Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    China

    Home China

    Victoria: Back in the Basket Again

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    1

    Reproduced with permission from The BFD

    https://thebfd.co.nz/2024/05/09/victoria-back-in-the-basket-again/

    I grew up in Victoria (don’t judge me, it wasn’t always the way it’s become), and lived through the dark days of the early 90s. Back then, it seemed that hardly a week went by without another economic calamity: the Pyramid building society collapse, the Tricontinental bank collapse, the State Bank of Victoria collapse, and the Victorian Economic Development Corporation collapse. 

    Not to mention the collapse of the Victorian branch of the National Safety Council of Australia under a cloud of embezzlement. The state’s credit rating plunged from a gold-standard AAA to an embarrassing AA+.

    Fun times.

    Well, to spin the old Chinese curse, Victorians are living in fun times again. The most indebted state in Australia, and diving deeper into the red for the foreseeable future. Once again, all at the hands of a Labor government.

    It’s clearly not as if there’s no room for cleaning out the bureaucracy in Victoria. 

    The state’s credit rating is now a dire AA, and under threat of plunging further — which makes even paying off debt more expensive.

    Over the four financial years covered by the budget, the annual interest required to service Victoria’s debt will jump from $6.3 billion to $9.3 billion. This is a serious chunk of change and, as a statistical quirk, the fastest-growing expenditure item listed on the government’s cash flow statement.

    Victoria’s net debt – the total amount we owe – is forecast to pass $187.8 billion by July 2028 on the way to an unknown, distant peak. It is unfair to characterise it as a mountain because, at this point, there is no downward slope discernible to Treasury officials.

    “As a proportion of gross state product, Victoria’s net debt is going to be higher than it was at the end of the Cain/Kirner years,” says economist Saul Eslake. “If I was a Victorian taxpayer, I would be worried about that.

    “Certainly outside of Victoria, everyone thinks Victoria is a basket case.”

    Astonishingly, Victorian Treasurer Tim Pallas claims the debt has “stabilised”.

    In the six months since Pallas published his last update of Victoria’s finances, the bottom line has gone backwards by $2 billion.

    In the mid-year budget review tabled in December, the cash deficit for 2023-24 – the total revenue raised by the government less everything it spends – was forecast to be $13.1 billion. On Tuesday, that figure was revised to $15.2 billion.   The Age

    So very stable.

    Over the four financial years covered by the budget, the annual interest required to service Victoria’s debt will jump from $6.3 billion to $9.3 billion.

    Remember when Dan Andrews promised 4000 ICU beds? Yeah, neither does he. In fact, Victoria’s health system — traditionally a Labor strength — is in for a major trimming-down. Although, in a rare departure for any government, let alone Labor, it seems as though it’s bureaucratic fat that’s getting cut.

    A leaked document, seen by this masthead, reveals one of the options is mergers – or “consolidations” – which would mean many existing health services would lose their own chief executive and local boards and have them replaced by an advisory board.

    It’s clearly not as if there’s no room for cleaning out the bureaucracy in Victoria. The state has 76 health services, compared with 17 in more populous NSW, 16 in Queensland, 10 in SA, five in WA, and just three in Tasmania. Even New Zealand only has 20 district health boards.

    But that’s not how it’s going to be spun by vested interests. Labor risks getting on the wrong side of the powerful hospital unions. Already, the complaints are starting.

    It doesn’t look as though the budget is buying Victorian Labor any love at all.

    Join Mailing List

    Treasurer Tim Pallas said his 10th budget would help families, but the only sweetener was payments of $400 per child from next year for the families of students in Victorian public schools and concession cardholders at non-government schools.  The Age

    In fact, if The Age’s vox pop is anything to go by, not many “key stakeholders”, as the jargon goes, are particularly happy.

    Certainly not young families, commuters, or small business owners.

    In 92, it took the mongrel of Jeff Kennett and Alan Stockdale to fix the Victorian basket case.

    Who’s going to save Australia’s Wokest State from itself, this time?

    Mind Your Language

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    1

    Everyone knows a suit is comprised of a jacket and a pair of pants. Two jackets are not a suit. Neither can two pairs of pants be called a suit. 

    This was an argument I often made during the marriage debate. Marriage, I argued, was the joining of a man and woman in a special relationship.  

    If two men or two women wished to be joined together then they can call it something else, but not marriage; not a suit.

    This idea of insisting that words reflect their true meaning and that things be called what they are, is not a new idea.

    As long ago as 500BC, Chinese philosopher Confucius said, “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.”

    Modern day politics has become largely about controlling the language. 

    As US preacher Chuck Swindoll says, ‘they adopt our vocabulary but not our dictionary.’

    A person on 50 per cent of the median wage is officially on the ‘poverty line’.

    Farmers used to drain water-logged swamp areas of their land, and no-one batted an eye. 

    Then swamps were renamed ‘wetlands’, and now can’t be touched. 

    We’ve re-named euthanasia ‘dying with dignity’; abortion is now referred to as ‘reproductive health’ or ‘planned parenthood’ or simply ‘pro-choice’. 

    Free speech is branded hate speech, local aboriginal tribes have become ‘First Nations’, power cuts are now called ‘load shedding’, tax increases are re-badged as ‘budget savings’ and denying one’s gender has become gender affirming.

    A person on 50 per cent of the median wage is officially on the ‘poverty line’.

    ‘Safe schools’ and ‘respectful relationships’ are anything but – as evidenced by lessons in bestiality presented to 14-year-old schoolgirls in South Australia.

