The annual Canadian seal hunt, from news.com.au.
So much for an impartial media. I fail to see how this hunt is any different from an Australian aboriginal hunt for dugongs, kangaroos or the annual butchering of millions of innocent sheep and cattle all over the world. Where does the media suppose meat is from? A test tube?
Remember when Rudd’s ‘stimulus’ package came out? We had proclamations from Kerry O’Brein and the ABC generally that the vast majority of economists supported Rudd’s plan. There was no dissension, but an overwhelming consensus amongst economists in Rudd’s favour. No one in their right mind would support tax-cuts, they argued. The way to go was to incur massive public debt through frivolous spending measures. Well I have previously out lined a number of eminent economists that strongly argue against that line of thinking. Next is Gary Becker, the winner of the 1992 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, as reported by the WSJ:
“What can we do that would be beneficial? [One thing] is lower corporate taxes and businesses taxes and maybe taxes in general. Particularly, you want to lower the tax on capital so you raise the after-tax return to investing and get more investing going on.”
The same applies to Australia.
Seems the PM has been doing secret deals with the Chinese, away from the scrutiny of the local media.
During Saturday’s talks Mr Li, the head of propaganda, media and ideology and ranked five in China’s nine-person ruling politburo standing committee, also had other issues to discuss: the stalled free trade agreement between the countries, the economic crisis and hopes Australia would lobby for China to play a more central role in the International Monetary Fund.
Normally such a meeting would be big news, but it wasn’t because the Australian media was not told.
Yet China’s state-owned media was ushered into The Lodge and Mr Rudd was splashed across the Chinese press with footage of his talks on the nation’s main television station CCTV. As a result, hundreds of millions of Chinese knew more about Mr Rudd’s diplomatic activities than did his own countrymen. Australians were therefore none the wiser about what motivated Mr Rudd to declare on Sunday, less than 24 hours after meeting Mr Li, that he would push for China to be given a more central role in the global financial system. Mr Rudd will argue for China to be elevated within the IMF at next week’s meeting of the G20 in London.
Within hours, CCTV was lauding the outcome on its website under the headline “Australian PM promotes China’s role in IMF”.
It reminds me of Paul Keating’s secret security arrangement with Indonesia negotiated in the early 1990s. The excuse back then was that the Australian people might not accept the deal if they knew about it. My question is: what secret deal did Rudd do with the Chinese that he thinks the Australian people might not accept? The following gives readers a clue.
THE general manager of state-owned Chinese aluminium producer Chinalco, which is in the middle of a $US19.5 billion ($28.28billion) deal to invest in global miner Rio Tinto, has been named to a cabinet post in the central government in Beijing.
So much for the argument that Chinalco will not be influenced by the Chinese government in its dealings with Rio Tinto.
From Tom Switzer of Spectator Australia:
Michelle Grattan calls them ‘militants’. Laurie Oakes labels them ‘hard-liners’. Matthew Franklin tells us they’re ‘rigid conservatives’. To whom are these stalwarts of the Canberra press gallery referring? No, not remnants of the ousted Taleban leadership in Afghanistan or even die-hard supporters of the rejuvenated, albeit much maligned, Pauline Hanson. They are Liberal party backbenchers whose crime is to defend the Howard-Costello legacy of economic management.
If anything, these quotes reveal the ideological bent of Australia’s main stream media. To underline the point:
I’ve given up counting the times the press gallery has urged the coalition to back Labor government policy on the grounds that it was in the national interest. Yet I don’t recall the same journalists calling on the former (Labor) opposition to give unconditional bipartisan support to the former (coalition) government policy from 1996 to 2007.
Interesting article that outlines the inner Liberal Party battles between the more conservative back bench and the moderate front bench.
Some coalition MPs try to avoid philosophical confrontation with Labor, often urging solutions that would expand government while justifying the expansion at a slightly slower rate…
The ‘militants’ know that such an approach is not only weak policy, but weak politics too. Instead, they are staying true to their principles and fighting the government. They want their party to adhere to conservative principles that resonate with the party faithful at local branch level. And they know that such unashamed advocacy would have more success if its leadership believed in those principles and was able to articulate them forcefully and coherently.
Agree all round. On the ETS, stimulus packages, workplace laws, Ruddbank, etc…
On all of these issues, the ‘militants’ adhered to their fundamental ideals of small government and economic freedom. These ideals have brought the nation much success during the past generation, and may well win the day again. But there is another issue at stake here. Call it: let’s defend our history.
Howard was in power for 11 years. Why trash the principles that underpinned his success?
Steve Hanke, professor of applied economics at the Johns Hopkins University has picked up on the issue Paul Keating raised about Tim Geithner and Larry Summers role in ruining the Indonesian economy during the mid-1990s:
Before we leave Indonesia and return to the eye of the storm, it is worth pondering the fact that two key members of the Clinton administration who so splendidly misdiagnosed Indonesia’s economic problems during the Asian financial crisis are now key members of the Obama administration. Indeed, Lawrence Summers, the director of the National Economic Council, and Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner are still going strong. This time around they are once again preaching fear. We are told to either accept a strong dose of government intervention or the sky will fall. The longer Messrs Summers and Geithner can be held at bay, the more likely a US recovery, led by market forces, will surprise the chattering classes and defy Washington.
Large sections of the blogosphere are turning against Timbo. With good cause. I’ve already covered the trail of disaster Timbo left in Indonesia during the mid-1990s, now this from Hot Air:
Barack Obama promised in his first White House press conference on February 9th that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner would have a rescue plan ready to announce the next day. On February 10th, Geithner showed up with nothing but a string of platitudes and a promise that he would have a plan real soon. The markets tanked as investors realized that the White House had no economic leadership at the top, and the Obama administration pledged to get something quickly.
Time Magazine reports that the plan has been delayed again, and now won’t be ready for another month….
Then Timbo lied about his knowledge of AIG bonuses, again from Hot Air:
Tim Geithner and Congress claim that they got blindsided by the AIG bonuses late last week, before anyone had a chance to stop AIG from paying them. However, C-SPAN’s video library tells a very different story. (On) March 3rd hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee in which Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) specifically mentions the upcoming payouts of over $162 million in bonuses to AIG execs, the very same number that inflamed Washington DC this week…
In speaking to Timbo at the beginning of March, Crowley said the following:
“…Further bonus payments totaling approximately 230 million (dollars) are due to 407 participants at AIG’s Financial Products division in March 2010.”
So Timbo knew about the bonuses before the recent fracas began – and did nothing – but seems more than happy to join in the communistic styled uproar now.
We’ve had Paul Keating, Peter Costello and Alexander Downer raising questions about the ability of Tim Geithner (Timbo) and Larry Summers (Lazza) to manage the economic downturn, based partly on their own encounters with the two men. Now US congressional Democrats are getting a taste of what Australia had to confront in the mid-1990s.
Congressional Democrats are growing increasingly nervous about the ability of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Obama administration’s economic team (Lazza) to manage the crisis and effectively convey a coherent policy.
Even Chris Dodd, one of the main culprits behind the mortgage meltdown has had a go at Timbo:
Last night, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd added to the criticism, saying he (Timbo) weakened a provision dealing with executive pay and bonuses in last month’s stimulus legislation at the request of the Obama administration.
The Connecticut Democrat had proposed restrictions on executive compensation at companies that received money from the government’s financial-rescue fund. It was changed as the legislation was negotiated between the House and Senate.
“I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate-passed amendment but I did so at the request of administration officials,” Dodd said in an e-mailed statement.
He said there was no indication that the change was related to AIG, and he didn’t name the officials. His spokeswoman Kate Szostak said the changes were added during negotiations with the Treasury Department.
Following on from my previous Rio Tinto – Chinalco posts, this from China:
Lawyers and investment bankers said China’s rejection of Coca-Cola Co.’s $2.4 billion bid for China Huiyuan Juice Group Ltd. could prompt a backlash against Chinese investing abroad as it risks chilling investment within the country….
Yi Xianrong, a researcher in the finance and banking section of the government-backed Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, criticized the ministry’s rejection, saying it was “groundless” given the intense competition in the industry.
Lawyers and bankers said higher antitrust barriers from Beijing could further hinder companies trying to conduct deals and invest in China, where it long has been difficult to acquire assets from state-owned companies. The Finance Ministry on Wednesday announced rules that make it harder for foreign investors in financial-services businesses to buy or sell their stakes. This follows moves by some foreign banks in recent months to sell holdings in Chinese banks….
…Yang Xiulin, the marketing director of beverage company Hangzhou Wahaha Group Co. said “if national brands are gone, for the long term, it’s not good for the Chinese industry.”
So it’s okay for Chinalco – as a Chinese government business enterprise – to buy and control Australia’s strategic resource assets via Rio Tinto, but its not okay in China for a publicly listed foreign corporation to buy a local juice company.
The Senate has caved in and accepted the proposal to change the small business definition of 15 employees to 20 employees, in the so-called ‘Fair Work Place’ bill.
Despite the unanimous vote, a stand-off still looms because the Government is unlikely to accept the Senate’s amendments, when the bill is returned to the House of Representatives later today.
But the Deputy Opposition Leader Eric Abetz has praised the Government for its approach in the Senate.
“The compromises that have been reached over the past few days are sensible and reflect well on the operations of the Senate,” he said.
UPDATE
On second thoughts:
Before Work Choices it had been 20 employees and after Work Choices it was 100 employees. Turnbull simply backed Gillard’s plan.
A little late in reporting, Australia’s women’s rugby side won the Dubai 7s. Wales won the men’s tournament. Apparently the tournament was an incredible success and bodes well for Rugby’s inclusion in the 2016 Olympics:
Speaking after Wales upset the form book to defeat Argentina 19-12 in the final on Saturday, Bernard Lapasset, the chairman of the International Rugby Board, said: “This was a tremendous tournament. I think it’s a very important moment for sevens. We had some delegates from the IOC here and I am sure they were appreciative of what we have done.”
Rugby, in its 15-man form, last featured in the Paris Olympics in 1924 when the United States beat France for the gold medal. It is competing with baseball, softball, golf, squash, karate and roller-sports for two spaces in the 2016 Olympics. The IRB will make a final pitch to the IOC in June before the decision is taken at a meeting in Copenhagen in October.
Everyday was a sell out with some major upsets – like Kenya defeating Fiji. My picks for Olympic inclusion are rugby and karate.
And I’ll make this bold prediction. If Rugby is included in the Olympics, Rugby League will seek reconciliation with Rugby Union within five years. I fail to see how Rugby League could survive as a fully professional sport with players lured to Rugby money and the Olympics. The quality of players and standard of play would degrade, along with financial backing. At some point players would have to take a major pay cut to keep NRL clubs viable, further club consolidation would eventuate, market share would be lost and the sport would die a slow death as a semi-professional part-time competition.