tcpip | Work/SAGE stuff, More RuneQuest, ALP Elections, The Tory Agenda and Perth

Borderlands on Wednesday followed by a CCNA class at the somewhat distant Heidelburg NMIT campus. Early morning work meeting for Datalink on Thursday, followed by two extremely busy and challenging days on Friday and Monday which regrettably included a moronic customer screaming down the 'phone because he couldn't type his new password in properly (seriously!). Spent all day today working on my presentation to the SAGE-AU conference and will probably be doing that tomorrow as well. Speaking of said organisation, have received a book (The Real World Network Trouble Shooting Manual, 2005) to review.

Spent a sizeable part of Thurday with

strangedave,

doctor_k_ and

caseopaya meandering around Melbourne. The summary of our adventures consisted of yum cha, chocolate, Satan and space aliens. A wonderful adventure and strangely appropriate with such people. Sunday's Unitarian service wa by former MHR, Peter Milton on "The dangers of the nuclear industry". It was quietly brilliant; consise, well researched and factual. Appropriately uranium sales to China have been criticised. Following this was a RuneQuest IV combat system playest with Peter, Andrei, Jay and Erica. The system works surprisingly well, and draws a nice distinction between big weapons (dodge these) and little ones (parry 'em). Afterwards Erica, Andrei and I played more RuneQuest (the main story) because you simply can't get enough ;-)

I've just sent a nomination off to become an ALP State Conference delegate, although I don't like my chances in the Melbourne Ports Federal Division. Meanwhile the branch stacking wars are heading to the courts following the ALP National Exec overturning Victorian state rules designed to prevent stacking (despite legal advice to the contrary) and a small mountain of evidence tabled at the Admin Committee regarding endemic stacking in the new safe Labor seat of Gorton. Applause to Labor Unity's Rosemary Barker who, in an act of rare principle in the ALP, acted against her own faction in providing the evidence.

Anyone notice that John Howard's plans for a single national industrial relations system were overwhelmingly rejected last Sunday by the Liberal Party's federal council? Could the lack of media interest in this extraodinary development indicate some mainstream media bias? Could you imagine the same thing happening to a Labor leader? (thanks

greylock for alerting me to this). Whilst on-topic, Costello has said that all workers could lose the protection of unfair dismissal laws. Meanwhile, on a state level National leader Peter Ryan has claimed that a recommendation that same-sex couples could adopt is "mad", despite the best evidence stating there is no development differences.

Ahh, lets see... Media bias, class war and attacks on personal rights... What's missing from this Tory equation? Of course. The "you've got to keep 'em separated" department. An RMIT study shows that suburban sprawl will take over most undeveloped land in within a decade. Meanwhile the good folk at Prosper Australia have arranged a spot for me at the Uni of Melbourne's Centre for Public Policy forum on Equity in Sourcing Revenue symposium.

Heads up Perth people. I booked tickets today. I'll be in the Western Lands from September 6 to 15. Saturday the 10th and Sunday 11th sounds like especially good days to catch up.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The report recommends making the growth boundary a permanent fixture to halt sprawl, forcing developers to use sites more efficiently.
Leading to a huge rise in housing prices. Besides, developers will only reduce lot sizes if zoning permits allow them to.

We can't afford to wait another five years for the market to catch up while all this undeveloped land is being used up
I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. The dominant factor is zoning and related rules and regulations. Clearly, elementary economic literacy was not a requirement for authorship.

It would be nice if people considered the possibility that highly regulated markets (and, in Oz, it's hard to find a more regulated market that housing and related elements) might have consquences from, well, regulation. Particularly given their entire argument revolves around presuming regulations do have effects (but, apparently, only good ones).

Leading to a huge rise in housing prices.

Land prices, you mean ;-)

Technically yes, but you know what I mean (as would every person trying to get a mortgage).

*nods*

Actually, I pondered some more about your previous comments which, of course, I agree with. What was particularly troubling was the lack of knowledge of basic economics. It led to me to think that this is partially due to disciplinary fragmentation, but I also think partially due to a lack of perceived concern relating to outcomes, rather than process.

Once upon a time, and maybe I was lucky to get it at the very end, economics was quite specific about it's aim being to satisfy as many wants as possible with limited means. This aim however seemed to become secondary to the primary requirement that a "rationalist" model (inevitably politically distorted) was in place. One of the side effects of this is that economics has become less attractive as a discipline and therefore some people in public policy don't know the basics.

I don't know that basic economic knowledge was really ever all that widespread, even in public policy circles.

