Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Monday, November 25, 2024
    Latest

    Policy Spotlight

    Home Policy Spotlight Page 13

    Liberty and National Borders

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    1

    Libertarianism is all about the freedom of individuals from coercion. Libertarians believe the proper role of government is defined by JS Mill’s harm principle: ‘The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.’

    Within a country this is relatively straightforward – reductions in tax and increases in liberty are supported, increases in tax and reductions in liberty are opposed.

    But things can get complicated when it involves matters outside the country. How is libertarianism affected by national borders? Can it apply to relationships between sovereign states?

    To what extent should Australian libertarians seek to oppose coercion in other countries?

    In his 1801 inaugural address, US President Thomas Jefferson declared that the US should consider its external military alliances to be temporary arrangements of convenience to be abandoned or reversed according to the national interest. Citing the Farewell Address of George Washington as his inspiration, Jefferson described the doctrine as “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.”

    Thomas Jefferson. 2nd President of the United States. Author of the Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances.

    Known as the Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances, this thinking dominated US foreign policy right up to the Second World War. And although America now has longstanding alliances with many countries, including Australia, the doctrine remains influential in some political circles.

    In particular, many libertarians support it. In their view, a country should not invest blood and treasure in squabbles beyond the country’s borders unless there is a clear threat to the country and its ability to engage in trade and commerce. It should certainly not maintain military capabilities in excess of what is needed to defend the country.

    This is rationalised in terms of libertarian values. History has repeatedly shown that a standing army is a threat to liberty. Moreover, maintaining a military force capable of more than simply defending the country is expensive, necessitating higher taxes than if the Washington Doctrine applied.

    They point to wars such as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, where it is difficult to show any enduring benefits from military involvement by America or Australia. They also criticise current support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s invasion.

    Ukraine’s ambassador to Australia, Vasyl Myroshnychenko, inspects an Australian Bushmaster armoured vehicle

    There is a problem with this thinking though: nationalism and national sovereignty are actually collectivist concepts. They are not libertarian and, Jefferson’s other qualities notwithstanding, neither is the Washington doctrine.

    What that means is there is no libertarian justification for doing nothing about coercion merely because it is occurring in another country.

    Coercion should always be our concern, wherever it occurs.

    That does not necessarily mean rushing military aid to those subject to coercion in other countries. There are many reasons why that might not be possible, practical or advisable. But it is perfectly legitimate for libertarians to consider whether there is anything they can do, militarily or otherwise.

    Some interventions have made a major difference. But for America’s entry into the Second World War, for example, Germany and Japan would have imposed their dreadful dictatorships on most of the world. But for America’s intervention in Korea, the people in the south would now be suffering the same miserable fate as those in the north. And but for Australia’s intervention in East Timor, the country would be suffering under Indonesia’s heavy-handed military rule, now obvious in West Papua.

    Australian Peacekeeping Handover of East Timor

    There are also some current examples to consider. One of the consequences of the climate change panic, for example, is that around 40,000 children in the Democratic Republic of Congo work in appallingly inhumane, slave-like conditions in cobalt mines. The cobalt is used in lithium-ion batteries required by electric vehicles.

    In China, the government has imprisoned more than a million Uyghurs since 2017 and subjected those not detained to intense surveillance, religious restrictions, forced labour, and forced sterilisations. Forced labour is used to produce solar products.

    It is estimated that China has 98 percent of the world’s manufacturing capacity for photovoltaic ingots; 97 percent for photovoltaic wafers; 81 percent for solar cells; and 77 percent for solar modules. Many of the largest global producers of photovoltaic ingots and wafers, solar cells, and solar modules directly source polysilicon from entities believed to use forced labour in its production.

    Even a boycott of products associated with such coercion would be more consistent with libertarian values than doing nothing based on the “no entangling alliances” idea.  

    JS Mill was also an advocate of utilitarianism in addition to classical liberalism. This philosophy, generally attributed to Jeremy Bentham, is often summarised as seeking the greatest good for the greatest number.  For libertarians, it should mean the greatest liberty for the greatest number.

    BRICS+ of Gold

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    1
    Gold

    Jim Rickards, an esteemed American investment banker and author with expertise in finance and precious metals, recently brought to light an intriguing prediction regarding the BRICS+ countries:

    “I recently revealed that the so-called “BRICS+” countries will announce the creation of a new currency at its annual leaders’ summit conference on August 22–24. This will be the biggest upheaval in international finance since 1971 … the world is unprepared for this geopolitical shock wave. It appears likely that the new BRICS+ currency will be linked to a weight of gold. This plays to the strengths of BRICS+ members Russia and China. These countries are the two largest gold producers in the world, and are ranked sixth and seventh respectively among the 100 nations with gold reserves.”

