This morning on Meet the Press, Joe Hockey, presumably thinking that the news about Rudd swearing at a flight attendant will make all of Australia hate him, came out with this about the budget:
"If there is waste, if there is mismanagement, we will oppose it. We have always opposed bad policy and we will continue to oppose bad policy."
To which I say the Liberal Party is opposed to bad policy? Well that's a new one.
I guess doling out tax cuts in the middle of a boom and with interest rates rising was good policy?
I guess overseeing a dying public health system, only to takeover one hospital in Tasmania because an election was around the corner was good policy?
I suppose diverting attention and resources away from the war on terror in Afghanistan, and instead following George Bush into an unnecessary and stupid war in Iraq on the basis of the dodgiest intelligence this side of pyramid scheme get rich quick seminar was good policy?
I presume that stripping funding to Australia's public and higher education system for over a decade purely because universities are full of left wing types, and the public system is full of lefty unions was good policy, despite Australia's skill level disappearing into oblivion?
I guess introducing an immigration policy that allowed 11 people who were on the Tampa to be murdered by the Taliban when sent back to Afghanistan after being ruled non-refugees was good policy?
I suppose ignoring climate change for a decade, was good policy?
I assume then that introducing an IR policy that stripped workers of rights that had been around since Oliver Twist times was good policy?
I guess watching the internet arrive and yet do nothing to encourage the development of a national broadband network was good policy?
I presume instituting a taxation policy which merely recycled money around to allow for election-time bribes was good policy?
I suppose appointing biased political apparatchiks like Janet Albrechtsen to positions on the ABC board was good policy?
I guess appointing failed Ministers as Ambassadors to Italy and the UN was good policy?
I assume then that destroying the transparency of Government by abusing the Freedom of Information Act and changing the law relating to disclosure of party donations was good policy?
I guess essentially forcing people to take out private health insurance, and then reducing funding on health so much that bulk billing at the GP is now a luxury was good policy?
I guess presiding over the biggest mining boom in history, and yet doing bugger all about infrastructure because they could try and blame poor roads and ports on the ALP state governments was good policy?
And I guess doing all of these things, and then spending record amounts of public fund to advertise it all was just the cherry on top of all of this good policy?
"Have always opposed bad policy?" Don't make me vomit.
Oh and one last thing.
Joe, you want to block the budget? Bring. It. On.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
AFL Power List: Round Two (reality bites)
A couple upsets this week (though really the Saints should have been favourites against the Crows). Geelong still look like Geelong – and everyone should hope they don’t learn to kick straight, Hawthorn no longer look like the Hawks, and Sydney and Port look set to ruin my footy tips for another year.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Behind the news
Today there were a few interesting stories.
The first was the news that back in January ,on a flight from PNG, Kevin Rudd let rip at a RAAF female cabin attendant, and that his abuse made her cry.
Now first off, Rudd was way out of line. And he damn well was right to have apologised.
But what was interesting about the story though is two things:
First, that his press secretary Lachlan Harris at first denied it happened. Why? When a journo asks you about something so specific, obviously the journo has got some information about it. No point denying it. Bad media relations work there.
The second thing was the timing. Why now? It's tempting to think that as the incident happened on a RAAF plane, this is the Department of Defence letting Rudd know it is not adverse to leaking embarrassing details to show who is boss. More likely though is the Liberals found out about it ages ago, and have waited until Rudd is overseas and on the morning of the G20 announcement to try and divert attention from what has been an amazingly successful trip.
Typically Turnbull and Hockey have gone way over the top in response.
Hockey on Sunrise this morning adopted his angry demeanour (like it was his daughter who had been shouted at) and expressed a hope that this is the only incident and that there isn't a pattern of behaviour. What this means is that the Liberals are almost certainly going to try and leak out a few more stories about Rudd blowing his stack to show it is a pattern of behaviour.
Turnbull meanwhile said Rudd's apology shows he only apologises when he is caught doing something wrong. First this ignores this aspect in the article:
Sources said the PM reacted "strongly" and a heated exchange followed. The attendant burst into tears and reported the matter to the senior cabin attendant.
She later composed herself and continued with the in-flight service.
"The crew were distressed but later in flight apologies were made by all," the report says.
It is believed Mr Rudd made a personal apology.
That is he did make an apology at the time - ie well before he was "caught out". So Turnbull, not for the first time, is just making stuff up.
Secondly, given the whispers I have heard from those who have worked as Liberal party advisers recently, Turnbull is no Mr Smiles and Sunshine. In fact the impression I get is that his standard attitude towards staff in his office is contempt and abuse. Turnbull and the Liberal Party as a whole would be advised to not get too excited about Rudd being bossy. No doubt the ALP have their own dossier (or as it's generally known - shit file) on Turnbull.