It is certainly true that "economic rationalism" got a mighty pounding from within academe. I remember hearing Geoffrey Brennan, at a conference, expressing concern about the effect on economics students of the same.

Many of the loudest of said folk have now moved on to other issues. Of course, with Australia having, post-1983, the highest per capita GDP growth rates since the gold rush, being in the 15th year of economic expansion, low public debt, low inflation, 30-year lows for unemployment and taxes at a record % of GDP, the welfare state having got bigger under every PM (including the current one) it is a touch hard to mount an effective attack on the wash-up.

That is the irony of "economic rationalism": it has made the economy safe for record levels of govt. spending (and the ALP's best-ever provincial govt coverage). But given Whitlam was the first "economic rationalist" (25% tariff cut) and the Hawke-Keating agenda was always about a sustainable welfare-state, it is a bit of an in-built irony.

But given Whitlam was the first "economic rationalist" (25% tariff cut)

"Blame" Jim Cairns for that one...

Another thing of course, is that the economy depends on what numbers you're looking at.

From what I can tell from the RBA we don't have the highest per capita growth rates since the gold rush.

http://www.rba.gov.au/PublicationsAndResearch/Bulletin/bu_jun93/bu_0693_2.pdf

We do have low public debt, but we now have the highest foreign debt and household debt, which is not an achievement of great economic agility.

Taxes may be at their lowest level as a percentage of GDP (you're arguing against the CIS here), but their distribution based on capacity to pay is a lot worse.

And I'd require more empirical evidence that the welfare state in getting bigger.

at a record % of GDP
Record high, not record low. It is difficult to make higher taxes more redistributive. American income tax is highly progressive in its incidence, but that is because the threshold cuts in so high up their income levels.

I was comparing the following periods
1870-1913, 1913-1937, 1937-1960, 1960-1983, 1983-2003 using Maddison and OECD figures. Since the 1990s and 2000s have been particularly high growth, cutting it off at 1992 misses some of that.

Since Govt expenditure is at a record (high) level of GDP, as is the % of working age population on income support, I think it is safe to say the welfare state is bigger. (General govt expenditure share of GDP has risen 3.8%pts since 1980.)

Hmmm... Those periods are rather broad jumps (especially '37 to '60!). I have another paper which I'll check latter tonight which has some greater detail.

Since Govt expenditure is at a record (high) level of GDP, as is the % of working age population on income support, I think it is safe to say the welfare state is bigger.

Not at all. Partial payments with a broader base, lower payments per capita as a percentage of GDP etc can all create a situation where more people of working age population are on income support but the welfare state itself is smaller (but yes, broader)

the welfare state itself is smaller
If a bigger share of GDP is being spent on more people, it is bigger, period. It might be less intensively focused, but it is bigger. (And since payments have gone up, not even that is true.) And I wasn't referring to Family Allowance or related payments in that % of working age population.

But this is not what you have asserted.

You claimed;

Since Govt expenditure is at a record (high) level of GDP,

and

as is the % of working age population on income support, I think it is safe to say the welfare state is bigger.</i< Those two things do not mean that the welfare state is bigger. It may mean that more people receive income support. It may also mean that the government is spending more money proportionally (and not necessarily on welfare - well maybe "business welfare"). But it does not mean that the welfare state is bigger. I want further evidence.

While income support can refer to any form of income transfer, things such as Disabled, Sole Parent, unemploment benefits, Student allowances etc was what I meant and is a fairly common usage.

And the pattern of Commonwealth expenditure hasn't changed much, so more expenditure in total means more welfare spending.

While income support can refer to any form of income transfer, things such as Disabled, Sole Parent, unemploment benefits, Student allowances etc was what I meant and is a fairly common usage.

Well, I note that the government's official figures now include Employer Superannuation Contributions as welfare expenditure. :/

And the GST as a State/Territory tax. (Despite what the Constitution says on the matter.)

Work/SAGE stuff, More RuneQuest, ALP Elections, The Tory Agenda and Perth

Housing (quotes from article)

Re: Housing (quotes from article)

Re: Housing (quotes from article)

Re: Housing (quotes from article)

Re: Housing (quotes from article)

Even more ironic (Re: Housing (quotes from article))

Re: Housing (quotes from article)

Re: Housing (quotes from article)

Re: Housing (quotes from article)

Re: Housing (quotes from article)

Re: Housing (quotes from article)

Re: Housing (quotes from article)

Re: Housing (quotes from article)

Re: Housing (quotes from article)