    Understanding BRICS+

    BRICS+ is a group of states consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. “BRIC” was coined in 2001 for fast-growing, potentially dominant forces in the global economy by 2050. South Africa’s later inclusion expanded it to BRICS+.

    Over 17 years, BRICS+ has endeavoured to become a counterbalance to western hegemony. Its institutions like the New Development Bank (NDB) and Contingent Reserve Arrangement are alternatives to the World Bank and the IMF.

    This alliance boasts:

    • Combined economic influence and abundant resources
    • Seven countries in the membership queue, with 13-14 awaiting consideration

    Come August, Saudi Arabia’s inclusion will mark:

    • 50% of the global population within BRICS+
    • 30% of global landmass
    • 54% of global GDP
    • Two top oil producers: Russia and Saudi Arabia
    • 15%-20% of global gold reserves.

    Moreover, an amalgamation involving the Eurasian Economic Union and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation seems on the horizon.

    After their first formal meeting in 2009, BRICS+ asserted the necessity for “a stable, predictable, and diversified international monetary system.” Rickards postulates that BRICS+ is gearing up to unveil its currency.

    BRICS+ Currency

    Recently, Rickards gave a fascinating interview on the YouTube channel Wealthion. In this interview, he was adamant that the BRICS+ currency, (which he termed a BRIC, for convenience), “is not a gold standard”. 

    “The value of the BRIC is not determined with reference to any other currency. It is determined with reference to gold, by weight of gold”.

    The implication of the BRICS+ currency being tied to a weight of gold means that, regardless of anything else going on financially and economically in the world:

    1 unit of BRICS+ currency = specified weight in gold

    Trade between 50% of the world’s population will transition to BRICS+ currency, which will be defined in gold, so half the world’s trade will be transacted in BRICS+ currency.

    Gold’s Unwavering Stature

    Warren Buffet, an investment giant, once opined on gold: “Gold…has two significant shortcomings, being neither of much use nor procreative.”

    Despite Buffet’s scepticism, gold’s reputation as a store of value has persisted for 5,000 years. He is missing the point of gold. Gold is not an investment, it is real money, unlike the 600 odd fiat currencies in the history of the world that have gone to zero.

    Gold fulfills money’s 6 characteristics:

    • Durability
    • Portability
    • Divisibility
    • Uniformity
    • Limited Supply
    • Acceptability.

    BRICS+’ gold linkage suggests, in the medium to long term, a potential for spikes in gold demand and the nominal currency price of gold.

    A Waning USD?

    Let’s take a look at the world’s current world currency, the U.S. dollar. The USD does not fulfill the attributes of money.

    The U.S. dollar’s decline is palpable. In 1913, when the US Federal Reserve was established, the fixed price of gold was US$20.67. President Nixon infamously broke the gold peg that was US$35 in 1971. Today, gold hovers around $1,914 per ounce. The dollar’s worth is now 1.8% of what it was in 1971, a staggering 98% fall over 52 years.

    Rickards’ analysis paints a bleak dollar future, in contrast to the BRICS+: “This is a bet that the dollar is going to collapse against you over time. I think that’s a very good bet … this is not a three-month forecast … you want to launch this new currency and you say hey long term the dollar is going to collapse in terms of gold. I’ll hook my horse to this wagon called gold by weight, and I’ll just reap the benefits.”

    Libertarian Lens

    The essential question for libertarians is “What can we do, so that we and our families survive and thrive?”

    As Murray Rothbard insightfully shared, “I see a great future for gold and silver coins as the currency people may increasingly turn to when paper currencies begin to disintegrate.”

    Allowing for one year’s living costs in cash, keep spare gold in hand (not as ETFs or in banks, which carry counterparty risks).  Then, you have a store of value that has well and truly proven itself over millennia. 

    Gold never takes its promises lightly.

    Retaining The Bargaining Chip of Indemnities For Vaccine Companies

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    4

    Should we legislate to stop a government offering indemnities to vaccine manufacturers?

    This was a matter which came before the Senate last week in a private members bill.

    Some of the reasons given for the Bill were:

    • “Companies work for shareholders first and it is profits that motivate their decision and actions. People should always be put before profits”;
    • “Indemnification has created an incentive for risk-taking in the pharmaceutical industry which is not aligned with the fundamental principles of medicine. Where indemnity exists, it is human nature to take larger risks, whether it be a conscious decision or subconscious, the outcomes are poor”; and
    • “The pharmaceutical industry has a taste for your money.”

    Vivid language for the impressionable mind!

    The most amicable and well-meaning of senators championed the cause with a rousing speech. A personal friend of mine adroitly negotiated it behind the scenes. It was a case study in politicking, and even attracted the support of one Libertarian state division.

    Then with the support of all but Labor, it went to committee for investigation and so will become news again soon. Yes, the centre-right crossbench attracted the Greens and even Senator Thorpe for a moment.

    What is not to love?

    Against such a juggernaut of consensus, this simple libertarian fig farmer has his misgivings. Have sympathy for me. It’s in my DNA to search for a principle.

    We libertarians are fond of paraphrasing John Stuart Mill’s 1859 Harm Principle with phrases like “live and let live, as long as you don’t harm others.”

    We are not so persistent in reminding our parliamentary friends that the Harm Principle requires that we ‘weigh such harms.’

    The great horror of the last 3 years was that our leaders did not do this. Ignore psychological damage to infant school children plastered with a mask. Ignore the cheap, unhealthy food on the dinner table of a family with dual incomes lost to mandates. Ignore the evaporated life savings of ‘non-essential’ small business owners. Ignore the suicides and mental health flair-ups caused by lockdowns. Ignore the business collapses.

    It was one flu-like covid-19 harm, all other harms be damned!

    One must weigh the harms.

    The problem with the Bill is that it applies a blanket ban and fails to weigh harms.

    Just say the next virus is more potent. Let’s say it’s Ebola or something with a 50% mortality rate!

    In the end, we need politicians who apply John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty in full. Live and let live as long as you don’t harm others. When there are competing harms, weigh them and choose the least harmful option.

    I want our government to have the same commercial tool as any private sector party. Indemnification, or the transfer of risk, is used by outdoor adventure operators, mining equipment hire companies, and many others. Why ban the government?

    As a libertarian, I prefer my government to be able to transact like the private sector.

    As a libertarian, I prefer my government to be ready to act in the case of genuine pandemic threat. As established, I want the government to potentially offer indemnity to vaccine providers in the case of emergency.

    And as a libertarian, I want politicians who’ll use skilled negotiators so offering indemnity won’t be necessary.

    Further …

    As a libertarian, I’m unimpressed by populist attacks on free enterprise, especially pharmaceutical companies which keep us alive. As a libertarian, I’d be more curious to know why anyone believes a vaccine company should absorb near sovereign-level risk for a government intent on releasing vaccines before they pass the government’s own safety standards. As a libertarian, my focus is on that government maladministration, not the vaccine company.

    As a libertarian, I’d prefer my government weren’t both umpire, with its TGA vaccine approval processes, and player, being the acquirer and dispenser of vaccines. I’d prefer to eliminate this conflict of interest.

    As a libertarian, I’d like to rollback government from healthcare delivery, replace tired old public hospitals with private hospitals, and to protect charities which run hospitals.

    And as a libertarian, I’d prefer our allies in parliament did not run adrift philosophically into the dangerous and choppy waters of the anti-capitalist. I am left in little wonder why the Greens and Senator Thorpe kept the Bill alive.

    I believe the correct approach for a libertarian here is to vote against the Bill. In our current system, the Government needs to make it easy for vaccine production to occur in the event of a genuine calamity.

    Our government already has one hand tied behind its back running a socialised system. Let’s not tie the other one by banning the free-enterprise bargaining chip of indemnities.

    5 Policy Responses To The Covid-19 Vaccination Disaster

    By
    Caroline White
    -
    1

    Recently I attended the Australian Medical Professional Society’s Curing the Corruption of Medicine event in Melbourne. The keynote speaker was British cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra.  

    Double vaccinated with Pfizer, Dr Malhotra initially supported the vaccine rollout and encouraged the vulnerable to take the injection on national TV in January of 2021.  

    His stance soon changed when, amongst other concerning research and reports, his father, also double vaccinated, died suddenly of a heart attack. With a strong understanding of his medical history and current health condition, Dr Malhotra couldn’t comprehend how his father’s coronary arteries were shown in the autopsy to have narrowed so quickly. 

    After some of the world’s top scientists published an independent reanalysis of the original Pfizer and Moderna clinical trial data, which found that patients are more likely to suffer serious harm from the vaccine including hospitalisation, disability or a life changing event than what they are to be hospitalised from Covid, he now believes ”these (mRNA) vaccinations should never have been approved for use in a single human”, and is calling for their suspension. 

    Governments across Australia have spent hundreds of millions of dollars frightening the pants off our population, promoting and enforcing Covid 19 vaccinations with no end in sight. Despite AstraZeneca having been quietly pulled from the shelves earlier this year and ATAGI no longer recommending Covid 19 vaccines for healthy under 65-year-olds, the government is still relentlessly promoting vaccination to young, fit, healthy adults. There are taxpayer funded, daily reminders to get your jab on TV commercials, Youtube ads, and road signs on main arterials – nearly two and a half years on.

    There is just no reprieve from the Covid mania.

    Covid 19 mandates ravaged the foundations of the medical industry. I had a local GP tell me they were making a mockery of his profession. Informed consent ceased to exist with a paternalistic approach as patients were coerced into a medical procedure without being informed of potential risks or able to make a decision based on their individual circumstances. Bodily autonomy and medical privacy were disregarded and doctors who dared to raise concerns were threatened with deregistration.

    Robust discussion was censored as the government intruded into the doctor patient relationship. We were even denied basic health benefits such as vitamin D due to government restrictions that had us locked in our houses for 23 hours a day. Any ounce of trust I had left for Big Pharma and the government has been completely eroded as a consequence. 

    During Dr Malholtra’s nearly one-and-a-half-hour-long talk, he outlined policy making as a main factor in improving the current state of play. You know we have a serious problem when even the wokest journalist from The Age (who felt virtuous getting his 5th booster) is questioning why government policy sees Covid 19 vaccines given away to young people at the expense of the taxpayer. 

    The idea of the government staying out of people’s medical decisions is rooted in the concept of individual liberty. Here are my policy ideas for reform –  

    Whistle blower protection for the healthcare industry. Doctors should be able to speak up without fear of losing their job. 

    Stop Covid 19 vaccine and mRNA manufacturing subsidies. All over the world highly vaccinated countries are recording uncommonly high excess deaths. Dr Malhotra is of the opinion, and the data suggests, that Covid 19 vaccines have a role to play. Pending further investigation, the mRNA vaccines should be suspended. The government should also stop subsidising mRNA manufacturing. 

    Ban taxpayer funded spend on advertising pharmaceutical products. If Big Pharma wants to make a profit by selling products that are not properly tested, surely they can afford to pay for their own promotions. 

    Remove remaining mandates & get our unvaccinated workers back in the work force immediately. With the current staff shortages, particularly in healthcare, it’s unconscionable that unvaccinated workers, police officers and firefighters are unable to work, with compliance still taking precedence over the safety of our community. 

    Big Pharma companies fund compensation schemes, not the Australian taxpayer. It’s absolutely ludicrous that Australian taxpayers are footing the bill for damage and deaths caused by pharmaceutical companies. 

    Talkin’ About My Generation (Part 1)

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    7

    In his excellent Liberty Itch post Golden Years last week, Max Payne writes, “By the time today’s young people are finally ready (or allowed) to retire, they may find they face a double challenge. First, their superannuation funds might have been ransacked by previous generations; second, the availability of quality care may be limited due to the challenge of delivering high-standard care without a large tax-base – especially in times of slowing productivity.”

    In their hit song My Generation, English rock band The Who – Pete Townshend on guitar, Roger Daltrey on vocals, John Entwistle on bass, and Keith Moon on drugs – err, I mean drums – sang, “…things they do look awful cold …. hope I die before I get old.”

    It is reported that German economists are baffled by reports from Australia that rising house prices are deemed to be ‘good news’. In Germany, inflation in house prices – like inflation in energy prices or food prices – is considered to be just the opposite.

    “How can it be good news?”, they ask, “when it takes two incomes to support a mortgage when previously young couples could buy a home and raise a family on one income? Or that homebuyers will pay many hundreds of thousands of dollars more in mortgage payments and government taxes and charges than would otherwise be the case?”

    Why has housing become so expensive in Australia? Motor vehicles, whitegoods, kitchen appliances, widescreen TV sets, personal computers and mobile phones are consumed in abundance around the world, yet prices remain low. Why is a house, which like other manufactured goods is made from readily accessible components, so much more expensive than other consumer products?

    No doubt demand stimulators like high immigration, low interest rates, capital gains concessions, negative gearing and first home buyer grants have increased demand for housing. However, increases in demand do not, of themselves, cause prices to rise. The exponential increases in demand for mobile phones, laptops and digital TVs did not lead to increases in their prices. In fact, the opposite occurred – prices fell – in some cases by more than half, due to increases in supply. The 1950s and ‘60s population explosion – the ‘baby boomer’ generation – likewise saw massive increases in demand for housing, yet house prices remained stable during that time because supply was able to keep up with demand.

    So, what has gone wrong in recent years?

    As most people know, over the past 20 years or so the actual cost of building a new house in Australia has roughly kept pace with inflation. Land prices, on the other hand, have skyrocketed.

    By restricting the amount of land available on the urban fringe, state governments have sent the price of entry-level housing through the roof.

    Land is the problem.

    On the fringes of our cities there is more than an adequate supply of cheap, unzoned land.

    Cheap land attracts not only home buyers but commercial interests as well, leading to more employment opportunities.

    So why are houses and commercial developments not being built on this cheap land?

    In short, manipulation of zoning laws.

    (For Part 2, click https://libertyitch.com/2023/08/22/talkin-about-my-generation-part-2/)

    Golden Years?

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    4

    The combination of an ageing population, lack of children being born and an unquenchable thirst for public spending on ever-expanding social services has the potential to wring the tax-base dry as a chronic demographic distortion unfolds.

    Although the mainstream media and most of the public are concerned about increasing population levels, an emerging demographic threat concerning the composition of the population should be attracting much more attention.

    Simply put, the world is ageing. Much of the world is experiencing birth rates below replacement levels. If it continues, this could have devastating cultural, societal and economic impact on Australia and the rest of the world. 

    The aged care royal commission’s final report was handed down in early 2021. Despite a 200% increase in the sector’s budget allocation from a decade ago, the report claims even more funding is needed to deliver higher standards and more personalised care. Furthermore, it claims such funding should be insulated from the broad fiscal and budgetary challenges the Federal Government faces.

    Yet as Centre for Independent Studies head of research Simon Cowen notes, the NDIS and childcare sectors are already subject to the same blank cheque-type model – one that supposedly increases the quality of care but in practice only maximises the cost.*

    An ageing population is not unique to Australia. But when coupled with lower birth rates and the impact of a subsequently smaller tax-base, it raises the question as to how a higher standard of aged care could possibly be funded.

    If self-funded retirement is to be a solution, superfunds and retail investors need to navigate the issue of liquidity with the funds being withdrawn by retirees not being replaced by new capital.

    In essence, our superannuation system is built on the concept of new money replacing the old – yet without population and productivity growth, this new money simply will not be coming in. So how will the superfunds maintain valuations? How will people fund their retirements?

    What is most alarming is that there is no obvious solution to this challenge. As we live longer, the cost of managing chronic disease and unhealthy lifestyle factors are growing steadily across the developed world, placing greater pressure on government-funded health services. With inflation sticky, generational wealth gaps expanding, the size of government increasing and a rising cost of living, young people are choosing not to have children.

    Economists, politicians, and young people need to begin seriously thinking (and talking) about this issue.

    Policymakers risk burdening young Australians with a lifetime of servitude to generations before them that enjoyed more freedom, prosperity, and quality of life.

    Moreover, by the time today’s young people are finally ready (or allowed) to retire, they may find they face a double challenge. First, their superannuation funds might have been ransacked by previous generations; second, the availability of quality care may be limited due to the challenge of delivering high-standard care without a large tax-base – especially in times of slowing productivity.

    In a current climate of simmering unease at the fault lines between younger and older generations of Australians, these concerns risk pushing society into an even more fractured state. But it is no use merely complaining. Rather than call for more socialism, taxation and ‘social justice’, young people need to claim back their liberty and financial future from the politicians that are pandering to an ageing voter base.

    Young people today are concerned about their future in the context of climate change, but the threat of an ageing population and low birth rates should be a more pressing concern. If our youth don’t consider this, they risk losing their own ‘golden years’ after having spent their working lives funding the golden years of their parents and grandparents.

    * Aged care cost blow-out won’t be solved by higher taxes, S. Cowan, 17 June 2023, Centre for Independent Studies

    The Danger To Society of the Public Health Industry

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    6

    The public health industry is a menace and remains a threat to Australia.

    It comprises people who believe we all require their guidance because, unlike them, we are incapable of making the right choices for ourselves. We must be nudged, cajoled, taxed, and supervised to ensure we get it right. And if that doesn’t work, compelled by force of law.

    The Covid pandemic exposed this in stark terms. The authoritarian wave that engulfed us, while mostly authorised by spineless politicians, originated from the public health people behind them. And in almost every case, they got it profoundly wrong.

    The result was countless businesses failed, careers ruined, relationships destroyed, and education missed, with worse health outcomes than Sweden. Even the current inflation is primarily a consequence of propping up the economy with borrowed money whilst “flattening the curve”.

    In terms of sheer ineptitude, it is difficult to go past the Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) in the states and Commonwealth. Paraded as experts and fawned on by the media, they proved to be foolish control freaks.

    Kerry Chant. NSW Chief Health Officer.
    Brett Sutton. Vic Chief Health Officer.
    Jeannette Young. Qld Chief Health Officer.
    Andy Robertson. WA Chief Health Officer.

    CMOs ought to be expert at public health, since their focus is on the health of everyone rather than individual patients, and up-to-date with both the scientific literature and international developments. While not necessarily researchers or experts themselves, they should be well aware of who the researchers and experts are and how to contact them.

    Yet repeatedly, the policies they recommended and endorsed were contrary to science, to experience, or both. 

    It started on day one. Australia’s rational and proportionate pandemic plan was simply abandoned in favour of China’s panicked lockdown model.

    Covid-19 is a respiratory corona virus, a well-studied category. It was well known that these viruses are highly vulnerable to sunlight and short-lived outside the body, relying on person-to-person transmission. Outdoor transmission was never likely, yet beaches and parks were closed, and gatherings prohibited. As for indoor spread, what was all that “deep cleaning” about? And why is ventilation only being mentioned now?  It’s a no-brainer in the veterinary world.  

    Once it was obvious that only the elderly were in danger, it was unconscionable to maintain the pretence that everyone else was. Children were never at risk, except from vaccine side effects, yet schools were closed and parents terrorised.

    In early 2021 when, contrary to expectations, it became apparent the Covid vaccines did not prevent either transmission or infection, the campaign to vaccinate everyone should have ceased. A statement from a CMO that the unvaccinated presented no danger to anybody else would have ended it.  Yet vaccination certificates acquired the status of internal passports in the Soviet Union, and countless people lost their jobs for refusing to be vaccinated.

    Ivermectin was being used to treat cases in multiple other countries with clear evidence of its value, yet it was banned from therapeutic use in Australia. How many lives might have been saved if CMOs had learned from what was happening overseas?   

    From the very beginning, the CMOs knew masks were useless at stopping respiratory viruses. Even Anthony Fauci, Chief Medical Adviser to the US President, said as much.  Yet despite zero data to prompt a change, they somehow became a symbol of compliance; a sign that we were worshipping at the Covid altar. Even now there are poor neurotic souls who continue to wear them (and even some medical facilities that still require them.) The CMOs simply allowed the stupidity to continue.

    Their advice was at times foolish, even idiotic. The Chief Medical Officer in South Australia, for example, told spectators at a football match to avoid touching the ball. And South Australia was put into lockdown based on a rumour that a man had contracted Covid from a pizza box.

    South Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Nicola Spurrier

    The Covid panic might be over, but the public health industry remains unscathed. The bureaucrat behind Melbourne becoming the world’s most locked down city, where playgrounds were closed and fishing banned, curfews imposed and all manner of other idiocy imposed, was made Victorian Of The Year despite his state recording the highest Covid death rate in Australia. In Queensland, where closing the border with NSW caused enormous suffering, the CMO was promoted to governor.

    Much of the harm resulting from the Covid control measures could have been minimised, if not avoided entirely, if the CMOs had stuck to the science. Even if they had thought they were doing the right thing, they could have published their advice to governments so that others with relevant expertise could comment. Of all the CMOs, only Nick Coatsworth has showed any signs of regret.   

    It is only a matter of time before we are again subjected to their mindset. Even if there are no more pandemics, they will continue to impose their views on issues like smoking, alcohol, sugar and obesity.

    The public health industry perpetually worries that we might enjoy ourselves in an unapproved manner. Having succeeded far beyond their expectations with Covid, they remain a clear and present danger to society.

    The Consequences of Rent Control

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    1

    As Australia faces a rental crisis, the Greens are agitating for rent control. Chief among their voices is Adam Bandt, whose clarion call is: “Unlimited rent increases should be illegal.”

    The Greens and their cheer squad claim rent control protects tenants from excessive rent increases and provides affordable housing options. Such policies would be implemented in response to affordability concerns, shortages, and displacement risks in gentrifying areas. Advocates assert rent control maintains community diversity, prevents homelessness, promotes tenant stability, and offers security against sudden and drastic rent hikes.

    Introducing rent control scores politicians quick points. However, the policies are vociferously opposed by the majority of economists.

    Mr Assar Lindbeck was a Swedish professor of economics, a contributor to a Nobel Prize for Economics, and a socialist. Sweden also has the most restrictive rent controls of all OECD countries. Lindbeck wrote:

    Assar Lindbeck

    “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”

    Lindbeck’s quip on rent control highlights a rare consensus among economists. Across all persuasions (neo-classicals, Keynesians, Austrians and socialists), economists agree that rent control is a proven failure.

    This is shown by the “Rent Control Survey” 2012 conducted by IGM (Initiative on Global Markets) Forum. To the question: “Local ordinances that limit rent increases for some rental housing units, such as in New York and San Francisco, have had a positive impact over the past three decades on the amount and quality of broadly affordable rental housing in cities that have used them” – 81% of economists decisively answered ‘Disagree’.

    Rent control manipulates supply and demand dynamics, corrupting markets and causing inefficiencies.

    It has a blighted history of unintended, negative consequences and can permanently affect rental housing markets. Contrary to the intended purpose as an anti-poverty strategy, poor families suffer worst of all.

    As housing quality and availability declines, the middle class can often find alternatives. Poor families cannot. Higher-income households can also benefit under rent control, by receiving greater subsidies. In 2018, San Francisco city staff presented their first ‘Housing Needs and Trends Report’ and ‘Housing Affordability Strategy’ to a meeting of the city’s Planning Commission. A few notable admissions included:

    • Households that moved into rent controlled units are much more likely to be higher income than in the past.
    • Housing cost burdens worsened for all but the highest income households.
    • The city struggled to substantially improve housing affordability for low and moderate‐income households, and does not have a comprehensive picture of how various policies and resources work together to achieve affordability outcomes.

    Decreased profit margins incentivise landlords to prejudice tenant selection based on income and credit history. This disadvantages young, low-income families, especially single-parent households. It also impedes racial and economic integration by discouraging tenant mobility. In his study ‘Rent Control, Rental Housing Supply, and the Distribution of Tenant Benefits’ 2002, Dirk Early states “If landlords believe that larger households headed by young persons lead to quicker depreciation of their units, the rationing of units by landlords would lower the probability of larger and younger households finding rent regulated units.”

    Rent control unfairly burdens housing providers, by forcing below-market rates of return. This effectively transfers income from property owners to occupants of rentals. Understandably, landlords and investors are reluctant to accept this. In his study “Rent Control Effects through the Lens of Empirical Research” 2022, Konstantin A. Kholodilin reviewed 60 studies from 18 countries. Over 50% demonstrate rent control’s negative effects on new residential construction. All the studies confirm rent control policies adversely affect quality of housing as decreasing rent revenue diminishes funds for maintenance and refurbishment.

    Such proven, unintended consequences of rent control policies highlight the need for communities to explore alternative solutions for poor and middle-class housing. The libertarian solution to housing affordability and availability is elegant in its simplicity. Enable the free market to increase housing supply.

    In 2011, councils across Perth, Western Australia were given individual infill development targets by the state government. By 2016, 94% failed to achieve their targets. More than half had not reached 50% of their goal.

    Belmont, ‘City of Opportunity’, was one of the success stories. The city was proactively open and receptive to the market for over a decade. This encouraged robust investment. Belmont has maintained its infill development and continues to attract a wide range of families and businesses to live, work and invest in the city.

    When considering rent control, it is worth reflecting on the adage attributed to Mark Twain “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”. Government enforced rent control predictably delivers negative outcomes.

    The free market is the only proven means by which to solve Australia’s rental crisis.

    The New Gulag

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0
    Neil Oliver

    In his famous three-volume masterpiece, The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described the frozen wastelands of Siberia where political prisoners and dissidents the Soviet state considered dangerous were held (for their speech, not their actions). A gulag was a Soviet prison; an archipelago is a string of islands; hence the term ‘gulag archipelago’ – a string of camps, prisons, transit centres, secret police, informers, spies and interrogators across Siberia.

    Today, people are frozen out of society in more subtle ways. The authorities no longer bash down your door and haul you off to a gulag for espousing the ‘wrong views’; instead, they silence and freeze you out of existence in other ways.

    No-one describes the current situation better than Scottish commentator Neil Oliver in his Essentials of Life video clip here. More about that shortly.

    Divide and conquer

    As we know, the Left’s chief weapon is division. Unite the disaffected groups and those with grievances, and then ‘divide and conquer’ the rest of us. Divide along racial, generational, sexual, religious or economic lines. Any line will do.

    What may have started as ‘the workers vs the bosses’ – ‘the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie’ – and ‘supporting the poor’, became just a ruse to gain power. Workers and the poor have long since been abandoned by the Left who now find other ways to divide and conquer.

    In his excellent book, Democracy in a Divided Australia, Matthew Lesh writes:

    “Australia has a new political, cultural, and economic elite. The class divides of yesteryear have been replaced by new divisions between Inners and Outers. This divide is ripping apart our political parties, national debate, and social fabric.

    Inners are highly educated inner-city progressive cosmopolitans who value change, diversity, and self-actualisation. Inners, despite being a minority, dominate politics on both sides, the bureaucracy, universities, civil society, corporates, and the media. They have created a society ruled by educated elites – that is, ruled by themselves.

    Outers are the instinctive traditionalists who value stability, safety, and unity. Outers are politically, culturally, and economically marginalised in today’s graduate-dominated knowledge society era. Their voice is muzzled in public debate, driving disillusionment with the major parties, and record levels of frustration, disengagement, and pessimism.“

    For over a hundred years, Australia fought to remove race from civic considerations. Yet now we are being asked to permanently divide the nation by entrenching an Indigenous Voice into our Constitution. By the ‘Inners’, of course.

    In the workplace, politicians are still treating workplace behaviour like a game of football. Australia’s employers (‘the bosses’) are on one team, and Australia’s employees (‘the workers’) are on the other. The game is then overseen by a so-called ‘independent umpire’ called the Fair Work Commission. But of course, this is not how workplaces operate at all. The ‘game’, if you even want to call it that, is played not by two teams of employers and employees, but by hundreds, even thousands of different teams, competing against hundreds and thousands of other teams of employers and employees.

    Mark Twain observed, “Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example”.

    Here’s one – the infamous Dollar Sweets dispute where unions were picketing Fred Stauder’s confectionery business. Other confectionery businesses were approached to support Fred but were rebuffed saying, “Why should we care if Dollar Sweets goes down? It will mean more business for us.”  So much for ‘bosses vs workers’.

    While paying lip service to free markets, property rights, personal responsibility, self-reliance, free speech, lower taxes, the rule of law and smaller government, the Liberal Party in Australia has all but abandoned these ideals in practice. As has big business, which, truth be known, was never on the side of free markets. Corporations have always wanted markets they can dominate, and to eliminate the competition. If that means aligning with the Left or doing the government’s bidding, so be it.

    Which includes – and here we return to our ‘new gulags’ theme – closing a person’s bank account, destroying them on social media, or excluding them from employment. Business is right on board with this.

    The Left will keep pushing its woke agenda until it is stopped. And it will not be stopped with facts, figures, logic, evidence or reason. It doesn’t care about any of that. It will only be stopped with political power.

    Holding conferences, writing opinion pieces, producing podcasts and YouTube interviews in the hope of persuading people have, I’m afraid, had their day. The ‘Inners’ now rule.

    Stopping the relentless march of the Left will require political power. Seats in parliament. Which means like-minded people and parties forming alliances and working strategically and tactically together to win seats.

    In Neil Oliver’s video clip, he says, “When it comes to the state, that which it can do, it certainly will do” and “What can happen to anyone, will soon happen to everyone”.  

    So, if you belong to a think-tank, lobby group or centre-right political party, and want to stop the woke Left further ruining our country, then please encourage your organisation to place less emphasis on winning arguments and more emphasis on winning seats – as previously outlined here and here.

    Thank you for your support.

    Welcome To Warburton, Where Yes Is A Death Sentence

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    3
    Warburton WA

    Shareholders are being taken for a ride, as are donors, trade unionists, sports fans and taxpayers. The relatively few high-profile CEOs, charity leaders, trade union leaders, sports administrators and politicians foolish enough to forsake their duty and send other people’s money to the referendum Yes case are doing harm. Many of their supporters and funders, and possibly a majority, are against the proposition. They are not as foolish as their leaders.

    Corporate
    Trade Union
    Sport

    Leaders who think that a solution to Aboriginal despair lies in permanent government intervention in the lives of those few Aborigines who are failing in this modern society should think again. It is not all about government. Changing the Constitution does not change behaviour. Changing the Constitution will not get children to attend school. Changing the Constitution will not stop the grog, or the abuse, or the awful habits that cause early death.

    This week, Aboriginal children will walk into the store at Warburton in Western Australia and purchase the typical fare of an Aboriginal diet. On the same latitude as the border of Northern Territory and South Australia, Warburton is as remote as it gets. But cake, Coca-Cola, and energy bars are all available, and expensive. For adults, throw in smokes. These are typical purchases. Week in and week out. Eating and drinking junk foods, not working, and having no purpose in life other than consumption, is a death sentence. No amount of government intervention can save this. No Voice, no committee, no treaty, no ‘truth-telling’, no Makarrata can save these people.

    Warburton Art Gallery

    Aboriginal people are a modern people. In Warburton, mobile phones are commonplace. Electricity keeps the food and drink cool. Without the paraphernalia of the modern world there would be no Warburton, it would have closed decades ago. Aboriginal people rely on modern means to survive. Most have no idea how it is made. This is cruel. 

    The task of leaders is to have every child understand how it is that the mobile phone and electricity that makes their food and shelter available comes in to being. Government may be the provider, but it is not the maker.

    Government makes nothing, it merely covers the indignity of woeful ignorance.

    Why do governments refuse to teach their citizens how their lives have been degraded to the point of begging? This is no gracious gift; it is stealing the future of these people. It is an abandonment of leadership. Recognition is not the same as reconciliation.

    Kids enjoying the Warburton Swimming Pool. Picture: Steve Girschik

    Aboriginal parents face an awful choice. To keep children ‘safe’ on country, away from the worst of modern life, grog and drugs, or in doing so, condemn their children to live restricted lives, with poor education, few prospects and a poor diet. The great lie of this referendum is that choices can be avoided. Somehow, 24 select delegates in Canberra will solve the parents’ dilemma. They will not; they will continue to mask the choice and, in default, make the choice for them. A slow death on country, rather than to break free, with the help of their families and guidance from outsiders on how to handle the wider world.

    There is no love for Aborigines in this referendum proposal, just ego.

    The Aboriginal people at Warburton are radically disabled. They are self-determining alright, sitting on country, speaking language, and dying early. And CEOs and the Prime Minister think that this is a good idea.

    They must, because their solution is to change nothing. Not to learn how to create value, not to adapt, but to wait. Government monies as a permanent way of life are poison.

    Gary Johns is President of Recognise a Better Way

    1...121314...16Page 13 of 16
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv