Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think the convention that former PMs/presidents avoid criticising current PMs/presidents exists not because they don't have anything to say, they most certainly do, but because they know better than anyone the limitations of office and the necessity of compromise.
-
Contrasting Moore with Bolger is interesting. Both have gone on to reasonably high posts but whereas Bolger is possibly more respected now than when he was leader, I suspect Moore has slid significantly from his WTO high.
As a researcher for Labour, I recall Moore being an odd character within the party. He was still capable of very clever politics but very seldom engaged much beyond the occasional parliamentary question - when he did, it was an awkward transaction because it involved interacting with Mallard and Mallard was once a supporter who'd switched to Helen's camp.
There's an vengeful streak in almost all of the Fish and Chip gang - Lange, Douglas, Prebble, Bassett and Moore particularly. They can't let go and all too often show up to reitigate old battles or (re)claim credit for current prosperity. Caygill and Palmer are the exceptions, both have significant careers post-parliament and even seem to enjoy bipartisan support based on their various appointments to lead reviews of this and that. Former National bigwigs appear much better at moving on and letting go...
-
Ta very much, now I can wile away some time. I may need to pop out for a coffee first ; )
Several in fact. Thanks indeed Don and others, this is discussion has been typically interesting and this material looks like good reading. The PA community is in good health.
-
Michael, on a quick read this appears to argue that the benefits of improved labour mobility primarily accrue to the more developed nations with only secondary benefits to the poorer economies (primarily in the form of wages remitted "home"). Therefore, loosening restrictions on labour mobility is not a substitute for improving domestic productivity but we're still stuck with how to do this - this article seems to suggest improving access to land however in the absence of restrictions around FDI or patient capital you have to wonder whether development will simply export any profits?
Incidentally, work-related risks to migrant workers are generally significantly higher than domestic workers not only because of language issues but also because of the industries into which migrant labour flows - an article in last week's SMH tells the tragic story of Mongolian/Chinese forestry workers in far north Queensland.
-
Ormerod's criticism of the theory of competitive equilibrium is particularly lyrical. In The Death of Economics he states:
The theoretical model of competitive equilibrium is a formidable intellectual construct. A similar situation arose, for example, in the Middle Ages, when the belief that the sun revolved around the Earth led to astronomical models of great complexity as scholars struggled to account for ever more discrepancies between the observed paths of the heavenly bodies and those required by the theory. Eventually, the entire model was laid to rest.
In addition to his criticism of orthodox economic theory, Ormerod is working on alternative models, including models based on complex and dependent systems such as biological ecosystems, and which do not rely on simple individualistic benefit maximisation or the fiction of perfect information.
-
To a greater or lesser extent, the goal is surely achieving improvements in the fairness and sustainability of trade. I don't think globalisation necessarily means trade can not be fair or sustainable, but I appreciate that it hasn't been.
The merits of Trade Aid et al are surely that they're attempting to encourage the development of competitive industry to replace the need for aid. So too, apparently, is structural adjustment - although Stiglitz's critique of IMF's efforts to date is pretty revealing.
don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
I like this, it's a lovely turn of phrase. And I agree with Craig's injuncture that we hold our politicians to a reasonable standard. But I interpret this to be an argument for politicians to not only be more active and honest but also to extend their range of actions into areas of economic activity and market operations that'll seriously upset the orthodoxy but I can't see an alternative?
-
Jesus, it's only 9am here (Sydney), and I'm a bit of an emotional wreck having read Don and Richard's contributions - thanks, you know, in that odd I-didn't-really-want-to-have-a-cry kinda way...
-
Economics is an inexact science, there's bound to be lots of disagreement. A utilitarian cost-benefit analysis is just one way of looking at things. I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this approach but it does foreground the fact that we have choices to make and that those choices may entail trade-offs.
This is the heart of an issue that's been bugging me recently. The Liberal party commissioned an economic analysis of different IR policies. The study was undertaken by Econotech, who are modellers in their own right, and compared the Liberal's IR policies with a counter-factual which assumed no changes to IR laws since 1993 (and excluding Keating's 1996 reforms).
In the end, the report concluded that some 300,000 jobs would not have been created if they'd been no reform. On the basis of this then, the Libs are saying voting for Labor jeopardises these jobs but that's simply untrue as the counter-factual scenarios in no way approximates Labor's policies.
The value of general equilibrium modeling is conditional upon the robustness of the underlying assumptions (and obviously the credibility of the model itself). That said, input-output analysis - which does not include 'trade-offs' or second round impacts is incredibly limited. Auckland University did an IO analysis a few years back to show that Auckland Uni contributed a couple of hundred million to the local economy but this measured just the multiplier effects of wages etc but did not even attempt to estimate the unique value of research or a well skilled workforce - contrast this with the Allen Consulting Group GE analysis of the value of TAFE NSW which actually gives policy makers, Treasuries and the like some real insight into the contribution education makes to an economy (including the value of some alternatives).
-
Mike's a loose cannon; always has been, always will be. It was nice when he had some credibility, at the WTO, but it was always only a veneer.
Former PMs really need help controlling themselves. I can think of very few who've gone quietly and remained so - Bolger perhaps is one. On this side of the ditch, Keating recently criticised Labor's IR plans and deputy leader Gillard directly.
-
Sorry David, got distracted by trying to be a know-it-all (and failed)!
BTW, if anyone wants an easy intro to the theory and a very entertaining read, David Bodanis's E=MC2 is a fantastic book. It is the "biography" of the the theory of relatively that explains the current understanding of each element of the equation through an overview of its historical development.