The Blog of Dash Brannigan

Hey I’m Back!

2006-06-13T15:57:00.000+10:00

After a long break from Blogging (perusing other hobbies) I’m back and I’m going to try and make this blogging thing regular again. I mean sure, I know that no one reads this but still it’s cathartic for me to get some thoughts out there and it might make a nice record of what I’m thinking and where I am going.

In any case, rather crook over the long weekend decided to pluck an unread tome from my shelf and start reading. So reading through this book called “Heroic Leadership: Best Practices From A 450 Year Old Company That Changed The World” by Chris Lowney.

This guy seems pretty cool. He was a Jesuit who went on to become a MD for JP Morgan. What he does in this book is take lessons from the Jesuits and applies them to the business world to good effect.

I’m up to a section which is talking about how the Jesuits like many companies which experience fast growth were caught in the classic growth squeeze (too much work, not enough good people).

What the Jesuits did was not go out and recruit more and more but rather they made entry into the order even stricter with more intense training. Now this all sounds counter intuitive but you get the punch line that the only problem companies or organisations have is they lack great people in key positions.

With great people, all the other problems you have get solved.

It’s all as simple as that. Great people in key positions.

AWB: Scandal? Yes! Inevitable? Unfortunately so…

2006-04-12T07:24:00.000+10:00

So everyone is talking about the AWB oil for food scandal. Kind of hard not to, has all those sexy things that people like to talk about, bribes, money, politicians looking like goons. Although I do find it funny that most Australians don’t really care about it.

As an aside to the main point of this, I wonder why many Australians are really pissed off about this? Could it be that they are using that strong guard of apathy or are Australians far more sophisticated in ethics and morality than I have given them credit for in the past..

For those that do care a lot about it here is some food for thought… In all governments, or any entity which holds a large amount of power scandals will happen.

Abe Lincoln (I think it was him, if I misquote sorry) once said to the effect that most people over come hardship, but if you really want to test someone give them power.

Things like bribes and other disreputable activities have to happen for any government to run optimally. We live in a world which is neither black nor white but grey. If you want to sell wheat to any developing or corrupt nation you will get your hands dirty.

There is a saying in poker, if you are never get caught bluffing you aren’t bluffing enough. They have most definitely been caught bluffing (Trying to auto push J6s for the blinds).

As for the collective arse covering that’s going on, well that’s to be expected too. How many people lie to protect their jobs? How many people strategically “don’t recall”?

I’m not saying it shouldn’t be something that is condemned but be under no illusions about honesty in general. Hmmm, me thinks there is more to this honesty thing and I will have to give it more of a ponder and tell you what I think later.

God save the Ill Mannered Artistic Twerp

2006-03-04T14:34:00.000+11:00

If you haven’t head recently there has been a row about playing or not playing God Save the Queen at the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games. Here’s a link to prove I’m not making this stuff up.

Personally I’m not too happy about this. Personally I have been trying to be a bit better mannered. It’s going ok, one of those self improvement things. So I’m trying to be better mannered and a bit more respectful. Now I see not playing God Save the Queen as absolute disrespect towards our head of state. Like it or not the Queen is our Head of State. We refer to both State and Federal Governments as the Crown. I feel that as a mark of respect to The Queen we should play her anthem.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not one for Monarchies in general. The only reason why England keeps her is because in the words of Johnny Rotten (from the Sex Pistols) “God save the Queen, because tourists are money”. We don’t get any money from these tourists so we don’t need the monarchy.

However, the reality is she is our head of state, like it or not. So let’s accept that fact of reality rather than substituting our own delusions. Oh and one more thing… to the games organizers STOP MAKING ME LOOK SO BAD IN FRONT OF THE REST OF THE WORLD.

IP NoT So Freely

2006-03-01T18:34:00.000+11:00

I’m sorry this response has taken so long; I’ve been doing a few other things and thinking a few other thoughts. Well that’s the only apology I’ll give in this post, so now to business. Respective links are here, here and here to previous installments to our saga.

Perspective or Focus?

While I appreciate Not My Real Name’s view that our disagreement is about perspective I don’t entirely agree with it. Yes, I am trained as an economist and yes NMRN is a budding lawyer. While these are two different starting points to analyze things from I don’t see the disagreement as one entirely of perspective. I see it more of focus. NMRN is a budding lawyer, and in my opinion I think he’ll make a good one, so he’s “zoom lenses” is on the law and its respective letters. On the other hand I try to take a wider angle view of things (fish eye lenses). I want to see how things interact with each other, how changing one element of situation changes the results across the situation. So while we may have different perspectives, we also have different lenses attached to our respective cameras. NMRN focusing on the law and yours truly, trying desperately to see bigger game. Neither method is right nor wrong, good nor bad, each only showing it’s superiority given what you want form the analysis.

If you want to use a law, understand a law or get around one, ask a lawyer. If you want to change a law and have an understanding of the effects of that change better ask an economist (a new Beckeresc, game theorist type economist).

Respective Disagreements with what NMRN said

Ok it's best if I deal with this in numbered point.
1) My objective is not economic growth per se; my objective is the progression of the human race. Economic growth is the bed rock on which all our great accomplishments as primates have been founded. Without some degree of economic wealth we would still be banging rocks together and howling at the moon. More on this to come.

2) So lawyers, when thinking about the law don’t think it necessary to look and try to understand the effects of changes in law? In my opinion anyone who has a hand in writing new or amending old laws should have done some study in game theory / mechanism design. I have another name for these two things; I call it structured common sense. If you don’t have the tools to analyze and understand the effects of changes have as a whole YOU HAVE NO BUSINESSS MAKING LAWS! If you do not have access to these tools of analysis your combination of power and ignorance makes you a liability to everyone. Starting out with good intentions will not instantly get you a pass on this blog.

3) Quote “It allows infringment of those rights, but that is not theft. It is best illustrated by those video piracy ads, which say 'Piracy is stealing'. That, unfortunately, is complete rubbish. Piracy is a copyright infringement and subject to economic damages, not a criminal offence as is made out by the media. Small differences, but important. I am the first to admit I am not one to talk about loose use of language and I have been critisised before. However, it is important to see what my perspective is.” While this is an important legal distinction to make perhaps too fine a hair to split in a 30 second ad. Also, while being a legal distinction in my eyes it’s still taking something that not yours, call it what you like.

4) NMRN stands by his assertion that sick people would never have purchased a medicine that made them well at any price. I stand by my assertion that this is a question of PRICE. If anyone has an illness I can assure you that they are in the market for a cure. The question is totally one of price. Would they have purchased if the treatment cost them $10, $1 or 10cents? I think to assume or assert otherwise is defining people as ignorant or stupid rather than poor.

5) NMRN fops off my use of terms like perfect price discrimination but perfect price discrimination is the answer to ALL of the problems here. If drug companies who own the IP could some how ensure that the persons who need the drug, and only those people, were administered the drug and they paid a price just above cost then there would be no issues. However this is not the case the Brazilian government wants to force a license at as yet at an unknown price and manufacture the drug themselves. Given that Brazilian government is ranked at 59 of 146 governments for transparency I can see that anyone having their IP rights forced away form them would not to too crazy of the about the idea.

6) Quote “My further point in response to Dash's post is that, whilst I understand the link between growth and IP protection, there is little examination of the proper balance point.” This is absolutely incorrect. There are extensive theoretical economic models which talk about the optimal length of a patent. Even though I haven’t access to empirical material on this I would assume it exists (econometricians seem to test every bit of theory economists come out with. It’s the stuff PhD’s are made of). Also I don’t quite understand what you mean by “proper” balance point. This would be definitely be a question of opinion, if you buy medicines the

7) Now there is limited protection of IP, it comes in the form of time. If I own a turnip, I have rights to that turnip for that turnips existence. However if I take out a patent on some something I developed how long does that patent last? I don’t have perpetual rights over this do I? That’s the ONLY way you can relax property rights since time is such an objective measure (although Einstein told us otherwise… had to make a joke, sorry).

8) Quote “As another side issue, you are right in terms of FDI going elsewhere when countries don't provide proper legal protection and sound legal institutions. It is interesting that nowadays, least developed countries tend to negotiate at the WTO as a big block, probably for that exact reason.” I doubt it is for this exact reason it’s so they have a group of votes when making treaty decisions. On a practical level this situation is a classical prisoner’s dilemma where there is a much higher incentive for a country to break away from the group. Think about it, if developing countries say as a group “We will enforce IP the way we want”, companies lose out. However this won’t happen. What will happen is that one of these countries will say to the companies “We will enforce IP to protect any investment you make in our country”. So what happens then is you may have several countries in this block defect because they have a whole bunch of FDI poured upon them and their cheap labour pool. The irony is the bigger the block, the bigger the rewards for defecting. Mmmmmm game theory.

Ok that’s my main parries and counters to your intellectual thrusts.

Growth is a path not a destination

Although you do not deliberately represent me as such it feels like I’m being interpreted as someone whose focus is solely on economic growth for its own sake. While I am focused on economic growth I don’t see it as an end but rather as the beginning of a great many things.

We have been discussing basically the trade off between enforcement of IP vs. access to cheap advanced medicine. That to me seems like what this all boils down to. I see IP as essential for not only growth but perhaps the next step in the progression of our society.

The thing is, the concept of IP was and is essential in the development of our society. All of a sudden ideas became excludable (an economic term) allowing them to take on marketable value. This means that you can concentrate resources on finding the answer to a given question, like “How do we cure aids” or “how do we cure cancer”. By allowing the answer to have value, you can devote time, effort and money to the question.

All of this had led us to a state of vast economic wealth. This wealth has allowed us to further invest in both answer questions and developing ourselves enough to ask better questions and get better answers through education.

Economic growth has been the soil out of which these many great things have come to be. Economic growth is not an end but a beginning, one great perpetual beginning. Think about it, the very drugs we are talking about would not have happened without both wealth and protection of the idea. I remember a great piece of wisdom “YOU DO NOT KICK OUT THE LADDER THAT GOT YOU WHERE YOU ARE, PARTICUARLY WHILE YOU ARE STANDING ON IT!”

Quote "Does the greatest economic growth come in the profit flowing to the IP holder due to high drug prices, or the production created when sick people are made well by drugs which have been manufactured contrary to patent rights?"I don't know the answer, but I sure as hell would like to find out.

If you would really like to find out, we can figure this one out together if you like. Doing a quick bit of thinking I have an idea of the methodology used to answer such a question. I don’t have the numbers but I had an idea of what numbers we need.

So if you want we can try and work this out together, just let me know because I already have several ideas on how to work this out. So if you really want to know tell me and we can get to work on thunking this one out.

IP, Growth, Strategy or: You say fail to enforce proeprty rights I say theft!

2006-02-21T11:05:00.000+11:00

Well this post is going to take a while… It’s in response to a little too and fro between yours truly and Not My Real Name. Link is here have a look if you like or just sit back and marvel at my 1st class thinking crammed into 3rd class writing.

Firstly a caveat: This is not condemning the morality of any decision made by someone. I figure if you do something seen as immoral, like theft, so long as you accept the consequences of it and are ok with it… it’s moral.

Ok so I have a few (many) issues of what NMRN has said. Firstly his first point of it not being theft because the owner of the right is not deprived of anything.

Let me demonstrate with a hypothetical situation. If I break into someone’s car while they sleep, hotwire it (no damage, cause I’m a good thief) drive it 10km’s to buy a pack of smokes and leave $10.00 in the glove box all before they wake up am I guilty of theft?

I haven’t deprived the owner of anything. If anything they are ahead on the transaction since the ATO km rate is $.65 per km. Am I guilty of theft? I believe I am. It is because I have infringed on the rights of the owner of the car. It is their right to say if I can or cannot use the car regardless of if they are or aren’t damaged by its use. Drug companies do potentially LOSE from people stealing their IP but we’ll get to that in a bit.

Not my real names point that the beneficiary of the theft wouldn’t have bought the item in question any way is… well wrong. Why would someone steal something they did not receive a benefit from it? Are Brazilians by nature kleptomaniacs? Deriving utility from theft? I don’t think so, that racist not to mention plain old silly.

The issue here is not if they would have purchased at all but AT WHAT PRICE they would have purchased. At what price would they not steal it? At what price would begin to steal? This is a very weak rationalization for flogging intellectual property (I have heard it before) but like I said if you’re ok with it it’s moral. If it’s theft it’s theft, don’t try and rationalize it and call it something else. Spades are spades.

See the thing is with a good which is high in fixed costs (drugs in particular) it is in the best interests of the drug company to sell to everyone in the market. Ideally they want what is called, first degree or perfect price discrimination. So why aren’t they doing it with third world countries? Because a key criterion of price discrimination is non-transferability. That is if they sell a course of drugs to a Brazilian for $1.50 (at just above cost), which usually sells for say $1000 in the US, that gives a very big incentive for drugs to be smuggled to the US at a profit to the Brazilians. If this happened the drug companies would lose a great deal. So much so that I would say a lot of R&D is forgone because of it. This means less new drugs etc.

This leads me to the issue of IP rights, development and growth. NMRN question whether or not there was a link between IP rights and growth and apologized for his ignorance in advance, apology accepted.

The work of Douglas C North outlined the importance of IP rights in the history of economic growth; one of his contentions was that it was a key reason for the industrial revolution.

This was the kick start to economic growth in the world and came about for a strong part due to the creation of value in ideas and design through patents etc. IP is extremely important for the development of ANY economy. Intellectual Property rights are so important that they are even named in the US constitution (I heard that some place could be wrong).

However that’s not to say that there was a perpetual right, most patents are limited in time, to allow the original creator enough monopoly time to recoup their original investment. It’s a question of dynamic efficiency not static.

Now we turn our attention to how this decision will affect Brazil. Personally I think it’s a really bad idea, as it focuses on short term symptoms of much deeper problems.

Lets say if Brazil were to facilitate the theft of IP (i.e. not enforce the property right) what are the consequences of this? Well they get access to cheap drugs and so their population is healthy... for a time until the next thing comes along.

But two other things happen. Firstly they then have a brand new export which is the smuggling of knock-off drugs (which will use the same people and channels as normal illicit drugs). Secondly a whole bunch of foreign direct investment goes else where.

See if you fail to enforce IP rights other companies who are looking to invest through the creation of manufacturing and the like will go to another developing economy which has the same pool of cheap labour but better legal institutions.

This hurts Brazil two ways, firstly in the forgone income which the FDI would have generated but also in stunting of technology transfer. This was the idea demonstrated in David Romer’s model of long run economic growth. This is where long term growth is attributed in no small part to how much R&D and technology transfer occurs in an economy.

So in the long run this is a really bad idea for Brazil. The only time when they should consider this (strategically) is if their discount rate is really really high. This may well be the case right now, but I’m unsure. If they decide to facilitate the theft of IP, it will be an affect that is felt for many decades. Even if they restore IP rights this may well be seen as an incredible temporary measure which will not encourage business to invest in Brazil.

Now as for the US et all not living up to their WTO obligations in paying subsides… well I would have thought it was obvious why they don’t do it. if they cut the subsidies they would pay the ultimate price for a government…losing office.

From a strategic point of view if I were negotiating in terms of trade policies I would only raise the issue of agricultural subsides so as they can trade it off the table. That is get something else for it because I know I will never be able to pressure the US into totally dropping agricultural subsides.

Now the US is by no means the worst offender in farm subsides, the French are much worse. Then again French farmers are not so much in the agricultural business as they are in the tourism industry.

Finally, NMRN’s last comment that companies “in theory” have WTO obligations. I don’t agree with this. The company’s legal obligations are to the countries they are incorporated and operate in not to a super-national organisation. “In theories” aside, those who are obligated to the WTO are signatories, not those who operate under their laws. While the laws in which they operate may change they operate under the US’ laws not the WTO’s. Remember if the US decides to not comply with WTO obligations US companies are not required to change.

Well that’s enough for me. I’ve got work to do. May have more to say on this depending on the comments received. Other than that…. Have a good day.

Abort Yourself Rich and Get Confident Stupid!

2006-02-16T07:46:00.000+11:00

Well unless you were living under some kind of rock (igneous or sedimentary) you would have heard that The Hon. Danna Vale has come out and said some… interesting (said with a bit of a smirk) statements regarding abortion and Australia becoming an Islamic nation. Well Ms. Vale has received a whole bunch of flack for this and deservedly so. But no one has really attacked in an analytical manner on the merits of what she has said. The response has been to call her Xenophobic, Racist, Stupid etc. but not to question the substance of what she has said.

As disappointed as I am with the words that Ms. Vale has uttered I am just as disappointed in the widespread response which has been emotional and thin. This is fine if you want to play to the crowd (hey I do that sometimes) but the fact is no one learns nor is enriched by it. Lesson for today my young Padawan’s, no one learns anything if you point fingers and call someone a racist.

So let us start right here. Let us challenge Ms. Vale on the substance (as misguided as it is) of her opinions of abortion. Are we aborting ourselves out of existence? Maybe, but as Ms. Vandstone has said we have a large intake of immigrants from many nations (a major majority are non Muslim), that aside I’m not sure if we want a high birth rate.

If we follow the most basic of long term economic growth models or even some of the augmented Solow models one of the fundamental facts is a low birth rate actually increases GDP per capita in the long run. So abortion, lowering the birth rate actually helps to make us richer.

Now if we go deeper into economic literature we come across the work of Mr. Steven Levitt. Mr. Levitt wrote an awesome book called Freakonomics and one of his chapters basically said that access to abortion actually reduces the future crime rate.

The idea is that abortion reduces the number of children born into adverse circumstances, the ones who are more prone to crime. Now some of Mr. Levitt’s data has come under fire. Personally I think it still holds up as does the reasoning behind such a theory.

So Ms Vale, Islamic as we may be at least we’ll be rich and I won’t have my stuff flogged by some never-should-have-been punk criminal.

Conflict of Religions in one simple metaphor

2006-02-08T13:27:00.000+11:00

Religion is not about opposing ideals or anything like that. All religions are pretty much the same at their base level.

Religion is like the square at the center of town. Christians are approaching from the South, Jews from the East, and Muslims from the North. They are all approaching the same destination but just coming at it from different starting points.

Now sure, a few of these religious types get caught down the back alleys and one way streets they are still looking for the center of town. Just… no map or compass.

It’s times like these I wish I could draw

2006-02-07T16:33:00.000+11:00

No doubt you have all heard about the cartoons going around. Not talking about the Simpsons or Futurama but the ones that have many Muslims mighty peeved.

So I came up with my own idea for a cartoon of my own. It’s set up in Heaven, looking down upon the earth (which is a mess of squabbles and strife) is God, Jesus, Mohammad, and Buddha. They are looking intently until God finally says “You know one of us is going to have to go back down there and explain it to them all AGAIN…”

Now not saying I’m a Gnostic, I’m Agonistic but still you have to admit it would make a pretty good cartoon. Like I said I wish I could draw.

Oh the ills of society or: Stop fecking swearing

2006-02-01T11:08:00.000+11:00

It is easy to lament the decline is civility in our society. But why can society move this way? I’m currently working on my own philosophy (well really it’s a hybrid of Darwinism / Smithian, it’s coming along with my late night ponders over cigarette and billiards), that any trend in society can only happen if it represents some kind of advantage. Also, in understanding the advantages that cause the trend we gain a deeper understanding of how to stop it or ride it.

So the next logical question is what is the advantage to acting so uncouth? This is an interesting question which can have a multitude of answers. That’s a long winded way for saying “I don’t know, let me think”.

However, even though I haven’t thought of a good reason why I can tell you what isn’t to blame… the media. I have always seen the media more as a mirror to society rather than a leader. It can’t take us anywhere we don’t already want to go.

So please give me some suggestions as to the potential advantages of acting rude. I’m going to go off and ponder this some more until I come up with a tight sound theory.

PS. Although this writer has sworn a lot in his posts and been rather rude I am trying to improve. The way I figure best keep swearing for dramatic effect. If you hardly ever swear and then come out with a massive expletive the world stops. Also, old expressions like “fiddle sticks” and fake expletive expressions like “Holy Flirking Shnit” or “Mother Sticker” provide a rather good substitute.

PPS couldn't be bothered linking...too bad. If you really wanna know about all this do a google news search.

Certainty Not?

2006-01-17T08:08:00.000+11:00

Ahhh comments from our old friend Not My Real Name concerning our previous post on certainty of relation in the house hold he writes

“Or is it because the maternal grandmother has come from a long line of women who have been forced to work in the home and therefore have no other perception of their role in society? That they have been conditioned to see their sole purpose as providing child welfare and, therefore, passing the effect of increased payments on?

That would be my theory.”

Ok so let’s tackle this theory by the testable predictions it makes. This theory would mean that the Paternal Grandmother’s presence in the household would be a significant factor in child welfare as well. Alas, this is not true (at least from what has been relayed to me) according the study.

Now don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to hang the poop on Paternal Grandmas (Mines fantastic, HI GRANDMA IF YOUR READING (doubt it)), just trying to explain something which appears to be an anomaly of conventional wisdom.

However, I’m not done with NMRN’s conditioning theory. In most if not all societies throughout the ages (someone will find an exception) women have filled the role vital of primary care giver for children. NMRN says “conditioned” alone however I think that we explore what was said in the pod cast a little further (Link is here, I suggest everyone listen to it). The cast explores the idea that it is not a case of Nurture vs. Nature (that the two are substitutes) but Nature through Nurture (that the two are compliments).

So asking questions along this line, why is it that women have fulfilled the role of primary care givers for children for so long (6000 years of civilization and probably a Million years worth of swinging from the trees)? What is it in our biology that has influenced gender roles for so long?
Moving along further from this, could the certainty of lineage have affected our biological development? Hmmm perhaps actuaries have something to contribute to evolutionary biology…
So here is another question… what has changed? Why is it that now women are not totally confined to these roles? What in our society (not necessarily our biology) has changed to make it advantageous for women’s societal roles to expand past the household? Any suggestions? Given this change are there any areas where biology and society conflict or compliment? Are there any consequences of conflicts of biology vs. society?

Before people start calling me a pig, jerk or even just plain arsehole please note I have tried my best to keep this as an area of inquiry not a soap box of opinion. Opinion, with all Branni’guns blazing will return in future posts.

Certainty is a wonderful thing

2006-01-11T09:26:00.000+11:00

Been reading a few of the posts from Club Troppo concerning disadvantaged children. By the way Club Troppo is an uber good blog and I recommend it to everyone.

Anyway, the subject of division of labour within the household cropped up (here) . Personally I find this a really interesting area of study particularly for economics. These posts reminded me of a pod cast from radioeconomics.com which spoke about some of the reforms post Apartheid in South Africa.

What they did was actually increase significantly the welfare payments made to old folks because of all the multi and skip generation households. This is a really good policy to increase the welfare of children as grandparents are often their primary care givers. Someone then came along and did an econometric survey on the effects of this new policy. The results were… interesting. It turned out that only in a household where a certain grandparent was present did it offer an increase in child welfare. Guess which grand parent… the maternal grandmother.

There have been a few theories why this is the case. The one I think is pretty good is the theory that the maternal grandmother is the only grandparent who can be 100% certain that the grandchild is theirs. Sound harsh? Good!

Now abstracting from this… if certainty plays a role with parents and children’s welfare does that mean if you DNA tested fathers and children provide certainty will that increase a child’s income share in the household and increase their well being?

Have a listen to the radio economics cast (here) before you jump up and down and call me a bastard.

Blogging will return to normal.

2006-01-10T09:00:00.000+11:00

Ok there you have it three posts of crap. I’ll return to blogging about more important things when I get some cannon fodder.

Next Gen or two moves ahead?

2006-01-10T08:58:00.000+11:00

Unless you have been living under a rock you would have heard about the new Xbox 360 and possibly Sony’s next generation consol the PS3. As usual there is much posturing and postulating by gamers about which is the better consol, like here. While there has been much talk about Sony supporting the new Blu Ray disk (which holds around 50 gig) and MS only going with a standard DVD. However something people haven’t seem to have noticed about the new 360, it has a detachable hard drive.

I will a bet a minor appendage on MS selling a massive hard disk as an accessory in the future and moving to large amounts of downloadable content (like movies and games).

Theoretical Physics and Dr Suess, two more of my favourite things.

2006-01-10T08:57:00.000+11:00

Please have a look at this link. It’s an explanation of the Schrödinger’s cat paradox written in the Dr Seuss style.

I found it funny; then again I’m a nerd.

My diatribe on cricket

2006-01-10T08:52:00.000+11:00

Well if you’re anything like me (many of you are not!) summer means many a day wasted on the couch watching the cricket. Just a few comments on cricket in general.

1) Warne is better than Muralitharan .Been a bit of debate about this, many saying Muralitharan has better numbers. He does but only looking at averages and strike rates would be partial analysis. Warney has taken 659 wickets in a team surrounded by the likes of Glen McGrath (542), Jason Gillespie (251) and later Bret Lee (192). Muralitharan has taken 584 with only Vass (301) to compete with.

Nor Has Warney had the opportunity to play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe all that often (both of which consider him a pace bowler who can seam it a truck load). Muralitharan has played them both and taken 34 wickets at 10 from Bangladesh and 87 wickets from Zimbabwe at 16. So if you take out the freebies that puts Muralitharan doesn’t look that hot.

Warne provides us with a great example of if there is a god, he sure has a sense of humor. By giving us such great talent to a man is flawed with vice.

Last and not least. WARNE DOES NOT CHUCK THE BALL!!!

2) Ricky Ponting is possibly the most technically sound batsmen going around. Pity he has little creativity when it comes to leading the side. However as much as you laude Ponting for his key role at no.3 you should give just as much praise to Hayden and Langer. Ponting’s life is made much easier when he comes in and there are runs on the board and the shine off the ball (and so often this is the case).

3) I am sick of the use of the word “Batter” in place of Batsmen. This isn’t Baseball. Also if you bitching and moaning about gender neutrality, women don’t play in cricket games that anyone really cares about. Sorry sounds mean but I had to say it.

4) Andre Nel is a bit of a flog but at least he isn’t a bitching little brat like Smith. Although props to Smith for his declaration. Someone should tell him however , that a 5th day pitch is not a 5th day pitch when only 3 and a half days have been played on it and has been covered the rest of the time. Unless he already knows this and it turns out his wife is walking around in a new leather jacket (this is an allusion of Hansie).

5) People watch cricket to see the players not calisthenics from the umpire. Billy Bowden et all should take a leaf out of Dickie Bird’s book (dang that guy is a legend). If your complaining that Warne appeals too much, well up yours. He’s probably appealed more than anyone else in test cricket history but he’s definitely seen more raised fingers than anyone!

6) I can see 20/20 cricket taking over. It’s like cricket on speed witch a steroid chaser. While entertaining really and truly it is a form of the game designed for people with the attention span of a house cat.

7) I have no problems with the ABC pushing their agenda through the cricket commentary, but does it have to be so blatant?

If you love cricket go to cricinfo.com awesome, stats everywhere, what's a econometrically trained boy to do!

Freedom of Spleech…

2006-01-02T16:52:00.000+11:00

This is a link to a little back and forth with NRMN concerning freedom of speech. The link is here, have a look. This post is largely a response to comments on comments. The link is here. It’s concerning freedom of speech and incitement.

Ok firstly a few little things to get out of the way. Yes, you’re right free speech isn’t protected in this country. But then again since why have we let details like this get in the way of abstracting what we think is ideal in our society.

Secondly, where words generate emotion from people they cease to be words and become rhetoric. A lost art really. As for judges and politicians deciding the standards of our society, this isn’t that grand. There will always be more votes in telling someone who speak unpalatable words to “shut up” than there is to protect their right to say it. As for judges… could make a bunch of jokes but I don’t know much about them so I’ll let it be.

As for defamation, this one was a bit of a noodle scratcher. Both defamation and incitement seem to be similar (in principal at least). However, there are a couple of differences at play here. Firstly defamation is a civil not a criminal. More importantly is the nature of the cause and effect of the words. For example with defamation, if someone comes out and says I have had intimate relations with a close female relative and I stole from the church poor box (even though I don’t go to church), the damage occurs in my future interactions with other people. As a result of this I am considered of poor character, I loose money and become ostracized. Those who cut off relations or cross the street to avoid me as a result of the shit slinging aren’t breaking the law. They would be perfectly right to act in such a manner if they truly believe that my character is thus. I mean how can you blame them? Which is why if someone defames you, you take them to court and make sure they leave with only their underpants.

Now as for incitement two point here little one first big one second. I have issue with prosecuting the Alan Jones’ of the word are almost used as scapegoats for the abhorrent actions of individuals (within a mob). In groups people feel a diluted responsibility. Because they are acting as a mob they feel the blame for the actions are divided amongst the group. THIS IS NOT RIGHT! This is not just an internal thing either. People find it hard to blame a large group (usually because they see a bit of themselves in it) they want to pick out one person to wear the blame. In this case it’s Alan Jones.

Second and biggest point. If you are that ignorant and “vulnerable” that someone could ever convinced you it was a good idea to chase a little Lebanese fella down the street, beat him to a bloody pulp and set him a blaze well your pretty fucked to begin with. And I don’t care if Hitler, JFK or Cicero rose from the death to convince you it’s a good idea. If at any stage anyone finds this kind of “vulnerability” and excuse we aint as far along the path as I thought.

It is much like the play Macbeth. Some people argue that The Witches, Lady Macbeth cause Macbeth’s down fall. It wasn’t. Macbeth’s downfall was all his.

Also just another point… Another example of where free speech has been curbed is here in Victoria where the Bracks government has vilification laws. Basically I’m not allowed to make fun of any group. Except, it’s not any group it’s the “protected groups”. You can make fun of a straight, male, Catholics. You can urinate on the cross or wipe your arse on the bible but no one really gives a toss. But as soon as your start talking jive and cracking wise about an Islamic lesbian… shit then you are in a whole bunch of trouble.

IR Reforms

2006-01-02T16:47:00.000+11:00

Just an additional comment, NMRN mentions IR reforms that it is the government forcing its power onto an individual. This is a little flawed as it actually represents a retraction of the power of the state. Place more power in the hands of individuals to negotiate their exchanges with one another (both employers and employees).

Hopefully it results in a reduction of intervention by governments (and laws) about exactly what is on the table. As for suffering from state intervention, well any change in government policy represents some loss to someone. There is no change in government policy which is Pareto superior (that is one can be made off while not making anyone else worse off).

However I do find it funny that Unions are bitching and moaning that it is going to reduce wages. Fair enough, but do not forget this simple fact. Unemployed people don’t join unions. No one wants to talk about the how a reduction in wages will actually will reduce unemployment.

Despite all efforts to the contrary, the labour market is a market. Has buyers and sellers, people entering the market people leaving. However, everyone wants to fuck with it. Governments wanna screw with it to win votes, Unions want to screw with it to rent seek for their member and all business owners want to do is pay people according to their marginal product. I know which one is most palatable with me.

Progression of Liberty II

2006-01-02T16:43:00.000+11:00

We have comments… I mean only one person comments on this blog anyway. Sure I could go off to a corner and cry myself to sleep over my lack of popularity but I got over being unpopular in high school. In any case I digress into my neuroses here’s the comment by not my real name on this post.

“An amazing set of questions from a self-confessed red blooded capitalist.Are you for state intervention? That is called, at the very least, Socialism and at the worst, Communism. You know my views on these things, but what brought this on in you?The reason the problem is approached from the individual point of view is because the individual needs protection from the State. This is not as simple as I make it, but basically this revolves around power relations. The State, with lots of power, can impose that power on the individual. This is essentially the thrust of the new IR laws by the way.This is bad because it is the individual who suffers from state intervention if it is done in an arbitrary fashion. Of course we need a State entity, but State power is restricted so that the necessary functioning of a State only occurs within boundaries which make it difficult for the State to exercise power arbitrarily.I thought that one was all done and dusted. I'm not sure where there is anything new to debate here.”

So let me clarify my position. (NB, “The Process of Clarification is not to make one self clear but to put one in the clear” – Sir Humphrey Appleby)

I am at no point advocating Socialism of Communism. The string of thought I am trying to make is that we think of liberty from a totalitarian regime and curbing the state to our point of happiness. In stead why don’t abstract from anarchy (my so called jungle) and create a frame work for the state, hopefully emphasizing VITAL roles of the state rather than peripheral ones.

The idea is instead of working from 100% state control backwards to our ideal % (although this is difficult as ideal is uber subjective), we go from 0% to ideal%.

Personally I thought this was a novel question, well at least it was for me. To me it promotes the essential question; “What vital roles should the state be involved in”, rather than “What roles shouldn’t the state perform”. This would hopefully change the bias away from state intervention being the norm to the exception.

So ideally this is supposed to prompt the question of if we are in an anarchistic environment what roles should a state fulfill? Or even better, if we were in an anarchistic environment what institutions would occur naturally, in some shape or form? The very first thing I believe people will do is figure out some way to protect themselves and their property.

Now because the basic laws of economics are like gravity, people will end up specializing in what they are good at (you know the whole thing about comparative advantage), so some people will look to others and exchange some of their goods for protection.

Now this isn’t totally ideal since if someone is strong enough to protect you they would be strong enough to rob you. So there would need to be some trust mechanism set up. How this would be achieved I’m not sure, but some this mechanism would make it such that it would be expensive for your protector to rob you. This is done by our current system of government by the accountability measures associated with democracy along with a few bureaucratic checks and balances.

This is just a brief foray into my question but hopefully you get my point. However, two things I want to stress.

1) Approaching the question of state intervention in anarchy is different from asking the questions about state intervention under our current system.
2) If you ask the question of government from the position of anarchy it makes you get clear on what are the VITAL roles of government rather than peripheral roles.

Two more points from NMRN’s post. Firstly regarding IR, I’ll deal with that in another post. Now, as for done and dusted questions, although some questions may be considered done and dusted very few actually are. If you asked the wise men of the 1500’s they would have considered many questions “done and dusted”. Aristotelian thinking had the idea of motion and mechanics down pat until Galileo. Then in the same year Galileo snuffed it Newton was born, and many done and dusted questions got a whole heap of new answers. Then at the start of the 20th Century many of these answers were made a new by Einstein. So why are questions of politics treated differently from those of Physics? Perhaps done and dusted questions need to be reinvented some times.

The Progression of Liberty

2005-12-21T23:35:00.000+11:00

I find it most interesting the use of the expression “hard one civil liberties”. Not as in freedom is interesting (all though it is), nor the struggle to attain a goal (that’s interesting in itself too), but the mindset that the phrases embodies. That personal freedoms are not considered natural. That they are something that has been won… some how.

As a look back on over generalize on history (the intellectual equivalent of hanging a lantern on it), there has been a movement through the spectrum. On one side we have anarchy, and on the other we have totalitarianism, or dictatorship.

What I find a curiosity is that human beings have moved from anarchy (there was no government around when we figured out fire) through to tribes, to bigger tribes, form chiefs to kings…. And at around some point here the state has said “we are pretty much in control of everything. So do as your told Mr. Serf.”

So since then we have progressed through land mark documents like the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights. Along with great thinkers like Mill and Paine. But why do we think of if from this side of the spectrum. Why do we think in a negative sense to say “these are things which a government is not allowed to do”. Why not work from the other end. Imagine for a second that you are in a world of anarchy, a jungle. In what facets of life from there does it seem sensible for a common agent (government) to intervene and participate?

Just a thought I’ll work on over the next few months, years, decades. Certainly a multiple pipe problem.

Comment on Someone elses Blog

2005-12-19T12:09:00.000+11:00

This is an extract from our mate at The Law Thoughts, Not My Real Name. The Full piece is here at this link.

“By the way, John Howard snuck a scary law through Parliament last week, which was lost amongst the hooha about VSU, IR, Anti-terror etc etc. The law authorises the PM, where the GG is unavailable, to call out the army to restore 'law and order'. If the PM is unavailable or cannot be contacted in an emergency situation, ANY TWO MINISTERS can authorise and implement what essentially is martial law.How does this play out in a situation like last week's Cronulla riots? Let's say that John Howard was on his recent trip to Pakistan and was up in the mountains with little ability to be contacted. At the same time, GG Jeffries is (hypothetically) opening a school in Canada and also is out of contact by government Ministers. In this situation, ANY TWO MINISTERS, can authorise the army to be sent to Cronulla to bash some skulls. So, Kevin Andrews and Tony Abbott could get together and implement martial law, so that our army roams the streets and 'restores order' with virtually no accountability. At least the police remain accountable to the public. The army are simply not.Why is nobody getting worked up in Australia? Do we think these powers are a GOOD thing? When I go to NZ on Boxing Day, I may not bother coming back.”

Firstly, as a back up control system two ministers is more than enough (in my opinion) for the calling of a state of emergency. Not my real name makes a mistake here by personalizing the position of minister. Ministers are not normal people (yes yes make your jokes, no politician is normal blah blah blah), ok they are normal people but at the same time they are also agents of the crown. A position that affords both privilege (can’t sue them separately from the crown) and responsibility (responsibilities delegated from legislation, and you may even be called upon to call in the army upon your own citizens).

So as a control system it probably balances speed and accountability as well as can be expected. If a riot starts in Carlton and the Bobbies can’t handle it, you want the army mobilized before it reaches Spring Street.

Now as for the alarmist rhetoric used by not my real name. I’ve come to realize that on both the “anti-terror” and “anti-anti-terror” side of this argument there is alarmist and pejorative language. Expressions like “bash some skulls” and saying an army would roam the streets doth not the analysis make. Obviously opinion of professional soldiers is not very high. These guys are TRAINED PEACEKEEPERS. Part of the role of the modern military is that of peace keeping and you have to admit the ADF did a rather good job in East Timor.

As for lack of accountability in the Army, well not true. Private are accountable to Corporals, Corporals to Sergeants, Sergeants to Lieutenants, Lieutenants to Captains and so on so forth. At the end of it accountability is going to lie with the person or persons who called in the Army. As for accountability within the army, few occupations in the world could have you executed if you piss bolt from your job. Soldiers are trained to do as they are told, that’s how it works. They don’t “roam the streets”.

In the history of democracies states of emergency or martial law have been enacted on very few occasions. It is a decision that NO ONE would take lightly. Think about it, Martial Law today, Stock Crash tomorrow, Loss of Government the next day. Times when a state of emergency or imposition of martial law has been declared in modern democracies include; Hurricane Katrina, 1970 October Crisis in Quebec, and September 11. We must make the distinction between the power to act and the desire to act. Calling in the military will only occur when it is the lesser of two evils. Not at the whim of a Minister or two.

As for staying in New Zealand… I hope they internet access in Hobbiton, I would miss this back and forth…. watch out for Orcs.

Not Molitov at Short Extra Cover

2005-12-19T11:12:00.000+11:00

No riots in NSW this week and I can tell you exactly why. It wasn’t that after a week people are less racist, more rational and genuinely nicer. It wasn’t even the request to stay away from beaches or the massive police presence. One simple reason why they Yobbos weren’t out in force… The cricket was on. Yes once again one of the finer things in life, cricket, one of the last bastions of civility in our society averts major public disaster. Well done Punter, Warney and Bing!

Is this Quadraphenia or something more insidious

2005-12-12T07:42:00.000+11:00

Riots have broken out in Cronulla (link), NSW. I wonder if this is a phenomenon of youth of rioters or something deeper. It does seem to have a Mod V. Rocker or Jets V. Sharks feel to it but with everything that’s going on I am unsure.

It’s kind of funny though that once you think your above crap like this as a country stuff like this happens to put us back in our knuckle dragging place. It would seem that evolution is a phenomenon of the individual rather than of the cohort.

Still I guess it highlights the fact that seldom do two wrongs make a right.

Death of an Icon

2005-12-07T10:03:00.000+11:00

Pat Morita, better know as Mr Miyagi died last week aged 73. A truly iconoic character from the movies, giving an instant nick name to anyone named Daniel.

Wax on wax off Mr. Miyagi, Rest in peace.

Are all men boogey men? Or just those on air planes…

2005-12-07T09:59:00.000+11:00

So Qantas and Air New Zealand won’t allow Men to sit next to unattended children (link here). Apparently men can’t be trusted with children. I find this stupid, saddening and relieving all at the same time.

Stupid because I’ve seen many a great fathers out there (my dad included). Seeing how my dad changes when it comes to talking to kids truly warms the cockles of a heart which feeds on human misery. A usually serious guy turns into a well a really warm, almost clown like figure. So given the reactions I see of a lot of men out there to kids I just find this as pretty stupid.

Saddening because it is a sexist and degrading attitude. Personally I believe that women are naturally better carers of children than men. Bio-chemically women are designed better for it. However it is sickening to assume that men are predatory in nature, particularly when it comes to children. Also it is totally wrong regarding the stats as a child is more likely to be molested by someone who is known to them than a stranger. So I find it just a bit sad really.

Relieving or Joyous because this means if I fly Qantas I won’t be sitting next to some snot nosed little shit who can’t sit still. So yay!! Go put that little runt next to some old biddy and let me drink my Gin and Tonic and read my book in peace.

Victory? Complete Victory?

2005-12-07T09:55:00.000+11:00

This is a personal bug bear of mine, (link here). Not the war in Iraq per se but the piss poor manner in which the strategy of the conflict has been handled. Now Bush is saying that they won’t accept anything but compete victory. That’s for want of a better word… cute.

Personally I think that it’s a bit of a truism, if you go to war you should only fight for victory. You don’t go in it to loose do you? I mean it’s not lick a tickle fight with a significant other, where losing has it’s advantages… What irritates me the most is no one really has seemed to define victory that well. No one has described exactly what victory means.

The person who I hold to most account over this is Colin Powell. He was supposed to be a military man, trained at West Point, (I think, not sure correct me if I’m wrong). I even have an audio book of him commenting on the Art of War by Sun Tzu. So why does a man with the depth of knowledge of military strategy break several of the tenants of Sun Tzu’s work?

Well that’s enough for me as the arm chair military strategist.

Cricket and Espionage… these are two of my favourite things.

2005-12-07T09:53:00.000+11:00

The link is here. Turns out the captain and founder of the Serbian National cricket team was an MI6 agent. Not much to comment on here. I just thought this was really really cool!

The Video Game Made Me Do it!

2005-11-22T09:03:00.000+11:00

This shit really pisses me off, links here and here. Parents are suing Blizzard over their kid who jumped out a window. Are we back in the 70’s where parents sued rock musicians because their kids topped themselves? Yes I understand that the opportunity costs of actually parenting are high (because Dancing with the Stars and CSI presents such a high value) but if your child kills themselves because of a video game chances are your derelict in your duties. One tip, spend more than 7 minutes a week with your child.

In the words of Bender from Futurama,
"Why couldn't you just turn off the TV, sit down with your kids, and hit 'em?"

Now this is a pandemic I’m worried about

2005-11-22T08:45:00.000+11:00

According to the age (here), intelligent design is starting to market in Australia. This is not a good thing. All seems to be part of a Christian fundamentalist backlash to me. It won’t be too long before they get in power, cut off my internet porn and then burn someone at the stake.

Some interesting stats from this article here. Only 23 % believe in evolution but 69% want it taught in schools. That seems odd for some reason I mean that means that 46% want something to be taught in science which they don’t believe, way to have the courage of your convictions. 54% believe god created the earth in a 6 day period (had a beer or two on day 7).

However, there is a shining light. Most scientists won’t touch the ID debate with guy. I routinely sit down in awe of these guys. They believe in their ideology (not my own) but the actually think are educated. Bravo Sir, Bravo!!!

I would have to say the scientific method is one of the greatest inventions in human history. If aliens came to earth, they would list it as one reason not to blow us up (along with the music of Mozart and coffee). If we are not careful we might loose that and force ourselves into another dark age. Don’t let it happen! Step away form the TV, read some popular science, discuss it with your friends.

Death to Fake Punk Rockers!

2005-11-15T11:53:00.000+11:00

So watching TV last night The Mythbusters finished their massive sling shot, so I was channel hopping. Turned onto 10 and saw urghh Australian Idol but it was the one where they kick someone off. So I watched. There something fun about watching someone’s dream die. Yes I know I feed off human misery. I’m a bad person… blah blah blah. So the one that got voted off was the fake punk rocking gimp! Thank God, I was on hold with that wish for s while. Yay!!! He got voted off. All I have to say is… SHENNA IS A PUNK ROCKER NOT YOU, YOU SUCKER OF SATAN’S COCK!!!

DEMAND THAT ALL YOUR MUSICIANS ROCK!!!

The City Equivalent of Shining Your Shoes?

2005-11-10T13:32:00.000+11:00

Have a look at this link. I wonder if this is the city equivalent of shining your shoes for the big date?

Or would it be more like trimming your nose hair. You decide. But $60,000 ain't much though is it?

The New Anti Terror Laws III: How Do You Rehabilitate Someone Hell Bent On Jihad?

2005-11-10T09:15:00.000+11:00

One last point before I get back to work. It was pointed out to me last night, by someone wiser than me, that no one has thought about rehabilitation of terrorist. As I understand it rehabilitation is one of the objectives of our penal system. How do you rehabilitate a terrorist? Or, have you just put a delay fuse on a time bomb? If they are hell bent on blowing something up now how pissed are they going to be when they get, after 10 years of muttering to themselves “I’m gonna get the bastards, I’m gonna get the bastards”. Wonder what they will try and blow up then? Just a thought.

The New Anti Terror Laws II: A Strategic Perspective

2005-11-10T09:13:00.001+11:00

From a strategic perspective these laws are actually very effective at fighting terrorism. Not so much form the point of view of reducing the chances of an attack but they combat the way terrorism works on the public at large.

Terrorism works by instilling an irrational fear in people which is designed to curb the way they live their day to day lives. For example the London attack killed 60 people? More people would die from household accidents in a year than that. The chances of being killed in attack in England are slim (at a guess around 1 in 833,333), however with the media beat up and the random nature of the attacks an irrational fear is created. It is a distortion of the perceived risk of catching the train or going to the observation deck of the Rialto that is irrational and the mechanism by which terrorism works.

What these new anti terror laws do is help instill an irrational safety in people. Irrational not because it makes being caught in attack significantly different (as the odds are so low anyway) but because the fear it alleviates is irrational in itself.

People seem confused in this war on terrorism. It’s not a war of guns, bombs and death; it is primarily a psychological war. On this battle field, public arrests of suspected terrorists and new anti-terror laws are actually a very strong maneuver. Perhaps not as strong as the French Centers attack of the Austrian's flanking flank at Austerlitz, but a strong move none the less. In a war where the battle field is people’s minds it is the front page of the Herald Sun or the lead story on the News which determines who is winning.

The New Anti Terror Laws I: Analysis of Comparative States

2005-11-10T09:11:00.000+11:00

We are now into our third day of the new anti terror laws, according to our specious reasoning they are working well. There is no doubt they have curbed our civil liberties and do present a danger to our way of life. However let’s think about it in a comparative sense.

On a long enough time line, say five years, without the new anti-terror laws, I believe that there would almost certainly be a terrorist attack on Australian soil. Not a total certainty but we are talking very short odds. With the new laws an inevitable attack may not have been averted but at the very least delayed. It is tough to quantify the odds but I think it’s moved from a favorite to a roughie. Keep in mind we are talking about the chances here.

Now, if you think these laws are bad, imagine what they would be like if they reactive rather than proactive. You cannot imagine how draconian they would be if they were written after an attack. Not only the laws but their enforcement would be insane. It will be to the point where you can’t buy potting mix because it contains salt peter. Police would be walking around with their weapons drawn rather than in their holster, and anyone with dark features, a back pack and fiddling with their ipod would be shot on sight! So if you think it’s bad… It can get worse.

Also some argue that these new laws ingrain hatred and racism towards Muslims. This is true for some people. Personally my own views on people are determined by me and not by a set of laws any government bring in. Saying that, you cannot imagine the hatred and racism that would manifested in the event of an attack on home soil. There would bev lynching of Muslims in the street and Sydney road would be turned into a ghetto. I’m not talking a gangsta rap, Tupac, Wu Tang style ghetto. I’m talking a Warsaw, World War II, Yellow Star of David style ghetto.

As much as I dislike the new anti terror laws I will take the reduction in the likely hood of an attack which they provide because I know it can get worse. If these new laws present a significant reduction in the chance of an attack they actually present a benefit to civil liberties and the curbing of racism if you think inter temporally and comparatively.

Comment on Australia's Own Drug Cartel

2005-11-10T07:18:00.000+11:00

Had a comment from Not My Real Name who is probably the extent of my readership...

"TPA here:http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/

Check Part IV.

Not really conversant with this, but isn't the restriction on phrama selling based upon the amount of advice and monitoring pharmacists need to undertake before they dispense their drugs?

If you sell, say, Xanex at the supermarket, you may as well sell medical devices as well.

I thought that was why we regulated medical supply, because you can't do it yourself. Sort of like making it illegal to practice as a lawyer without a valid certificate, provided by the Law Institute.

To protect people from bad advice and innocent self-harm.

As I say, though, not really up with the issue"

We seem to be a bit mixed up here. You are confusing entry restriction with the price floor. These are two separate circumstances of the market. The entry restriction of “who” can sell meds is a good thing. No doubt about that, it’s needed and we can’t have people medicating themselves (although we do self medicate anyway with food, booze, smokes and illegal drugs). Although taking your analogy of lawyers I think I can represent still myself (correct me if I’m wrong).

No my issues is with the price controls. So it’s not a case of “who” can sell but how much they can sell it for. The restricted entry may create a price premium although I couldn’t imagine the premium being too high. If it’s a Bertrand style oligopoly, competing on price, the price moves to the perfectly competitive equilibrium anyway. If it’s a Cournot style oligopoly, competing on quantity, the high number of players would bring the prices almost to the perfectly competitive level anyway. This is only looking at the retail end mind you not the upstream markets. However this would be nice however Pharmacy Guild may be acting as a cartel like OPEC. At the very least they are a rent seeking lobby group.

As for selling meds in the supermarket, that’s a question of “where” they can be sold and is another matter entirely. Why can’t you have a pharmacist station inside a Coles? The meds will be cheaper (with Coles’ purchasing power) and you will still have a licensed pharmacist dispensing them. Woolies has come out and said this, they aren’t looking to put the morphine next to the cuppa-soups or Viagra next to the chocolate sauce (although would be a great marketing idea, a sin pack if you will). The savings the government could make (through reduced subsidies) was said to be in the region of half a billion a year.

What’s happening is the government is effectively enhancing the profits of the pharmacy industry through a price floor and restricting of where pharmacists can open up. It’s artificial protection and is creating a very expensive inefficiency in an industry (healthcare) which can’t afford it.

What is also of note is that Tony Abbots reasoning of why to keep the price controls in is stupid. He says he doesn’t want people to over medicate. Now I would guess (just a guess but a good one) that the demand for drugs is pretty inelastic. Also demand tends to be determined by doctors who act as agent for the sick person (this in itself creates its own problems if you ask me about I’ll gladly tell you about). So if the price dropped I doubt you would have a whole rush of people buying more meds, it’s just a throw away line to help Tony Abbot save face.

I smell rent seeking, no wait it’s more like rent finding! Or: Australia’s own drug cartel

2005-11-09T10:06:00.000+11:00

Ok have a look at this link. It’s about the government agreeing with the pharmacy guild that they can pocket all the savings from subsidized meds themselves.

This is rotten! Why is it we attempt to regulate and prosecute one group for exercising market power but put in place anti competitive five year agreements with others? Like I alluded to in another post the pharmacy guild is one of the twin monopolies of our health system.

Shame shame shame! Not on the pharmacists they are doing what any other wise business person would do, shit if I were them I would be doing my very best maximize my profits. The shame sits on our government. Imagine paying subsides to a bunch of colluding drug dealers. I mean who ran that fucking negotiation? I mean the government had such a strong threat point. It could say three words and silence the room… TRADE PRACTICES ACT. (Can anyone tell me what section of the TPA prosecuting a cartel falls under...? I forgot)

How about we get rid of the subsidies and opening up the market? It would be funny if that made everyone better off… oh wait according to basic micro economics it does.

Specious Reasoning – One day without a bear, I mean terrorist attack.

2005-11-08T14:40:00.000+11:00

Homer, reporting on the results of Springfield's attempt to rid the town of bears: "There's not a single bear in sight--the 'Bear Patrol' is working like a charm"

"That's specious reasoning," Lisa retorts.

"Thanks, honey," Homer says to her, adoringly.

"According to your logic," she says, picking up a stone from their lawn, "this rock keeps tigers away".

"Hmmm. How does it work?"

"It doesn't."

"How so?" Homer asks further.

"It's just a rock," she says.

"But I don't see a tiger, anywhere."

"Lisa," concludes Homer, while pulling out his wallet, "I want to buy your rock."

So we have had almost one day of our brand spanking new anti-terror laws. They sent them back to go for the optional extras. Already they have arrested 17 people across Sydney and Melbourne. One caught some lead in the chest; he allegedly was shooting at the coppers.

So as the title states I’m going to apply some specious reasoning. It’s been one day there have been no terrorist attacks in Australia. Therefore the new laws are working well. Each day that goes by without a terrorist attack is further proof of the effectiveness of the new laws.

So until there is an attack the laws are working. If there is an attack then well the laws are broken and we’ll have to trade in for a bigger rock, I mean law…

Shoot to kill? Once again we have misleading definitions that really piss me off.

2005-11-07T08:17:00.000+11:00

Ok this continues the vain of discussion on the new terror laws. Have a look at this link. Now all debate about the laws aside there is something that pisses me off. The use of the expression “shoot to kill”.

This is expression is misleading because whenever any law enforcement professional shoots it is to kill. It’s not like the Loan Ranger where you can shoot the gun out of someone’s hands. All people who are trained to fire a weapon at human targets are trained to shoot at the center of mass (the chest). It is supposed to be a lethal use of force whenever a weapon is fired.

What it is describing is the rule of engagement concerning the threat level weapons at which weapons are to be fired. So something like fire upon apparent threat, or fire upon likely threat. Then again “shoot to kill” is catchier.

Personally I have big issues of the use of military personnel to police the streets because of how they are trained. Usually it is through a stimulus, response, reward mechanism which makes them effective soldiers but lousy police.

Once again a friend stops by to say hello and no!

2005-11-06T18:02:00.000+11:00

Ok another response by Not My Real Name. It’s here…

"But sorry Dash, I only agree with the substance of your post to the extent you deal with stealth taxes. Yes, they suck.You say the greatest human rights abuses occur when the few have all the capital. Sorry, mate, but that is debatable at best.Further, as I said on my own blog, equating tax and slavery is downright insulting, my friend. Try telling Rosa Parks that your restrained consumption is similar to her grandpa working in the cotton fields. Uh huh.There has to be some restriction on ALL rights, Dash. There have to be taxes. Ever read about how it was the job of a landowner to maintain the road outside his (yes, his!!) property in London. What do you think Piccadilly ended up looking like? Pothole central.In a similar vein, we have to have SOME restrictions on our civil liberties. I think what people are complaining about is the outrageous and disproportionate extent these new laws apply that restriction.You can't just remove taxes, which although you say you don't mind, I have heard you argue differently in the past!!! Just the same, you can't remove all restrictions on civil liberties. The two are different issues though, mate, and the omission is probably because at the moment, people are a hell of a lot more pissed off about these laws (and IR) to worry even more about taxes, which they already do regardless of the rate of taxation. "

Not my real name disagrees with me on the following points
- That the right to property is fundamental right
- Drivers licenses cost money
- You have to pay a tax to own a dog
- That bracket creep is a sneaky way to increase taxation
- That the government should reduce taxes in light of the new user pays style system
- That suspected terror subjects will be arrested when the new terrorism legislation passes
- That taxes are forced sharing
- That the greatest travesties occur when capital is in the hands of the few and not the many

You say that my comment about the greatest travesties have occurred when capital was in the hands of the few and not the many is debatable at best? Ok let’s look at the some of the communist countries and see how we go.

North Korea – Citizens can’t leave the country (AI has been on them for years, had a few famines too… killed a few million people)

Cuba – Frequently accused by AI for using torture, arbitray imprisonment etc. (The aren’t building rafts to get into Cuba but to get out!)

China – Tibet, One Child policy, arbitray imprisonment and you can pretty much pick any other violation.

Russia – The big one! Yep Uncle Joe killed between 10-50 million people. I’m sure if you ask those that were sent to the Gulags and showed them the UN conventions on human rights it would be faster if they highlighted which of their rights weren’t violated.

So yeah I guess we can debate whether capital is better off in the hands of the few or the many. It will be a pretty short debate. Not sure how you’d go… TKO, Fight Doctor, White Towel or a good old 10 count. But trust me it won’t go to points, lucky if you make it mid way to the third!

Your Rosa Parks line… I can’t tell Rosa Parks anything now…. She’s dead. Gee I would have thought you were above evoking the memory of the recently deceased. I mean I’m not but I thought you were.

Now as for the rest of it, yes there needs to be constraints on civil rights. There are some things we are not allowed to do. Also with taxation, there needs to be some level of taxation to solve the problems of things like the free rider problem in public goods and the production of some merit goods (ie some education and some health care). However the question is about degrees of curbing of rights and degrees of taxation. Now it’s being said that the new terror legislation is too much an intrusion of civil liberties. I am saying our current level of taxation and system of taxation prones us to too much taxation. That’s the meat of it. It’s not a binary thing which says tax or no tax, it’s one which says how much. Which is the exact same with the restrictions on all freedoms. Also if you don’t see the link between free people and free markets I recommend some Milton F, really smart guy. Puts it far more eloquenlty than I do.

Threat to Civil Liberties or: God only wants 10%

2005-11-04T09:48:00.000+11:00

Well I’ve been thinking about this whole terrorism bill thing for a while. Reading the post on The Law Thoughts kind of inspired me to actually blog on this. As soon as this law passes battering rams will be breaking down doors all over Australia. I herby dub this night The Night of the Splinters (yes it’s been adapted from The Night of Broken Glass).

While I believe that this does present a threat to civil liberties I think civil libertarians have been missing the main game for some time. Either by choice or omission they have still missed the main game.

One of the fundamental rights which we have, and possibly the right that is the most underrated by those who are not economists is the right to property. This is the right to own the product of our hands, hearts and minds, sell that product and buy shit with it. Taxation is almost like a % of slavery. Before I get my income a certain percentage is taken out. When I spend that income 10% is sent to the government.

So just doing a quick analysis on this. Say I ear 80k per year. The average tax rate for that is around 30%. That leaves me with 56k to spend. Say I spend it all (this isn’t so crazy a lot of people spend more than they earn!) 5.6k goes to the Govt as GST. That leaves me with an effective consumption of around 50.4k. This makes it more like 37.5% in tax. Now moving this along governments all across Australia have moved to a user pays system for as many things as they can. I get a drivers license it costs me money. I drive on certain roads, it costs me. If I want to you own a dog it fucking costs me (pricks making me pay to own a dog!).

See this is funny. It means if you earn over 80k per year you get taxed at over 37.5% (including fees for government services). 37.5!!! God only wants 10%. It’s like 37.5% slavery!

Now I have no problem with paying taxes per say. The government does present value to me but I do take umbrage at the fact that they introduce all these stealth taxes (fees, tools, and a share of the house cut from gambling) and don’t reduce my other taxes. Oh sorry yes we just had a tax cut but that only really gave us back about 6 years worth of bracket creep (don’t get me mother fucking started on bracket creep).

Civil libertarians out there, although these terrorism laws present a major threat to liberty you have missed a major part of the game by pretty much ignoring the continual increase (and sneaky increase) in taxation. It’s slavery, forced sharing and presents a greater threat to individual liberty. See the thing is, the greatest human rights travesties happen when capital is concentrated in the hands of the few not the many. There is one big government, eight smaller and hundreds of smaller ones still. There are 20 million people in Australia. I’d prefer more economic power in the hands of the 20 million than the hands of our governments.

But then again no one really gives a fuck anyway…. WATCH AUSTRALIAN IDOL, GO TO BED AUSTRALIA, SLEEP TIGHT, YOUR GOVERNMENT IS IN CONTROL.

The Bird Flu the Coup!

2005-10-24T14:35:00.000+10:00

Ok let’s look at this avian flu thing it’s all over the place now. In the UK, in parrots and in parrots in the UK. Even in pigeons in Australia. Some other links too. They want to ban import of wild birds... pretty sure wild birds import themselves!

I have a theory on this, as I have theories on a great many things. This is all an elaborate ploy to keep us STUPID, ANGRY, SCARED and BUYING NEWSPAPERS!!! Does anyone know how many people have died from this thing? 61. That’s not in once village that’s in the entire world. Does anyone know how many people die as a result of the normal flu in the UK alone? 12,000.

Now people are talking that the mortality rate of H5N1 is 50%. Yeah 50% in Asia! I wouldn’t want to get an infected toe in these countries. We aren’t exactly talking about high quality health systems here. I mean these are countries where people still die from the orginal plague.

Now the brilliant thing about this I can say it’s all a scam without fear of recourse. See if it does turn out to be a massive pandemic people aren’t going to turn to me and say “ha ha ha told you so!” Nope that won’t happen. Instead they will be feeling the dull thud on their skull as I beat my way to the head of the line for vaccinations and or treatment. Survival of the fittest (strongest in this case), TAKE THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Bill Hicks was right! Suckers of Satan’s Cock Each and Every One of Them.

2005-10-17T11:18:00.000+10:00

I’ll try and keep my comments on the state of "popular" music to a minimum on this blog. It really could be a blog all on its own. But in any case sat down last night to discover one Australian Idol was doing an 80’s night. So I figured great might get to hear some decent music with a modern twist. Boy was I wrong, misread that one… So I submit for your approval the web site of the phenomenon that is systematically lowering the standards of Australian Music. AUSTRALIAN IDOL.

Come on sheep people, don’t watch this crap. Go out and listen to some real musicians, ones that play from their fucking heart! Don’t bow down to the crap, expect, nay, demand that all your musicians FUCKING ROCK! Go here to see where musicians rock!

Fuck morality, be a calculating prick, that way its fair!

2005-10-16T18:25:00.000+10:00

This post goes out to all the guys at the OAN Health Law Policy Review. It is a further comment to comment, a response to a response and will be a debate that rages on so long as pricks like me howl at the moon over it and have a soap box to stand on.

Now we have to clear a few things up. Have a look at some of the posts from the OAN HLPR and here. Just to get up to speed. The most recent comment by OAN HLPR is the first thing I’ll deal with. Now Mr. “not my real name” (if that is your real name), I fail to see where I have advocated the denial of treatment for people. I mean sure I made the point that you have a choice between servicing the health needs of the young over the health needs of the old. That was done to highlight the idea of choices need to be made.

Now it was the OAN HLPR which first advocated denial of treatment in a vain attempt to avert the problem of moral hazard here. So I’m not sure where they get off turning my arguments into de-universalizing universal health care when they rasied the idea themselves.

There is no need to push my argument down the slippery slope like you did in one of your last posts here; I’ll slide on down there all on my own thank you very much. You’ll have to stick with my while I say a few things that have to be said…

So you talk about dignity and administrators and economists removing it. Now like I said before I haven’t as yet advocated the position of removing or even denying treatment for people. But, personally I believe that dignity is not something that can be taken away from you unless you allow it. If you read Viktor Frankle’s book Man’s Search for Meaning, he says that the noblest thing a person can do is walk to the gas chambers upright. I think there is something too that. So in my opinion dignity is something that a person holds and can only be taken away when you allow it. I can’t and shouldn’t speak for others but I control my destiny, dignity and self respect.

Ok now to the real issue at hand. The position advocated by OAN HLPR is well for lack of a better word cute. It is a nice flowery, butterfly floating, sugar and spice and all things nice way of position to take. Problem is it is a position which is temporally static rather than temporally dynamic. It fails to acknowledge the confluence our provision of health care is at. See we are starting to deal with a system which has unlimited wants but limited resources. This is a job for….. (jumping out of the phone booth, red tights, jocks on the outside, cape and a big E across much chest)… The ECONOMISTER!

So let’s look at the whole health care industry. I won’t be talking in hard facts, because well frankly you don’t pay me so I can’t be fucked doing the research. But if you want to put me on a retainer I’ll happily fully research and give you a paper on it.

So there are really 3 strings to the argument. Demand, Supply and Budget Constraint. All of which will play in role in the coming years for the health care industry. So let’s look at demand for a start. It’s as good a place as any and as Adam Smith said the sole purpose for supply is demand.

Demand:

Ok so incase you haven’t noticed, or you have been living under a rock we are encountering an ageing population at the moment. Our life expectancy is higher, birth rates are down baby boomers are getting on and all the rest. So this presents inherent problems. First of which is that there is an increased demand for health care services. Young people in general don’t go to the doctor (well I don’t, stupid Quack!). As we get older we go to the doctor a whole bunch more. With more people getting older and staying older as opposed to dead there is increased demand for health care services.

Now like I said we don’t have hard facts but I think this is perfectly logical. So the result is there is an increase in demand for health care services.

Supply

Now this is where it gets tricky. Our boffins have been working over time to develop treatments, pills, tests and just doing what they do. Advancing our understanding of the body, medicine and how to cheat the reaper for a little while longer. Now this is a good thing however there is a problem.

People kind of get funny when it comes to their health care. They expect the best, newest and latest treatments when it comes to their health. This presents a problem, the more we research, the more treatments that there are available for different diseases so effectively the market for health care is expanding. Now because people want every kind of treatment they can get, the overall amount spend on health care is increasing.

Now I’m not going to even mention the trend of over testing by doctors of people so as to avoid malpractice law suits. Thank you very much Mr. Contingency Based Lawyers. Also I won’t mention the Twin Monopolies of the Royal College of Surgeons and Pharmacy Guilds who restrict the creation of new doctors and entry into the pharmacy market of Coles and Woolworths. I mean that’s important and perhaps you Lawyers can find a way to go all anti trust on their arse using the TPA.

So in any case. There is an increase in market and increased cost in supply. So this pushes us further up shit creek.

Budget Constraint

The next element of this problem is the budget constraint. See someone has to pay for the provision of universal health care. Now it’s limited to say “the government pays for it” because well they take their money off tax payers. Now remember the whole aging population thing? Well another bad thing about this is it will mean less people are working and paying tax so as a result our monolithic health care system will be paid for by well…. People my age. See this whole universal health care is all fun and games until someone starts paying 75 cents in the dollar top marginal tax rate.

So where to from here? What’s going to happen? Personally I think that the government(s) is going to keep pumping money into the health care system without any major reform. This is going to come from two places. The pocket of the tax payer and current expenditure. So firstly I think they will divert money out of education first. They can’t really take money out of defence because every time a bomb goes off some place people want to give more money to the ADF. So the first swags of cash will come from probably tertiary education and high school education. Now this can only go on so long. I mean after a while all those people leaving school without being able to read and uni grads having kiddy pool shallow degrees can’t fly under the radar for too long.

So eventually they will want to increase taxes. It’ll get silly but then again every time someone bitches about a tax increase they will show footage of someone’s grandma getting her third hip replacement at the age of 98. That always solidifies the voters. So I figure we can have universal coverage and go on the way we are now or someone can start to make some serious decisions about what treatments are going to be available. Sounds harsh… but you know what I don’t care. So I would rather these decisions, when they come along be made with some analytical rigor behind them and not just riding high on the moral high horse.

See and the thing is these decisions are closer than you think. Hospitals have limited budgets. They have to choose between buying a new humid crib or a new iron lung. Now rather than relying on peoples own subjective moralities to guide them through these decisions but rather a good solid objective methodology. Hey guess what, we have one of these in economics. It’s called QALY’s. Very good approach. Logical, fair and well calculating.

So yeah guess what some day it might come down to us choosing who gets medical care provided by the government. We might get to the situation where we just don’t have enough to go around. It’s like were on a life boat and the fat guy is eyeing off the last snickers. Better shank him before he gets it!

If there are any typos, spelling errors or the like in this kiss my shiny, white arse!

NEWS FLASH! New Ministerial Position

2005-10-12T12:14:00.000+10:00

The Victorian Bricks Government today announced a new cabinet position. The official title of this position is Minister for Giving Money to Macquarie Bank. Although the minister to take on this role has not been yet named. This will be a very powerful Ministerial appointment as it will control much of the Victorian Infrastructure projects. Minister for Finance John Noborrow is considered the front runner although Treasurer John Donkey is also in the race.

The roll of the minister will be primarily to maintain Victoria’s AAA credit rating by basically giving public money (either through consolidated revenue or straight from infrastructure uses) to Mac Bank. Already a government department has been set up around this position headed by the guy who reviewed the contract for the Governments Seal Rocks Project. New and exciting ways are already being thought of to give money to Mac Bank.

It has been rumored that the new Ministers Liaison in Macquarie Bank will be none other that former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr.

NEWS FLASH: New World Class Man Powered Submarine Venue; or: It’s the Dregs

2005-10-12T12:13:00.000+10:00

Today the Bricks' Government has announced the inclusion of man powered submarine races in the Commonwealth Game. The proposed venue for this event will be Port Phillip Bay. Of course in its present condition the Bay is not adequate to host such a high level international event. As such the Bay is to be dredged to make room for the world class man powered submarine races.

Construction of the project began today with Minister for Sports and Commonwealth Game, Justin Adayquit, MLC sucking out the first bit of sludge in a scuba mask. When reporters questioned Madden about the point of all this, and whether it was an attempt by the government to hide the cost overruns of the Bay Dredging Project in the Commonwealth Games budget he responded with a series of hand signals ending with a gesture of his left the middle finger raised.

Opposition leader Robert Spoil was unavailable for comment as he missed the boat after being caught in traffic coming from Scorsbey

All subsides are created equal but some are more equal than others

2005-10-12T08:31:00.000+10:00

There has been much talk about the Scorsbey Freeway and the Liberals plans to cut the tolls in half (like here u go now). I think they would find this tough to do as they govt has probably already signed a contract giving the toll operator monopoly rights, promising a certain absurd level of ROI well above the cost of funds and probably promised to clog up some alternate routes just to make sure people pay the tolls.

However, as a response to the Libs plan to cut tolls The Bracks’ Pack has released a whole bunch of media releases of what services will be cut to pay for the plan (LINK). I find it the height of irony that the Bracks’ Pack is saying that this is a shameful subsidy of the eastern suburbs while in the same breath talking about regional transport. Regional transport is the ultimate subsidy.

So let me get this straight, they want one large group of people to pay for their use of a road which has massive economic multipliers but want another group to get it for free. Yeah I just don’t get it.

I mean you build a paved road that has like 4 cars travel on it a year at the cost of a few hundred thousand. The Scorsbey Freeway will have a few million cars on it. Now given that these projects are fixed cost dominant who’s getting a bigger subsidy form the govt? That’s right, the bumpkin who in regional Victoria.

Now I have no problem with this per say. I just get pissed off at the spinning that goes on. Call it what it is. Regional infrastructure is heavily subsidized which is ok. But why bitch about Victoria’s major population center clawing back some of their taxes? Why in one call for user pays from a million cars and uses the ultimate example everyone pays in the same breath?

Well Bracks and his pack, you have me stumped. Seems like a barrel of pigs to me.

PPP? Yes PPP. Public Private Partnership? No! Piss Poor Politics

2005-10-12T07:31:00.000+10:00

Have a look at this link. This is of course regarding the RTA and Tunnel in Sydney. Although I don’t live in Sydney and don’t particularly care about the Harbor City (No trams, doesn’t do it for me) I think this is indicative of what’s going on in governments across Australia.

See the problem I have is the GOVT is building long term intergenerational assets but are paying a premium above the cost of borrowings for them. You can have the tolls on them, no problems about that but when Macquarie bank is making around 25% off the deal I have to wonder.

I mean call me crazy, here is a novel idea, how about the government borrows money to build the project. Charge tolls (less the profit Mac Bank would have made). See I like the idea of Public Private Partnerships (PPP). They can work really well. However now when I hear it I figure that it’s just the GOVT being gun shy about their balance sheet. See it seems to all stem from their “no borrowings” policy. There is nothing wrong with governments carrying some debt, so long as it is for long term assets.

It’s just crazy I think that we have a government who is so scared of themselves in that they aren’t disciplined enough to borrow for assets that they have to pursue cheap ways for them but expensive ways for the public to build assets.

Any activists out there want something to do useful?

2005-10-11T13:53:00.000+10:00

Ok I had a great idea. Does anyone want to start a petition with me for the Government to rename every piece of legislation? In stead of having say, A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 or Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 we can give them real names. Like Frank, or Vera. Wouldn’t that make lives for everyone a little easier? Or at least more fun. I can imagine some barrister in court saying “Well According to Fred that can’t be true”, then the other barristers chimes in with “Well according to Jim, it’s ok”.

What do we think of this? Any suggestions? I think in honour of my bringing this to the light of the public and beginning the crusade we should rename the constitution Dash.

Go directly to Jail do not pass go do not collect $200 but stop off at the electoral booth on your way

2005-10-10T15:37:00.000+10:00

Hmmm have a look at this! The EU wants the Brits to give those in the hospitality of Col. Klink the right to vote. Now I don’t know the full legal nuances of this for Australia (perhaps some of the liars… I mean lawyers who read this can help) but it seems odd.

Personally I don’t think that those in prison should have the right to vote. I mean they have been locked up. Their liberty has been removed; they are sitting on the time out bench. Why should they get the vote? Their primary right of freedom has been removed why should they retain their political rights?

Can you imagine, in a tight election race the local member courting the convict vote. Kind of funny if you think about it. Picture the scene, behind a lectern and cyclone fencing some Poli promising to give them all a pack of smokes if they vote for him. All those “hard up for a woman” crims blowing kisses to some fresh faced Labour politician.

Better yet! Would a prisoner be able to run for parliament? That would be funny. During question time they take off his Lector like mask so he can address a question about sugar subsidies. We can be silly with this but lets not. Let’s make sure those locked up don’t have the right to vote.

Comment on a comment or: Someone’s trying to play the body on the Brannigan

2005-10-09T22:03:00.000+10:00

Yay we got our second comment. Too bad the coward won’t leave his or her name.

This is what “anonymous” said

“Possibly, the argument is not one of objectification but exploitation. Do you REALLY think she WANTS to dance on you? It is not a free trade or win-win at all. Some are in it because they want to, the vast majority are there because they are in such a desparate situation they have to humiliate themselves by bouncing around on your lap.”

In response to that I’ll blow a real big raspberry or moon you. Not sure which response is on par with the comment. Since I can’t post pictures of my arse I’ll just type.

Ok I doubt if exotic dancers would want to dance on my lap (I’ve never got a freebie). However that’s not her end of the bargain. She’s not in it for the little bit of Brannigan she’s in it for the cash from the Dash.

I mean I’m sure janitors aren’t doing their job because they like being elbow deep up an s bend full of everyone’s last night dinner. Most people work for the pay check. It’s not like this is a new thought. Pretty sure our entire system is predicated on this little piece of information. See I work for money which can be exchanged for goods and services. I’m not in it for my fucking health nor the warm cushy feelings for a job well done.

However I think that you are making just as big a supposition by saying strippers are in it because they are totally desperate for the cash. I mean you make statements like “vast majority” with I would guess is limited information. How many strippers do you know Skippy? You know what just because they are in profession that’s outside the norm and don’t conform to your ideals of what little girls should be doing you shouldn’t make suppositions about their state of mind.

Besides they could be doing a whole lot worse than bouncing on the Dashers lap. They could be out back behind the dumpster rooting a junkie for crack. Just a thought.

Oh by the way. I don’t think I want to comment on anon comments no more. I mean if you want to come and play the man that’s cool. Leave your name and take number. Coz the line for arse kickings from the Dasher start right behind this guy! CUE MY MUSIC!

Asset failure in human capital Or: Lets not be nice lets make sure they can work!

2005-10-08T17:05:00.000+10:00

Ok let’s talk about health care. Particularly universal coverage, for us Australians that means Medicare. Let’s talk about why it’s actually a good idea but why I don’t agree with it on a philosophical level but think it’s important on a practical level.

Ok like I said I don’t like universal health coverage on philosophical level. See to me taking care of your health is kind of important. Taking care of my health is actually a really important job. It’s an important job for me. IT IS A TASK THAT SHOULD NOT BE DELEGATED. I’m responsible for my health care and provision of it. None of this child to raise a village crap. My job! So I control and am responsible for what goes into my body. Simple as that. If I go out smoke 2 packs of PJ Virginia’s and drink like half a bottle of Vodka and enough beer to float the QE II then I have to live with the consequences. So on a philosophical level, it’s my responsibility and I’ll buy my insurance, eat the requisite tofu and lift hulking pieces of metal over my head in the vain attempt to look like Arnie, thanks very much.

However, people seem to be misguided why we have a form of universal health care. I mean aside from being a nice political battle ground come Election Day where ministers can get photo taken of them cutting ribbons for opening a new enema wing at Backwater Creek Hospital. Health care is important because of two words…. HUMAN CAPITAL. We spend so much damn money on people’s education. This education presents a positive externality to our economy. Since we now have people who can at least read and add up that has benefits for our economy as a whole. Easier to find skilled people, well at least semi skilled. As such employers can get the people they need to do skillful work and in the end improve our overall standard of living (Read GDP per capita).

Health care is important because it supports the education system in slowing the depreciation of human capital. I mean if we have just had someone spend nearly 20 years at school on the public dime the least we should do is protect that investment and make sure they don’t’ croak from some minor aliment like syphilis.

So universal health care is important because it means we can work longer and better and make education more valuable (reduces the depreciation rate of education). However there is something else with our health care system. It’s now getting really good. Probably because we spend a buck in ten on it (10% of GDP goes to making sure we don’t die). Since it’s getting so good, people are living longer and living better. Now I think this really means that we should raise the retirement age to 70 or so. I mean what’s the point of spending so much money on people’s education and health if we can’t eek out a few extra years from them at the end of the lash?

So yeah have a health care system paid for by the state. Stop people from dying with so much education invested in them. Raise the retirement age so we can get some more value for money from our investment. For gods sake don’t do it to be nice. Do it to prevent asset failure (death) in our human capital!

There but for the grace of god go us or: No No No You can’t kill the lap dance!

2005-10-05T11:30:00.000+10:00

No more lap dances in Seattle (Link here and here).

Once again we have government intruding into how private business and citizens operate. Now I know what some of you may say “It objectifies women”. Well no not generally, it only objectifies the women whose g-string I’m stuffing money into and she’s pretty much objectifying herself. She’s the one up there in her brithday suit, gyrating and pulsing, hocking off her feminine wiles for a few notes. Free exchange! I want to have pretty bodies dance on me and they want money. I have money, they have pretty bodies, I trade money for lap dances. It’s win win.

Now I’m not totally against government intrusion into private businesses and individuals but I do believe that the behaviour they are trying to promote or deter must have an externality to it. What is the externality of a lap dance? So long as you make sure strip clubs aren’t next to kindergartens (the single mum stripper would lament this fact) it should be fine.

Government should not try and deter trade that doesn’t have a negative externality to it. So long as you control where these “places of sin” go there is no negative externality. Let’s just hope that they don’t try this in Victoria. Then were will I be on a Friday night?

Check it out, they finally got to Ithica

2005-09-30T10:25:00.000+10:00

Check it out, they finally got to Ithica

Have a look at this, a UK team thinks they have found Ithica. Good to know. Always nice when one of those little mysteries is solved.

Wonder if I can get these guys to help me find my keys.

Terminating Junk Food from Schools

2005-09-30T10:23:00.000+10:00

Hazzaa for Arnie! Hurrah for Tony B! Good to see that both Jamie Oliver and Morgan Spurlock have done some good. The message has got through! They are going to ban junk food in schools. If you want links I can’t be bothered but someone has been. Go to the Oan Health Law and Policy Review, they have a few in response to my comment.

This ban on junk food in schools is actually absolutely awesome because it is reversing behaviour in schools which is well to be honest… almost criminal. I mean think about it schools, the people who take care of the tribal young for 7 hours a day and such a big part of their lives, feeding them junk food. Entering into pacts with The Devil himself to make money off selling kids crap. Addicting them to the Bundaberg white and hydrogenated fats. Indeed!

Now I’m one for giving kids choices that’s cool but you have to smart about this. I mean most kids spend more time in front of Lucifer’s Dream Box (The TV) than ever before. Think about the messages they are being bombarded with. These guys hocking their wears in a very clever way can't blame them for it they are doing what they are supposed to. But why should we help them? I mean 5 minutes spent wagging the chin to your child over nutrition is nothing compared to hours of subversive messages they see on TV (besides most people don’t know much about nutrition anyway). So yeah give them choices when you can inform them properly.

See this policy change (lets hope it’s a trend that hits Australia!) is important because it aligns policies about health. You can’t yammer on about “Go For Your Life” and then allow kids to go to the tuck-shop for their fix! You don’t give a junkie access to smack! As Dr. Phil would say “What were you thinking about?”

Also, it means that the government has become an informed purchaser. Realising that their procurement can change how effective their policies are. Policy alignment gotta get me some of that! See that’s where they can easily change what schools buy in terms of food. All the govt. has to do is change the VGPB regulations and we should be sweet.

Ok so now that we have addressed children what are we going to do about the grown ups? Now it’s about educating people about what they are putting into their bodies. We are digging our graves with our teeth! I wonder how many people out there know about HSCS or Trans fats. See you have to educate yourself. Not always a job for a government, job for you. Read, learn listen! Find out why Almonds are truly the king of nuts. Find out why “low fat” doesn’t mean healthy. There are a few tasks you should NEVER delegate. One of them is learning about what you should or should not put into your body. Read up about this stuff, find out. Read the books by Dr. Atkins, Dr. Pritkins and Dr. Agatston and make up your own mind! Once again Information and critical thought are the vet that puts down the dogma!

The IDyots are loose

2005-09-29T19:15:00.000+10:00

Ok well we have another Scopes esc trial in the states. Seems some people want to teach a rebranded creationism to school children. They now call it intelligent design (ID), I call its advocates IDyots!

Article here
ID primer here

I mean I figure go ahead teach children intelligent design if you like. Come on go for it set your education system back around ummm I don’t know about 60 years. Fine by me I’m not American.

Sure evolution is a theory. It’s a construct of rules which are based on observation and match those observations rather well. Seems like science to me. See what the IDyots don’t seem to get is that Science loves mystery because it gives them something to do. I think Richard Feynman said that at some stage. So if all you IDyots are scientists I have your research agenda for you. Find out as much as you can about the designer. Try and understand methods he uses to interact with us mortals. How does he make species? Does he have an ipod nano, if so was it one of shit ones that broke? Does he wear boxers or briefs? Is he a she? In that case does she wear g-strings or cotton tails?

In all honesty if there is a designer… Ask him to make it rain 40 days or something. Wash these IDyots off the earth. Tell him to start again! It didn't work! Hit self destruct and get a better version of AutoCAD. Use metric instead of imperial, and for fuck sake make sure his systems are ISO compliant.

Well I guess one thing is clear from this. Religion should be taught in school. Yankers, your first amendment, the one about church and state isn’t working. Teach religion in school; get kids to talk about this. Teach them about Jesus, God, Buddha, Mohammad and Moses. Teach and get kids to critically evaluate things for themselves! Make them think about the issues of Religion, Soul and Philosophy. As per usual more information is better than less and critical thought is the vet that puts down the dogma.

Welcome, Lets get started

2005-09-27T18:48:00.000+10:00

Ok, this blog is going to be part rant part analysis and from my point of view. At the moment I'm writing to an audience of none but well a young man needs to vent his spleen some place. I'm going to try and update every few days. If something really sticks in my craw I'll post everyday but untill then, yeah twice, three times a week.

Ok so until I have some cannon fodder I won't be saying much.

- Dash Brannigan