Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Economics

    Home Economics

    Welcome to Borroloola Land

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    0

    Every failure in Aboriginal affairs creates an opportunity to offer a shiny new bauble to public servants and the journalistic cheer squad. Last weekend, in light of the failure of the Voice referendum, there were three baubles – naming an Indigenous state, renewable self-determination, and a new economic development plan. 

    The cost of the baubles is to put off the day of reckoning for the children in hundreds of remote communities in northern Australia who fail to learn to read, write and speak English well enough to get a job. Until they do, nothing good will happen. Any plan that begins without these needs fulfilled is doomed.

    Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, the new Minister for Indigenous Australians, is from Borroloola in Arnhem land, south of the site of the Garma festival. That small community has three preschool centres: one run by a charity, one by an Aboriginal corporation, and another by the education department, competing for a handful of children. And yet, too many children still fail to move through sufficient years of school. Perhaps Senator McCarthy could explain how she made it when others could not.

    Borroloola land will also require the grace and favour of taxpayers

    Bernard Salt, the demographer, suggested that one of the Australian states should be given an Aboriginal name. Perhaps he was inspired by Naarm, an Aboriginal state in miniature. I recently travelled into that city, formerly known as Melbourne, on the Skybus and was regaled by the welcome and acknowledgment and sovereignty-never-ceded meme. My fellow travellers were Asian and Indian, all with earpieces and mobile devices, blissfully unaware of the Victorian disease of hating progress – welcome to the state of grunge.

    If not Victoria, how about granting the Northern Territory statehood and naming it Borroloola land?

    One big man would get all the money and hand it out in envelopes in order of family preferment, the big man’s family first and so on. It sounds perfect, very post-colonial, and very Papua New Guinea.

    When he arrived at the Garma festival, the Prime Minister was undoubtedly busting to announce his brilliant initiative. Having disappointed the great and the good at Garma last time with a resounding loss in the 2023 referendum, he combined two precious icons of the left: saving the world with renewables, and Aboriginal collectivisation. 

    The Prime Minister’s renewables plan is for solar panel and wind turbine-led ‘self determination’. Gas would be better; the Northern Territory is floating on it, but that seems to disturb the green spirits. Imagine shiny rows of solar panels on ‘country’ and turbines on ‘sea’ as far as the eye can see. I guess Albo had to bung something in the speech.

    However, for the sake of his adoring audience and faithful journalists, here is what it takes to make a solar panel. Manufacturing is really about silicon production. Most of the energy required to make solar panels is consumed during silicon production, purification, and wafering. Silicon is produced from high-purity quartz, which is exceedingly rare. It has to be chemically reduced.

    Solar panels can only be produced with coal, oil, gas and hardwood. Coal is required as a reducing agent for making silicon and as a source of heat and electricity for the industrial process required to manufacture solar panels. These processes need a continuous supply of electricity, which renewables cannot provide.

    Australian states should be given an Aboriginal name

    The Prime Minister might also like to brief the First Minister of Borroloola land that the vast array of renewables must be decommissioned and disposed of. Fortunately, there is plenty of space in Arnhem Land for solar panel dumps. Wind turbines at sea can just be left to join the underwater songlines. But the average lifespan of the newest utility-scale solar panels is a fraction of the 25 years marketed. It is more like 15 years. Older solar panels used to ‘live’ longer but newer ones are optimised for the lowest raw materials and energy use so that after about 10 years, serious failures occur. Renewables are not renewable.

    Borroloola land will also require the grace and favour of taxpayers even though every skerrick of land outside the major settlements is owned or controlled by Aboriginal interests under various Land Acts or related agreements. To this ‘vast terrestrial estate’ and the Prime Minister’s renewables power delusion may be added Australian National University’s Professor Peter Yu’s dream of economic empowerment.

    Let me explain the Peter Yu economic development plan. There is no economics. The ‘plan’ is based on human rights rent-seeking. It recommends public servants be indoctrinated in the ways of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It promotes ‘cultural mapping’, presumably writing what Aborigines have carried in their heads for thousands of years. The reason is simple: to monetise that ‘knowledge’.

    Join Mailing List

    They plan to get their hands on ‘sea and water interests’ by extending the native title regime to get a bigger slice of what others produce. They recommend the same with ‘intellectual property’. They recommend ratifying the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. The upshot would be that if access is sought to genetic resources on Aboriginal land, which is almost the entire state of Borroloola land, the terms of access would be negotiated with the big men. Any benefits from the subsequent use go to the community ‘according to the mutually agreed terms’ – rent-seeking.

    These wonderous rent-seeking developments in Borroloola land come wrapped in a nice bow with treaties supervised by, according to Peter Yu, the Makarrata Commission. McCarthy succeeded without these baubles. She should tell the children.

    Gary Johns is Chairman of Close the Gap Research

    This article was first published in The Spectator.

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

    Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

    the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    A Nation of Takers

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    1

    One of the many inequities of Australia’s welfare system is the exclusion of family homes from the means test. Recipients of age or disability pensions can own houses worth millions of dollars while remaining eligible for pensions funded by the taxes of people who cannot afford to buy a house at all. 

    In private, many politicians agree that excluding the family home leads to unfair consequences. However, neither side of politics is willing to change it. There are simply too many Australians who insist they are entitled to a pension. 

    It is much the same with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). It is widely known to be extensively rorted, with scheme providers charging participants several times what they charge non-participants for the same service. It is also well known that many people on the scheme are only mildly disabled, if at all. And yet, even as the cost threatens to bankrupt the country, even minor reforms prompt screams of protest. 

    Australia relies more heavily on individual income taxes than other developed countries

    Also threatening the national budget is the cost of childcare. It is no longer sufficient to keep small children happy while their parents are at work; it is now early education. Advocates have created a narrative that children who remain home with their mothers are somehow deprived. Childcare is rapidly becoming yet another entitlement to be funded by the government.  

    There was a time when Australians liked to think of themselves as self-reliant and quick to help each other, while receiving welfare was an embarrassment and an indication of failure. 

    This has been replaced by a culture of entitlement in which there is absolutely no compunction about receiving money from the government. Many people insist they have a right to a pension simply because they have paid taxes, despite that never having been the situation in Australia. Even those who have never paid tax (apart from GST), or who frittered their savings away on gambling and ‘substance abuse’, demand it. 

    Some of this thinking is attributable to the fact that a proportion of immigrants originate from countries which have contributory pension schemes. They assume it is no different in Australia. But a far bigger factor is the entitlement mentality. If someone else can get a pension, I should also get it. If someone else is receiving benefits via the NDIS, it’s only fair that I obtain them too. In fact, if there is money being handed out for anything, I’m entitled to it. 

    There is no longer any disgrace in receiving government benefits. Indeed, a thriving industry of accountants and Financial Planners specialises in rearranging their client’s affairs to meet eligibility requirements for government benefits, especially pensions and the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. 

    There is even intergenerational welfare, with extended families living on welfare their entire lives. This is particularly the case with certain indigenous communities, while “Lebanese back” is apparently sufficient to qualify for a disability support pension.

    Some admit that ‘government money’ originates with taxpayers, but it makes little difference. The sense of entitlement defies guilt, facts and reason, hence the reluctance of politicians to make changes for fear of losing votes. Even worse, many politicians use taxpayers’ money to buy votes. 

    The sense of entitlement owes it origins to the growth of the welfare state over the last half century, together with the rise in taxation that accompanied it. Although Australia has had an age pension for more than a century, disability assistance, childcare subsidies, unemployment benefits, medical benefits and many other handouts and subsidies are far more recent. 

    It has led to the perception of an all-pervasive government with unlimited resources. Moreover, if you go about it the right way, money can be extracted from it. 

    Also a factor is the level of income tax. Getting something back from the government to compensate for the amount of tax paid makes sense. Australia relies more heavily on individual income taxes than other developed countries, on average taking 25% of earnings. Plenty of people see little benefit for themselves. 

    Join Mailing List

    Obviously, this situation is unsustainable in the long term. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” 

    Australia is already living beyond its means, with budget deficits year after year. It is also actively discouraging industries that support the economy – think coal exports, gas exports, sheep exports – while increasing energy costs. It obviously cannot last. 

    What the country needs is a government that encourages self-reliance rather than dependence on the state. Unfortunately, there is no sign of that.

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

    Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

    the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    Olympic Dam’s Gold Medal Performance

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    It is exactly 50 years since Western Mining first discovered the massive gold, silver, copper and uranium ore body at the aptly-named Olympic Dam in South Australia. A golden anniversary indeed!

    But discovering the ore was just the beginning. 

    The fight to allow uranium mining at Olympic Dam was brutal. 

    The ruling Labor Party, under then Premier Don Dunstan, was vehemently opposed to uranium mining and particularly opposed to uranium mining at Olympic Dam.

    One of the key opponents of Olympic Dam, calling it a ‘a mirage in the desert’, was one Mike Rann, an anti-uranium campaigner from New Zealand who had come to South Australia to work for Dunstan. Rann eventually became Premier of South Australia in 2002.

    The Liberal Party, led by David Tonkin and his deputy Roger Goldsworthy, won the next election and in 1980 set about implementing their proposed ‘Olympic Dam Indenture Agreement’, building both the mine and nearby township of Roxby Downs.

    Its final passage, through the SA parliament’s Upper House in 1982, came down to a single vote – Labor’s Norm Foster. A former wharf worker, Foster had sat on the select committee into Olympic Dam and did not agree with Labor’s position that uranium mining was an environmental or ethical scourge. 

    On the day before the final vote on the project Foster resigned from the Labor Party and, the following day, crossed the floor of parliament to give his vote to the Tonkin government thereby clearing the way for the new mine.

    For years following his actions, Foster was vilified by the ALP. However, his role in establishing one of South Australia’s most successful projects (and biggest earners!) was later acknowledged by the Labor Party and his membership restored.

    Fast forward to 2024, and Australia is experiencing a similar political challenge closely related to uranium mining – nuclear energy.

    The case for nuclear power has been well argued, but there are more than just economic and energy reliability reasons for embracing nuclear power. There could also be significant strategic benefits.

    First, if there’s one thing we learned from the pandemic, it’s the importance of self-reliance. 

    Australia has for too long been dependent on overseas supply chains – fuel and energy being no exception.

    Australia’s future energy needs are currently being assessed against three criteria – reliability, affordability, and emissions intensity. 

    Unfortunately, the laws of physics and economics do not allow all three. Two out of three yes, three out of three no. 

    As emissions intensity has pretty much been mandated, this leaves only reliability and affordability to choose from. Clearly, reliability has to win.

    No form of renewable energy generation yet invented or discovered is reliable enough to meet Australia’s base-load demand.

    Nuclear power is both reliable and emissions-free. 

    It is, however, expensive to build. Again, two out of three.  

    In addition, there is a fourth aspect worthy of consideration – regional security.  

    South Korea, Japan, India and Pakistan all have nuclear power. Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh and the Philippines are looking to develop it. 

    All have, or will have, spent nuclear fuel.  

    As Australia engages more with Asia, we bring a unique perspective and relationship devoid of the centuries-old enmities and history that exists between some of these countries.  

    We could be the Switzerland of the South.

    Australia could establish an Asia-Pacific office for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  We could host conferences and bring the world’s best nuclear minds here.  

    We could bring together expertise on the ways in which other nations are storing their spent nuclear fuel.  We could, as the 2015 SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission heard, store that fuel in South Australia, and not have it stored within the borders of nations with fractious relations and/or unstable geology.  

    Join Mailing List

    “The International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA) could establish an Asia-Pacific office in Australia. We could host conferences and bring the world’s best nuclear minds here.”

    The countries whose spent fuel was stored here would have an interest in our security.

    And as well as the multi-billion-dollar economic benefits – abolishing Stamp Duty, Payroll Tax, Occupational Licencing charges and many other taxes, charges and levies – with the latest technology we may even be able to extract more recycled power from the spent fuel in the future.  

    The more we engage with the nuclear question, the more positive the opportunities arise.  

    But first we must remove the regulatory obstacles and legislated bans blocking Australia’s economic and energy independence. 

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

    Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

    the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    CFMEU Should NOT Exist in the First Place

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    0

    In light of recent scandals surrounding the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), it is time to consider a more fundamental issue: the very existence of unions in modern society. Unions like the CFMEU are outdated organisations that do more harm than good to the people they claim to protect. From a libertarian perspective, unions disrupt voluntary employer-employee relationships, infringe on individual liberties, and perpetuate corruption and inefficiency. The existence of unions like the CFMEU is contrary to the principles of a free market and individual autonomy.

    Libertarian economists and thinkers have extensively argued that unions are inherently coercive institutions that distort labour markets and undermine individual freedom. Essentially, unions are a political organisation rather than an economic organisation, aiming at controlling the labour market with coercive and political means, rather than through voluntary exchange and cooperation.

    Distortion of Labour Markets

    Fundamentally, unions disrupt the natural balance between employers and employees. Unions often demand higher wages and better working conditions than what the market can sustainably provide, which inevitably leads to inefficiencies and can drive businesses to reduce their workforce. As Murray Rothbard once stated, “unions cannot determine wage rates without putting companies out of business and causing unemployment.” The adversarial relationships unions create between employers and employees often lead to strikes, reduced productivity, and a hostile work environment. Employers are forced to comply with union demands or face the threat of collective action, which is economically damaging.

    Without unions, the labour market would be more efficient, fair, and prosperous.

    Infringement on Individual Liberty

    Unions impose collective bargaining agreements on all workers, regardless of individual preferences. This coercive nature undermines the voluntary nature of employment contracts. One of the most fundamental arguments against unions is that they violate the very basic principle of freedom of association, as well as the freedom not to associate. In a free market, employment terms are negotiated based on mutual benefit. Employers offer wages and conditions that reflect the value of the work, and employees accept jobs that meet their needs and preferences. This voluntary exchange is the cornerstone of a free and prosperous society.

    Perpetuation of Corruption and Inefficiency

    The CFMEU scandal is just another recent prime example of how unions can become corrupt and self-serving. Instead of protecting workers, the CFMEU has been involved in criminal activities, kickback schemes, and internal conflicts that harm the very people they are supposed to help. This corruption is not an isolated incident but a symptom of the broader problem with unions. With power comes corruption. It is no surprise that unions become corrupt over time as that is part of their nature.

    The Case for Abolishing Unions

    Given all the fundamental problems with unions, the natural conclusion is that we should abolish them entirely. Without unions, the labour market would be more efficient, fair, and prosperous. Without unions, employers and employees would engage in direct negotiations, fostering a more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship. Without unions, businesses would operate more efficiently, leading to greater innovation, job creation, and economic growth.

    Unions like the CFMEU are outdated organisations that do more harm than good to the people they claim to protect.

    Furthermore, the abolition of unions would protect individual freedoms. Workers would and should have the freedom to negotiate their terms of employment based on their unique needs and circumstances, without being forced into collective agreements that may not serve their interests. This would lead to a more diverse and dynamic labour market, where individuals are free to pursue opportunities that best align with their skills and personal situations.

    Moreover, many industries with either very weak or nominal unions, such as hospitality, IT, and the gig economy, flourish due to less intervention from unions, resulting in a freer labour market. For example, the tech industry has seen tremendous growth and innovation partly because it is less burdened by union constraints, allowing for more flexible and dynamic employment practices. The gig economy, encompassing platforms like Uber, demonstrates how flexible work arrangements can be managed without the involvement or interference of unions. This, I believe, represents the future of employment, where every individual acts as their own boss, making the existence of unions unnecessary. These examples highlight how a freer labour market can lead to industry growth and innovation, benefiting both employers and employees.

    Join Mailing List

    Conclusion

    In summary, unions like the CFMEU should have no place in a modern, free-market economy. They distort labour markets, infringe on individual liberties, and perpetuate corruption and inefficiency. From a libertarian perspective, the abolition of unions would lead to a more prosperous, fair, and free society. By allowing voluntary employer-employee relationships to flourish, we can create a more dynamic and innovative economy that benefits everyone.

    GST is Better than Income Tax

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    0

    In my last article I argued that a flat and broad-based income tax is much the same as a broad-based GST, so we have little reason to hate the concept of income tax more than the concept of GST. I argued this by setting out an imaginary scenario with five citizens, one business, and no government.

    But there is an inherent difference between income tax and GST that makes GST better. I will argue this by adding an additional year to the imaginary scenario, and by honing in on three of the citizens – the three employees.

    Year 1

    In year 1 each employee earns a salary of $100,000, enough to buy 100,000 products at $1 each. 

    One employee is short-sighted and borrows $100,000 from another employee, who we will call the long-sighted employee. So in year 1 the short-sighted employee buys 200,000 products while the long-sighted employee buys nothing.

    Year 1 with no government

    Citizen…receives…and pays…
    The short-sighted employee$100,000 of salary, plus $100,000 borrowed from the long-sighted employee$200,000 for 200,000 products
    The long-sighted employee$100,000 of salary, less $100,000 lent to the short-sighted employeeNothing for no products
    The take-it-as-it-comes employee$100,000 of salary$100,000 for 100,000 products

    To extract the money it demands, the government imposes an income tax rate of 19.8 per cent.

    Year 2

    In year 2 each salary is $104,030, but this amount now buys only 101,000 products because the product price has risen from $1 to $1.03.

    The salary of the short-sighted employee is transferred to the long-sighted employee to pay off the previous year’s debt. As such, the long-sighted employee buys 202,000 products in year 2, while the short-sighted employee buys nothing.

    Year 2 with no government

    Citizen…receives…and pays…
    The short-sighted employee$104,030 of salary, less $104,030 paid to the long-sighted employeeNothing for no products
    The long-sighted employee$104,030 of salary, plus $104,030 paid by the short-sighted employee$208,060 for 202,000 products
    The take-it-as-it-comes employee$104,030 of salary$104,030 for 101,000 products

    Bring Out The Government

    Now imagine instead a scenario where there is a government, and let us assume the government’s taxation does not discourage the citizens from producing as much as in the absence of government.

    In year 1 the government demands enough money from the three employees to buy 60,000 products. The government could get the money via a 20 per cent income tax on the salaries of the employees.

    Year 1 with income tax

    Citizen…receives…and pays…
    The short-sighted employee$80,000 of after-tax salary, and $80,000 borrowed from the long-sighted employee$160,000 for 160,000 products
    The long-sighted employee$80,000 of after-tax salary, less $80,000 lent to the short-sighted employeeNothing for no products
    The take-it-as-it-comes employee$80,000 of after-tax salary$80,000 for 80,000 products
    Government$60,000 in tax$60,000 for 60,000 products

    In year 2, the government ups its demand, and now seeks enough money from the three employees to buy 60,600 products.

    If the government gets the money via income tax, it ends up taking more from savers compared to the amount taken from borrowers, and compared to the amount taken from those who neither save nor borrow.

    Consider the long-sighted employee, who lent $80,000 to the short-sighted employee in year 1, and who receives $83,452 from the short-sighted employee in year 2. 

    Year 2 with income tax

    Citizen…receives…and pays…
    The short-sighted employee$83,452 of after-tax salary, less $83,452 paid to the long-sighted employeeNothing for no products
    The long-sighted employee$83,452 of after-tax salary, plus $83,452 paid by the short-sighted employee, less $683 of tax on interest $166,221 for 161,379 products
    The take-it-as-it-comes employee$83,452 of after-tax salary$83,452 for 81,021 products
    Government$62,418 in tax$62,418 for 60,600 products

    The pre-tax income of the long-sighted employee in year 2 is $104,030 of salary plus $3,452 of interest, summing to $107,482. So the long-sighted employee has higher pre-tax income than the other employees, simply because of a deal struck between peers.

    There is an inherent difference between income tax and GST that makes GST better.

    To extract the money it demands, the government imposes an income tax rate of 19.8 per cent. The rate is lower than in year 1 because the government has dreamt up more income to tax than just salary income.

    The long-sighted employee pays more tax in year 2 than any other citizen ($21,261 compared to $20,578). The long-sighted employee ends up purchasing less than double what the take-it-as-it comes employee purchases, despite the long-sighted employee having gone without all purchases in year 1.

    This intrusion into the deal struck between the long-sighted employee and the short-sighted employee is how income tax punishes saving.

    Even if the long-sighted and short-sighted employees respond to the imposition of income tax by negotiating a change in the interest payment involved in their arrangement, this would just mean they share the punishment of deal-making meted out by income tax, a punishment that the take-it-as-it-comes employee avoids.

    As income tax penalises deal-making between savers and borrowers, while GST does not, income is inherently inferior to GST.

    Facing China with a Third Path: The Libertarian Road

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    1

    Chinese Premier Li Qiang has just concluded a four-day visit to Australia, marking the highest-level visit in seven years and widely seen as a full restoration of Sino-Australian relations. Over the past few decades, Sino-Australian relations have experienced ups and downs, primarily reflecting two distinct paths: the friendly approach of the Labor Party and the adversarial stance of the Liberal Party.

    The Labor Party’s Friendly Approach

    The Labor Party has historically been more accommodating towards China, often fostering closer ties and cooperation. This affinity can be attributed to ideological and historical reasons. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating, for instance, is infamously known for his pro-China stance, often criticising Western countries for their adversarial policies towards China. Kevin Rudd, another former Labor Prime Minister, who can speak Mandarin, worked tirelessly to strengthen Sino-Australian ties during his tenure and beyond. Additionally, Victoria’s ex-Premier Dan Andrews bypassed the federal government to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative at the state level, highlighting the depth of this alignment.

    China imposed tariffs and restrictions on Australian exports

    This historical closeness is not just about political manoeuvring but is rooted in ideological similarities. Both parties emphasise social welfare, state intervention in the economy, and a collectivist approach to governance. These shared values have facilitated a more collaborative relationship between the Australian Labor Party and the Chinese Communist Party. Notably, several former Labor politicians have been implicated in scandals involving Chinese influence, reinforcing the perception of an inherent closeness between the two.

    The Liberal Party’s Adversarial Stance

    In contrast, the Liberal Party has often taken a more adversarial stance towards China. Under the leadership of Scott Morrison, Sino-Australian relations reached their lowest point, characterised by trade sanctions and diplomatic tensions. The Liberal government’s pushback against Chinese influence in Australian politics, its criticism of China’s human rights record, and its calls for an independent investigation into the origins of COVID-19 exacerbated tensions.

    The economic consequences of this adversarial stance were significant. China imposed tariffs and restrictions on Australian exports, including wine, coal, and barley, causing substantial economic harm, while Australia imposed anti-dumping duties. This “enemy road” approach could be described as “killing a thousand enemies at the cost of eight hundred of our own.” While it aimed to curb Chinese influence, it also inflicted self-damage, undermining Australia’s economic interests and causing strain on key industries.

    The Third Path: A Principle-Based Approach

    While the first path seems shameless, the second path is also mindless. A third path, rooted in libertarian principles, might be more sensible and offer a principled and pragmatic alternative. This path advocates for free trade as an essential component of a free economy, emphasising mutual benefit rather than using trade as a political weapon.

    The Labor Party has historically been more accommodating towards China

    Libertarianism, influenced by the Austrian School of Economics, champions free markets, minimal government intervention, and individual liberty. As Mises put it, “The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war,” while free trade, on the other hand, makes for peace. Rothbard argued in his Ethics of Liberty, “Economic sanctions are coercive measures that violate the principles of a free society. They harm innocent people and are ineffective in bringing about political change.” 

    What’s more effective, in my opinion, is those unfree countries’ own policies. Authoritarian countries have often died because of themselves rather than external sanctions.

    Recent years, marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, have highlighted the vulnerabilities of non-free economies, China in particular, which suffered due to restrictive economic and political policies. China’s growing centralised economic policies, ridiculously restrictive lockdown policies, anti-capitalism attitude, especially in the real estate market, and growing hostile international policies against a variety of countries, including Australia, have brought huge miseries which haven’t been seen for over three decades to the Chinese people.

    Join Mailing List

    In conclusion, while the Labor Party’s approach may appear overly accommodating and the Liberal Party’s stance overly confrontational, a libertarian path offers a balanced and principled alternative, which advocates for maintaining principled economic policies that prioritise free trade, not as a means of leverage but as a foundation for mutual benefit and economic growth. By embracing and always standing firmly on free trade, Australia can foster a relationship with China that is in the best interest of Australian businesses and the Australian people, while not compromising our independent sovereignty, democratic liberty, and economic freedom.

    The Best Lack All Conviction

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    0

    Anti-Semitism is on the march because no-one in authority will stand up to it.

    It’s common for historians to portray the Sturmabteilung, the SA or “Brownshirts” as they were known, as a motley crew of rowdy young thugs looking to brawl. The reality, as detailed in Daniel Siemens’ Stormtroopers: A New History of Hitler’s Brownshirts, was far more concerning. In fact, the paramilitaries who propelled the fledgling Nazi party to absolute power were a million-member organization whose ranks included a disproportionately large group of university students and middle-class professionals (doctors, for example, were grossly over-represented in the Nazi membership).

    In fact, the Nazis own propaganda lauded the “Workers of the Head and the Fist”. To that end, in 1926 the Nazis founded the National Socialist German Student League. The league was to foster ideological training at universities and to implement paramilitary training, and the ideal Nazi student was intended to be a man or woman of action, not an idle thinker.

    The passage of the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” on April 7, 1933, was the student Brownshirts’ license to put their training into action. Jews were quickly and violently driven from German universities, whether as students or academics. “Paramilitary student groups often interrupted lectures, provoked skirmishes, and physically intimidated Jewish students.” [W. B. Yeats, “The Second Coming”]

    Even the Nazis knew that economic collapse, Versailles, even anti-Communism, were their best-selling points rather than anti-Semitism.

    In 1934, the Nazi Student League took over the Student Union.

    Is all of this sounding grimly familiar yet?

    Highly organised, ideologically-motivated and, above all, viciously anti-Semitic student organisations are taking over university campuses once again. Jewish students and professors are verbally and physically assaulted. And campus authorities are either openly complicit, or spinelessly hopeless.

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

    If anyone is in doubt about the absolute moral swamp that Australia’s universities have become, as the vicious herd mentality of student activism reaches a dangerous pitch not seen in the West since the 1930s, consider what our million-dollar-a-year vice-chancellors are doing.

    Worse than nothing.

    Consider the “brave”, “forthright”, “line in the sand” statement by Western Sydney University chancellor Jennifer Westacott. In just 844 words, Westacott mentioned “anti-Semitism” five times and “Islamophobia/Islam” three times. The same double act runs through her anecdotes: 58 words, two sentences about visiting the Holocaust Museum; 67 words, three sentences dedicated to lauding Muslim “asylum seekers”.

    Remember, this was supposed to be a forthright condemnation of campus anti-Semitism.

    Instead, every time, it was “anti-Semitism and…” “Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or any form of abhorrent discrimination.” “Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, hate speech or intimidation.” “growing division and creeping anti-Semitism.” “hate speech and anti-Semitism.” “anti-Semitism and hate speech.”

    One is left with the overwhelming impression that the crisis on university isn’t about anti-Semitism at all.

    Why does an opinion piece posing as a beacon of moral clarity on campus anti-Semitism need to repeatedly add, “…and Islamophobia”? Is there an anti-Muslim camp on a single university in Australia, let alone the world? Are campuses hosting activists celebrating the murder of Muslims, and promising to visit future terror attacks on Muslims? Are Muslim students being attacked daily, physically and verbally?

    We know perfectly well that the answer to all of those is, “no”.

    So why the moral equivalence? 

    And this is the best statement that any chancellor or vice-chancellor has yet made.

    Everywhere we look to campus authorities for moral clarity, there is, at best, mealy-mouthed moral equivalence.

    Jane Hansen, the chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Australia’s highest-ranked university, refuses to even acknowledge an anti-Semitism crisis. Instead, it’s the same gutless waffle about “many different forms of racism”. Worse, Hansen claims that even questioning supine university leaders is merely “looking for division”.

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

    Ditto University of Sydney chancellor, Belinda Hutchinson.

    This isn’t a “line in the sand”, it’s dragging a rotting jellyfish along the low-tide line, hoping the sharks won’t bite too hard.

    I’ve often wondered what it must have been like for the average German, seeing your country slide, inch by inexorable inch, into anti-Semitic tyranny. I’m finding out in the worst possible way.

    After all, even at its peak (curiously, perhaps, in the last year of WWII), only 12% of Germans were Nazi Party members. In the crucial years of the early 1930s, only 1% of Germans were members. Even among card-carrying Nazis, anti-Semitism was of little to no concern.

    Academic Peter Merkl wrote an exhaustive study of the history of hundreds of foundational Nazis. He found that 33.3 per cent of them showed no interest in anti-Semitism, 14.3 per cent expressed “mild verbal clichés” regarding Jews, 19.1 per cent displayed “moderate” disdain for Jewish cultural influence in Germany, while only 12.9 per cent advocated “violent countermeasures” against Jews.

    Even the Nazis knew that economic collapse, Versailles, even anti-Communism, were their best-selling points rather than anti-Semitism. In the years leading up to the crucial elections that finally propelled the Nazis to the point where they could seize power (even in 1932, the Nazis never won a majority; Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933, not democratically elected), even Hitler toned down the anti-Semitic rhetoric. By 1930, he “seldom spoke explicitly of Jews,” says historian Ian Kershaw.

    The gambit, tragically, worked: of the thousands of Jews who fled Germany in 1933, 16,000 returned in 1934.

    Join Mailing List

    That’s how nations slide into murderous tyranny: one step at a time. Every outrage becomes anodyne, and the outrages escalate. One year, student activists are driving Jews from campus; four years later, Jewish businesses, synagogues and houses are trashed in an orgy of violence.

    And it’s far from over. We all know what happened over the next decade.

    Right now, we’re just at the “students trying to kick Jews off campus” stage. Where we go next depends in large part on the nation’s leadership.

    Which, from academia to the floors of parliaments, is almost completely missing in action — or worse.

    Hate income tax? You shouldn’t

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    3

    Some taxes are more damaging than others. But when working out which taxes are more damaging than others, you should not judge a tax by its name.

    The impacts of income tax and GST can be much the same, because income tax and GST largely tax the same thing.

    So a special hatred for the idea of income tax relative to GST is unjustified.

    Let me explain with a simplified scenario.

    First, imagine a country with five citizens and no government.

    One of the citizens, ‘the entrepreneur’, establishes a business by borrowing money from one of the other citizens, ‘the capitalist’. In the first year the entrepreneur pays the capitalist $100,000 in interest. 

    The business imports 500,000 raw inputs at $1 each, and employs three citizens at a salary of $100,000 each. 

    The business produces 1,000,000 products and sells half of them to foreigners and the other half to the five citizens of the country, all at $1 each. So the business makes $1,000,000. 

    The business pays $100,000 of dividends to the entrepreneur.

    Australia’s income tax and GST do not have identical impacts on purchasing power and do not have identical discouragement effects. 

    A scenario with no government

    ReceivesPays
    Citizen 1 – the entrepreneur$100,000 of dividends$100,000 for 100,000 products
    Citizen 2 – the capitalist$100,000 of interest$100,000 for 100,000 products
    Citizen 3 – an employee$100,000 of salary$100,000 for 100,000 products
    Citizen 4 – an employee$100,000 of salary$100,000 for 100,000 products
    Citizen 5 – an employee$100,000 of salary$100,000 for 100,000 products
    The rest of the world$500,000 for 500,000 inputs$500,000 for 500,000 products

    Now imagine instead that this scenario includes a government. The government demands enough money to buy 100,000 products. And for now, let us assume that this taxation does not discourage the citizens from producing as much as they would in the absence of government.

    The government could get the money it demands via a 20 per cent income tax on the salaries, interest, and dividend received by the citizens. In year 1 this would leave the five citizens with $400,000 instead of $500,000 in their pockets, and with the capacity to buy only 400,000 rather than 500,000 of the business’s products. The government would have $100,000 and the capacity to buy 100,000 of the business’s products.

    A scenario with income tax

    ReceivesPays
    Citizen 1 – the entrepreneur$80,000 of after-tax dividends$80,000 for 80,000 products
    Citizen 2 – the capitalist$80,000 of after-tax interest$80,000 for 80,000 products
    Citizen 3 – an employee$80,000 of after-tax salary$80,000 for 80,000 products
    Citizen 4 – an employee$80,000 of after-tax salary$80,000 for 80,000 products
    Citizen 5 – an employee$80,000 of after-tax salary$80,000 for 80,000 products
    The rest of the world$500,000 for raw inputs$500,000 for 500,000 products
    Government$100,000 in tax$100,000 for 100,000 products

    Alternatively, the government could get enough money to buy 100,000 products via a 25 per cent GST.

    The foreign supplier of 500,000 raw inputs would charge the business $625,000, send $125,000 of GST to the government, and, just like in the scenario without government, would end up with $500,000.

    The business would continue to sell half of its products to foreigners for $500,000, at $1 each, given that no GST applies to exports.

    The business would sell the other half of its products domestically for $625,000, at $1.25 each. The business would pay $125,000 of GST on these domestic sales, but would claim a $125,000 input tax credit, so overall the business would send nothing to the government.

    The government’s overall receipts from both the business and the foreign supplier of raw inputs would be $125,000, enough to buy 100,000 products.

    The business would continue to provide $500,000 as salaries, interest, and dividends to the five citizens, but this $500,000 would now only be enough to buy 400,000 products.

    The impacts of income tax and GST can be much the same, because income tax and GST largely tax the same thing.

    A scenario with GST

    ReceivesPays
    Citizen 1 – the entrepreneur$100,000 of dividends$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
    Citizen 2 – the capitalist$100,000 of interest$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
    Citizen 3 – an employee$100,000 of salary$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
    Citizen 4 – an employee$100,000 of salary$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
    Citizen 5 – an employee$100,000 of salary$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
    The rest of the world$500,000 for inputs$500,000 for 500,000 products at $1
    Government$125,000 in tax$125,000 for 100,000 products

    Under these income tax and GST scenarios, the dollar outcomes differ but the real outcomes are identical. 

    In the income tax scenario, each citizen receives $80,000 that enables the purchase of 80,000 products.

    Regardless of which tax is imposed, foreigners are unaffected, and the purchasing power of each of the citizens is hurt to the same degree.

    The reason for this is as follows. In the GST scenario, the tax base is the difference between the business’s domestic receipts and its outlays on imported raw inputs. Yet this tax base is also the money the business pays to the citizenry as income. So the tax base for GST is also the tax base for income tax.

    Because the citizens’ purchasing power is hurt to the same degree under both scenarios, the discouragement effect of tax would be the same in both scenarios. Contrary to popular belief, there is no great difference in the discouragement effect of income tax compared to the discouragement effect of GST.

    Join Mailing List

    Now, in the real world, Australia’s income tax and GST do not have identical impacts on purchasing power and do not have identical discouragement effects. 

    This is partly because of inherently different impacts on savings, that I will discuss in a later article.

    But the main reason why our income tax and GST have different impacts is that they each have odd exemptions, and our income tax has various rates unlike the flat-rate GST. 

    In other words, a broad-based, single rate income tax would have much the same impact as a broad-based, single rate GST. 

    So the special hatred many feel for the concept of income tax seems unwarranted.

    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.’

    123...10Page 1 of 10
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv