous future. Sometimes I even made a convert.

One lady had been complaining about refugees getting immediate access to public housing while her chronically ill brother had been forced to wait six years for one. We then got onto the subject of aid which she said she resented because we needed help at home. I explained that Australia had an imperative to create more markets for its goods and services so that we could maintain jobs and grow our our economy. So we spend aid on poor countries in an attempt to improve their standard of living so they could buy our products. She was amazed by this and asked why no politician had every explained it that way. I told her politicians get only 15 seconds whereas I had taken at least five minutes.

Most rejected my views as outlandish and pointed out that ending protectionism was just exporting jobs. I agreed but found it hard to convince them that the new jobs which would take their place would be better paying and have better conditions.

The owner of my cab, who often drove these same people and got feedback on my conversations, told me I should be talking to people to find out their travel requirements and building my business rather than talking rubbish.
posted by Unknown at 11:47 PM

 
Australian Journalist Seeks to Re-invent Economics

Economics correspondant for the Sydney Morning Herald, Ross Gittins, has recently published a book called modestly, Gittinomics. He reviews it here. He deplores the lack of humanity of economists who simply predict human behaviour when it comes to making and spending wealth, and tries to imply that what they should be doing is telling us what is best from an overall societal point of view.

This is what economists would call normative economics (what should be), and the business of politicians and civic leaders, their job is positive economics (what large masses of people actually do). Most economics just measure and predict using highly complex models with so many variables you can get any answer you like. Overall their models have increased in accuracy in recent decades so that something like next year's GDP can be predicted, plus or minus 2%, as compared to plus or minus 4% a few decades ago - ceterus paribus. Which they usually are not.

Gittins goes on not to attack economists, but people but living the life they do. Maxing their credit cards, sacrificing their free time, family time, leisure time, etc in order to be able to appear just that bit better off than their peers, neighbours, relatives etc. He urges that we drop this vain pursuit, sacrificing a few GDP point for a better life style.

Note that it is Gittins view of a better lifestyle. That of an economic wowser - calling for sacrifice of what we really value for that which we should value. No doubt Gittins marches out of his office promptly at 5:30pm and enjoys the odd game of golf. But one wonder what it is that gives him the right to dictate to others how they should live their life? And to blame economists because people will work harder and longer if they can get that extra bit of cash to upgrade to a Statesman, or even a BMW and move to a better suburb, or afford a better school for their kids.

After all this is the universal appeal of capitalism - that it does give you that choice. After living nearly 30 years in China I can affirm that the stability of socialism, its equalitiarian nature, the guarantee of a job for life, etc was totally rejected by the vast majority of Chinese who just wanted the opportunity to be better. To get rich - gloriously or ingloriously - but rich. They fled China with relatively large and cheap accommodation and regular work, for life in Hong Kong living in a tony temporary shack on a hillside, taking work pulling goods between stores and market stalls for little pay until they could get enough to buy some goods for resale. They did it for the opportunity to better their families which was not present in China. They saw China as being stultifying - stifling all hope of advancement, enforcing the one acceptable simple life for an
entire lifetime without any hope of improving the family's fortunes.

Sadly Gittins is like many arm-chair idealists. He has a concept of the ideal life and wants to enforce it - like, Lenin, Hitler, and Mao. It's a nice idea as an alternative but sadly idealists want to make it compulsory. You only have to look at Australia in the 50's with it's iron-clad 9-5 regime - no-one shall work outside those hours, especially on the weekends. Pubs will close at 6pm to enforce family togetherness. All workers had to join a union. Women were refused work. Alternative lifestyles were available for all only in asylums for the insane.

I don't recall anyone but a few wowsers being happy about that state of affairs and we all worked hard to overthrow this nanny-state and be allow to make their own work and leisure choices and create a society which has services available around the clock and all weekend. Yes we work hard, but we clearly get a lot more pay and enjoy a better material life as Gittins clearly regrets. There may be some nostalgic for the old days when we were all poor but the rich were few and mostly invisible. There are people like that in China too. But overall the vast majority want the opportunity to make their own choice. You can still do it. Plenty of people do. Early retirement is possible. One of my friends, an academic, retired when he was 40. He lives a simple life and lives off his savings and investments.

Gittins and his ilk are a dime a dozen in the popular media. Always demanding the government do this and do that to enforce their idea of an ideal life. As we have seen much of what they recommend, such as welfare entitlement, has had the negative effect of emiserating whole families who have become welfare dependant - stifling their initiative and condemning their kids to lifelong dependency as well. They need to be more aware of the paradox of unintended consequences and think through apparantly kindly but costly government programs. Former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was greeted as a hero for legislating minimum wage for all aboriginals living on 'stations', or cattle and sheep properties in the Austalian 'outback'. Instead of the expected ennoblement, it led to the immediate emiseration of aboriginals and welfare dependency. You can blame the property owners but they just did what they had to to survive the difficult life of a farmer. Writers like Gittins will always blame people for not being good enough for their systems!
posted by Unknown at 9:19 PM

 
Recently in Australia around 18 alleged terrorists were arrested and all of the press were full of details of the terrible things these fools were planning. It was easy to generate a sense of outrage and strong support for the arrests in the light of the detailed information on conversations about targets, requests for martyrdom, massive stocks of arms and bomb-making chemicals.

At the same time one does have a small, insistent and increasing feeling of concern about the need for due process and the presumption of innocence. While it might leave us in bit of an information vacuum, it might give us a slightly better sense of 'justice done' if the information was to come out at the trial, rather than in newspapers. Of course the newspapers welcome anything which will sell newspapers and the security departments involved concerned to pre-empt the predictable outrage in the Muslim community as well as the bleatings of opposition from the bleeding hearts who think that any arrest of a minority person is, ipso facto, discrimination.

But that was not the worst of it - bureaucrats and the media were both just serving their interests, which of course (in their eyes) outweigh respect for the principles of justice on which western civilization is based. Principles don't sell newspapers, nor do they assuage public opinion. One arrest at the time resulted from the search of a premise after police had been informed, via a special security phone number, that a person had been trying to purchase a suspicious amount of a chemical essential to the manufacture of bombs. The evening of the arrest the informant was approached by a newspaper for an interview about the event. The informant asked where the reporter got the information and he was told it was all written on the warrant documents which are a matter of public record.

Some idiot public servant, or policeman, had included the name of the informant on the very document which the security people are obliged to show the suspect - the search warrant! Rather than sit on this dangerously sensitive information, or at best attacking the security department involved for the lapse which could endanger the informant, they threatened the informant they would publish his name if he did not agree to an interview!

This mindless search for sensation does not appear to have resulted in any censure for the newspaper. All potential security informants can be assured they will be outed by the first newspaper to see the search warrant. How does that serve public interest or the right to know? How does that make Australia more secure?

At the same time I saw a further attempt to undermine our threatened sense of security by speculating on the identity of a so-called 'supergrass' in the Muslim community.

Our press often have exaggerated notions of their own importance. They lecture us on what is good and proper. On what is good for the nation. They set themselves up in opposition to the government of the day in the name of their civic duty as the last bastions of freedom. And yet they display a completely cavalier attitude to matters of national security and the rule of law!
posted by Unknown at 9:28 PM

 
French Linguistic Protectionism and Chinese Characters

Nobody is less apologetic about wanting to protect their industry, culture and even their way of life than the French. But I heard an interesting program recently on Duetche Weller, the German short wave wave program, which suggested that the French language itself is valued as a bulwark of this protectionist urge.

The program pointed to the fact that along with the ten new entrants to the EU would come an accellerated usage of Engish as most of these countries had listed English as their preferred second language.

Previously, with the dominance of Germany and France, those two languages got quite a run, but with the accession of 'New Europeans'there will be a tipping of the balance towards English.

While this will please the anglophones of the world it appears that the French are the most upset about it. Not only because it accellerates the decline of French as a lingua franca, and the language of diplomacy, but also as a barrier against Anglo-Saxon thinking.

According to the program the increased use of French will expose more and more Europeans to Anglo-Saxon thinking - specifically in the area of economics where the French are the most vulnerable. As can be seen from the present French attempt to bail out Alsthrom, it is simply unthinkable that a French Institution such as Alsthrom (or Air France) should disappear, or even be forced to become competitive.

There is no doubt that France develops excellent technology which the world willing buys, especially at the state subsidized prices. What is stange is that the EU, in which the French government was instrumental in drawing up the rules, strongly opposes any of the bailouts that the French government has recently carried out. Indeed the EU is resolutely Economic Rationalist. But France is not! The French proudly proclaim that it is society (or the community) which is pre-eminent and that economics should serve the interest of society and not vice versa - which is they way they see it in the West.