So why leak it now? Well without it look at what would have been reported (well done to Malcolm Farr for seeing the big picture):
THE groundbreaking statement by the 20 richest powers will have been familiar to anyone who has been listening to Kevin Rudd over the past seven months.
The Prime Minister has been making suggestions and urging actions which yesterday made up the bulk of the G20 statement.
The ideas of course weren’t all his, but he had been enthusiastically supporting and disseminating them since last September, working with more senior international figures such as Britain’s Gordon Brown.
...
The name checks Rudd has received in the United States and Britain over the past two weeks – all made with respect – were salutes for the work he has done.
He won’t defeat the global slump single handed, won’t rank with Barack Obama or Gordon Brown in leading the effort, and will still have to deal with stark domestic matters.
But he should not be denied his part in helping shape what undoubtedly is the most comprehensive global action ever on the economy.
That is Rudd went overseas to the biggest economic conference since WWII and was a player, and more than that significantly helped achieve the outcome.
***
Another interesting story today was a column by Dennis Shanahan on the Liberal's handling of the China-Rudd-Fitzgibbon story. He gets stuck into them:
THE Coalition has blown the whole debate over China, it has made itself the story and its outraged indignation can't hide the fact that it is conducting a reactive political guerilla war without an overall strategy. Until the Coalition realises where it has been and where it is going, the Rudd Government will continue to be popular and get away with murder.
The China syndrome is the perfect example of how Liberal uncertainty about how the Howard government's achievements should be defended and developed has led it to adopt tactics that have damaged what should have been a long-term strategy.
This week started with the Government on the defensive over Joel Fitzgibbon's sponsored, and undeclared, free trips to China courtesy of an influential Chinese businesswoman, that is, a woman who does business in both China and Australia. It ended with the Coalition fuming about the Government's "contemptible" racist smears.
But the Coalition got itself into this corner, and incidentally eased pressure on the Defence Minister, by a grandiose linking of separate issues into an alleged conspiracy aimed at hurting Australia's interests.
At the heart of this conspiracy, incredibly, was the charge that the Australian Prime Minister was acting against Australia's national interests. Just think about that for a minute.
It was Joe Hockey and Malcolm Turnbull who kicked off the conspiracy theory, which was picked up by other Coalition members accusing Kevin Rudd of being a Manchurian candidate.
Not only was this poor politics that rebounded on the Coalition, and poor policy that ceded an advantage to Rudd, but it was a complete misreading of the Government's complex attitude towards China.
He's spot on (though does he really think the Government is getting away "with murder"??). And yet I love how Dennis Shanahan has conveniently forgotten that just six days ago he wrote:
THE Rudd Government knows it's got a real perception problem with China, thanks to the ill-timed bumbling of and carelessness of Joel Fitzgibbon.
The Defence Minister's undeclared trips to China come as China is doing everything it can to take a huge stake in Australia's natural resources; after Kevin Rudd's "secret meeting" with China's propaganda chief has made a bad impression; as the Prime Minister's longstanding Sinophilia makes people suspicious; and as Australia is championing Chinese efforts for a greater say within the IMF.
So last Saturday, according to Shanahan, there is a suspicion about Rudd's dealing with the Chinese, but today, according to Shanahan, the Liberals were wrong to talk up that suspicion.
Interesting to say the least.
***
The final bit of interesting news was this admission by Tony Abbott:
Addressing a social services forum in Sydney, Mr Abbott was applauded when he publicly admitted the Coalition should have said sorry while in government.
"It was a mistake for us not to apologise to Aboriginal people," he said as the crowd applauded.
"And I'm pleased when Kevin Rudd did decide to apologise that he was strongly supported by the Coalition."
It is about the most sensible thing I've heard from Abbott since... ok since ever. And it should be part of a broader strategy by the Liberals - acknowledge mistakes, not criticise the Government for everything it does, and move on with some positive noises (and perhaps policy!).
The first was the news that back in January ,on a flight from PNG, Kevin Rudd let rip at a RAAF female cabin attendant, and that his abuse made her cry.
Now first off, Rudd was way out of line. And he damn well was right to have apologised.
But what was interesting about the story though is two things:
First, that his press secretary Lachlan Harris at first denied it happened. Why? When a journo asks you about something so specific, obviously the journo has got some information about it. No point denying it. Bad media relations work there.
The second thing was the timing. Why now? It's tempting to think that as the incident happened on a RAAF plane, this is the Department of Defence letting Rudd know it is not adverse to leaking embarrassing details to show who is boss. More likely though is the Liberals found out about it ages ago, and have waited until Rudd is overseas and on the morning of the G20 announcement to try and divert attention from what has been an amazingly successful trip.
Typically Turnbull and Hockey have gone way over the top in response.
Hockey on Sunrise this morning adopted his angry demeanour (like it was his daughter who had been shouted at) and expressed a hope that this is the only incident and that there isn't a pattern of behaviour. What this means is that the Liberals are almost certainly going to try and leak out a few more stories about Rudd blowing his stack to show it is a pattern of behaviour.
Turnbull meanwhile said Rudd's apology shows he only apologises when he is caught doing something wrong. First this ignores this aspect in the article:
Sources said the PM reacted "strongly" and a heated exchange followed. The attendant burst into tears and reported the matter to the senior cabin attendant.
She later composed herself and continued with the in-flight service.
"The crew were distressed but later in flight apologies were made by all," the report says.
It is believed Mr Rudd made a personal apology.
That is he did make an apology at the time - ie well before he was "caught out". So Turnbull, not for the first time, is just making stuff up.
Secondly, given the whispers I have heard from those who have worked as Liberal party advisers recently, Turnbull is no Mr Smiles and Sunshine. In fact the impression I get is that his standard attitude towards staff in his office is contempt and abuse. Turnbull and the Liberal Party as a whole would be advised to not get too excited about Rudd being bossy. No doubt the ALP have their own dossier (or as it's generally known - shit file) on Turnbull.
So why leak it now? Well without it look at what would have been reported (well done to Malcolm Farr for seeing the big picture):
THE groundbreaking statement by the 20 richest powers will have been familiar to anyone who has been listening to Kevin Rudd over the past seven months.
The Prime Minister has been making suggestions and urging actions which yesterday made up the bulk of the G20 statement.
The ideas of course weren’t all his, but he had been enthusiastically supporting and disseminating them since last September, working with more senior international figures such as Britain’s Gordon Brown.
...
The name checks Rudd has received in the United States and Britain over the past two weeks – all made with respect – were salutes for the work he has done.
He won’t defeat the global slump single handed, won’t rank with Barack Obama or Gordon Brown in leading the effort, and will still have to deal with stark domestic matters.
But he should not be denied his part in helping shape what undoubtedly is the most comprehensive global action ever on the economy.
That is Rudd went overseas to the biggest economic conference since WWII and was a player, and more than that significantly helped achieve the outcome.
***
Another interesting story today was a column by Dennis Shanahan on the Liberal's handling of the China-Rudd-Fitzgibbon story. He gets stuck into them:
THE Coalition has blown the whole debate over China, it has made itself the story and its outraged indignation can't hide the fact that it is conducting a reactive political guerilla war without an overall strategy. Until the Coalition realises where it has been and where it is going, the Rudd Government will continue to be popular and get away with murder.
The China syndrome is the perfect example of how Liberal uncertainty about how the Howard government's achievements should be defended and developed has led it to adopt tactics that have damaged what should have been a long-term strategy.
This week started with the Government on the defensive over Joel Fitzgibbon's sponsored, and undeclared, free trips to China courtesy of an influential Chinese businesswoman, that is, a woman who does business in both China and Australia. It ended with the Coalition fuming about the Government's "contemptible" racist smears.
But the Coalition got itself into this corner, and incidentally eased pressure on the Defence Minister, by a grandiose linking of separate issues into an alleged conspiracy aimed at hurting Australia's interests.
At the heart of this conspiracy, incredibly, was the charge that the Australian Prime Minister was acting against Australia's national interests. Just think about that for a minute.
It was Joe Hockey and Malcolm Turnbull who kicked off the conspiracy theory, which was picked up by other Coalition members accusing Kevin Rudd of being a Manchurian candidate.
Not only was this poor politics that rebounded on the Coalition, and poor policy that ceded an advantage to Rudd, but it was a complete misreading of the Government's complex attitude towards China.
He's spot on (though does he really think the Government is getting away "with murder"??). And yet I love how Dennis Shanahan has conveniently forgotten that just six days ago he wrote:
THE Rudd Government knows it's got a real perception problem with China, thanks to the ill-timed bumbling of and carelessness of Joel Fitzgibbon.
The Defence Minister's undeclared trips to China come as China is doing everything it can to take a huge stake in Australia's natural resources; after Kevin Rudd's "secret meeting" with China's propaganda chief has made a bad impression; as the Prime Minister's longstanding Sinophilia makes people suspicious; and as Australia is championing Chinese efforts for a greater say within the IMF.
So last Saturday, according to Shanahan, there is a suspicion about Rudd's dealing with the Chinese, but today, according to Shanahan, the Liberals were wrong to talk up that suspicion.
Interesting to say the least.
***
The final bit of interesting news was this admission by Tony Abbott:
Addressing a social services forum in Sydney, Mr Abbott was applauded when he publicly admitted the Coalition should have said sorry while in government.
"It was a mistake for us not to apologise to Aboriginal people," he said as the crowd applauded.
"And I'm pleased when Kevin Rudd did decide to apologise that he was strongly supported by the Coalition."
It is about the most sensible thing I've heard from Abbott since... ok since ever. And it should be part of a broader strategy by the Liberals - acknowledge mistakes, not criticise the Government for everything it does, and move on with some positive noises (and perhaps policy!).
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Flick of the Week: "Obviously you're telling the truth, for why would you invent such a ridiculous story?"
This week's flick of the week takes us from Schindler's List with music by the great John Williams to the greatest ever Hitchcock movie not directed by Alfred Hitchcock (and which imbd tells me Williams was an uncredited piano player of the score) of Charade. (It also allows me to get back to my list of "they don't make like they used to movies"
This wonderful romp is set in Paris, with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn (you couldn't really go wrong with that premise could you?), and has a fantastic supporting cast featuring George Kennedy, James Coburn, Walter Mathau, and Ned Glass (whose most famous other role was Doc in West Side Story).
It is a great twisty thriller in the days before that meant everyone gets murdered in the most gruesome manner. Now ok, I watched No Country For Old Men on foxtel last night, and it was fantastic - very much edge of the seat stuff. But give me a choice between that and Cary and Audrey running around Paris trying to find some money stolen from Germany during WWII before the bad guys catch them (or is Cary bad?) - well now, that's no choice at all. Set up the DVD, get me a big bag of potato chips and off to Paris I go.
Like many Hitchcock films there's much humour in between the thrills, and twist upon twist - though never hackneyed, and the score by Henry Mancini perfectly captures the time of Paris 1963. In many ways it's the last of the 1950s thrillers - after this the cynicism of the times would kick in, and such romantic enjoyment as this seemed to go out of style - it certainly has a vibe more in keeping with To Catch a Thief or North by Northwest than Bonnie and Clyde.
Grant at 59 felt far too old to play a romantic lead - especially to Audrey Hepburn who was only 33 - and thus scenes of them kissing etc were pretty much cut out of the script and it was made clear that he wasn't the one chasing Hepburn's character but the other way round (can you imagine Cary Grant worrying that people might think him a bit lecherous? He was Cary Grant, 99% of the women in the world at the time wanted to be with him!)
But despite this, the chemistry between the two is wonderful - not overly sexual, but they obviously enjoyed being together. In fact the whole cast acts like they know they're in a great film and they're determined not to waste it. If you only know Mathau from his 'Odd Couple' films with Jack Lemmon, this will be a revelation.
I won't go into the plot too much - suffice to say Hepburn plays American Reggie Lampert, who is widowed at the start of the film and who doesn't know a hell of a lot about her husband's past - and then his past comes to visit. Cary Grant is Adam Canfield (or is he), a man who may or may not be trying to help her.
Cary Grant would only make two films after this (the lovely Father Goose and Walk, Don't Run, which I haven't seen yet) though he would live till 1986. He has probably been in more of my favourite films than just about any actor and he never turned in a bad performance. If you haven't seen any Cary Grant movies, even though this is one of his last, it is certainly a great place to start. And heck, Audrey Hepburn thrown in for good measure? Stop your whining, you're damn lucky to be able to watch it!
Below is a cool edited clip off of youtube which shows parts of the film to the backing of the theme song - it doesn't give away the ending. Enjoy, and then go out and get it (or better still buy it- it's the perfect Friday night flick):
Best line (there are many):
Adam Canfield: We didn't steal it, there's no law against stealing stolen money.
Reggie Lampert: Of course there is!
Adam Canfield: There is?
Reggie Lampert: Yes!
Adam Canfield: When did they pass such a silly law?
This wonderful romp is set in Paris, with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn (you couldn't really go wrong with that premise could you?), and has a fantastic supporting cast featuring George Kennedy, James Coburn, Walter Mathau, and Ned Glass (whose most famous other role was Doc in West Side Story).
It is a great twisty thriller in the days before that meant everyone gets murdered in the most gruesome manner. Now ok, I watched No Country For Old Men on foxtel last night, and it was fantastic - very much edge of the seat stuff. But give me a choice between that and Cary and Audrey running around Paris trying to find some money stolen from Germany during WWII before the bad guys catch them (or is Cary bad?) - well now, that's no choice at all. Set up the DVD, get me a big bag of potato chips and off to Paris I go.
Like many Hitchcock films there's much humour in between the thrills, and twist upon twist - though never hackneyed, and the score by Henry Mancini perfectly captures the time of Paris 1963. In many ways it's the last of the 1950s thrillers - after this the cynicism of the times would kick in, and such romantic enjoyment as this seemed to go out of style - it certainly has a vibe more in keeping with To Catch a Thief or North by Northwest than Bonnie and Clyde.
Grant at 59 felt far too old to play a romantic lead - especially to Audrey Hepburn who was only 33 - and thus scenes of them kissing etc were pretty much cut out of the script and it was made clear that he wasn't the one chasing Hepburn's character but the other way round (can you imagine Cary Grant worrying that people might think him a bit lecherous? He was Cary Grant, 99% of the women in the world at the time wanted to be with him!)
But despite this, the chemistry between the two is wonderful - not overly sexual, but they obviously enjoyed being together. In fact the whole cast acts like they know they're in a great film and they're determined not to waste it. If you only know Mathau from his 'Odd Couple' films with Jack Lemmon, this will be a revelation.
I won't go into the plot too much - suffice to say Hepburn plays American Reggie Lampert, who is widowed at the start of the film and who doesn't know a hell of a lot about her husband's past - and then his past comes to visit. Cary Grant is Adam Canfield (or is he), a man who may or may not be trying to help her.
Cary Grant would only make two films after this (the lovely Father Goose and Walk, Don't Run, which I haven't seen yet) though he would live till 1986. He has probably been in more of my favourite films than just about any actor and he never turned in a bad performance. If you haven't seen any Cary Grant movies, even though this is one of his last, it is certainly a great place to start. And heck, Audrey Hepburn thrown in for good measure? Stop your whining, you're damn lucky to be able to watch it!
Below is a cool edited clip off of youtube which shows parts of the film to the backing of the theme song - it doesn't give away the ending. Enjoy, and then go out and get it (or better still buy it- it's the perfect Friday night flick):
Best line (there are many):
Adam Canfield: We didn't steal it, there's no law against stealing stolen money.
Reggie Lampert: Of course there is!
Adam Canfield: There is?
Reggie Lampert: Yes!
Adam Canfield: When did they pass such a silly law?
Turnbull tries some maths
Today Malcolm Turnbull in episode 6,537 of his series of "I can't stop myself from saying something regardless of the facts" came out and declared the Government's December stimulus package a failure. He was pointing to the decline in retail sales in February of 2% and referring to rumours of another stimulus package to be released in the May budget. He said:
"If it's another third spendathon, certainly we wouldn't [support it]. But we'll see what he proposes. Who knows, he may come up with something that makes sense, but based on the last two, it is a very, very poor use of Australian taxpayers' money.
All we've seen is unemployment rising, we've seen economic growth slowing. It's apparent from the retail sales figures yesterday that the cash splash did not work. Some of it was spent but the vast majority was saved, and yet we hear in the press that Mr Rudd is contemplating a third stimulus package."
Apparent is it Malcolm? Ok yes if you just look at the decline in the retail sales figures in February it does sound bad. But let's have a real look at the figures - as Peter Martin has done.
Martin has looked at the figures through December, January and February, and discovered that
Retail figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that while seasonally-adjusted spending slipped 2 per cent in February, it remained close its record high. Over January and February Australians spent more than in any two-month period in Australian history.
He has a nice graph to display what happened:
As you can see at the end of 2008 the graph zoomed up (and remember this is seasonally adjusted, so it is already taking into account the usual Christmas spending), and yes it has dropped in February - but it's obvious it is still well above where it would have been without the stimulus package.
How much above? Well Martin calculates that at least $1.8 billion more was spent in December to February than would have in normal times.
But we also know that the economy at the moment is not a case of it being normal times - in fact without a stimulus package everyone expected sales during those three months to fall (as has happened in the US, UK etc etc). So while an extra $1.8b was in the economy based on normal times, given things were worse than normal, it is logical to assume that much more than $1.8b of the stimulus package went in to the economy.
Now you might think that is bad for the economy because stimulus equals debt, but just ask yourself, how many less job would be going around the economy if it weren't for the spending boost? You think all those retail shops employ people to stand around selling stuff to nobody?
So let's put an end to all those stories about "the stimulus package failed". The point of the stimulus was to get people spending in December to February. They did. At least (and almost certainly more) $1.8b of the $8.9b was spent (at least 20%). Much of the rest (around $3b) was used to pay off credit card debt, which means people feel freer to spend money now and up until the next bonus comes into everyone's accounts.
You may think it's bad policy, that will cost us in the long term. That's fine; argue that. Just don't say the package didn't work - or that everyone saved it and didn't spend it. The package set out to increase spending and stimulate growth. The data is now in - and it worked, in fact it worked just as they hoped.
"If it's another third spendathon, certainly we wouldn't [support it]. But we'll see what he proposes. Who knows, he may come up with something that makes sense, but based on the last two, it is a very, very poor use of Australian taxpayers' money.
All we've seen is unemployment rising, we've seen economic growth slowing. It's apparent from the retail sales figures yesterday that the cash splash did not work. Some of it was spent but the vast majority was saved, and yet we hear in the press that Mr Rudd is contemplating a third stimulus package."
Apparent is it Malcolm? Ok yes if you just look at the decline in the retail sales figures in February it does sound bad. But let's have a real look at the figures - as Peter Martin has done.
Martin has looked at the figures through December, January and February, and discovered that
Retail figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that while seasonally-adjusted spending slipped 2 per cent in February, it remained close its record high. Over January and February Australians spent more than in any two-month period in Australian history.
He has a nice graph to display what happened:
As you can see at the end of 2008 the graph zoomed up (and remember this is seasonally adjusted, so it is already taking into account the usual Christmas spending), and yes it has dropped in February - but it's obvious it is still well above where it would have been without the stimulus package.How much above? Well Martin calculates that at least $1.8 billion more was spent in December to February than would have in normal times.
But we also know that the economy at the moment is not a case of it being normal times - in fact without a stimulus package everyone expected sales during those three months to fall (as has happened in the US, UK etc etc). So while an extra $1.8b was in the economy based on normal times, given things were worse than normal, it is logical to assume that much more than $1.8b of the stimulus package went in to the economy.
Now you might think that is bad for the economy because stimulus equals debt, but just ask yourself, how many less job would be going around the economy if it weren't for the spending boost? You think all those retail shops employ people to stand around selling stuff to nobody?
So let's put an end to all those stories about "the stimulus package failed". The point of the stimulus was to get people spending in December to February. They did. At least (and almost certainly more) $1.8b of the $8.9b was spent (at least 20%). Much of the rest (around $3b) was used to pay off credit card debt, which means people feel freer to spend money now and up until the next bonus comes into everyone's accounts.
You may think it's bad policy, that will cost us in the long term. That's fine; argue that. Just don't say the package didn't work - or that everyone saved it and didn't spend it. The package set out to increase spending and stimulate growth. The data is now in - and it worked, in fact it worked just as they hoped.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Patient Zero for real
Back at the end of January I jokingly searched for the Patient Zero of the Global Financial crisis.
I put all the blame on "Bob the mill worker from Scranton".
Peter Martin has discovered that Rolling Stone magazine (which while usually being about music often comes out with some excellent news coverage) has done the exercise for real. They lay the blame at Joseph Cassano:
The best way to understand the financial crisis is to understand the meltdown at AIG. AIG is what happens when short, bald managers of otherwise boring financial bureaucracies start seeing Brad Pitt in the mirror. This is a company that built a giant fortune across more than a century by betting on safety-conscious policyholders — people who wear seat belts and build houses on high ground — and then blew it all in a year or two by turning their entire balance sheet over to a guy who acted like making huge bets with other people's money would make his dick bigger.
That guy — the Patient Zero of the global economic meltdown — was one Joseph Cassano, the head of a tiny, 400-person unit within the company called AIG Financial Products, or AIGFP. Cassano, a pudgy, balding Brooklyn College grad with beady eyes and way too much forehead, cut his teeth in the Eighties working for Mike Milken, the granddaddy of modern Wall Street debt alchemists. Milken, who pioneered the creative use of junk bonds, relied on messianic genius and a whole array of insider schemes to evade detection while wreaking financial disaster. Cassano, by contrast, was just a greedy little turd with a knack for selective accounting who ran his scam right out in the open, thanks to Washington's deregulation of the Wall Street casino.
The entire article is a fascinating read - as good as anything I've come across on the topic. It lays out the whole sordid business for what it is.
And it shows without doubt that the US legislators - led by Republican Phil Gramm - pretty much guaranteed it would all go to hell when they put forward a Bill to amend the Glass-Stiegal Act, designed to control speculation, that had been around since the Great Depression. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act pretty much allowed the banking market to let rip.
The interesting thing of the Global Financial Crisis is how the seeds of this crisis were planted way back in the 1980s and the junk bond market. Junk bonds are bonds put out by small companies with a high interest attached because they are not as safe as other "safe" companies.
Mike Milkin and others bought up these bonds in huge numbers figuring they couldn't all possibly crash. And of course they did.
In this crisis, the banks bundled up junk mortgages together and bought them up in huge numbers thinking they couldn't all possibly crash. And of course they did, and so have we.
What's that saying about those who fail to learn from history being forced to relive it?
Let's hope Obama and Co at the G20 are Rolling Stone readers...
I put all the blame on "Bob the mill worker from Scranton".
Peter Martin has discovered that Rolling Stone magazine (which while usually being about music often comes out with some excellent news coverage) has done the exercise for real. They lay the blame at Joseph Cassano:
The best way to understand the financial crisis is to understand the meltdown at AIG. AIG is what happens when short, bald managers of otherwise boring financial bureaucracies start seeing Brad Pitt in the mirror. This is a company that built a giant fortune across more than a century by betting on safety-conscious policyholders — people who wear seat belts and build houses on high ground — and then blew it all in a year or two by turning their entire balance sheet over to a guy who acted like making huge bets with other people's money would make his dick bigger.
That guy — the Patient Zero of the global economic meltdown — was one Joseph Cassano, the head of a tiny, 400-person unit within the company called AIG Financial Products, or AIGFP. Cassano, a pudgy, balding Brooklyn College grad with beady eyes and way too much forehead, cut his teeth in the Eighties working for Mike Milken, the granddaddy of modern Wall Street debt alchemists. Milken, who pioneered the creative use of junk bonds, relied on messianic genius and a whole array of insider schemes to evade detection while wreaking financial disaster. Cassano, by contrast, was just a greedy little turd with a knack for selective accounting who ran his scam right out in the open, thanks to Washington's deregulation of the Wall Street casino.
The entire article is a fascinating read - as good as anything I've come across on the topic. It lays out the whole sordid business for what it is.
And it shows without doubt that the US legislators - led by Republican Phil Gramm - pretty much guaranteed it would all go to hell when they put forward a Bill to amend the Glass-Stiegal Act, designed to control speculation, that had been around since the Great Depression. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act pretty much allowed the banking market to let rip.
The interesting thing of the Global Financial Crisis is how the seeds of this crisis were planted way back in the 1980s and the junk bond market. Junk bonds are bonds put out by small companies with a high interest attached because they are not as safe as other "safe" companies.
Mike Milkin and others bought up these bonds in huge numbers figuring they couldn't all possibly crash. And of course they did.
In this crisis, the banks bundled up junk mortgages together and bought them up in huge numbers thinking they couldn't all possibly crash. And of course they did, and so have we.
What's that saying about those who fail to learn from history being forced to relive it?
Let's hope Obama and Co at the G20 are Rolling Stone readers...
Julie Bishop - The Liberal Party Fool
Amidst all the April Fool jokes on the news websites today (my favourite, The Guardian announcing it is stopping printing newspapers and going to a Twitter only service) there was one extremely funny release from the Liberal Party. Alas, despite the humour in abundance, they were actually serious.
It came from the office of Julie Bishop (who a couple weeks ago was advertising for a Foreign Affairs advisor); and it dealt with the China issue that has been given the work around the last week or so. Was she continuing the Liberal strategy of going in boots first about Rudd being too close to China? Err not really:
Labor trashes Australia in key Asian capitals
Yep, it's Labor that has been the bad guys. Why? Well read on:
Senior Labor ministers have damaged Australia’s international standing in key Asian capitals, by making ridiculous and offensive claims of racist sentiments in Australia.
...
It is appalling that two leading voices for the Rudd Government [Simon Crean and Wayne Swan] would during visits to these two key neighbours revive the obnoxious spectre of anti-Asian xenophobia in Australia merely to support a cynical political strategy hatched by Labor spin doctors back at home.
Through this course of action, Mr Swan and Mr Crean have hijacked Australia’s public diplomacy in order to play partisan politics. In their efforts to silence legitimate Opposition criticism of the lack of balance and transparency in the Rudd Government’s foreign policy approach, they have wilfully trashed Australia’s reputation as an open and tolerant society.
Yes you got that right it's all the ALP's fault for claiming that we are xenophobic when we say xenophobic things.
And the Liberal Patry's "legitimate Opposition criticism"? I guess she means things like Joe Hockey on Sunrise?
JOE HOCKEY: I'm concerned about, you know, the pattern of behaviour at the moment. Kevin Rudd received free trips when he was in Opposition, from Chinese interests. Wayne Swan the Treasurer received these trips; Tony Burke the Agriculture Minister. Now we hear about the Defence Minister receiving free trips from China. At the same time, we learn today that the Australian Government is borrowing around $500-million a week from the Chinese Government. What's going on?
Or perhaps it's Julie Bishop herself going on Sky News and saying Rudd is the "Manchurian Candidate"? I guess that now counts as legitimate foreign affairs policy?
Let's see where the Chinese media thinks the blame falls:
Earlier this month, Australia's opposition party leader Malcolm Turnbull accused Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - a Chinese-speaking former diplomat and avowed Sinophile - of acting like a "roving ambassador" for Beijing.
Turnbull said he made the accusation because Rudd met with senior Communist Party of China (CPC) leader Li Changchun without notifying media, and he supports expanding China's say in the International Monetary Fund.
...
Australia's opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has relayed Turnbull's attacks on more ministers - Treasurer Wayne Swan and Agricultural Minister Tony Burke - for taking "free trips" to China.
During an interview with Sky News, Australian Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner has called the opposition's actions an "absurd and a blatant attempt to stir up yellow-peril (a racist term used in the early 1900s) sentiments" to prey on latent antagonism toward China.
The argument among Australian politicians became more heated yesterday, as the opposition rejected accusations of "playing the race card".
Sounds to me they are most annoyed by what Turnbull and Hockey have said, not what the ALP has said about the Liberals.
Obviously in Bishop-world everything is a bit backwards - the offense is to point out that something is offensive not to actually be offensive.
The fact is the Liberal's tactic got called for what it was, and it's blown up in their faces (and also distracted from their attack on Fitzgibbon).
I didn't think Bishop could do worse in foreign affairs than she did in the shadow treasury spot; but she can. For the ALP she is the gift that just keeps on giving.
It came from the office of Julie Bishop (who a couple weeks ago was advertising for a Foreign Affairs advisor); and it dealt with the China issue that has been given the work around the last week or so. Was she continuing the Liberal strategy of going in boots first about Rudd being too close to China? Err not really:
Labor trashes Australia in key Asian capitals
Yep, it's Labor that has been the bad guys. Why? Well read on:
Senior Labor ministers have damaged Australia’s international standing in key Asian capitals, by making ridiculous and offensive claims of racist sentiments in Australia.
...
It is appalling that two leading voices for the Rudd Government [Simon Crean and Wayne Swan] would during visits to these two key neighbours revive the obnoxious spectre of anti-Asian xenophobia in Australia merely to support a cynical political strategy hatched by Labor spin doctors back at home.
Through this course of action, Mr Swan and Mr Crean have hijacked Australia’s public diplomacy in order to play partisan politics. In their efforts to silence legitimate Opposition criticism of the lack of balance and transparency in the Rudd Government’s foreign policy approach, they have wilfully trashed Australia’s reputation as an open and tolerant society.
Yes you got that right it's all the ALP's fault for claiming that we are xenophobic when we say xenophobic things.
And the Liberal Patry's "legitimate Opposition criticism"? I guess she means things like Joe Hockey on Sunrise?
JOE HOCKEY: I'm concerned about, you know, the pattern of behaviour at the moment. Kevin Rudd received free trips when he was in Opposition, from Chinese interests. Wayne Swan the Treasurer received these trips; Tony Burke the Agriculture Minister. Now we hear about the Defence Minister receiving free trips from China. At the same time, we learn today that the Australian Government is borrowing around $500-million a week from the Chinese Government. What's going on?
Or perhaps it's Julie Bishop herself going on Sky News and saying Rudd is the "Manchurian Candidate"? I guess that now counts as legitimate foreign affairs policy?
Let's see where the Chinese media thinks the blame falls:
Earlier this month, Australia's opposition party leader Malcolm Turnbull accused Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - a Chinese-speaking former diplomat and avowed Sinophile - of acting like a "roving ambassador" for Beijing.
Turnbull said he made the accusation because Rudd met with senior Communist Party of China (CPC) leader Li Changchun without notifying media, and he supports expanding China's say in the International Monetary Fund.
...
Australia's opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has relayed Turnbull's attacks on more ministers - Treasurer Wayne Swan and Agricultural Minister Tony Burke - for taking "free trips" to China.
During an interview with Sky News, Australian Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner has called the opposition's actions an "absurd and a blatant attempt to stir up yellow-peril (a racist term used in the early 1900s) sentiments" to prey on latent antagonism toward China.
The argument among Australian politicians became more heated yesterday, as the opposition rejected accusations of "playing the race card".
Sounds to me they are most annoyed by what Turnbull and Hockey have said, not what the ALP has said about the Liberals.
Obviously in Bishop-world everything is a bit backwards - the offense is to point out that something is offensive not to actually be offensive.
The fact is the Liberal's tactic got called for what it was, and it's blown up in their faces (and also distracted from their attack on Fitzgibbon).
I didn't think Bishop could do worse in foreign affairs than she did in the shadow treasury spot; but she can. For the ALP she is the gift that just keeps on giving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)