You are here

Dennis K's blog

On the inability of Free Markets to solve problems


The ideology, or perhaps the theology of neo-liberalism is partly based on the idea that 'markets', that is to say, the scope of human activity where trade of valuable goods and services occurs, reveals a fundamental truth or reality beyond that scope of immediate trade. One could say modern Capitalism, or Neo-Liberalism is essentially a form of 'Marketism', where market forces rule all, judge all and value all.

A proposal for a sensible population policy

In the article the writer questions the whole idea of governments making top-down decisions about the size of a country's population.

A question that often comes up when discussion population related matter is, "What should the population be?" or "What level of immigration/growth do you think is suitable?". I don't have an answer to that question, and I don't intend to provide one.

The Entitlments of the Faux Elite, and the cost to Australia

Australian treasurer, Joe Hockey, stated in April 2014 that the age of entitlement had come to a close. [1] He was of course referring to entitlements that the faux-elite Liberal Party believe that people receive which they don't deserve. Medical health, education, financial assistance during unemployment and so forth. He wasn't referring to Negative Gearing or cash payouts for "Women of Calibre" to stay at home with their child.

Authors Note: The title was changed from "The End of the Age of Entitlement". Editor: Originally published on 2015-01-28 19:13:10 +1000, it has been republished today to bring it up to top of front page again, with the new title.

Economic 'Golden' Times: One year left?

Australia is a country which rewards the speculator over the worker and saver, evidenced by tax concessions for those who take out margin loans or who can gear property priced well above what sound "Return on Investment" calculations would value the house at. Favourable treatment to the speculator class creates a "sheltered workshop" investment environment, where the state protects so called 'mum and dad' investors from the consequences of poor decisions, shields them from risk and moulds outcomes so that investment according to the advice of spivs and political backers appears to pay off. At the moment, the share market rally after the August/September correction is offering the potential for some easy profits, which for the investor willing to take a little risk, can be increased significantly by borrowing money to increase holdings during this time.

The Internet targeted by Australia's proposed new 'anti-terror' laws

Australia does totalitarianism poorly. The PATRIOT act at least appeared to have some limitations. These proposed new laws [1] don't encroach on privacy, they completely obliterate it. The Liberals are doing what the Nazi's did, minus the economic improvements, conservation and infrastructure (there's something to think about!).

It essentially implements the Internet monitoring that we were worried about years ago. There is little reason to doubt that Australian spies won't have a warrant to monitor one computer or device on the internet as soon as they can (I strongly suspect these laws legitimise what has been long standing practice and that such monitoring has been in place). We can consider the internet monitored, as these laws define no boundaries. This is no different to if the government had said "we will monitor the internet however we like".

I ask which "terrorist" organisation has the capability to threaten our liberties and rights to this extent? And all this from what? The media lying to the population by stating there was a beheading planned!See also international alert regarding Australia's draconian laws: "Australia on the Verge of Permitting Alarmingly Broad Internet Surveillance " by Emily Tankin.

The housing market and the death of Australia

"This issue is not the cost of building nor dwelling sizes, but the economic and political conditions which are fuelling the bubble. Policies which promise to build low cost modest housing, or any policy which increases density will only drive prices higher and worsen the situation. By reducing dwelling size, the premium paid for land increases and land price increases. After all, the bulk of the cost is the land, as houses can still be built for under $200,000. The high land price due to flooding the market with credit and speculation, not the size of the houses built. So reject any policy about increasing density or providing smaller "more affordable homes". [...] In the current climate the only result of making dwellings smaller, is to make people take $600,000 loans for 2 bedroom units instead of three bedroom houses. The market will simply price the smaller properties at the same price as the larger ones they replaced."

Modern Economic Paradoxes

"Why is Philippine labour cheaper than Australian labour, when supposedly they are of equal value? If there is no fundamental reason for the disparity, why does it persist? If the lower price represents an increased economic efficiency, then one would expect that the nations that jobs are off-shored to would be able to produce desired outputs at a greater rate and efficiency. Yet they are poorer and the people seek to move to countries with less efficient labour rates. Here we have two contradictory market forces. The first, movement of people, suggests that despite the increased cost, first world nations are a more desirable economic proposition. The second, movement of capital and jobs, suggests that the increased cost in the first world nations is not worth it, and third world nations present a more desirable economic proposition. They both can't be right, yet our economic world-view is that both are."

What population policy means to a people


Talk of 'population policy', of meeting population targets, or using immigration to achieve particular growth goals conceals a much larger problem and moral issue. Furthermore, it allows people who promote such policies, or who accept them for personal benefit, to wash their hands of the moral implications that such policy has. Generally, these questions of population are seen as simply matters of numbers and resources, and it is definitely true that there are issues of numbers, space and resource management behind these. But behind all this is a larger issue, one obvious when seen, but rarely pointed out. The very acceptance of the idea that a 'population policy', or any policy or idea to that effect being implemented for economic or growth purposes creates a moral dilemma. To accept this as valid governance is to reject another idea, that of a people having the right to self determination and self preservation. That growth, or lack thereof of a nation is determined by peoples individual reproductive choices.
Subscribe to RSS - Dennis K's blog