Convincing French people this is true is not difficult - it is basic to the French ethos of dirigisme. But what the French government fears is that the increasing use of English, with its emphasis on competition and efficiency being better for the economy and hence better for society, will be corrosive of that ideology.

It is the first time I have heard the use of a European language described as a means of protectionism. In the past, with reference to China, we often heard the argument that the government's adoption of simplified characters was a means to cut young people off from the nation's proud tradition of Confucianism. But the idea of French language as a bulwark against economic rationalism really appealls to me!






posted by Unknown at 6:46 PM

 
Education - A Personal Rant

My teacher and mentor on China, Dr Adrian Chan, recently wrote to my about development in Australia. Adrian taught me a great deal about Chinese history, politics and philosophy and at the time was my political soul mate. After my arrival in China however I slowly began to realise that China, while implementing Socialism in the way it was understood in those days was a totally dysfunctional society, polity, and economic entity. People didn't work, companies didn't work, and government services were only provided with the grewatest reluctance. A few years after I arrived in China Adrian also arrived in China, albeit in Anhui, to teacher as a foreign expert at the China University of Science and Technology which had been exiled there many years before. Like me he became disillusioned with the China he saw but his conclusions were different to mine. He believed China needed another revolution - this time a real socialist one!

Dr Chan is my teacher however and I have imbibed enough Chinese mentality to always respect and honour him as a formative influence and friend. Nevertheless his coments on the poor state of education in Australia and implying that it was the fault of the Liberal Howard government excited my passions. I am nothing if not passionate about my beliefs. I am the first to admit to being as rabid an economic rationalist now as I was a "Small 'M' Maoist" in my early days out of university. My arguments may well appear as doctrinaire in defence of economic rationalism as they were when I was a socialist. It's not to bad to believe in an ideal. I know I will never make an academic. In my family the arguments rage the strongest - one brother being a died-in-the-wool trade unionist and the other a Liberal Party activist.

Well neither of them can stomach my eco-ratism. Nor will they ever accept Free Trade and the abandonning of protectionism which they both believe to be economic suicide and will never budge from that position. Neither are great readers so I will never convince them otherwise. Good Economics always appears to be counter-intuitive and hence is always bad politics.

So here is my response to Adrian. I am sure he will take it in good part and ignore it - and wonder that I have been in China so long and learned so little. I apologise to him in advance. I am a poor student and an ungrateful one.


Quote from my letter

Re education - yes there is a huge demand. The higher the fees - the higher the demand. OK it's eco-rat ideology but it is demonstrable. The US - with the highest fees in the world also has the highest rate of students going from Senior High School to university at over 50%. In the UK & Oz we are still aiming for 40% and that would collapse our budgets! Here in China when they had free tertiary education the rate was tiny - only since they began charging fees have they been able to cater for a rapidly increasing level of tertiary participation. Our fees are RMB 9000 per quarter and in a tiny town of 360,000 people we have nearly a 100 students and expect it to double this year. Our diploma and degree are not accreditted but the very fact of having a tertiary education completely in English (with white faces) makes our students very employable. OK the unis are not stupid - they have set up off campus private universities, or they 'franchise' private groups using the name, who charge high fees. One group run by the Guangzhou Uni has 10,000 students in such a unit!

Having lived in China and Australia I see clearly that any service provided fee becomes abused by both client and deliverer. It generally sinks to a low common denominator as you know from your time here.

A Chinese American economist - Gregory Chow, from Princeton writes extremely well about China and uses it to demonstrate simple but compelling economic rules (ie rules of human behaviour) showing that when the service delivers have no personal interest in the outcome then they will be reluctant to deliver the service. As you know from your time in China - service was a myth. If you didn't know someone it was given reluctantly and you only got the poor product above the counter and not the good product below the counter. You would have seen it at your school with poor teachers never encouraged to improve so long as they were in good with the principal. The whole school had no interest in delivering a good outcome. Of course many were good teachers, driven by that love of educating and tried their best - but from within a rotten, corrupt system which mitigated against much of an outcome. This was not just the political system which prized political outcomes over educational, but a wider phenomenum to do wth public ownership of goods which we also saw in the Australian school system.

You once said China needs another revolution. Well it's getting it! Hard working, good Chinese now have every incentive to achieve and to do their best. US Universities are beginning to take notice of the very high educational standard of some of the newer mainland students. Our students are getting more and more demanding as they come in from highly competitive places such as Shenzhen. We are having to lift our game as we have to convince every student who comes here they are getting top level education. Two teachers have fallen by the wayside in the last two terms. Highly educated but not good enough teachers for our students whose feedback is zealously courted in 100% surveys each term and used to evaluate teachers. I teach 24-28 hours a week - not at high school level but at university level and I have to keep up strict university standards.

Australian high school teachers refuse to teach more than 850 hours a year (I do 1250). At the tertiary level I don't know what it is these days but it used to be 8 a week. OK so not every paper I give is the product of my own recent research. We have a corpus of lesson material which we just update from time to time. Our text books are updated as a new edition becomes available and so out material has to be updated. But if our examples are not recent or apposite to China we will hear about it.

I remember back in the 70's my Chinese teacher C.C.Sun saying "Chinese people love to work hard" - I walked away laughing, thinking he lived in the past. No-one in China wanted to work. Socialism had killed all incentive to work. Why work when you got paid no more than the guy who just turned up on payday? Now the incentive to work has been restored Chinese people are back at work. Becoming in two decades the manufacturing centre of the world. In pre-Open Door China the factories were there. Zhou Enlai ensured they were full of the latest machine tools. But the plans for them, the resources allocated ensured they put out a faction of their much touted "production capacity". Efficiency and quality were similarly casualties of socialism. The factory was rewarded for delivering goods. They couldn't hope to be efficient as the government kept allocating more workers wherther they needed them or not. (Sound familiar? Think, QANTAS, TAA, The Electricity Commission, NSWGR, The Water Board, The Gas Company etc etc). Moreover the total emphasis on heavy industry ensured little was made of a consumer nature. We all know about the two suits people were allowed to wear - the green one and the blue one. Now Chinese people have whole shopping centres devoted just to clothing. They have a choice. Factories have to be aware of fashion and not just work to a government plan.


I see the same comparison in education in Australia. If we were a poor people who could not afford education then a universal system would be justified - but we are not poor - we are rich. We have enough money to spend frivolously on SUVs, holidays, junk food, and other leisure pursuits. Logically we should spend our money more responsibly on health and education, given the same level of choice as we have in our leisure goods, albiet a little more rigorously regulated to ensure a basic education is provided for all. Of course they are the indigent, who will never be able to provide for education or health and so we need a safety for them.

We all believed in Gough Whitlam ( Australian PM 1972-1975) when he brought us those systems. But thirty years of experience should be enough to satisfy us that universal health and education, no matter how much you spent on it - did not raise health or education levels. Indeed it oversaw a serious decline in both. Not through maladminisatrion or Aussie bloodymindedness but through simple human behaviour - the employees have no interest in the desired outcome! That is why teachers - like all public servants spend their entire time debating not educational outcomes but entitlements (in student time!).

Dawkins (Education minister under the Hawke goverment 1983-1989) and then subsequent Education ministers have had the job of trying to make schools work but even (Opposition Leader Mark) Latham will not follow the road of a universal system anymore - he also is an eco-rat. Even Lindsay Tanner is an eco-rat. ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions)economists began the age of Economic rationalism. It was Hawke, advised by the John Edwards of the world, that led the unions and employers into the Eco-rat era - not the conservatives. Not Fraser. He was too much pro the bankrupt status quo - but a Trade Union leader (Hawke was head of the ACTU before becoming Prime minister). Since then of course the unions have recanted and gone back to bloodyminded feather bedding and opposing the reforms which have made Australia a viable manufacturing country with a strong economy again.

Yes we have a large number of poor. Bob Hawke should have said "There is no longer any need for there to be poor children". Christ was right - The poor we will always have with us. Our social services are sufficient for the careful. Look at the way our (largely unemployed) Lebanese muslims procreate just for the child endowment and other benefits! At least that is the hospital anecdotal reports.

Australians, like Chinese, are now back at work. Yes there are strains and sad stories in both places. But at least in both places now there is hope. And incentive to secure our families a better position in life ourselves rather than rely on the government. Consumerism is rife here in China. Keeping up with the Jones's. A home of your own and a car is everyone's right. But it is driving a healthy economy and an optimism you never saw here when you were here. Yes there will be problems. And social instability caused by the growing rural-urban gap is a strong possibility. But the government is very aware of it and working to ensure it doesn't happen.

I have agreed to stay on. Just recently with a friend we were talking of the love-hate relationship Chinese have with the West. They copy everything often uncritically. But when there is a sign they are not accepted by the west as equals (US trade sanctions, Human rights denunciations, etc) you readily see another side. If I stay here long enough I am sure to be beaten by the same students who say they love me now. I am aware of China's history. It's only a matter of time and some ham fisted actions from Europe or the US. But obviously I love the place more than my homeland now. I will stay here as long as my health allows me. The people are good and I wouldn't stop loving them just because of some minor upheaval.

I hope your health improves and you can come back to your home town again and see the incredible changes here. The new spirit of freedom and enterprise. It's the new China they sought to make with a socialist revolution, but it was a blunt tool, the wrong tool. The wheel will turn. There will come a day when the rich go too far and they will be overthrown again - the bureaucrats will strike back and we'll return again to government by bureaucrats and planners. But until that day I will stay here and hope to provide some insights to young Chinese students.

Of course I am proud of the changes we have made in Australia too, but it has long been obvious Australia has no place for me so here I am.
posted by Unknown at 4:10 AM

 
NSW Department of Education & Training (NSW DET) Acts as arm of Teacher's Union

Browsing the website of the NSW DET recently I came across the recent, large scale trial conducted at the request of the department into the benefits of smaller classes on educational outcomes. It was commissioned by the department in the context of falling enrollments in the public system as people gravitated towards the private education system. Hence with teacher numbers threatened the unions have been calling for smaller class sizes to justify the present establishment and even increase numbers.

But the trial was a travesty. They were conducted using smaller classes sizes and then the teachers and parents polled as to whether they thought the students had benefitted. Of course the vast majority of teachers claimed benefits in "learning outcomes, literacy and numeracy. The parents also felt their progeny had benefitted. The paper trumpetted the successful outcome.

One does not have to take too seriously the claims of the social sciences to being such, but even the most sympathetic supporter might have looked for some sort of back-to-back comparison of two similar groups of students in differing class sizes. One might have thought they would be subjected to identical tests of literacy and numeracy before and after the trail period to judge outcomes but no. The word of the relevant professionals and the credulous parents was judged to be sufficient!

A copy of the paper is available here.

The surprise is not the lack of rigour. One might have expected that in a self serving trial designed to promote the union cause of preserving teacher numbers. The shock is that such an unprofessional trail was commissioned by the department at public expense. Still we shouldn't be shocked. Bob Carr's Labor government has signally failed in all areas of needed reform it set for itself where unions were involved. They failed to reform rail. They failed to reform power generation. And they failed to reform public education. Entirely because of entrenched union interests. The Labor party is a creature of the unions and struggling to find relevence in a world in which union membership is less than 30% of all working Australians.


posted by Unknown at 3:39 AM

 
A Pox on Both Your Houses

I wrote the following to prolific anti-Leftist/Green blogger John Ray. He wrote in the context of a story in Australia announcing the government had devided to abolish a superannuation scheme (retirement allowance) for politicians which vastly over-rewarded them compared to the normal schemes for working people. Indeed the government contribution in this scheme was 160% of the polly's contribution compared to 9% for a regular scheme. The government in turn was reacting to an announcement by the new Labor Party Opposition leader Mark Latham, that abolition of the scheme would be a central policy plank of the party. Australian Prime Minister John Howard knew this was a vote winner and decided to take it off the board before it even had a chance of becoming an election issue.

"I note you refer to the Federal Super story suggesting
a bi-partisan position on the matter. I suggest that
whilst Labor might have been able to hold this
position right up to the election - the moment they
became government it would be dropped.

The majority of Labor politicians are nothing if not
cynical grubbers after perk and privilage. Why, the
Senate's only function from a Labor perspective, is
that of superannuating burned out party hacks and
apparatchiks. The party machine and backbenchers to a
person, would round on Latham and forbid touching the
super scheme.

Need I remind you of NSW Premier Jack Lang's attempt
in the 20's to vote out the NSW Upper House by
appointing sufficient party faithful who were sworn to
vote the anachronistic chamber out of existence. Sadly
their first act was to vote for the continuation of
the chamber into perpetuity.

Howard himself apparently faced a revolt of his
cabinet until he relented and agreed to make the move
applicable only to new legislators, here indeed was a
bi-partisan position. It would be unfair to attribute
this avarice to politicians alone. Recent attempts to
cut back the pay of teachers and public servants in
Hong Kong met similar fates and indeed the public
servants even got the Financial Secretary sacked. They
eventually accepted a six percent reduction over three
years in the context of a general drop of between
20-40% in local wages. Public servants are in a unique
position to blackmail governments into capitulation by
threats of non-cooperation so it is very difficult to
bring about any reform which threatens their power,
lurks and perks, or income.

Howard's bind was that whereas he knew this issue
would die a violent death the day after a Labor
victory, it could develop into an election winning
issue. He was hence on a hiding to nothing. Latham's
move was simply cynical opportunistic demagogy which
he knew Howard would be very disturbed by, whereas he
knew it was unimplementable in a Labor government."


posted by Unknown at 3:22 AM

 
The map below represents the countries I have visited. Given 25 years wandering around outside Australia you might think I would have been to more. In fact I spent most of my time in China. Travelling rarely as we took most of our breaks to return to Australia to see my family.
posted by Unknown at 5:55 AM

 


create your own visited country map
or write about it on the open travel guide

posted by Unknown at 5:53 AM

 
Economic Rationalism

Today I received an email from my brother Thomas, an active branch member of Australia's conservative Liberal Party. As is too often the case the rest of the family, including me, are die-hard Labor Party people so our family gatherings are characterized by vigorous political debate. The irony is that while I am a rabid economic rationist, as are many in the former socialist inclined Labor Party, Thomas is more of a Keynesian - economic protection, job protection is his constant refrain. In his recent missive he bemoaned the policy of the NSW State Railways who refuse to source rolling stock from local firms if they are not competitive. Thomas worried about the short and long term economic damage. I returned with this reply:

Dear Thomas

I understand where you are coming from however decades of such a protective policy did not pay off in Australia developing a strong economy. Indeed it got weaker and weaker having to be protected by higher and higher tariffs. Meanwhile wages increased regularly, closely tracked by prices because the wages increases did not reflect productivity gains. We had a highly uncompetitive economy which was not delivering increases in standard of living to Australians, moreover we could export little besides mining and farm produce because our manufacturing was too inefficient.

Labour and manufacturing efficiency were discouraged at every set by policies of buy local, buy Australian. Local councils had exclusive rights to build all local roads, etc. This only resulted in inefficiency. While they promote, initially, local employment, the overall effect is to prevent the development of efficient industries and services. It means the costs of government and other services are grossly higher than if they had been delivered by private firms. Hence they are a further cost to industry making it harder for firms to be competitive.

This is not just my blind prejudice, or the sign of a Productivity Council overrun by Economic Rationalist Ideologues who know nothing about the real world. It dawned on all nations using this system since the end of World War II under the inspiration of Lord Keynes' General Theory. By about 1975 the system became so overloaded by government regulation and intervention that it finally imploded and even in England and the US, run by conservative governments - price and wages controls had to be implemented - usually only used in wartime.

Finally the message got through that only by opening economies to market forces and trade would the Western world enter a new phase of economic growth. In Australia Bob Hawke got the message from his trade union employed economists - they told him the Australian economy could not survive unless it was opened up and we stopped trying to make it grow in the iron lung of Keynesianism.

Hence Hawke's Accord, Thatcher/Blair's UK, Clinton/Reagan's tax and program cuts - hence the huge growth we experienced all through the 1990's and into the 21st Century. Yes it's true. Australia lost 800,000 jobs in the textile industry and now we import all our clothes from China. But now our manufacturing exports are the major part of all our exports. Instead of a fat, lazy bureaucracy we have a much slimmer, more efficient one where everyone has to justify his job. Instead of local councils squeezing the Golden Goose for more eggs while living off the fat of the land, we now have highly trained professionals supervising sub-contractors. Instead of firms used to fat contracts from the government we now have a competitive business sector making it's presence felt all around the world. It's not perfect of course. Nothing done by man ever is - but it works a lot better.

Sure there are sectors to be sorted out - free health, medicine and education result in poor quality services run and delivered by people whose first concern is their own interests and then a distant second, the interests of the clients. Australia is a rich country - only a small minority require education or health services free as a matter of survival or right. When you start getting something free you expect it all the time. Both parties are dedicated to reducing free health and education to a right only for those who cannot afford to pay. In the long run it will reduce taxes considerably as public health and education is a huge drain on the public purse which is just not justifiable.

I know you don't agree with me and you can always find a few remnant socialists who refuse to recognize economic reality and think everything should be free as a human right. Remember in societies where they tried it only worked at the point of a gun! Don't llok for comfort from the Labor Party - Even leftist Lindsay Tanner has told the unions to pull their heads in. Australia's first interest is a strong economy and Labor ministers to a man are economic rationalists - a Hawke legacy - he hired the best economists in Australia and listened to them!

What is 'simple logic' in economics is often that. Real economic research sometimes comes up with what appears to to be counter-intuitive conclusions. Trade union leaders thrive on the simple logic of job protection - George Bush will be hearing a lot of it over the next twelve months. He will make gestures and then undo them. Destroying inefficient jobs causes real pain, but produces strong growth which absorbs most of the unemployed as we now know. Australia has gone the hard yards and is enjoying the results. No matter how much whingeing you hear 6% unemployment in a country with a generous welfare system is excellent. In the European countries which still have strongly planned, regulated and protected economies which are supposed to produce full employment, the unemployment rate is between 8-12%.

Politicians might tell you otherwise but their economic advisors are telling them not to reward inefficient industries - if Australian firms cannot make more efficiently than overseas suppliers who have to pay shipping - then they should not be supported. Once we reduced tariffs and protection - instead of failing - our firms leapt at the challenge and became global champions - those like BHP Steel and Ansett who didn't - died. An efficient and modern One Steel and Blue Sky - took it's place. Look at how Qantas changed to become more efficient - sure it is well protected - but it produces the same services with far fewer employees and we can fly at much lower costs. New, efficient industries grow in the place of the dinosaurs!


posted by Unknown at 6:53 AM

 
Friendly Diatribe

Aussie Expat's old friend Dr John Henningham is the retired professor of Journalism from the University of Queensland. He was the first Professor of Journalism in Australia, founder of an academic journal on the subject and a specialist on the subject of political bias in the media. Recently he retired from academe to found his own private college journalism, Jschool, in Brisbane. He left UQ when they decided to subsume the School of Journalism under the Department of Communications, a move which Henningham opposed mightily. Recently Dr Henningham took part in a discussion on the media in which he excoriated the teaching of journalism in Australia. This was my reaction which I sent to Dr Henningham and taken in good part since much of our communication is couched in this aggressive satirical style. He never fails to reply in kind - a healthy antidote to our sometimes puffed up self importance. Something only possible between the closest of friends.

A couple of weeks ago I was suffering from insomnia and I fiddled with the short wave radio until a program came on. It was the ABC media report via Radio Australia and featured this maundering, malcontent who suddenly found the good old Aussie university system which had fed him and his family in grand style for decades, wanting! While not mentioned the huge public service style pension he luxuriates on, he slammed the teaching of journalism as irrelevant because newspapers hiring graduates have to hold classes on how to operate a tape recorder and do shorthand(!).

This whingeing, whining buffoon complained that journalism graduates these days spend their time doing courses on "The Role of the Media in Society" and other such irrelevancies. I wanted to scream at the idiot that my old friend, Dr Professor John Henningham had himself pioneered these courses. That as Australia's first professor of journalism, as editor of the premier academic journal on journalism, he had created the entire academic industry of turning out educated and informed journalists. People who know that only the government knows what is good for us. People who know that Labor is the only legitimate government of Australia. People who know that giving more money to the poor is the only way to help them. People who have the courage to tell us that our system is rotten and corrupt and the worst possible while all others are better. People who understand that the Anglo-Saxon people are the greatest terrorists of all time. People who preach that only Afghanis should inherit the Australian continent while the Anglos should just breed themselves out.

I was so proud of this man and his unique achievement in creating the new breed of liberal journalist who is not just the conscience of the nation but the creators of our political values. The real and only opposition to our evil conservative political parties. I was so angered by this unprincipled and opportunistic attack on a hero who was struck down in his prime that I couldn't sleep further that night. I swore at the radio every time he attacked the academic representative who in vain sought to defend Professor Henningham's legacy from these scurrilous attacks.

What shocked me so profoundly was that this clown who sought to tear down the reputation of a great man was simply seeking publicity for his own school of journalism which apparently does little else but teach how to use a tape recorder, take shorthand (how dare he speak speak of irrelevancy!), misspell peoples names, fudge facts, steal stories from the internet, compose succinct prose while drunk, find computer modem outlets in pubs and brothels, slander the innocent, defame the good, and generally build a solid reputation for 'journalism' on the stinking pile of stinking corpses of those good men they have destroyed in the process.

How dare he! I screamed. How dare he!

posted by Unknown at 6:16 PM

 
The Internet Church of Ray

Christ you're a shambles Ray! Yes and a sentimental old fool!

Teary eyed at the Queen's Christmas address! Wait let
me guess - no doubt at the Pope's entirely inaudible
effort. Oh and of course His Grace the Archbishop of
Canterbury's Christmas Sermon, Not to mention John
Howard's Christmas message and Bob Carr's Annual
Address.

You're not just a sentimental old fool you are
positively senile! Any day now I expect you will announce that
you have taken the Lord Jesus Christ as your Personal
Friend and Saviour! You have been telling the Churches
for so long what they should believe, surely the
'literal truth' of the Bible has at last been finally
revealed to you. Garner Ted Armstrong having failed to
carry the torch for his Father's Radio Church of God,
John Ray takes up the Challenge of launching the
Internet Church of Blog! Here are some suggestions:

Litany of the Internet Church of Blog

1. Thou shalt read no other blogs before mine. For I
am a jealous Blogger who shall refute all those who
write Leftist Blogs and sew confusion in their camps
with clever sophistry and rational argument.

2. For Ray so loveth the World he gave all his only
forgotten publications, that who so ever should read
them, should not deviate Left, but blog Right-on
forever!

3. The Blogs of Ray, which passeth all understanding
and sew confusion amongst the compassionate, be
amongst you, and remain with you always. (Useful as a
curse!)

4. Ray sayeth: I am the Ray, the Plain Truth and the
Right. Whosoever readeth my blogs, shall not deviate,
but remain Rightist until death.

5. Remember the Sabbatical, for in six years did Ray
create his "Works", but they shall be recycled until
the end of time.

6. I believe in Al Gore the Father of the Internet,
which was conceived by the military, made holy by Bill
Gates and the Mother of All Windows, and rendered useful
by Steve Jobs the maker of the mouse. But Only Ray
has shown us the Way and he sitteth on the Right of
Ghengis, and of Hitler, and of Howard, from whence he
shall come to instruct and bore, this time, and
forever more. Amen.

7. I believe in the Holy Windows, the Mighty Mouse,
the wholly catholic Internet, the communion of
Rightists, and the eternal resurrection and recycling
of Ray's previous unread and unreadable academic
detritus. Amen.

8. Oh Flog, who art in Blogland, hollow be thy head,
thy writer's block come! All will be Right on Earth as
it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily blog. And
forgive us our Liberalism, as we forgive them who vote
Labor. And link us not to Green or Red sites, and
deliver us to Libertarianism. For thine is the
Blogland, and the Power to Inform or Mislead, for ever
and ever. Amen.

9. Ray is my Shepherd, I could ask for nor more.
He leadeth me past the Green heresy and has declared
the air and waters pure.
Yeah though I live in the hell hole of Socialism, I
shall fear no evil, for thy scoff and thy invective
will comfort me!

10. Ray shall prepare a government for me which shall
anoint my head with privately provided education and
my body shall be healed by privately provided medicine
and Yea, it shall not be the loving kindness of the
merchant which nurtures me but it shall be his own
avarice which ensures I live in the house of Ray
forever.

11. When the wicked man turneth away from is
Compassionate Leftism and embraces Enlightened Self
Interest and follows that which is Lawful and Right,
only then shall he save his soul alive and live in the
House of Ray, reading endlessly old Ray publications
and praising Ray to eternity.

12. Almighty Ray, Father of Rightism and
Libertarianism, who desireth not the death of one
Leftist, but that they should turn from their
compassion and live a life of self-interest so that
Adam Smith himself may return from Heaven, for indeed,
Ray hath produced it on Earth!

13. Oh come lets us sing unto Ray a new song. For he
hath done marvelous things. With his own right hand
and with his holy mouse, he hath shewn the Truth. He
fed the multitude with five academic articles and two
tracts, making them seem like a veritable intellectual
banquet. He hath declared victory over Green and Left
and his Righteousness hath prevailed. Yea even Global
Warming he hath wished away by his words!

14. He hath remembered and shown the Truth of the
House of Israel and scattered the Philistines in the
imagination of his heart. And all the ends of the
Internet hath seen his salvations.Yea he hath even
joined the mighty Bi-centenarians of the Internet and
we sing and rejoice and give thanks.


posted by Unknown at 5:47 PM

 
Eating Humble Pie

Aussie Expat these days is the classic neocon. Having a spent good number of his youthful years trumpeting the doctrine of socialism as being the only one morally defensible I now blog my frustration about the slow transition of the former socialist non-economies to a 'politically correct' market economies. Pet targets of my ire have been the trade unions who seem to do nothing in the interests of the workers or the state. Merely acting to fatten themselves at the expense of the rest. Still as a rationist one shouldn't expect them to act any other way. I have to blame my former God, Gough Whitlam and his predecessors who gave them this power by making union membership all but mandatory.

Under one of my least favourite Labor Leaders Bob Hawke however the labour leaders lay down with the lions of commerce and agreed to cooperate in the necessary massive changes Australia would require if it was to survive with a, strong sound economy. As leader of the union movement he had hired some of the countriy's best economists and rather than being dragged kicking and screaming into the economic-rationalists abyss, the unions actually lead the way with the decrepit, moribund business sector tagging along tamely, apparantly more afraid of change than the hitherto socialist unions.

After Hawke, whose accomplishment will be rated by history as one of the greatest acts of leadership in Australian history, the unions reverted to type once the middle class socialist members realised that their own leaders had betrayed the socialists cause. New leadership was elected and the movement reverted to type as the Accord tariff reductions bit and some 800,000 workers in the textile industry queued up at the employment office.

Apart from a brief and fiery stand over long delayed waterfront reform the unions drifted of into irrelevency with the permanent employees enjoying a luxurious lifestyle while making fiery announcements about attacks on working conditions.

One of the great reforms in recent years was to the system of superannuation. Companies used to nominate a super-fund for employees and make their payments from their pay. Now employees are encouraged to nominate their own fund. For many years unions had run investment funds for employees not eligible to company super and these were big beneficiaries of the reform.

Critics of this move at the time were scornful of this move saying the unions would use the funds at their disposal to prop up wasteful 'socialist' enterprises, green enterprises, or other union approved projects destined for failure.

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, here, revealed a little known fact, that for many years these unfashionable 'industrial' funds had clearly outperformed all the glossy 'retail' funds run by the big banks and other flash financial firms. Not by a small amount but by a quite substantial amount. It appeared the management of the union funds was more activitist, better advise and willing to take a gamble.

Aussie Expat is eating humble pie and scratching his head. A follower of ideological imperatives rather than a rational thinker, he is at a loss to explain it. My unionist brother on the other hand would have no problem. He's been telling me all along the management have absolutely no idea what they're doing. Maybe he's right!



posted by Unknown at 7:04 PM

 
**
posted by Unknown at 1:47 PM

 
The War in Iraq

Aussie Expat today received a note on an interview with formaer British pollie, Dennis Healey recorded on the BBC cllaiming that all the reservations against intervention in Iraq were proving to be true and that Blair would have to step down as he had badly misjudged the situation due to an obsession with his place in history. He further stated that if the US had gained UN support for the Venture then there would have been less threat of terrorism. Frankly I don't see the Arabs/Muslims/fundamentalists/Al-qaeda sitting back and saying 'well if the UN are opposed to terrorism then the jig's up for us!' The Iraqis are doing their best to convince the US they are an ungovernable rabble that Saddam was just the ticket for.

Last night I watched a BBC doco on Iraq - John Sweeney I think the reporter's name was - did quite lot with the Shiite 'moderate' opposition party. Tried to get them to say Bush must be stupid not to be working with them. After all they were 'really' committed to a democratic theocracy! The whole program was shot through with such smug, moral certainty - seems only the BBC have got it right. After all the Brits have such a wonderful record in the ME.

Sweeney recorded the baying pack of journalists destroy a new appointee to lead the ministry of health. Then they sit back in their moral high chairs and say - well the US aren't doing anything about health services. What's going on? Why are they so ineffectual?

If the BBC are so damned anti-War why don't they run programs denouncing Churchill and saying Chamberlain's 'Peace in our time' was right and that Hitler would only have delivered the EU package 50 years earlier and with less regulations! Hitler didn't want war with the UK! What was Churchill doing dragging Britain into a fight it had no dog in? Who cares about Jews? (ok ok no-one did then, either). At the time Chamberlain was branded as an appeaser. Maybe they got it all wrong! But I find it hard to distinguish between the Chamberlain line and that of the BBC.

For 50 years the UN has been toeing the 'Sovereignty' line which asserts that whatever a tyrant does in his own country, be it genocide, torture, corruption, rape, then it's ok so long as the victims are local citizens only. It's true that Hitler invaded Poland and it is equally true that Saddam invaded Kuwait. The UK immediately declared war on Hitler. The UN authorized trade sanctions on Saddam which increased his power along with the suffering of his people.

'Peace in our time' is fine, but it is not it is not a justification for the moral high road - it is the cowardly road which asserts - "So long as they're wogs old boy, who cares?". Look at Canada - "Peace in our time" was the way to go. They loved it. But Suddenly a Canadian citizen is beaten to death in Iran and they find out they also are part of the world which just might be shown to have a moral responsibility outside their borders. That the war on terrorism involves all free people, not just a few zealots who feel strongly about it or who are principal targets. When you aren't the target and opt out - where is the moral high road?
When you suffer a tyrant to live because he is not oppressing anyone remotely connected to you. Is that a cause for smugness?

There are those who suggest that international law is a list of customary rules and regulations that we must (well should) obey. There are others who suggest there are overarching, international principals of justice and equity which must inform decisions on international law - not just the application of rules and regulations.

Yes there is a long list of tyrants - and that is precisely because the UN and the international community have sought refuge behind the 'sovereignty' principal. This principal was shown to be false first at Nuremburg in the aftermath of WWII and then again finally, for the last time in Ruanda. We do have a moral duty to all people of the world. Our aid programs recognise that. Our refugee programs recognise that. Our laws on international labour recognise that. Only the tyrants in the UN line up to support in their own self-interest in protecting the 'sovereignty' principal.
posted by Unknown at 7:47 AM

 
Rules of Civility

I found a copy of the Rules of Civility as taught to US President George Washington while searching for something to help Chinese officials going overseas. They had to be substantially editted for both language and modern relevence. I ended up with 110 rules which seem to be the general basis of English politeness. I plan to use it as a teaching device for my students as well. Here they are:

The Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation As taught to the first US President, George Washington.

For ease of reading, punctuation and spelling have been modernized. Some ‘rules’, clearly reflecting the times, have been deleted. There were originally 130. This is not a comprehensive list of rules for polite society but it is a useful beginning. Note that American manners were far more relaxed than their European equivalents, but still reflecting the class attitudes of the European gentleman.

Alfred W Croucher 12/07/2003.

1. Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present.

2. When in company, put not your hands on any part of the body not usually displayed.

3. Show nothing to your friends that may frighten them.

4. In the presence of others, do not sing to yourself with a humming voice, or drum with your fingers or feet.

5. If you cough, sneeze, sigh or yawn, do not do it loudly but privately and into a handkerchief or tissue, and do not speak when you yawn, but put your handkerchief or hand before your face and turn aside.

6. Do not sleep when others speak, do not sit when others stand, do not speak when you should hold your peace, to not walk on when others stop.

7. Do not take off your clothes in the presence of others, nor go out of your bedroom half dressed.

8. When playing games, it's good manners to welcome a newcomer, and not speak in a loud voice.

10. When you sit down, keep your feet firm and flat without crossing your legs.

11. Do not move about unnecessarily or chew your finger nails.

12. Don’t shake or nod your head, feet, or legs; don’t roll your eyes; or lift one eyebrow higher than the other. Don’t twist your mouth to show amusement and don’t talk too closely to another person to avoid your spit hitting him in the face.

13. Don’t look for vermin, or fleas, lice, ticks, etc. on your body in the sight of others; if you see any filth or thick spittle on the floor put your foot dexterously upon it; if it is on the clothes of your companions, wipe it off privately, and if it is on your own clothes, return thanks to him who wipes it off.

14. Don’t turn not your back to others, especially when speaking to them; and don’t jog the table or desk on which another reads or writes; don’t lean on anyone.

15. Keep your nails clean and short, also your hands and teeth clean, but you shouldn’t clean them in public.

16. Do not puff up the cheeks, don’t poke out the tongue, thrust out the lips or bite them, or keep the lips too open or too close.

17. Don’t flatter people excessively or make fun of them.

18. Don’t read letters, books, or papers in company except when it is necessary. You must ask permission from friends or colleagues and you shouldn’t look when another has such a message to read, or give your opinion of them unasked. Also don’t watch if another has to write letter.

19. Your face should be pleasant except where serious matters require that it reflect that.

20. The gestures of the body must be suited to the discussion you are involved in.

21. You shouldn’t make fun of people who have physical problems such as over weight or skin problems.

22. Don’t show pleasure if another should suffer misfortune.

23. When you see a crime punished, you may be inwardly pleased; but always show pity to the suffering offender.

24. Do not laugh too loud or too much at any public spectacle.

25. Superfluous compliments and all affectation of social manners are to be avoided, yet where due they are not to be neglected.

26. Greet people in the proper manner for the area. Do not do so excessively, nor wait for them to greet you.

27. Shake hands with a person who greets you with a firm hand. Don’t hold on too long or try to disengage too quickly. Let go immediately the shaking stops. Don’t try to show too much strength.

28. If any one comes to speak to you while you are sitting, stand up, offer them a seat if there is one.

29. When approaching a door a man should stop to allow any women to go through first. A person coming out should be allowed to go through first then others may go in. Generally it is polite to allow others to pass before going through yourself. But do not waste time waiting for another to move.

30. When walking with a woman it is usual for a man to walk nearest the road side.

31. Do not accept another’s offer of their seat if there is not one for them.

32. To one that is your equal, or not much inferior, you should offer the best bedroom in your home, and he to whom it is offered ought at the first to refuse it, but at the second to accept though not without acknowledging his own unworthiness.

33. They that official positions or some other honour should have in all places precedency, but while they are young, they ought to respect those that are their equals in birth or other qualities, though they have no public charge.

34. It is polite to allow a person in an office or social position higher than ours to speak first in a conversation.

35. Your conversation with businessmen should be short and comprehensive.

36. You should greet people in high position or authority with respect and politeness. If you are of high position yourself your should similarly greet all people with courtesy politeness and avoid arrogance.

37. Do not stand too close to people when you are talking to them.

38. When visiting the sick, do not suggest remedies for their illness unless you are a doctor.

39. When writing to, or speaking to people, give to every person his due title according to his degree and the custom of the place.

40. Don’t argue with your boss or other superiors. Always submit your judgment to others with modesty.

41. Try not to lecture another in the subject in which he is an expert. You will only make yourself look foolish.

42. Your manners should be appropriate for the occasion and the person. It is absurd to act the same with a clown and a prince.

43. Do not express joy before one sick in pain, for that contrary passion will aggravate his misery.

44. When a man does all he can, though it succeed not well, don’t blame him for trying.

45. If you must advise or criticise any one, consider whether it ought to be in public or in private, and presently or at some other time; in what terms to do it; and in reproving show no signs of anger but do it with all sweetness and mildness.

46. Take all admonitions thankfully in whatever time or place they are given.

47. Don’t mock or joke at any thing of importance. Don’t make any jokes that are cruel, or harsh, Don’t laugh at your own joke or story.

48. If you are going to criticize another first make sure you are a good example yourself.

49. Don’t use bad language to criticize people, don’t curse or swear.

50. Don’t be too hasty to believe rumours or bad reports about another person.

51. Wear only clean clothes which have been properly pressed or otherwise made attractive. When they become worn, replace them.

52. Your clothes should be modest and appropriate, rather than to attract attention. Note the dress of other people of position in your society and do not depart too radically from that.

53. It is not dignified to run in the street or do other kinds of exercise, nor to loiter too long. If you need to exercise go to a sports ground, gymnasium or other appropriate facility.

54. If you have taken pains to dress well, do not spend too much time checking this when in public. Do not look into mirrors excessively or spend too much time looking to see if people are noticing you. You will only look very foolish.

55. Don’t eat food while walking in the streets.

56. Associate with people of good habits and pastimes if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company.

58. Let your conversation be without malice or envy. This is a sign of a good nature which people prefer in their friends and acquaintances, and in all causes of passion permit reason to govern.

59. Never express inappropriate thoughts, nor act against social and moral rules.

60. Don’t pry into other’s secrets.

61. Don’t act the fool with wise men; or discuss difficult and complex matters with uneducated people. Don’t try to talk in an ‘educated’ manner if you are not educated, or impress people with big words whose meaning you are not sure of.

62. Don’t speak of sad or shocking things at a happy time, especially at meals.

63. A person should not draw attention to or talk about his achievements or rare qualities of wit; much less his riches, virtue or relativres.

64. Don’t joke when no one is in the mood, or laugh aloud, or at all without a good reason; don’t make fun of another’s misfortune though there seem to be some cause.

65. Don’t use hurtful words in either as a joke or when criticizing. Don’t scoff at someone even if they make extraordinary claims.

66. Always be friendly and courteous, the first to greet, hear and answer; and don’t be thoughtful when everyone else wants to talk.

67. When instructing employees, do so in a calm, polite, reasonable manner. Don’t criticize them in public.

68. Don’t go where you aren’t welcome. Don’t give advice without being asked; and when you do so be brief.

69. If two people are arguing, don’t take the side of one in an unrestrained manner. Don’t be too obstinate in your opinion and where you don’t have an opinion support the majority.

70. Don’t criticize the imperfections of others, that right belongs to parents, employers, and clergymen.

71. Don’t look at or discuss marks or blemishes of others or ask what caused them. What you have been told in secret, do not tell to others.

72. Do not speak foreign languages when others do not understand them. When in a multi-lingual group speak the language of those who are the hosts. It is not polite to speak to another publicly in his own tongue if it is not the tongue of your hosts unless he does not know that language.

7.3 Treat matters like politics and theology seriously. Avoid jokes which might cause offense.

73. Think before you speak, pronounce your words clearly and properly, don’t speak too fast, but orderly and distinctly.

74. When another speaks, be attentive yourself and don’t disturb other people listening. If the speaker hesitates or pauses, don’t prompt him unless requested. Don’t interrupt him or try to refute any of his points until he has finished.

75. Don’t interrupt others who are in conversation. If you do walk in on a conversation, then urge the participant to continue. It is not polite to ask them what they were talking about if they do not continue. If a person comes in while you're conversing, it's polite to summarize what was said before.

76. Don’t point to someone with your finger when you are talking to them or you’re your face too close to his.

77. Talk business with people only at appropriate times. Don’t whisper in the company of others.

78. Don’t compare people with each other. If any of the company be commended for any brave act of virtue, don’t rush to commend another.

79. Don’t pass on news if you know how true it is. When you do pass on news, especially unwelcome news, don’t say who told you. Don’t pry into other’s secrets.

80. Don’t be boring in telling stories or reading passages from a book unless the company clearly enjoys it.

81. Don’t be too curious to know the affairs of others, don’t try to listen to those speaking privately.

82. Do not promise what you cannot do.

83. When you do something for someone, do it with good grace and with discretion, however mean the person you do it for.

84. When your boss or employer talks to anybody, don’t listen, speak or laugh.

85. In company of those in a higher social or employment position than yourself, don’t speak until you are asked a question, then stand up and answer in a few words.

86. In arguments be less concerned about winning than to give the opportunity to each one to deliver his opinion and be ready to submit to the judgment of the majority, especially if they are judges of the dispute.

87. Always appear attentive, serious and listen carefully to what is spoken. Don’t contradict at every turn what others say.

88. Try to talk in an interesting manner, avoiding digressions and repetitions.

89. It is not polite or fair to speak against those not present.

90. At meal time do not scratch yourself, spit, cough or blow your nose except there's a necessity for it.

91. don’t make a show of taking great delight in your food. Eat slowly and steadily, do not display greed or great relish. Cut or tear bread before eating. Don’t lean not on the table or criticize the food.

92. Clean your knife before cutting your bread.

93. Do not associate with or help those not in favour with your employer.

94. If you soak bread in the sauce or gravy, let it be no more than what you put in your mouth at a time. (Be careful. In some societies it is not polite to soak your bread in the gravy or sauce)

95. Don’t blow on your soup to cool it. Allow it to cool by itself.

95. Do not put your meat to your mouth with your knife in your hand. Don’t spit the stones of any fruit upon a dish or throw anything under the table.

96. It is impolite to heap much onto one plate, especially at a buffet. Keep your fingers clean and if they get food on them, wipe them on a corner of your table napkin.

97. Do not put another portion of food into your mouth until the former is swallowed. Cut or divide food into small portions. Don’t put too much into your mouth at once.

98. Don’t drink or talk with your mouth full.

99. Don’t look around while you are drinking.

99. BE moderate in your drinking. Neither too slow nor too fast. Before and after drinking wipe your lips. Do not breathe with too great a noise, for it is uncivil (impolite)

100. It is not normally polite to clean your teeth with the tablecloth, napkin, fork or knife. If others use a tooth pick at the table, then do it with a hand covering your mouth.

101. Do not rinse not your mouth in the presence of others.

102. It is not necessary to be always urging others to eat. Similarly you may drink without always urging others to drink with you.

103. In company of your social or employment superiors, don’t be longer in eating than they are. Do not lay your arm but only your hand upon the table.

104. It belongs to the host or the most senior in company to unfold his napkin and begin eating. He should make sure that he eats at the same pace as the others.

105. Do not be angry at the dinner table whatever happens and if you have reason to be so, smile anyway especially if there are strangers at the table, for good humor makes one dish of meat a feast.

106. The host of the dinner should sit at the head of the table (usually facing the entrance). Even if it is your due and someone else sits there, don’t make a fuss.

107. If others talk at the dinner table be attentive, but don’t talk with meat in your mouth.

108. When you speak of religion, do so in a manner which will not offend adherents of that religion who may be present.

109. Honor and obey your natural parents even if they are poor.

109. Your leisure activities should be healthy, socially acceptable and contribute to social goodwill.

110. Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of heavenly fire called conscience.

My Brother who works with Asian people in Australia is a bit more keyed in than I am to what irks Aussies about Asian Manners. He suggests the following additions:

111. Chew food quietly and with the mouth closed.`


112. It is much better the blow your nose than to sniffle constantly. Likewise if there is phlegm in your throat them use your handkerchief or tissue to quietly and discreetly clear it.

113. Look at people when you are talking to them.

posted by Unknown at 4:38 AM

 
Degree Factories


The following letter appeared in the Economist this week. The comment is predictable given the source but it reminds us that occasionally we should apply the hot torch of cost-benefit analysis to all our institutions.

A little learning

SIR – So arts graduates from British universities command less in the jobs market than those without any degree at all (“Money back”, June 21st). Is this yet another case of a nationalised industry producing things that nobody wants to buy?

Eamonn Butler
Director
Adam Smith Institute
London

posted by Unknown at 7:24 AM

 
Moral Certitude

The following quote I took from my "A Word A Day" email a couple of days back and sent it off to friends. It struck a resonance with me, particularly the complete inability to believe in any position with great certainty. I sometimes envy those able to believe as I have always lacked that particular capacity which seems so central to those who go out and achieve great things. I sometimes find my position on anything to be that of the last person who put a convincing argument to me*. On the other hand having lived long in China one does note that the lower the cultural background and educational background the louder the voice. Still that probably applies to any society.

Anyway I thought it was a compelling thought in the light of Islamist Terror and the Moral Certitude of the White House.

Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on "I am not too sure." - H.L.Mencken.

John Ray of Dissecting LEFTISM wrote back with the following words of wisdom:

My comment: Doubting the current morality is indeed useful but doubting ALL morality would be destructive and antisocial. Mencken was good at pithy sayings but was not a systematic thinker. He was also antisemitic if memory serves.

JR

Another friend who might call himself a liberal and has as much right to call himself a China Hand as I (more than twenty years living and working here) had this comment:

Very interesting, but Mencken usually is. As applied to the White House at present the quote can deepen our understanding. For example, there was a report on Four Corners this Monday on North Korea. The gist of what some experienced US and Japanese North Korea negotiators and specialists had to say was that Kim Jong Il may now be a prisoner of his hard line military and hence the possibility of a crazy reaction from that truculent and fierce regime with a mass of weapons aimed at Seoul, together with a US President who has a moral certitude that North Korea is evil and so must be dealt with accordingly. Given this heady brew the Chinese, Japanese and South Koreans are seriously worried.

* Those who have engaged me however may come away with a different view as I cover my lack of conviction with an exaggerated style of overstatement which, while it is designed to elicit refuting arguments, tends to have the opposite affect. It is a technique I picked up from former journo, academic and now thespian Dr John Henningham who now runs Jschool, a college to teach the forgotten art of reportage. John Ray also is owed a dept as he taught me the trick of increasing the volume when the argument is thinnest.
posted by Unknown at 6:44 PM

 
Etymological Correctness

This feedback from the famous "A Word a Day" email service which I enjoy. An egregious example of poltical correctness I think you will agree. Especially given their failure to produce any words which did not fit the politicaly correct criteria or even the word which Africans are supposed to use when referring to their homeland. The compliler of AWAD will no doubt be chastened as he appears to be, going by his name, Indian! I especially enjoyed the "an European" bit which shows a desperate need to be correct while totally failing to understand what it means! There is only the remote possibility it is satire.

From: Dana Turner & Alonzo King (mzlibertee@earthlink.net)
Subject: words of African origin

There are many words in English usage that take their derivation from
languages native to the peoples of the continent of Africa. As you pointed
out on Monday, Africa is the most linguistically-diverse continent on the
planet. Your failure to present words of truly African derivation is a very
poor effort at linguistic scholarship and far beneath AWAD's usual standards
of excellence.

Your etymological investigation of these so-called African words seems to
be colored by, and prismed through an European ethnocentricity. Africans,
African cultures and African languages have been measured solely in
relationship to Western Europe for six long centuries too many. Even the
word, "Africa" is what Europeans named the continent, not a word that
peoples who have lived there for hundreds of thousands of years use to
refer to their homeland.

Africa and its population will never be recognized as intellectual and
cultural equals of all the other inhabitants of this planet until their
lives are no longer viewed from a Euro-centric perspective.


posted by Unknown at 1:06 AM

 
Muslim's Just Want to Rule the World.

Many good hearted people with the best of intentions propose solutions to the problem of militant Islam. They think Western people offend them with their materialistic societies, or their comparatively liberal social mores. They earnestly preach that we oppress Arab countries because of our rapacious desire for oil. Whatever bad the Islamists do, their preaching insists we are to blame. We white folk. But even the most superficial knowledge of world affairs should convince the most ardent self-hater that it has very little to do with being white, or Christian, or capitalist, or rich. In fact it has nothing to with anything really.

Let the facts speak for themselves.

1. In America the Islamists move among the disaffected urban blacks preaching their message of hate and a perverted 'black-supremacy message. Sure they have managed to get some of the urban black to adopt civilized lifestyles and be better husbands and fathers, but their message is much more than that.

2. Africa - Islam is aggressively moving down Africa. For example in Nigeria Muslims are confined to the north, but for over ten years they have been attempting to impose Sharia(the Islamic law code) at least in the areas they dominate. In South Africa Islamists are moving among the disaffected black people organizing self-help groups and biding their time.

3. Egypt - Egypt was the first of the Middle Eastern countries to try and adopt a modern, secular state. Democracy was bought in and a Western style curriculum adopted in schools. It wasn't long before the Muslims saw the danger to their Islamic lifestyle with power concentrated on the mullahs. They formed radical terrorist cells and struck back at the secular state of Abdul Nasser eventually assassinating his successor. Groups of Western tourists have repeatedly been targeted with terrorist bombs.

4. Turkey - This country had a modern style reformation in the 19th century which created a strong secular, democratic state. Of all the Muslim countries that may have been the one with the least powerful mullahs. The Turkish people adopted democracy and made it work - perhaps the only ones in the Middle East. So radical groups have been forced to 'fight by the rules' - i.e. through the ballot. Many clearly Islamist parties with the aim of overthrowing secular democracy, have been formed and then crushed by the army when they threatened the state. The present party in power is one that finally got through by pretending to be less than Islamist and promising not to impose an Islamic state. It will be interesting to see how long they retain that promise.

5. Iran - In the post-War years Iranians were known to be progressive and sophisticated. They also sought a modern secular state under the Shah who did his best to appease radical Islamic groups but eventually they succeeded in overthrowing him at the call of the mullahs whose power was threatened by the secular political system. The Iranians are an interesting study as they are not Arabs but Persians, conquered by the aggressive Islamic forces early in the second millennium.

6. Saudi Arabia has been a completely fundamentalist Islamic Republic and the home of Islam since the beginning - yet the overthrow of the Saud regime is second on the Al-Qaeda list as soon as the US departs.

7. India - Muslims refused to join a united India after independence and set up two separate states - Pakistan & Bangladesh (after a brief experiment under united government followed by a civil war). Pakistan although trying to remain democratic, frequently reverts to martial law as a result of civil unrest. Radical Islamists in Pakistan swear they too will overthrow the secular state at the appropriate time despite a partial adoption of Sharia law. Muslims in Kashmir have never accepted partition (they were promised a referendum) and have made Kashmir ungovernable since 1947.

8. Indonesia - Muslims in Indonesia constitute the most numerous of all Muslims. They are by far the majority. Under nominally Muslim leaders like Soekarno and Suharto they remained fairly quiescent. But with the overthrow of the Suharto tyranny they have determined Indonesia will also revert to Islamic law and have begun bombings and pograms against any non-Muslims especially Christians. They are particularly active against their own government.

9. Malaysia has been one of the most stable Muslim countries under Mahartiar. Once he leaves Muslims will no doubt seek to take advantage of the power vacuum to seize power.

10. In Thailand there are occasional problems with Muslim minorities but no major threat to stability.

11. Philippines - the Moro Liberation Front, with the active support of Arab Muslims such as Qaddafi, have been fighting for independence for many decades.

12. China - since the opening period in 1978 there has been a steady growth of separatist activity based in Xinjiang. Uprisings and bombings have been the main methodology. They are supported by Al-Qaeda and other groups based in nearby Muslim countries.

13. Russia - Muslim separatists have been an old problem even before the present outbreak in Chechnya. Stalin had the Chechnians dispersed to other parts of Russia to prevent them having a base. Now back in Chechnya they will clearly not be satisfied until they have a separate homeland.

Really it doesn't matter where they are, or what their material circumstances, Muslims are not happy with the status quo. Be it Western democracy or Fundamentalist Islamic Republic - there are Muslims committed to kill every civilian alive if that's what it takes for them to rule. They are simply malcontents with a pathological desire to kill until they have their way.



posted by Unknown at 12:36 AM

 
Immigration - some radical thoughts

Australian Dr John Ray, a self professed libertarian and author of blogsite Dissecting Leftism, has posted on the decision of the British government to send all asylum seekers (some 100,000 a year!) to Russia for processing on May 4 here. Rather similar to the Australian Pacific Solution. He sees it as a vindication of the Australian policy.

Ray is a conservative of the Neocon variety, only he adopted it long before it became fashionable. A psychologist, he has written on the subjects of racism and working class authoritarianism. Ray does not entirely shy away from the description of 'white supremacist' as he believes it to be demonstrably true. At least in the sense of intelligence as measured by cross-cultural tests. Hence he stongly opposes positive discrimination programs for racial minorities which seek 'equality' outcomes.

Economically Ray is a believer in small government and free enterprise featuring largely private health, medicine and utilities. He is naturally a free trader believing in the free movement of goods and capital between nations. Where Ray's racial ideas conflict with his economics is in the area of immigration. Ray firmly rejects the free movement of people across borders which one would think is fundamental to free enterprise.

Ray argues we should be free to let in who we like. And we should only let in people like us - who share our values and aspirations and are likely to uphold our system of government. This an entirely reasonable point of view and one which is almost universally supported, at least in Australia.

I would argue however that is at odds with the commitment to free enterprise. That just as the free movement of goods and capital has enriched the world and most countries which permit it, so the free movement of people would similarly issue in a new era of economic properity. The one great exemplar of this is the United state whose porous borders fail to deter millions of 'wetbacks' each year who are absorbed into the economy providing cheap labor in this country which does not have an effective minimum wage.

It goes without saying that it would not work in Australia where there is a firm minimum wage policy which precludes employment of people below the stated minimum. Yes it's true that many in the US rage against the hispanization of America no doubt as the native Americans raged against euroization of America. In fact the 'hispanization' of the US may help to retain many industries which may otherwise move to Mexico.

In Australia we worry about the new wave of Muslim Australians with their high unemployment and their wild children - but we did assimilate waves of migrants in the past with very similar worries. The Italians and Greeks had ferocious gangs armed with at least knives. They terrified anyone who went near Marrikville or Leichhart. My god we even assimilated Serbs and Croats, surely the most fractious and ferocious of people who frequently promised to kill each other and return to Yugoslavia the moment Tito died and their countries could be restored to their pre-Ottoman condition. Did we have a massive outflow? Somehow I think not.

Yes Australian Muslims have huge unemployment rates and just love the child endowment system which encourages them to have as many children as their poor wives can bear. They love anywhere Arabic before they love Australia and they hate the Americans almost as much as Australians do. But let's be fair and judge them on the second generation. The second generation of migrant families typically become highly educated professionals and move to North Shore (Sydney) suburbs. Although Lebanese children these days seem to prefer the gang to the classroom there is evidence of performance at elite levels which is encouraging.

An earlier generation of largely Maronite Christian Lebanese have become model citizens to the extent we now have a state premier (Victoria) and governor (NSW) of Lebanese origin. Let's give them a go.

For myself I have a personal perspective. When I lived in Hong Kong we always had the services of a maid who looked after my children and allowed my wife the luxury of running her own company and enjoying my extensive social life as Secretary General of the Australian Chamber of Commerece in Hong Kong. When we relocated to Sydney in 1996 however it was an entirely different story. Australians are prevented from employing maids exept at the prohibitive local minimum wage and extensive supporting cost such as superannuation.

I resented the need to tell my wife she could no longer work for a living but must take up the life of a domestic which was never my purpose in marrying her. Australians like to boast about their quality of life and indeed in some areas like sport and playing fields it is quite true.

But Australians are condemned by this policy to a life of drudgery. Women, whether they work or not, must do all their own housework, raising children, shopping and household administration. Men spend all their weekends repairing the household, mowing lawns, cleaning pools etc. Asians arriving in Australia are agog at the picture of company directors and airline pilots performing manual labour around their homes, something middle class Asians forgot how to do many years ago.

If Australia allowed Filipinas, Indonesians or others to work in Australia at domestic duties imagine the massive amounts of human capital which could be released to perform more rewarding tasks in the community. At the rate they are paid in Hong Kong (HK$3,800 pm - the highest in Asia!) Australians would need to pay their maids AU$200 a week for a full time servant - not unimaginable to a double income, middle class family. And the subsequent remittals to the home countries would do vastly more good to the economy than the pittance of aid we perform in the region.
posted by Unknown at 8:28 AM

 
Carr for Canberra?

The following letter to the Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald was written following the publication of surveys in Sydney which showned that 61% thought NSW Premier Bob Carr would be a better leader of the Federal Labor Party than the incumbant - Simon Crean. Although a Labor supporter since the late 60's I am now also a firm believer in the market system and the move away from big government dominating the Commanding Heights of the economy. I am thus an Economic Rationalist or EcoRat as they call it in Canberra. Bob Carr has been a popular leader in NSW mostly due to the highly successful mounting of the 2000 Olympics. But his record on reform of government utilities and transport services has been a disaster.

He attempted rail reform and it was killed by the unions, similarly for reform of power generation.
He has tried to do something with social services and failed.
He was comprehensively defeated by the teachers unions in his attempts to make public schoool more receptive to educational reform.
He has given up on all micro-economic reform and now just revels in his easy domination of the pathetic opposition.

His one great strength is his ability to win over the press who rarely trouble his reign. Instead they pour scorn on the hapless liberals who seem to be unable to get together a clear agenda.

This letter, like the last one, was spiked. Not surprisingly as it contained an attack on journalists. Journalist do not have any stomach for reform either. They are one of the most unionised professions left aside from the teachers. One does understand that brevity is the key to publication but basic points must be made. The glib one-liner is entertaining but rarely thought provoking.

The Editor

Sydney Morning Herald Letters Column

Dear sir

I note your report (SMH.com 20/04/2003)that 61% of Australians believe Bob Carr would make a better Labor leader than Simon Crean. I agree from one perspective. Bob Carr does a superb job of convincing the media that he is on top of the job and far superior to than any alternatives. He does this by appealing to the intellectual elitism of the media – an area where they are always vulnerable as Gough Whitlam and Paul Keating showed.

Where Bob Carr would be no better than Simon Crean is in being able to assert the power of the parliamentary party over the trade union dominated party apparatchiks. Bob Carr’s abject failure to bring about any significant reforms of inefficient and wasteful publicly owned utilities in NSW is eloquent testimony to my conviction that at the federal level he would be no better than the unfortunate Crean. He knows that and that is why he has no interest in the job.
posted by Unknown at 8:27 AM

 
The UN and Iraq

First UN Secretary General Kofy Annan and now French President Chirac have implicitely threatened that the UN may withhold recognition of a new Iraqi government if the UN is not given the leading role in the post war reconstruction.

One can understand their pique at the Coalition going over their heads and providing the only effective sanction, after a decade of meaningless resolutions and sanctions which ensured only the Iraqi people were punished.

But to then threathen the Iraqi people with non-recognition of their future government if they do not accept the dead hand of UN administration only underlines the degree to which the UN has made itself irrelevent to international law and order.
posted by Unknown at 6:54 AM