Freedom and Prosperity

Monday, April 25, 2005

ANZAC Day

Reflections on ANZAC Day

Today, April 25, is ANZAC Day in Australia and New Zealand.

For those who don't live in Australia, it's hard to understand the importance of ANZAC Day in the psyche of the nation and in the role it plays in defining Australia and the sense of national identity.

It's an important day. Unlike Armistice Day in the UK it's a national holiday. There are remembrance services across the nation. These take place at dawn (4.30am this time of year in Sydney) and they are well attended. Today in Sydney 25,000 attended the main service ("Record numbers at dawn service"). In most major cities there is a parade of veterans, again where people turn out in their thousands.

And, each year, there is the pilgimage to Gallipoli itself, in Turkey.

Interestingly, in recent years the observance of ANZAC Day by younger generations has been increasingly noticeable. It's as if a torch has been passed on.

Fifteen-year-old Melissa Forest, wearing her great grandfathers' war medals, said she had attended several dawn services and would continue to do so as a tribute to her relatives and those who worked so hard for a free country.

"I think it's really important that we carry on this tradition because it is these people that made Australia a free country," she said.


Every nation has its stories about it's history. And these stories play a key role in defining a national identity. For Australia, the ANZAC legend is a central part of that.

I'll end today's post with a quote from a speech by former Prime Minister Paul Keating. It was actually an address on Remembrance Day (rather than ANZAC Day) in 1993 on the occasion of the funeral service of the Unknown Australian Soldier. However, it's equally applicable, today, I think and I encourage you to read the whole speech.

That is surely at the heart of the ANZAC story, the Australian legend which emerged from the war. It is a legend not of sweeping military victories so much as triumphs against the odds, of courage and ingenuity in adversity. It is a legend of free and independent spirits whose discipline derived less from military formalities and customs than from the bonds of mateship and the demands of necessity. It is a democratic tradition, the tradition in which Australians have gone to war ever since.

This Unknown Australian is not interred here to glorify war over peace; or to assert a soldier's character above a civilian's; or one race or one nation or one religion above another; or men above women; or the war in which he fought and died above any other war; or one generation above any that has been or will come later.

The Unknown Soldier honours the memory of all those men and women who laid down their lives for Australia. His tomb is a reminder of what we have lost in war and what we have gained.

We have lost more than 100,000 lives, and with them all their love of this country and all their hope and energy.

We have gained a legend: a story of bravery and sacrifice and, with it, a deeper faith in ourselves and our democracy, and a deeper understanding of what it means to be Australian.

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Crime, Punishment...and Economics!

How People Interpret The Same News To Suit Their Agenda!

It's not exactly a blindingly new insight to point out that people will use a particular item of news or information and twist it to support their own point of view. In politics, it's often referred to as "spin".

Anyway, this week in Australia there has been news about a reduction in crime over recent years. The figures for recorded crime in 2004 in NSW were issued by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research on Monday. They showed that in the 24 months to December last year, recorded crime fell in nine of the 16 major categories. This continues a general fall in crime rates in recent years.

This particular news item has been interpreted in very different ways by two columnists in the "Sydney Morning Herald".

First, Ross Gittins, the left-wing propagandist masquerading as an economics commentator, leads off a recent column "Why it's not prime time for crime" with the comment...

A drop in criminal offences has a lot to do with heroin, and a little to do with heroes.

The general gist of the article is that the fall in the crime rate is largely the result of a decline in availability (and consequent increase in price) of heroin. The police get little of the credit, according to Gittins.

But what about the wider role of policing and the courts - do they get any of the credit? A little.

Damned by faint praise. It's the increase in the cost of heroin that's the main reason. Economics at work, pure supply and demand! Nothing to do with the police, those nasty instruments of right wing oppression!

But wait a minute! Why did the availability of heroin decrease? Why did the price mysteriously increase? Mr Gittins is conspicuously silent on this point. Could it have something to do with...

There have been record seizures of heroin in recent years, including 125 kilograms from the North Korean cargo vessel Pong Su in 2003.

Miranda Devine's column today, "Sad victims of a vital war" focuses on the stepped up efforts by police to clamp down on the drug trade

The $1billion Tough on Drugs policy has freed police to do their jobs, after a disastrous experiment with harm minimisation policies in the late '80s and '90s had resulted in a doubling of daily heroin users and an explosion in property crime, particularly in NSW....

Australia's heroin seizure rate increased from 8.5 kilograms per million population in 1995 to 30.4 kilograms in 2000, federal police say. Other drugs, such as amphetamines, which are soaring in popularity, are also being targeted, with a world record $250 million ecstasy seizure in Melbourne this month.

This disruption of heroin imports and the jailing of important drug dealers, as well as a crackdown on drug crime in Cabramatta, once Australia's heroin capital, led to a heroin drought at the end of 2000 which was regarded as unique in the world.


So, perhaps the reduction in the availability of heroin wasn't some sort of economic "endogenous" event but rather the result of more effective law enforcement.

Ross Gittins presents himself as someone who looks behind the economic news to present something other than the conventional interpretation and the accepted wisdom. That in itself is a good thing. After all, the government and politicians in general will put their own spin on things.

However, Gittins doesn't stick to objective analysis and interpretation (and yes, I know that in political economy, there will always be some subjective elements!). He consistently includes in his articles comments and statements that he presents as "facts" when they are no more than his opinion.

Miranda Devine, on the other hand, is an out-and-out right winger. You may disagree with her but at least you know where you stand.

What's my point with all this? Yet again, another example of how a left wing agenda is pushed through the mainstream media in a disguised fashion.

Saturday, April 16, 2005

What We Need Is A Good Old-Fashioned Tyranny!

George III Was Benevolent Compared to the Welfare State

One of my favourite writers on the subject of Political Economy is Gary North. His latest piece, What We Need Is A Good Old-Fashioned Tyranny, discusses the extraordinary levels of tax that we are burdened with today as compared to previous eras. Very topical for Americans as April 15 is tax filing day for most people.

Parts of the article refer back to ancient Egypt. However, there's a more recent example of a "Tyrant" turning out to be better than mis-representative democracy. As the guys at the "Daily Reckoning" have often pointed out, the American Revolution was largely about oppressive taxation. The 3-5% levied at the time must seem nirvana in comparison to current levels!

I regard Gary's "Reality Check" as essential reading and you can take a look for yourself simply by clicking here.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

The Terrible Price of the Welfare Contract

Bad Luck, Suckers!

Interesting article in today's "Sydney Morning Herald" by Anne Summers. Summers isn't someone I normally have much time for as her articles tend to be feminist bleating and other victimhood stuff.

Today, however, in "Back to work, it seems, any way you can" she talks about the topical issue of Australia's aging population and the fact that we seem to be running out of workers.

As a result, "older" people are being urged to either stay in the workforce longer or rejoin the ranks of the wage-slave taxpayer. Summers rightly comments on the irony of all this after years of corporate downsizing when "older" workers were usually the first to get the chop.

Of course, what's really driving all this is the dawning realisation that the aging population is going to make the economics of the welfare state completely untenable. The promises that governments have blithely made over the last 50 years have been based on the fallacy of "pay as you go" funding i.e. current workers pay for the benefits of current welfare recipients and hope that when it's their turn there will be enough new workers to make the payments.

Well, the aging population has exposed this cruel hoax. There simply aren't going to be enough workers in the future to pay the taxes required. Sooner or later governments will welch on their promises. We're already starting to see it with retirement ages being pushed up and benfits being trimmed back.

It's a terrible situation for the average person. Having sold their soul to the government for the illusion of "security" they will find that the promises will not be delivered. They'll be faced with the prospect of continuing to have to work to fund the appetite of big government for tax dollars.

As all this dawns on the general population, one wonders what impact this is going to have. If the government isn't delivering on its promises, will people wonder why they're paying so much tax?

As a final thought, what's caused the decline in the birth rate that's lead to the demographic crisis? It's certainly a complex issue and as a general observation as societies get wealthier, the birth rate certainly declines. However, one element rarely commented on is what has been the impact of the welfare state? As the tax burden has increased inexorably, the cost of raising children has been a heavier burden.

There's also a moral and spiritual aspect. One insidious effect of the welfare state and collectivism has been to undermine the self-reliance and independence of the individual. If the government promises to look after everyone "from the cradle to the grave" why bother to look after yourself? And why bother with kids?

None of this is sustainable of course. Austalia is actually in a relatively good situation. Compulsory superannuation was introduced some time ago and the welfare state isn't as out of control as elsewhere. The fact that politicians are even addressing the topic is encouraging. Elsewhere in places such as France, Germany and Italy the situation is dire.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

No, High Taxes Are Not A Good Thing!

Drivel Masquerading As Informed Comment

One of the reasons for this blog is to counter some of the drivel that passes for "informed comment" in the media.

A prime example comes from Ross Gittins' column in today's "Sydney Morning Herald" - Ponder Higher Taxes at Your Leisure.

Gittins loses no opportunity to promote the twin ideas that bigger government spending is both inevitable and a good thing, with the corollary that high (and higher) taxes are also a good thing. The gist of the article today is that we are all vain and silly creatures who fritter away our increased income on frivolous items of conspicuous consumption (keeping up with the Joneses, in other words). So high taxes are a good thing, saving us from ourselves!

Let's leave aside for the moment the whole issue of whether any government spending (and hence taxes) is justified apart from what's required for defence of the realm and to maintain law and order.

What about the possibility that people have to work so hard because government confiscates so much of our income. What about the idea that we might actually have a more leisurely life if we didn't have to support our "silent partner" with half our income?

To see how utterly idiotic Gittins is, let's conduct a little thought experiment. If the current high level of taxes is actually good, why not increase them? Won't that mean we will then work less and actually be happier as we all live in genteel poverty?

Actually, there's a good example of what would happen. New Zealand back in the early 1980s where the top marginal rate of personal tax was in excess of 80%, I recall. Readers might recall what NZ was like back then. Isolated, with a stagnant and backward economy. The place was sliding slowly into (genteel) oblivion.

Gittins is supposed to be the economics editor. Instead of providing informed comment, he uses his column to push an agenda of collectivism and statism.

Sunday, April 10, 2005

More On Land Taxes

Venal Governments and Anti-Prosperity Attitudes

Couple of things from the weekend press.

In the "Australian Financial Review" interesting article about the Victorian government...

"More serious is the land tax fiasco which has come back to haunt the government...Last Tuesday Bracks admitted he would have to act on skyrocketing land tax bills after a loud campaign by small business landholders typically facing 10-fold increases...

The concern is that new valuation methods, high property prices and lack of indexation are continuing to push modest landowners into land tax rates meant for the rich, and that the government is happy to pocket the windfall proceeds."

Well, fancy that! Just another indication of the risk in owning land and property in the future as governments desperately try to raise revenue.

Secondly, I couldn't help include this example of "anti-prosperity" thinking that is just so typical and widespread in the media.

It comes from Alan Ramsey's column in Saturday's "Sydney Morning Herald". Now I must confess that reading Ramsey's column is something that's a bit of a secret vice for me. I know I shouldn't do it, but I can't seem to resist. It's probably something to do with the fact that years ago I did admire his writing. Then something happened and he seemed to change (or maybe I did). Now, he just seems a very bitter and twisted individual.

Anyway, the article is about health care and it's failings in country areas ("Country Health Care A Poor Cousin"). Needless to say, it's all John Howard's fault of course and we need to spend bucket loads more money.

However, what really caught my attention was this comment in response to the observation that "To achieve it, Medicare funding has to provide a financial incentive, because the quickest way of getting the consultants to participate with enthusiasm is to let them know they will get more money."

Ramsey thunders...

"Of course. Money. Cross the medical specialist's palm with increased taxpayers' silver and one of the wealthiest, most highly remunerated professional groups in the community will do its bit to help bring those cancer mortality rates down. It's a sick old world."

Think of all the envy, resentment and jealousy (not to mention misplaced self-righteousness) contained in that! This sort of stuff is, unfortunately, all too common in the media. The implication, of course, is that it's wrong for medical professionals to make money and of course, we're back to the old staple that free health care is a "right" (yes, but who pays?).

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Some Good News On The Health Front

Laws to Regulate Vitamin Sales Are Invalid, Says Judge

Some good news on the health and regulatory front. This from the UK's "Daily Telegraph".

The British health food industry claimed a major victory yesterday after controversial laws to tighten up the sale of vitamin pills and health supplements were declared invalid.

The interim advice, issued by a senior judge at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, found that the legislation failed to protect the rights of individuals and firms seeking to have products declared safe for sale.

The full article is here.

Hopefully, this will not be just a temporary reprieve from the odious EU Food Supplements Directive.

Monday, April 04, 2005

Governments, Taxes and Real Estate

Real Estate Vulnerable to Predatory Taxes

There have been a number of articles recently commenting on the state of the Sydney real estate market. After a long boom, things have definitely slowed down and prices have pulled back from their peaks.

Contributing to a slowdown in activity has been the attempted revenue grab by the State Government with their increase in Land Tax and also the Vendor Tax on investment property. Both of these measures make property investment in NSW a much less attractive prospect.

Unsurprisingly (except to the morons in the State Government) investors have decided that they have better things to do with their money than hand it over to Bob Carr and Co to fritter away. According to some articles, real estate investors have virtually abandoned NSW for more attractive areas.

A more sinister note behind all this is the targeting of real estate as a source of tax revenues. In NSW, every property owner is now registered for Land Tax, although at present owner occupiers are exempt. How long before that changes?

Readers of the Sovereign Individual will recall the point that real estate is an obvious target for governments for the simple reason that you can't move it! In the decades ahead, my guess is that we will see an increasing load of taxes on real estate for the simple reason that other revenue streams will diminish or prove inadequate.

Finally for today, an excellent article from Miranda Devine in the "Sydney Morning Herald" reviewing again the ineptitude of the NSW Labour Government in providing basic infrastructure and services such as water. Read it here.

Sunday, April 03, 2005

"The Incredibles" - Ayn Rand in Spandex!

More Than Just an Entertaining Movie

I'd picked up on the "buzz" about the movie The Incredibles and I was very disappointed at Christmas when my 8 year old niece didn't want to go and see the movie (she wanted to see "Polar Express" instead - which I enjoyed).

For various reasons I didn't get to see the movie when it was in general release. However, on my recent trip to the USA, it was one of the in-flight movies. Now, I ended up watching it about twice in segments between trying to get some sleep on the long (13-14 hours) flight Sydney-LAX. Obviously, my brain was even more befuddled than usual because I failed to pick up on some of the deeper themes.

I realised this when I stumbled across this wonderful movie review of The Incredibles by Wendy McElroy. How could I have missed the Randian references? (although I did think "Gee that looks like Atlas Shrugged when Mr. Incredible lifts up the robot on his back!).

There's a few "anti-prosperity" references in the movie, such as pandering to anti-corporate sentiment in the portrayal of Insuricare. Overall, however, it's a refreshing change to the anti-prosperity themes in most movies.

This review added a whole new dimension to a movie that I thoroughly enjoyed anyway. So much that I've had to buy the Special Edition DVD!

If you haven't seen the movie, do yourself a favour and check it out.

Friday, April 01, 2005

The Blog Is Back ! (Apologies Elton John...)

The Chickens Start Coming "Home to Roost"!

Apologies to readers for the extended gap since the last post. Well, I'm back! I can hear the yawns of indifference, but watch out!

OK. Couldn't resist a post when I saw this article in the UK "Daily Telegraph" - Average Incomes Fall For the First Time in Decade. The inevitable consequences of Labour's tax and spend policies are now emerging and the people bearing the brunt of it are the wealth producers - the middle classes.

David Willetts, the Conservative work and pensions spokesman, said the study was a "devastating evaluation of what Labour had done to hard-working families".

The article talks about the redistributive effect of Labour's policies. The point, of course, is that the people who are paying for this are now going backwards.