Other politics and economics
Climate 200
In radio and television interviews we have been hearing from Climate 200 over the last week, particularly its convenor Simon Holmes à Court who was on the ABC’s 730 program – Prime Minister facing tensions in Coalition over climate change policy – and on the ABC’s Breakfast program – Climate 200 seeks to unseat government giants over climate change, integrity and the treatment of women (10 minutes.)
Its website lists other team members, including Anna Josephson and Anthony Read who were involved in Zali Steggall’s successful campaign to oust Tony Abbott from Warringah, and Julia Banks, former member for Chisholm, who resigned from the Liberal Party following the Dutton-Morrison coup in 2018
Climate 200 were around for the 2019 election, supporting strong independent candidates. It appears that already they are in a stronger financial position than they were then and could therefore be a formidable force in our coming election.
Understanding those demonstrators
The simple slogan may be “we’re all in this together”, but from the time the virus started to spread the experience of the pandemic and the lockdowns has been very different for different groups of Australians. Those who have been lightly touched, or may have even prospered over the last 18 months are willing to trust public health advice. In light of the Commonwealth’s terrible handling of vaccine supply and distribution, and of border protection, they may not trust Morrison and his cronies, but they do trust public health officials with their advice on vaccination. It is a different matter, however, for those who have lost their jobs, or have had to operate as “essential workers” in trying conditions.
Julian Butler SJ found himself unintentionally mingling with protesters while he was out dong his shopping, and writing in Eureka Street – Anti-lockdown protests expose need for new conversations – he reflects on what has driven people to such aggressive behaviour. We may not approve of their behaviour but we should understand what’s driving it.
Morrison the secret cabinetmaker
Cabinetmaking is a difficult craft, requiring many years of working to fine tolerances, but Morrison believes he can convert a council – the Council of Australian Governments – into a cabinet by a stroke of legislation.
As the Law Council explains in its press statement – Freedom of information changes go too far – the purpose of the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill is to shroud in secrecy all documents of the so-called “National Cabinet” – the gathering of Commonwealth, state and territory governments that convenes to handle Covid-19 related matters. Under the bill COAG as we have known it would be subject to the same secrecy provision as Commonwealth documents – one of the quaint and undemocratic conventions we inherited from one of Europe’s offshore islands.
Law Council President Jacoba Brasch has a seven-minute interview on ABC Breakfast explaining why the Law Council, and many others who are fearful of yet another erosion of civil liberties, oppose the proposed legislation.
Dark money in politics
Can you solve this equation for x?
58 + 14 + 46 + x = 168
That equation is about the accountability of our political parties. In 2019-20 they had income of $168 million, comprising $58 million from public funding, $14 million from disclosed donations, and $46 million from other recorded income. That leaves $50 million (x) unaccounted for – “dark money” in the words of the Centre for Public Integrity in its press release on undisclosed income received by political parties. Analysing 21 years of Australian Electoral Commission data they calculate that there has been $1.5 billion in such dark money collected by political parties since 1999. The Coalition has hidden 39 per cent of their income, and Labor 28 per cent.
Once again they call for lower thresholds for disclosing donations (currently $14 300), real-time reporting, and tighter definitions of “donations”.
Neoliberalism and racism
Whatever accusations we may level against neoliberalism, racism is generally not one of them. It’s a brutal economic philosophy that does not discriminate by race, creed or colour.
But is neoliberals’ desire for small government so strong that it can override their concerns about racism?
In an article published by the Institute for New Economic Thinking – How Milton Friedman aided and abetted segregationists in his quest to privatize public education – Nancy MacLean of Duke University describes how neoliberals were so zealous in their campaign to reduce the scope of government that they formed alliances with segregationists in America’s south in order to undermine public education. “While Friedman and most of his neoliberal collaborators made their case for privatization in race-neutral language and may not personally have been driven by racial animus, they had no scruples about exploiting white supremacy to move their otherwise unsaleable policy agenda.”
That was in the 1950s, but the neoliberal campaign to privatise US education, in spite of its illiberal outcomes, is still alive today.
Neoliberalism may be on the way out, but what’s taking its place?
Well before the pandemic started to spread, the economic philosophy known as neoliberalism or the Washington Consensus was showing its limits. The pandemic has hastened its demise.
Writing in Project Syndicate – Learning the right lessons from US economic experimentation – Dani Rodrik looks around to see where economic policy is now heading. Economic nostrums such as labour-market deregulation and flexibility are giving way to ideas about the economy’s capacity to provide better jobs. Economists’ desire for unfettered free trade is giving way to concerns with domestic supply chains. Economists may even be accepting that the occasional bout of inflation may have benefits in loosening structural rigidities.
Most heretically he suggests that for “developing” countries “the traditional export-oriented industrialization model has run out of steam”.
How much competition is there in the Australian economy?
Surely we have enough competition in Australia to make sure consumers get a good deal and that firms are driven to cost-reducing productivity gains, as the Economics 1 textbooks tell us. Think of all those advertisements from different department stores, banks, insurers and others seeking our business.
Not so fast, writes the ANU’s Adam Triggs in Inside Story: Betting on both sides. There may be plenty of different brands, and plenty of different companies in our markets, but are they truly independent? He’s not writing about conspiracies in car parks or smoke-filled rooms to rig prices. Rather he is writing about the fact that institutional investors hold significant equity in different firms competing in the same markets, and cites evidence that those investors use their influence to ensure that these firms’ profits aren’t compromised by too much competition. The result is the economic damage of oligopoly manifesting as “a decline in employees’ share of national income, low productivity growth and low investment, as well as high prices, high mark-ups and rising inequality”.