    The Good Book says, ‘Woe to those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.’ – Isaiah 5:20.

    Then there are the perpetual ‘straw man’ arguments – misrepresenting an opponent’s position in order to quickly and easily destroy their argument.

    ‘Trickle-down economics’ is a straw man argument. There is no such theory in economics. But opponents of free-market economics invented the term ‘trickle-down’ to suggest free-markets are all about favouring the rich and hoping some of their wealth will ‘trickle down’ to those lower on the socio-economic ladder.

    Modern day politics has become largely about controlling the language. 

    Then there’s the ubiquitous use of the term ‘flat earthers’ when no-one, anywhere throughout history thought the world was flat. Not the Egyptians, not the Phoenicians, not the ancient Greeks; no-one thought the earth was flat. They weren’t silly. By standing on high ground and watching their tall ships sail over the horizon, they knew the earth was round, they just didn’t know how big it was. Christopher Columbus left Spain and headed west for India, not to prove the world was round, but to determine its size.

    Or the phrase Terra Nullius, a term used to manipulate debate on indigenous matters. 

    ‘Australia was founded on the basis of Terra Nullius,’ is one of those myths that survives by repetition, not historical fact.

    Terra Nullius is a Latin term meaning ‘land belonging to no one’. 

    Yet no-one ever said Australia was not occupied.

    The term ‘terra nullius’ was not mentioned anywhere in Australia until 1977!

    Join Mailing List

    Regarding exploration and occupation, the book 18th Century Principles of International Law stated that, “All territory not in the possession of states who are members of the family of nations and subjects of International Law must be considered as technically res nullius and therefore open to occupation”. ‘Res nullius’ – land not owned by a recognised nation, is not the same as ‘terra nullius’ – land not occupied by anyone e.g. Antarctica.

    And on a similar vein, that Aborigines didn’t get the vote, or were treated as ‘flora and fauna,’ until 1967. 

    All false. All examples of the mutilation of language to influence political debate. US author Michael Malice writes, ‘they’re not using language to communicate, they’re using it to manipulate.’

    Free Markets Work Better for Energy

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    0

    Energy is again front and centre in the news with the debate over the merits of nuclear energy becoming mainstream. But then last week the Prime Minister announced a new scheme to subsidise the manufacture of solar panels in Australia. One wonders whether this is to support industry or just to close down a debating point against solar – that only 1% of the hardware used in Australia is manufactured locally. 

    The push by governments worldwide to subsidise solar energy, under the banner of sustainable development and carbon neutrality, seems forlorn.  

    The truth is that free markets are more effective at capital allocation and problem solving than governments (assuming you accept there is a problem that needs solving). Free markets operate on profit incentives, driving businesses and individuals to invest resources where they are most efficiently used and valued, leading to innovation and optimal distribution of goods and services.

    The DeGrussa solar and battery project in Western Australia epitomises the sheer lack of commercial savvy possessed by government.

    Australia’s existing solar energy subsidies are an obvious illustration of the misaligned priorities and inefficiencies that can arise from government intervention. The Albanese government’s commitment to injecting $1 billion into domestic solar panel manufacturing, including in coal-rich areas like the Hunter Valley, is a classic example of the triumph of hope over experience.  

    Australia’s history is littered with government involvement in business sectors that wasted tax payer money through inefficiencies.   The proof of free market superiority was demonstrated when entities like the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was privatised (under Paul Keating), as was Telstra (under John Howard), and Qantas Airways (under Bob Hawke). Each became far more efficient and successful post-privatisation. 

    A particularly significant example is the case of Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, privatised under Paul Keating. Originally government-owned, CSL was started in 1916 to “serve the health needs of a country isolated by war”.  Fair enough perhaps.  

    The push by governments worldwide to subsidise solar energy, under the banner of sustainable development and carbon neutrality, seems forlorn. 

    CSL was privatised in 1994 and has since been transformed into a global biotechnology powerhouse. Post-privatisation, CSL significantly increased its operational efficiency, innovation capacity, and market reach, becoming a leading provider of vaccines and plasma products worldwide. CSL’s journey from a national vaccine manufacturer to a global biotech leader underscores the difference between how governments lose and free markets win.

    Albanese ought to learn lessons from Keating and Hawke on the superiority of private capital at solving public problems (banking, telecoms and aviation). Is energy so different?  And what does the Albanese government think it is going to achieve anyway with this $1bn investment?  How will Australian ventures compete with global giants, especially Chinese manufacturers which benefit from (ironically) cheaper electricity, lower labour costs, and economies of scale?

    The DeGrussa solar and battery project in Western Australia epitomises the sheer lack of commercial savvy possessed by government.   Funded in part (and thus enabled) by federal taxpayers, it is now being dismantled after just seven years, highlighting the precarious financial underpinnings of these subsidised solar ventures. This project, once a beacon for renewable energy in remote mining operations, became a financial quagmire, with the cost per tonne of avoided greenhouse gas exceeding market rates for carbon credits.  

    Join Mailing List

    The DeGrussa project serves as a cautionary tale.  There is a broader trend of hasty government interventions in the solar energy sector, driven by politics motives rather than economics. 

    While the drive towards renewable energy may be commendable (let’s buy into that for the sake of argument), the path to achieving it must be paved with prudent financial decisions and strategic planning – best executed by the free market. 

    Geopolitics and The Non-Aggression Principle

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    For an example of how libertarians philosophically wrestle, behold this exchange between the Arizona Libertarians and Australian Brett Lombardi:

    It is eloquent in its brevity: realpolitik confronting Rothbardian idealism.

    One of the foundational concepts of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle. Put simply, this is the idea that violence and coercion between parties should be avoided, and that people should act cooperatively and in harmony. 

    It has mainly been applied to situations between individuals. But what about non-aggression between nation states, the geopolitical sphere?

    Enter libertarian heavyweight, Murray Rothbard:

    In National Defence and The Theory of Externalities, he wrote:

    “For the libertarian, the key to foreign policy is the defence of the homeland against aggression. The State should protect the citizens, keep the peace, and defend person and property from attack.”

    Straightforward enough, it seems. But what is ‘homeland’?

    Let’s put the Rothbardians to the test with a series of scenarios, asking whether each is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle:

    – The Chinese Navy sails to Venice Beach, California, with amphibious craft landing and troops shooting people. I’m sure we can agree this violates the Non-Aggression Principle.

    – What if US surveillance determined in advance that the Chinese were coming and warned them not to enter the 12 nautical miles of US territorial waters? The Chinese ignore and enter, then the US engage the aggressor at 11.9 nautical miles? Is this a Chinese or US violation?

    – What about at the US exclusive economic zone boundary of 200 nautical miles? If US engages, is this a violation?

    Libertarians must be practical and realistic in geopolitics to achieve electoral success.

    Rothbard doesn’t say what the ‘homeland’ is but would probably pick one of these boundaries.

    But we can test this further:

    – In 1893, US agents and businessmen mounted a successful coup against the Kingdom of Hawaii, asserting that their investment and private property rights were under threat. The US “annexed” Hawaii in 1898 as a territory. Did the US violate?

    – Then in 1941, Japan bombed this territory. Hawaii wasn’t even a state of the US at the time of the Pearl Harbour attack. Were the US defending their ‘homeland’ when it used anti-aircraft fire against the Japanese, or were they in continued violation of the Non-Aggression Principle because of their prior military-backed coup?

    – What if the Chinese today invaded Guam or American Samoa, both mere territories as Hawaii was? Would this be a violation? Both locations are closer to China than the US. Where does US ‘homeland’ end?

    Rothbard doesn’t define the extent of the US homeland, but I suspect he might regard these territories as empire-building and so in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

    He heavily criticised Gulf War I as an example of creeping empires in The Case For Radical Idealism:

    “In foreign affairs, the libertarian sees the danger and evil of the U.S. launching an aggressive war against Iraq. This is why the true lovers of liberty should condemn the Bush Administration’s war, and make it crystal clear that, in their libertarian view, it is a criminal war of imperialist aggression.”

    In that vein: 

    – What about the joint US-Australian Military Surveillance Base at Pine Gap, Northern Territory? Among its many purposes, this base is used by the US to determine whether Guam and American Samoa are under threat of attack. In an age of intercontinental missiles taking only 30 minutes to reach their targets, can the US defend this base as a defence of its homeland?

    – If the Chinese bombed Darwin’s Robertson Barricks at which 2,500 US marines are based on the invitation of Australia, does the US violate the Non-Aggression Principle by defending those US marines and Australian soldiers?

    – If China ‘annexed’ Taiwan, would that be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle? If so, is it really the view of libertarians in Arizona that libertarians should merely shrug our shoulders?

    Rothbard shunned territorial pre-emption yet these are realpolitik situations. I think this is a huge Rothbardian blind-spot.

    Should the British have waited for Napoleon to land on the beaches of Dover? Should the Australians have met the Japanese at Cooktown rather than Kokoda? At what point should the British RAF have engaged the raiding Luftwaffe? Over Canterbury, Calais or Cologne?

    Even if we just define ‘homeland’ as current national borders, there is still much to challenge us about Rothbard. For instance, in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, he elaborates on the type of impermissible intervention:

    “A non-interventionist policy means that America does not interfere militarily, politically or covertly in the affairs of the other nations.”

    Rothbard refined this further, in War, Peace and The State:

    “War, then, even a just defensive war, is only proper when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals themselves. We may judge for ourselves how many wars or conflicts in history have met this criterion.”

    So, Rothbardian libertarians such as those in Arizona argue that defence of the homeland against aggression is permitted but that defence cannot extend to preventative measures and defensive force may only be aimed at individual war criminals!

    How a commander would know, in the heat of battle, the identity of a war criminal in advance of a war crimes tribunal is beyond me.

    None of these expressions of libertarianism give me much confidence that, when applied, practical benefits will result. And yet the entire point of libertarian philosophy is to spawn policies which work to unleash human flourishing. 

    More realism and less idealism, I say.

    In this regard, I am not a Rothbardian idealist. I prefer the view of leading realpolitik libertarians like David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute who wrote:

    One of the foundational concepts of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle.

    “Libertarians should be realistic about the world. Some level of military and intelligence capability is necessary for national defence and to secure the freedoms that libertarians cherish.”

    And Nick Gillespie, Editor-At-Large, Reason Magazine who offered:

    “Libertarians are not pacifists. We recognise that the state has a role in national defence. The key is to ensure that this role is strictly limited to protecting the country from external threats and does not devolve into unnecessary interventions.”

    Or this from Cato Institute’s, Julian Sanchez:

    “Libertarians should recognise that there may be cases where limited and well-defined military intervention can be justified on humanitarian grounds, such as preventing genocide.”

    Let me marshal further libertarian opinion to counter Rothbard. Here, leading US libertarian Senator Rand Paul:

    “While a strict non-interventionist foreign policy may have its merits, there can be instances where limited government intervention is necessary to protect the nation’s security and interest.”

    And Brian Doherty, Senior Editor at Reason Magazine, who penned:

    “While avoiding unnecessary conflicts is crucial, libertarians should acknowledge the importance of maintaining a credible defense to deter potential aggressors and protect individual rights from external threats.”

    Yet further still, perhaps more gently, even leading libertarian philosopher and Rothbard rival, Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State and Utopia, wrote:

    “A minimal state devoted to the task of protecting rights and enforcing contract will, if minimal enough, and if rights include rights to self-defence, do all that government can do.”

    Join Mailing List

    So limited government intervention, doing “all that government can do” and deterrence feature strongly.

    Libertarians must be practical and realistic in geopolitics to achieve electoral success. Freedom House says there are only 38 free nations in a world of 195 countries. Freedom is rare and must be protected wherever it blooms. 

    Brett Lombardi gets it right.

    Exciting times ahead for uranium mining in Western Australia

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    0

    During the 2017 WA election, McGowan’s Labor opposition campaigned hard to reinstate the ban on uranium mining. They followed through on this after winning the state election that year. 

    Both Labor and the Greens ran scare mongering campaigns conflating uranium mining with the public’s historic nervousness regarding nuclear energy. Prior scare mongering has led to uranium mining projects being distrusted and shunned by the community. 

    However, public opinion on uranium and nuclear energy are rapidly evolving. The Liberals and Nationals are leading their 2025 federal election campaign with pro nuclear energy messaging. Peter Dutton advised an economic forum in Sydney recently that he has consulted face-to-face with leading energy professionals from Europe, Asia and North America. Dutton will also be attending similar meetings in the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates. 

    Should the uranium mining ban be lifted, the number of uranium mines across Western Australia will most certainly increase. 

    Following Dutton’s announcement, Western Australia’s Liberal leader Libby Mettam declared her party will repeal Labor’s state uranium mining ban, if Liberals win the 2025 state election. If this were to occur, uranium miners could utilise the standard minerals environmental approvals process.

    Labor has continued its anti-uranium campaign, with WA Premier Roger Cook saying uranium mines are not profitable at current prices. This is a big call and not very credible, considering uranium has already more than tripled in price since 2020 as the world re-embraces nuclear energy. 

    Western Australia has a robust, experienced labour force in the mining and resources sector. This labour force is perfectly poised to take up work in uranium mining. 

    Global demand for uranium looks to be steadily increasing. Opening up uranium mines in Western Australia will offer stable employment for the sector’s workforce. This will be a relief, given fluctuations in other sectors. For example, six nickel mines across the state closed in 2023 as a consequence of a 43% price drop on nickel after Indonesia, the Philippines and China caused a glut in the market.

    Western Australia has 11 known deposits of uranium, totalling approximately 226,000 tonnes.

    The Liberals and Nationals are leading their 2025 federal election campaign with pro nuclear energy messaging.

    In 2017, Labor gave exemptions to four uranium projects which had been approved prior to the state election: 

    • Wiluna Project, owned by Toro Energy 
    • Yeelirrie Project owned by Cameco
    • Mulga Rock Project owned by Vimy Resources
    • Kintyre Project, owned by Cameco

    Mulga Rock Project never started production, and the other three stalled due to financial pressures soon thereafter. Should the uranium mining ban be lifted, the number of uranium mines across Western Australia will most certainly increase. 

    2025 will see nuclear power generation reach new records globally, heralding an exciting renaissance of nuclear energy. This is driven by increasing demands for electricity that is both cheap and reliable while not being reliant on fossil fuels. 

    Thirty-two countries already utilise the energy source, and 50 are set to introduce it. Many of these 82 countries will be potential buyers, should Western Australia lift its ban on uranium mining. 

    Join Mailing List

    In a recent interview the successful contrarian investor Rick Rule, President and CEO of Sprott US Holdings, commented that:

    “The country that has access to the uranium, the country that has access to the stable craton that’s dry, the country that has access to a skilled labour force and the rule of law, is this truly odd country called Australia. The uranium business should be an Australian business.”

    Western Australia is perfectly positioned to remove the government ban on uranium mining, and capitalise on Rick’s salient advice.

    A Letter to My Kid’s Childcare Centre

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    0

    Background:

    A few weeks ago, when dropping off my child at their childcare centre, I noticed something on the classroom whiteboard that I hadn’t paid attention to before – the “Daily Routine”. Amid the usual activities, one particular sticker caught my eye: “Acknowledgement of Country”. I was SHOCKED. It prompted me to write the following letter to the Centre.

    Dear Centre Management Team,

    I hope this message finds you well. I want to start by expressing my deep gratitude for the nurturing environment the Centre provides. It has been a joy to see my child thrive, embracing the learning and playing programs, along with diverse cultural celebrations, from Chinese festivals to many others. Your respect for multiple cultures is much appreciated in a country where nearly 30% of the population was born overseas.

    However, I feel compelled to share a concern, approached with the utmost respect for the delicate balance you maintain. Over the past year, I’ve observed several Aboriginal events and celebrations, including last year’s National Reconciliation Week with the slogan “Be a VOICE for Generations – Act Today For A Reconciled Tomorrow,” amid the very controversial and politically divided national Voice referendum. Recently, I was surprised to notice a “Daily Routine” of “Acknowledgement of Country”. 

    if we are celebrating National Reconciliation Week and National NAIDOC Week, we should also dedicate a full day to celebrating Australia Day?

    While I deeply respect Aboriginal people, I am concerned that this is verging into the realm of political expression, given the variety of views on this topic within our community, vividly highlighted in the last referendum debate which resulted in over 60% voting No.

    As I see it, “Acknowledgement of Country” carries a strong politically driven message that may convey controversial implications. Its literal meaning not only recognises the historical ownership of the land by indigenous Australians but also implies the concept of “stolen land”, as promoted by many Voice advocates, along with “Pay the Rent” as one of the preferred “Treaties.” If the land and property we own today were “stolen,” should we then return it? And if so, to whom? If we do not, which I guess is the case for most, does that make us hypocritical?

    I am a migrant drawn to Australia for its embodiment of Western values – democracy, liberty, and the rule of law – the principles that make Australia unique and appealing globally. My hope is to see these aspects of our great country celebrated and taught with the same enthusiasm. If politics is to be taught in school, a highlight of our country’s values should be celebrated, foundational to our society and a reason we have a wonderful Centre with educators and students from diverse cultural backgrounds.

    Your respect for multiple cultures is much appreciated in a country where nearly 30% of the population was born overseas.

    As a parent, I am thrilled to see kids learning new things, meeting new friends, acquiring new skills, fostering good character, and growing well physically and mentally. I always appreciate the Centre for providing a great learning environment and having educators who genuinely care for the kids. Having grown up in an authoritarian country, I recall how political education at every level significantly affected young kids’ freedom of thought. Therefore, I am extremely concerned if certain controversial opinions are taught as facts to young minds.

    Might I suggest that if we are celebrating National Reconciliation Week and National NAIDOC Week, we should also dedicate a full day to celebrating Australia Day? This gesture could serve to highlight the unity and shared core values within our diverse community. Additionally, while the learning of new Aboriginal songs enriches our cultural tapestry, perhaps including ‘Advance Australia Fair’ occasionally could foster a broader sense of national pride and identity. 

    Furthermore, if ‘Acknowledgement of Country’ is part of our daily routine, exploring the Christian origins and significance of the coming Easter holiday – beyond the familiar symbols of rabbits and eggs – could offer the children an opportunity to understand the holiday’s deeper cultural and religious meanings.

    Join Mailing List

    Please understand that my reflections are shared with the highest regard for the incredible work you do and in no way diminish my gratitude for your dedication. My intent is to engage in a constructive dialogue about how we can celebrate all facets of our community’s culture, including its core Western heritage, with balance and sensitivity.

    Thank you for considering my perspective. I look forward to any thoughts you may have on this matter and remain, as always, immensely appreciative of your commitment to our children’s growth and well-being.

    Regards,

    A Concerned Parent

    Part II:Programmable Money

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    0

    Two years ago the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Sir John Cunliffe, spoke the most sinister sentence I’d heard in a long while. The menace was unmistakable: 

    “giving your children pocket money but programming the money so that it couldn’t be used for sweets.” 

    This statement was offered in the context of Central Bank Digital Currencies. Let me explain what these are and why Sir John’s statement is terrifying. 

    Everyone knows about cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. In January 2024 their total market capitalisation reached $US 1.77 trillion. For central banks that is an inordinate amount of money sitting outside traditional financial systems and regulatory frameworks. 

    The crypto market has evolved. Until fairly recently it was difficult to spend, so it tended to be treated more as an investment asset than as a mechanism of exchange. The time taken to process transactions was the most inhibiting factor. Unlike the near-instantaneous transactions of current electronic payment systems, cryptocurrency processing can take minutes.

    Imagine the government decides the economy requires stimulation by encouraging spending – your pay-cheque will lose 20% of its value if you don’t spend it within a month.

    That made it suitable for a making a purchase from an online retailer, but not so good for buying a coffee in the local café.

    Technology has evolved to address this limitation. Cryptocurrency exchanges (much like a brokerage) now offer a variety of financial tools and services in partnership with credit card companies. One such service is a debit card directly linked to a crypto account.  

    This resolves the usability issue. A card such as a WireX can be used wherever Visa is accepted with transactions debited from the user’s crypto account at the speed of a standard EFTPOS transaction. Spending cryptocurrency to buy an espresso has become mundane.

    And in consequence, financial technology (fintech) becomes tomorrow’s battlefield. 

    Conducting private transactions with a democratised digital currency is nirvana for libertarians but a nightmare for the state. Tax departments find it difficult to levy goods and services taxes on transactions that are opaque, while central banks can struggle to set monetary policy when sections of the populace are using a different currency. In New Zealand the Reserve Bank’s ‘Future of Money’ discussion paper identifies this as the primary risk to New Zealand’s monetary sovereignty. For a small economy, the prospect of goods and services being priced in a cryptocurrency instead of $NZD is a very real challenge to the Reserve Bank’s overarching objective of stewarding a stable anchor of value.

    What to do? For the state the answer is to co-opt and regulate, which is where Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) come in. 

    Like most central banks, the Bank of England realises digital currencies are inevitable. Their plan is to mandate a state-controlled alternative, linked to the traditional local currency. 

    As Sir John points out, CBDCs can be programmed like any other cryptocurrency. From the point of view of the state this is fantastic: improved efficiencies in the financial system generating economic benefit whilst enhancing the control that states traditionally exert over fiat currency. 

    From the point of view of the people it is not so good. Programmability has the potential to enable totalitarian micro-control over every aspect of our financial lives. When every transaction is recorded and the state can manipulate the currency with immediate effect, the people are reduced to mere economic units whose financial behaviours can be strictly monitored, manipulated and mandated.

     Cryptocurrency exchanges (much like a brokerage) now offer a variety of financial tools and services in partnership with credit card companies.

    Imagine the government decides the economy requires stimulation by encouraging spending – your pay-cheque will lose 20% of its value if you don’t spend it within a month. Imagine being automatically sent to the bottom of the queue for diabetes treatment because the health system has determined you spent too much on Coca-Cola over the last 12 months. The possibilities afforded by control of currency at this granularity are endless. 

    In New Zealand the Reserve Bank’s discussion papers are at pains to obfuscate the essence of this aspect. In response to concerns raised by the public, industry and no less than the Privacy Commissioner himself, the Reserve Bank stressed that privacy would be a consideration. It has not been elevated to the status of principle. Of perhaps greater concern is the Reserve Bank’s differentiation between the definitions of privacy and anonymity:

    “’Privacy’ means that it is possible that data was collected but has not been shared, while ‘anonymity’ means data was not collected.”

    Between the competing regulatory demands of the Privacy Act and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act, the Reserve Bank’s view of precisely where on the spectrum New Zealand should reside certainly isn’t leaning towards privacy or the anonymity Kiwis currently enjoy with physical cash currency.

    Alongside the introduction of CBDCs will be initiatives to hobble the competition. Governments will endeavour to regulate existing cryptocurrencies out of existence and are likely to impose stiff penalties on those who trade in them, an aspect the Reserve Bank addresses with the vague and rather euphemistic intention to ‘Regulate new forms of money and payments that impact stewardship goals.’ 

    Join Mailing List

    This is already happening in China: the introduction of the Digital Renminbi CBDC in 2021 was accompanied by an outright ban on other cryptocurrencies, the Standing Committee knowing full well that control of the digital currency was essential to the long-term success of the overlying Social Credit System.

    Western governments are likely to put a friendlier face on CBDCs, arguing trust, convenience and efficiency. Despite those arguments and the fluffy, paternalistic authoritarianism espoused by technocrats such as Sir John, no-one but your mum should have the right to tell you how many sweets you can buy with your own money. 

    Because she has your best interests at heart. Sir John espouses the best interests of the state.

    China’s Priority Next: Faith or Freedom?

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    3

    In my previous article “China 2024 and Beyond“, I argued that China, amid its troubles, is in desperate need of a visionary leader akin to Deng Xiaoping. Such a leader could rejuvenate China’s economy through policies that prioritise freedom. 

    The esteemed former senator, Bob Day, responded by emphasising the power of the Gospel when contemplating China’s future trajectory. It’s a common assertion among Christians, particularly those with libertarian leanings, that the importance of Christianity, along with economic and political freedom, could herald comprehensive benefits for the nation. This article explores these considerations while also engaging in a broader discussion on the interplay between freedom and (Christian) faith.

    The Spiritual Evolution in China

    In my opinion China’s spiritual landscape has evolved through four distinct stages: the early spirituality may be characterised by nature and ancestor worship, and a worship of “Shang Di” (Heavenly Lord), who is believed to be the creator of heaven and earth, similar to the Christian God but far less personal. This belief is still prevalent among the general public. 

    The second stage is philosophical spirituality with the emergence of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. However, arguably, none of these are religions per se: Confucianism is a set of philosophies clearly based on the teachings of Confucius without any deity; Taoism, with Laozi as its founder, who many regard as the first libertarian philosopher in human history, later developed into a polytheistic religion; while Buddhism similarly shared a path from being a philosophy into a religion. 

    Given the significant influence of faith and religion on shaping society, understanding faith becomes crucial.

    The third stage began with the Chinese Communist Party’s control of China since 1949, leading to a brutal suppression of spiritual beliefs, especially during the Cultural Revolution. 

    The fourth stage, following China’s reopening in the late 1970s, has seen a remarkable revival of spirituality, reflecting a collective search for meaning and identity amidst rapid modernisation.

    The Role of Faith in Individual and Societal Morality

    Fundamentally, faith acts as a guiding light for personal conduct and a moral compass for believers. It endows life with purpose, peace, and direction for believers, while non-believers might find similar guidance in their conscience. 

    On a societal level, faith possesses transformative power. Traditions like Buddhism and Taoism encourage introspection, whereas Christianity and Islam advocate for outward societal influence which has the potential to prompt change, for better or for worse. Despite the general hostility of modern authoritarian regimes towards religion, often under Marxist influences, their tolerance varies across faiths. 

    In China, Buddhism enjoys public support for its perceived blessings on wealth and fortune, contrasting starkly with Christianity’s limited tolerance, with only state-approved churches operating openly (and still cautiously) and underground churches enduring constant harassment.

    Understanding Faith Correctly

    Given the significant influence of faith and religion on shaping society, understanding faith becomes crucial. Using Christianity as an illustration, it’s evident how misconceptions can distort its teachings for harmful ends—endorsing slavery through misinterpretations of the Old Testament, justifying support for Hitler with references to Romans, and aligning it with Communism by pointing to Acts. 

    In China, Buddhism enjoys public support for its perceived blessings on wealth and fortune, contrasting starkly with Christianity’s limited tolerance

    A proper understanding of Christianity revisits foundational principles: God’s creation of Adam with free will and accountability, the Ten Commandments’ assertion of the rights to life, liberty, and property, and Jesus’ teaching of the Golden Rule to treat others as one wishes to be treated, without advocating coercion to impose personal beliefs on others. 

    Consider the concept of a “Christian society” as a further example. Despite their differences, both Western nations like the UK, the US, and Australia and those caught in the “Latin American Trap”, including Argentina and Brazil, share a profound commonality: they are deeply influenced by Christianity and have substantial Christian populations. While the former group has achieved peace and prosperity, the latter has experienced considerable chaos and distress. This division illustrates that while the path to freedom has been closely linked with Christian teachings historically, the presence of Christian faith alone does not ensure a nation’s success. Faith, undoubtedly beneficial for inner peace, moral guidance, or spiritual salvation, falls short as a reliable predictor of a country’s future prosperity.

    Freedom: The Foundation of Prosperity

    Freedom, on the other hand, is the cornerstone of a country’s prosperity. Under Deng Xiaoping, China made significant progress in economic freedom from the late 1970s, seeing major advancements through the 1990s and stability into the early 2010s. This progress has significantly reversed under Xi Jinping’s rule. Meanwhile, the brief hope for political freedom in the 1980s was crushed by the Tiananmen Square massacre, and the absence of political freedom has further undermined economic liberties, eventually culminating in constitutional changes that could extend Xi’s presidency indefinitely. 

    Join Mailing List

    In the end, I believe faith is akin to the heart, guiding individuals and societies with its moral compass and providing the ultimate meaning of life. Freedom, on the other hand, is akin to the mind, steering societal direction, with economic freedom protecting property rights and political freedom guarding individual sovereignty. 

    I endorse the words of Argentine President Javier Milei from his Davos speech: “Long live freedom, dammit!”

    What should the Australian Defence Force do?

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    0

    Hint: the answer is in the name

    The Australian Defence Force (ADF) does lots of things it shouldn’t.

    Restrict the trading of others

    The Australian Defence Force (ADF) helps to enforce sanctions.  

    It contributes in varying degrees to efforts to enforce sanctions endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, like sanctions against North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and various countries in Africa, as well as other sanctions like those against Russia, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe.

    Sanctions impede and redirect, rather than stop, trade involving the targeted countries.  They rarely bring about regime or policy change in the targeted country, and any impact in this regard is more often negative than positive.  Sanctions amount to a diplomat’s response to a call to ‘do something’ without the commitment of ground troops.

    Deterring and countering restrictions on our own trade

    Some say the ADF can and should defend Australian trade by ensuring the ADF can project power including through a long-range navy.

    This is wrong.

    The likelihood of any attempts to stop Australia’s trade is low, the likelihood of success of any such attempts is low, the impact of a successful attempt to stop Australia’s trade would be far from catastrophic, and the ADF can do little to deter or counter any of this anyway.

    Firstly, consider the likelihood of attempts to stop Australian trade.  Here are some scenarios, from less to more likely.

    • The United Nations Security Council agreeing to impose sanctions on Australia in an attempt to stop Australian trade.
    • An assortment of powerful countries defying the Security Council and attempting to stop Australian trade themselves.
    • One country, such as China, unilaterally attempting to stop Australian trade, including through war.
    • Pirates attempting to stop Australian trade.

    Each scenario is unlikely, except perhaps the risk of piracy, for which traders can arrange their own security.

    The federal government should not have supported this illiberal state policy

    Secondly, consider the likelihood of success of any attempts to stop Australian trade. As we see with current sanction efforts, and even at the height of the last world war, even the most sophisticated campaigns against a country’s trade tend to impede and redirect trade, rather than stop it.

    Thirdly, consider the impact of a successful attempt to stop Australian trade. Despite popular impressions that Australia is heavily trade dependent, Australia has a below-average reliance on trade.  We are more self-sufficient than you think.  So a successful blockade of Australia would cause some hardship, but any claims beyond this are hyperbolic.

    Finally, even in the unlikely event of a successful trade blockade against Australia, what would be the optimal ADF response?

    Nothing.  

    The point is, the cost of having a military powerful enough to counter such a blockade would be greater than the cost of living self-sufficiently.

    The ADF as foreign aid

    The ADF is building infrastructure in PNG, Vanuatu, Fiji and the Solomons, doing maritime surveillance to defend the fisheries of various Pacific Islands, and training military and police forces in various Pacific countries. 

    Such action may fail to deliver political stability and prosperity to the Pacific, and may fail to deter the establishment of Chinese military bases in the Pacific.  Moreover, Australians suffer little from instability and poverty in the Pacific, and Chinese military bases in the Pacific would do little to increase the risk of, or damage from, Chinese aggression to Australia.  

    The ADF’s actions in the Pacific are essentially foreign aid, the funding of which should not be forced on all taxpayers.

    Despite popular impressions that Australia is heavily trade dependent, Australia has a below-average reliance on trade.

    Other overseas operations

    The operations of the ADF beyond the Pacific are unwarranted too.

    The ADF is training Ukrainians to fight Russia and remains in a fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, with a current focus on training Iraqi forces. The ADF dons blue berets to police the borders of Israel and the Koreas and to provide security in South Sudan, having recently provided security in Mali.

    These are not our fights. Interested Australians should be free to engage in these conflicts if they so choose, without roping the Australian taxpayer in. The ADF’s engagement in these fights does not represent cost-effective training for defending Australian soil, which is best done through defensive exercises in Australian conditions.  And while ADF personnel are overseas, they are not defending Australia.  

    Enforcing obedience to state law

    During the Covid lockdowns, the ADF was used in support of state police to prevent travel beyond legally permitted limits and to keep state borders closed. 

    The federal government should not have supported this illiberal state policy, and the military should not have been tasked with law enforcement.  In liberal democracies, we train and regulate our military primarily for the exertion of force on enemies, and our police primarily for the service and protection of citizens.

    Join Mailing List

    Disaster relief

    The ADF is increasingly being used for humanitarian assistance following floods and bushfires. This is not its role; indeed, such activities are a serious distraction from its primary role of the defence of Australia. 

    State governments should bolster the ranks of volunteer organisations to provide humanitarian assistance.

    Decommissioning Solar & Wind Projects: A Costly Endeavour

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    2

    Over the last decade, decommissioning and waste management of solar and wind energy projects has grown into a thriving industry. In the decades to come, with the continued deployment of projects all over the world, it will massively expand.

    Solar and wind projects require highly specialised recycling and waste management processes. Decommissioning large plants can run up costs of millions, or even billions.

    Solar

    As solar capacity expands, demand for decommissioning services will increase. International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that global solar project waste will reach 212 million tonnes a year by 2050. 

    Despite photovoltaic projects supposedly lasting 20 years, owners often decommission early. Reasons include broken panels, manufacturers out of business, outdated technical attributes and unprofitable projects. 

    The Global Energy Monitor estimates China will pass this five years ahead of schedule.

    Solar systems require highly specialised waste management. To reduce landfill waste and promote sustainability, responsible disposal and recycling practices are crucial.

    Environmental concerns regarding solar waste components include gallium arsenide, tellurium, crystalline silicon, lead, chromium, cadmium, sulfuric acid, mercury, radioactive materials and heavy earth minerals. Inadequate disposal leads to chemicals leaching into groundwater, stressing nature and agriculture and poisoning drinking water. 

    Solar panels also contain valuable raw materials such as copper, steel, aluminium, zinc, and silver. These are wasted in landfill.

    Wind 

    Waste management of wind turbine blades is also complicated, expensive and raises environmental concerns.

    Each blade is 50 to 90 metres long. It must be cut up using specialised equipment. Blades consist of resin and fibreglass, which cannot be recycled or crushed. Existing landfills do not have space for them and setting up new landfills is expensive.

    To understand the scope of the issues, let’s take a look at the two largest economies, the US and China. 

    US 

    Solar 

    Commenting on a report by the Energy Information Administration, Solarcycle CEO Suvi Sharma said, “Solar is becoming the dominant form of power generation, but with that comes a new set of challenges and opportunities. We have not done anything yet on making [solar] circular and dealing with end-of-life [panels].”

    There are approximately 500 million solar panels installed across the US, increasing 20% each year. Ninety percent of decommissioned panels currently go to landfill due to recycling costs. From 2030 to 2060, the US will accumulate 9.8 million tonnes of solar panel waste, according to a 2019 study published in Renewable Energy.

    Sharma stated that, “We see that gap closing over the next five to 10 years significantly, through a combination of recycling becoming more cost-effective and landfill costs only increasing.” 

    Time will tell whether or not this prediction is accurate. 

    Solar and wind projects require highly specialised recycling and waste management processes.

    Wind

    The lifespan of a wind turbine is purportedly 20 years. However, as Julie Angulo, senior vice president of Veolia stated “We are seeing a wave of blades that are 10 to 12 years old, we know that number is going to go up.”

    Decommissioned wind turbine blades have joined solar panels in landfills, and are known as ‘forever waste’.

    According to a 2021 study released by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the US will decommission 3,000 to 9,000 blades every year until 2026, 10,000 to 20,000 blades a year until 2040, and 235,000 blades a year by 2050. 

    China 

    China leads the world in wind and solar energy equipment manufacture. China’s initial aim was 1,200 gigawatts of wind and solar by 2030. The Global Energy Monitor estimates China will pass this five years ahead of schedule.

    Waste volumes will rise as projects are decommissioned and replaced, emphasising the need for recycling measures. China currently doesn’t have specific regulations or processes for solar panel and wind turbine waste management. The State has announced it is working on industrial standards and rules to address this.

    The state planning agency advised that China aims to have a “basically mature” full-process recycling system for wind turbines and solar panels by the end of the decade. 

    Solar 

    China is the world’s leading solar market. It has surpassed everyone in terms of expenditure, manufactured panels and energy production.

    The International Renewable Energy Agency reported that in 2023, China dominated global solar panel additions with a record-breaking year, adding an estimated 180 to 230 gigawatts. 

    Join Mailing List

    However, in June last year China’s official Science and Technology Daily newspaper advised that in spite of the lifespan of 20 years, many of China’s solar projects show significant wear. The paper cited experts saying that China will have 1.5 million metric tonnes of decommissioned panels by 2030. This rises to 20 million tonnes by 2050 and is also in line with The International Renewable Energy Agency’s estimations. China will have the greatest amount of solar panel waste in the world.

    Conclusion

    The burgeoning solar and wind energy sectors demand attention to the economic implications of decommissioning and waste management. We need to face the fact that “sustainable” energy might not be so sustainable, and fossil fuels alongside nuclear are still necessary to keep costs and environmental damage to a minimum.

    123Page 1 of 3
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv