The cost of scrapping the NBN

In Coalition shuffling feet on broadband "Jack the Insider" has an interesting point on the cost of scrapping the NBN if the Coalition win Government at the next election:

By the next election, the Commonwealth will have invested $15 billion into NBN Co. Should the Coalition win the next election and NBN Co.’s windows are boarded up as promised, standard accounting practices dictate that the $15 billion invested will have to appear as a line expenditure item in the Budget.

It is entirely possible that the Commonwealth could sell NBN Co.’s fibre assets in various locations around Australia to a telco of one stripe or another but it would be at a bargain basement price and significant contractual penalties would be payable.

Put another way, the Coalition, already committed to $70 billion in savings over the forward estimates, would have a further $15 billion to find.

None of that would be good news for Joe Hockey.

But it gets worse because Coalition policy would effectively shut down any sort of broadband roll out for at least five years. Citigroup estimates six months will be spent on the preparation of the cost benefit analysis the Opposition insists they need, two years will be needed to complete all contractual negotiations with stakeholders, including Telstra and Optus with a further three more years to be spent completing a necessary separation of Telstra. The policy won’t be implemented until 2018.

The cost to the Commonwealth? Citigroup puts it at $16.7 billion. Put in the $15 billion already spent and we’re getting close to the overall cost of the NBN: $35.9 billion.

So the Coalition’s policy is just a little cheaper but the concern is that it won’t even be half as good, will effectively ignore the existing structural problems in Australia’s telecommunications architecture and leave regional Australia in the dark yet again.

A book I need to read....

Satoshi Kanazawa has given a glowing endorsement of The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. Apparently it's "a marvelously fascinating survey of how our language – and how we speak it – reveal how the mind works". I guess I'll have to track down a copy at some stage.

The Labor leadership

For various reasons we keep hearing about instability in the leadership of the Labor Party. The press gallery have been reporting that Kevin Rudd appears to have been undermining Julia Gillard since early in the last election campaign. It seems that every month we're hearing that next month there'll be a challenge. Of course, journalists being journalists, and politics being politics, there's also speculation on a third candidate (anyone but Julia or Kevin I guess).

Let me put my two cents in. Kevin Rudd was not a good Prime Minister. He's not even a good Foreign Minister, his supposed area of expertise. If given the job again, he's still not going to be a good Prime Minister. There's a reason half the cabinet would rather quit than serve under him again. There's a reason why so many in caucus will never vote for him again. The only way Kevin Rudd should even be considered by the Labor Party is if the election was due within weeks and they were still 20% behind 2PP. Considered and then rejected. If he became leader there's no way the party could win a subsequent election if half the cabinet resigned in protest. As for Kevin Rudd himself, I hope he's enjoying all the international travel he's been having because after the next election he's going to be a back bencher at best. The only reason he's not on the back bench now is because of the numbers in the Parliament.

So, what about a third candidate? I think NSW has shown the folly of that. Nope, Labor needs to stick with Gillard for as long as she wants the job. If they remove her they just open themselves up to accusations of having the NSW disease.

The only practical way I can see for the Labor Party to change leader in this term and not be worse off is if Gillard resigns. Moreover there would have to be absolutely no hint whatsoever that she was pushed. Personally, I can't see that happening. From all reports she's not a quitter. Nor can I see a reasonable replacement. While Labor seems to have considerably more talent on its front bench than the opposition, they do seem to be lacking alternate leaders. Crean, Swan and Smith don't have the charisma or communication skills and Shorten and Combet lack the experience. Shorten also has the baggage of being one of the "factional daleks" who removed Rudd. Labor would also have to face the fact that they would "burn" the replacement leader.

So, in the highly improbably event that members of caucus read this all I can suggest is the following: stop talking about the leadership and get on with governing the country.

The inverse relationship between intelligence and conservatism

One of John Stuart Mill's most often quoted remarks is:

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

This has often been misquoted as "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." A recent study has shown that there is some truth to Mill's statement.

“We found that lower general intelligence in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology,” said Professor Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. “A secondary analysis of a US data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact.”

Satoshi Kanazawa addressed the issue from an evolutionary psychology point of view in Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives (subtitled Liberals think they’re more intelligent than conservatives because they are). First he gave a definition of liberalism:

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.

Kanazawa then goes on to note that liberalism, as per the definition above, could be considered to be "evolutionarily novel". He then cites statistics that show that the correlation between liberalism and intelligence (the graph is from his blog):

For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.

However, he also notes that liberalism is absent from all the surveys of traditional cultures.

Now Kanazawa has an hypothesis that:

applied to the domain of preferences and values, ... more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel preferences and values that did not exist in the ancestral environment and thus our ancestors did not have, but general intelligence has no effect on the acquisition and espousal of evolutionarily familiar preferences and values that existed in the ancestral environment.

This is based on the following principles and theories:

The Savanna Principle states that the human brain has difficulty comprehending and dealing with entities and situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment. The theory of the evolution of general intelligence suggests that general intelligence evolved as a domain-specific psychological adaptation to solve evolutionarily novel problems. Their logical conjunction suggests a qualification of the Savanna Principle and leads to a new hypothesis about individual preferences and values.

So, back to the issue at hand.

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.

He finishes by noting that:

Incidentally, this finding substantiates one of the persistent complaints among conservatives. Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints. Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.

However, all is not lost for conservatives because Kanazawa, in a later column, asks the question If Liberals Are More Intelligent than Conservatives, Why Are Liberals So Stupid?

Bruce G. Charlton, Professor of Theoretical Medicine at the University of Buckingham and Editor in Chief of Medical Hypotheses, may have an explanation. In his editorial in the December 2009 issue of Medical Hypotheses, Charlton suggests that liberals and other intelligent people may be “clever sillies,” who incorrectly apply abstract logical reasoning to social and interpersonal domains. As I explain in an earlier post, general intelligence – the ability to think and reason – likely evolved as a domain-specific evolved psychological mechanism to solve evolutionarily novel problems, whereas, for all evolutionarily familiar problems, there are other dedicated evolved psychological mechanisms. Everyone – intelligent or not – is evolutionarily equipped with the ability to solve such evolutionarily familiar problems in the social and interpersonal domains as mating, parenting, social exchange, and personal relationships, with the other evolved psychological mechanisms. Charlton suggests that the totality of all the other evolved psychological mechanisms (except for general intelligence) represents what we normally call “common sense.” Everyone has common sense. Intelligent people, however, have a tendency to overapply their analytical and logical reasoning abilities derived from their general intelligence incorrectly to such evolutionarily familiar domains and as a result get things wrong. In other words, liberals and other intelligent people lack common sense, because their general intelligence overrides it. They think in situations where they are supposed to feel. In evolutionarily familiar domains such as interpersonal relationships, feeling usually leads to correct solutions whereas thinking does not.

Basically, more intelligent people are also more likely to lack common sense.

Edit 7/02/2012: George Monbiot writing in The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left argues that:

Conservativism may be the refuge of the dim. But the room for rightwing ideas is made by those too timid to properly object

Stephen Koukoulas Economic Quiz

Stephen Koukoulas has put up The Great Big New Economic and Market Quiz:

There seems to be a lot of mis-information, twisting, spin and outright lies peddled about the Australian economy, its markets and policy settings.

I thought a quiz of pretty basic factual questions would help sort a few things out. I hope all economic Ministers and their Shadows undertake the quiz and indeed look at the answers, so that they might stop spreading distortions and misunderstanding to what are easy to find facts.

The quiz comprises 20 questions. The answers produced in red below each question come from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, The Reserve Bank of Australia or Treasury.

There is no prize – other than hopefully a better knowledge of important facts in the political economy debate.

Cutting the NBN won't save money

Renai Lemay writes in Correction: Cutting the NBN won’t save money that Tony Abbott was wrong when, in his speech to the National Press Club, he claimed that "cutting Labor’s National Broadband Network project would free up Federal Government money to be spent in other areas such as transport". This is because the Government, as per internationally accepted accounting standards, treats the NBN as an asset rather than an expense (see the note below). What does this mean in practical terms. Well, say the Government was going to give NBN Company two billion dollars this year (a figure I made up). Because this is money spent on an asset, the Government can't treat that $2b as an expense (that's the way accounting works). So, not spending the money won't decrease the budget deficit or increase a surplus. If Tony Abbott came to power tomorrow and immediately cut funding to NBN Co he wouldn't suddenly have $2b extra to add to the budget bottom line. Of course he could use that $2b to purchase other assets. Alternatively, he could not spend that $2b and so not increase Government debt. However, I doubt that would save much as the Government is able to raise money incredible cheaply at the moment.

Note
The reason the NBN is an asset is two fold. One: It will generate revenue. Two: It can be sold. To quote Wikipedia:

In financial accounting, assets are economic resources. Anything tangible or intangible that is capable of being owned or controlled to produce value and that is held to have positive economic value is considered an asset. Simply stated, assets represent ownership of value that can be converted into cash (although cash itself is also considered an asset).

The state of political journalism

Sometimes I despair for this country. Yesterday Tony Abbott gave a speech at the National Press Club. I haven't seen the speech, nor have I read the transcript. However, it's interesting how the reports of the event vary. The media seems to have reacted positively, talking about how Abbott was able to cut through and attack the Government's economic performance.

Unfortunately, it seems that he was given an easy run by the media - the tough questions were most noticeable by their absence. Greg Jericho takes this up on his blog (it's a shame it didn't become this week's article for The Drum). Greg discusses the NPC speech and the coverage it received. He makes this telling point:

I keep wondering why journalists are so stymied by Abbott, but really the reason is clear – he’s a journalist. The guy was a leader writer for The Australian. He thinks in anecdotes. He thinks the one does actually represent the all. There’s a school with a poor BER spend? Why then $16b was wasted. Gerry Harvey says in an interview that he could do set-top boxes for less? Why then it must be true. Run with it! So when he spouts lines in the same manner that journalists would report them, well geez… what do journalists do… hmmm maybe ask if he is going to go positive?

Most in the press gallery are hamstrung because he thinks like they do. Paul Bongiorno actually had the temerity to stand apart and introduce some facts taking about the fact all credit agencies rate Australia AAA, that the cash rate is lower than when the Howard Govt was in office, and the response was “lower taxes, less waste yada yada yada”. It was a good effort by Bongiorno, but he had little support.

Instead we treated to endless reruns of the "Australia Day riot" (a point address by Andrew Elder on The Drum).

Ocean currents are warming faster than expected

Writing in The Register article Ocean currents emerge as climate change hot-spots Richard Chirgwin reports that scientists have confirmed a prediction that global warming will lead to increases in temperature of major ocean currents:

A global study that assesses the temperature change in ocean currents has made two findings – one surprising, the other less so. The unsurprising outcome is that as the Earth’s temperature rises, so does the temps in a collection of major ocean currents; the surprise is that those currents are warming faster than the globe as a whole.

According to the study, published this week in Nature Climate Change, a pattern of warming in the ocean’s long-distance currents has now been identified near Australia, Japan, Africa, and North America.

Moreover, the warming is also sending the currents “polewards”, meaning that species migrations already observed in Australia (in which many species are moving southwards at as much as a degree per year) are almost certain to happen on a global scale.

It's also worth reading the comments, in particular the contributions by Trevor Pott.

The End of Loser Liberalism

Dean Baker has written a book "The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive". You can download a free copy here. You can also buy a hard copy at cost. In the book Baker argues that:

Progressives need a fundamentally new approach to politics. They have been losing not just because conservatives have so much more money and power, but also because they have accepted the conservatives’ framing of political debates. They have accepted a framing where conservatives want market outcomes whereas liberals want the government to intervene to bring about outcomes that they consider fair.

This is not true. Conservatives rely on the government all the time, most importantly in structuring the market in ways that ensure that income flows upwards. The framing that conservatives like the market while liberals like the government puts liberals in the position of seeming to want to tax the winners to help the losers.

This "loser liberalism" is bad policy and horrible politics. Progressives would be better off fighting battles over the structure of markets so that they don't redistribute income upward. This book describes some of the key areas where progressives can focus their efforts in restructuring market so that more income flows to the bulk of the working population rather than just a small elite.

Philip Pilkington at Naked Capitalism has a two part interview with the author: part one and part two.

Behavioural economics and tax cuts as stimulus

Drake Bennett in Behavioral Economics Foils an Obama Tax Cut? writes that in a 2009 stimulus bill, the Obama administration used theories from behavioural economics to dribble out tax cuts over a period of time rather than pay them in a lump sum (as was done with the cash handouts in Australia). This was done because:

... policymakers believed that parceling out the money piecemeal, rather than sending it to taxpayers in a lump sum, had two advantages: It could start sooner, since people didn’t have to wait for the check; and it was more likely to work. By giving people the sense that their incomes had grown, doling out the money paycheck by paycheck was supposed to make recipients more likely to spend it, thereby lifting the economy.

Subsequent research has shown that the opposite was true:

That’s not what happened in practice, according to Sahm, Slemrod, and Shapiro. In a study of the 2009 stimulus, based on 500 telephone interviews, the authors found that only 13 percent of Making Work Pay recipients reported that the tax credit would lead them to increase spending. This was just half of the 25 percent spend rate the researchers found for the traditional lump-sum tax rebate in President Bush’s 2008 stimulus. Of course, 2009 was a worse economic climate than 2008, and that might have played a role in the change. To control for this, the researchers looked at one-time stimulus payments that went to retirees at the same time that Making Work Pay was going to working households. The retirees, too, reported much higher spending rates than the Making Work Pay households, who got their money in a steady drip.

So, the behavioural economists were wrong. Should we stop listening to them then? (I can image Dan Ariely asking this very question in one of his podcasts). Well, actually we should keep listening:
The biggest criticism of behavioral economics is that it remains little more than an interesting grab bag of exceptions to traditional economic theory—TED-conference fodder gleaned from lab studies that are pale approximations of real life. However, as both Thaler and Slemrod point out, there are important questions that neoclassical economics simply doesn’t deign to answer.

Traditional economic theory predicts that the design of a tax credit like Making Work Pay should have no effect on its efficacy: A tax cut is a tax cut, whether it comes in a check, reduced paycheck withholdings, or, for that matter, a briefcase full of cash. How money is delivered should have no effect on whether people spend or save.

Yet if, as Sahm, Slemrod, and Shapiro argue, lump-sum payments are more effective than Making Work Pay, then behavioralists might have something to cheer about, too. That is, after all, exactly the type of effect that these economists would go looking for, even if it’s not the one they predicted. Should it hold up, the finding might best be seen as a refinement rather than a refutation. “I disagree with the idea that this disproves behavioral economics or contradicts it,” says Michael Barr, a University of Michigan law professor and former Assistant Treasury Secretary in the Obama Administration. “The basic insight is that how you give the money matters, and this supports that.”

So the behavioralists may be right after all: People don’t act the way economists predict they should. The trouble is that they don’t act the way policymakers want them to, either.

A few more interesting links on the economy

In All hail mighty Aussie dollar, as it's here to stay Ross Gittins looks at why the Australian dollar is likely to remain high, and the benefits it brings us.

Stephen Koukoulas wrotes of Terry McCrann's Glowing Endorsement of the Gillard Government.

Peter Martin in Stimulus programs work. We need them ready - Access reports that Chris Richardson of Deloitte Access to ignore talk back radio and not be afraid to stimulate the economy if the European debt crisis causes a GFC mark II. To quote from the article:

“Australia’s fiscal stimulus last time was a striking success,” he writes. “It simply wasn't seen as that in the court of public opinion. That gap between reality and perception threatens a poor reaction by the punters if a new stimulus is needed in 2012.”

Access says its central scenario is that Europe's leaders “muddle through in a way that doesn’t stop Europe having a recession, but does avoid a deep recession and bank failures.”

But it says the risk is “almost as high” that Europe could ‘blow’ sparking bank busts and a new global financial crisis.

If that happens Australia should abandon its commitment to a small budget surplus in 2012-13 and instead embrace a “huge” budget deficit.

“We should be willing to do what worked last time,” he told The Age. “We shouldn’t let talkback radio decide what worked and what did not.”

The cash handouts worked very well... The school building programs worked less well, but not for the reason many people think.

“The problem wasn’t waste. The real waste occurs in a recession when people lose their jobs. Someone who is out of work for two years might not ever return to the workforce. That’s waste. The problem with the Building the Education Revolution program was it took too long. It was stimulating the economy beyond the point it was needed. Speed is essential.”

I would also argue that the great thing about the cash handouts was the speed they could be given. It's why I think cash handouts were a much more effective stimulus measure than tax cuts would have been. Peter Martin also quotes Chris Richardson as saying:

“First home owner programs are the crack cocaine of fiscal stimulus. They usually work a treat. But they make young couples spend too much on their first home, making their lives miserable down the track.”

This is something I would agree with. I think first home owner grants, especially on existing housing stock, only lead to an inflated property sector.

Stephen Koukoulas in February - Bash-A-Bank Month is reporting that if the Reserve Bank doesn't reduce interest rates next month then the banks will probably need to increase rates because of higher funding costs. If the Reserve does drop official rates the banks are unlikely to pass on the full cut. He argues that the Reserve is well aware of this and will likely reduce rates for this very reason.

Stephen Koukoulas is also reporting that Inflation is a Dead Duck.

In George Calombaris – would you like penalty rates with that? Matt Cowgill puts the blow torch to George Calomabris' claims that Sunday penalty rates are making it uneconomical to open his restaurants on a Sunday.

Mike Carlton looks at Tony Abbott's promise to turn the boats back

Mike Carlton in Speedo politics scuttles any solution looks at Tony Abbott's latest promise to "turn the boats back". Where before he had a general promise to turn the boats back, but left the individual decision to the senior Navy officer on the spot, now he's saying that all boats will be turned back, even if the Navy has to repair and refuel them first.

It seems that Tony Abbott sees this as a test of wills between Australia and Indonesia. Macho stuff from Mr Abbott (brings to mind a Laura Tingle column). Unfortunately, I don't think this is a test that Australia can really win. As Mike Carlton points out, the people smugglers know how to counter this strategy:

The people smugglers have shown they will set fire to the boats or sink them to stop them being sent back.

I can't see our Navy repairing an Indonesian fishing boat that's at the bottom of the ocean or burnt to the water line. All this policy will do is risk the lives of asylum seekers and of our sailors that may have to rescue them. The only way to counter such people smuggler tactics would be to refuse to rescue those concerned. However, this would be, I think, a bridge too far. Such actions would be highly immoral if not illegal (wasn't Admiral Dönitz charged with war crimes for ordering his submarine crews to refuse to rescue stranded sailors).

So, how does Mr Abbott think we can triumph over Indonesia in a battle of wills?

Peter Costello gets it wrong

Peter Costello recently criticised the Government for running a budget deficit and increasing debt to pay for it and suggesting that Australia may soon end up having similar problems to Europe.

Stephen Koukoulas in Peter Costello Needs to Read the Budget Papers compares the ratio of Government spending to GDP during the period of the Howard Government and the Rudd/Gillard Governments. He writes:

• Government spending to GDP averaged 24.2% of GDP during the 12 Budgets that Mr Costello delivered between 1996 and 2007.
• Government spending rose as a result of the stimulus measures during the GFC and peaked at 26.0% of GDP in 2009-10.
• It since fell to 24.7% of GDP in 2010-11.
• Government spending to GDP is projected to be 23.6% of GDP in 2012-13.
• This will be around 1.5% of GDP below the average government spending to GDP ratio of the last 30 years and obviously below the average spending to GDP ratio in the Budget’s the Mr Costello delivered.

Whoops!

And for the record, in only in 3 years out of 12 Budget delivered by Mr Costello was the government spending to GDP ratio lower than the Gillard Government is projecting for 2012-13.

An interesting article on Israel

In Life in Israel an ultra-orthodox paradox Hamish McDonald is visiting Israel and has noted many differences since his last visit 13 years ago. He also looks at some of the current issues confronting Israel, including peace with the Palestinians and the increasing influence of ultra-orthodox Jews.

Opinion leadership amongst Australian political leaders

Dr Richard Stanton looks at the different types of political leaders in Fleet-footed Abbott needs to be playmaker:

Homophily is a fundamental principle of human communication where ideas and innovations are more likely to be shared more frequently between people who are alike in beliefs, education and socioeconomic status.

The opposite of homophily is heterophily. This requires one to step outside ritual boundaries to take meaning from or communicate meaning to those with a different set of values or beliefs.

Monomorphic thought leaders tend to focus on a single issue. The alternative to a monomorphic thought leader is a polymorphic thought leader - obviously, one who is comfortable being across a variety of issues.

Abbott has accumulated several of the important characteristics of a thought leader - great exposure to news media; broad interpersonal networks; extensive contact with change agents; and the capacity to always be ''on the edge'', which means he is not on top of things but acts as a broker between groups.

These characteristics are representative of a homophilous monomorphic thought leader, which is not a bad thing in a business or corporate head. But it can be dangerous for a political head.

He goes on to write:

Abbott's monomorphic focus on specific issues during most of last year was a good strategy, but it will not hold for this year. He can no longer afford to act homophilously (preach to the choir) and expect to increase his coalition's vote.

The questions, however, are whether or not he knows he is on the brink and whether thought leadership and innovation really matter.

It's an interesting analysis. However, the Gillard Government seems to be so on the nose with the electorate that Tony Abbott probably doesn't need to change anything in his style to be re-elected. Even if, as the writer suggests, Tony Abbott does not have the appropriate characteristics to lead a nation he's probably going to win the next election anyway. The problem may well be what comes after.

Note, according to Wikipedia homophily is often expressed as "Birds of a feather flock together". The Wikipedia article on heterophily on the other hand notes that "This phenomenon is notable in successful organizations, where the resulting diversity of ideas is thought to promote an innovative environment".

Unfortunately I can't find entries for monomorphic or polymorphic in Wikipedia, at least in the context of opinion leadership. Wikipedia does have an article on the concept of opinion leadership. The opinion leader concept does, in my opinion, help explain the influence of people like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt.

This website has definitions of monomorphic opinion leadership and polymorphic opinion leadership, although it's the context of marketing. Note that you can't read the entire page is parts of it are hidden by a login screen. If you disable JavaScript you should be able to copy the contents of the page.
BusinessDictionary.com defines monomorphic opinion leadership as:

A type of leadership in communication and media that leads to the spread of information concerning one particular, highly specialized topic rather than a broadly-based set of information. This can be a very narrow point of view and can lead to making decisions based on lack of full information. opposite of polymorphic opinion leadership.

It does not have a definition of polymorphic opinion leadership. I guess we just have to treat it as the opposite of monomorphic.

Some Drum Articles

The always excellent Greg Jericho looks at the politics of 2012 in The frozen gales of political bluster are near.

Damon Young looks at extremism amongst ultra-Orthodox Israeli Jews in The symbolism and rage of victimhood.

How to get to Mars

I found this YouTube video on Peter Martin's blog:

A couple of articles on The Drum

The Drum has a couple of interesting articles:

Ben Eltham writes in Common sense is in the eye of the beholder:

Common sense is a proxy, in a way, of all the things that seem self-evident in your own worldview. Much like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, those with a different view aren't likely to agree.

In When the boat people were welcome Marion Diamond discusses moves in the 19th century to encourage fishermen from Indonesia to visit and trade with settlements in northern Australia.

Singapore was an immediate success. So in 1824 the British decided to try to develop "another Singapore" in northern Australia – another multi-lingual, multi-ethnic port that would tap into existing trade routes between Makassar and northern Australia.

Anitra Nelson in The global equation: Growth = Debt argues that not only is debt not always bad, but our economic system depends on for growth.

However, income and expenditure accounts include several layers of obligations. It is easy to see the very temporary debts and credits created by working and receiving wages. Similarly buying materials to use immediately in production are generally quickly remunerated investments. The more complicated networks of obligations arise with very expensive equipment and other assets necessary for production, such as offices, storage and vehicles for transport. Many capitalist enterprises today represent considerable ongoing investments dependent on the system of stocks and shares, which in Australia involve workers through compulsory superannuation. It is significant that we tend to think of such investments, and all the risks they entail, as 'savings', even though they are not like gold or any real store of durable consumables. In fact they are debts/credits.

I'm not sure I agree with Anitra's conclusion, but her article is in many ways insightful.

Tammi Jonas in Intellectual honesty and an open mind writes:

Academics are trained to research a topic until they know it inside and out. That doesn't mean there can't be new data at any time, that may shift the scholar's position once uncovered. It does, however, mean the scholar is considered 'an expert' who has authority to speak on the topic. This authority has come with years of work and constantly challenging assertions and so-called common sense beliefs. It has not come from reading an article in the newspaper and then citing that article for the next year as authoritative.

Newspapers are not authoritative. Research is, as carried out by academics and other knowledge workers across many sectors who read widely, ask questions, observe, and engage in constant discussion and debate on a topic.

What you read in The Australian about climate change is not authoritative. What you read from the Union of Concerned Scientists is.

Link to Thomas L Friedman’s column titled Newt, Mitt and Bibi

In Gingrich the Worst Bob Carr recommends a column by Thomas L Friedman: Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir. Unfortunately, Bob didn't provide a link. So I have.

The GFC in less than 800 words

Mark Crosby has written Brief History of GFC. While it is in deed brief, it's also a pretty good summary of the GFC and its impact on Australia. Recommended reading for those who might not have understood what happened.