I wonder if they know what happened in Australia?
. They do things differently at NewsCorp
. Murdoch controls minds. Yea, sure.
. Rupert to the rescue - his little-known role in the creation of ABC News 24
Australia’s $17bn mobile industry hits 125% penetration
There are around six million more mobile subscribers than people in Australia. As smartphone uptake increases growth is likely to continue in the foreseeable future, even though subscriber penetration rates are about 125% of the population.
Growth is being driven by population increases and a rise in the number of people using two mobile subscriptions – one for personal use and one for business use. Australian operators are likely to have more than 28 million mobile subscribers by late 2011 as more and more users migrate to a mobile-only environment. Telstra is still the market leader, with more than eleven million subscribers; Optus has around nine million subscribers; and VHA still has roughly seven million subscribers.
|Jarrod Kerr, Credit Suisse|
1. Declare there is no ceiling. Brad DeLong
The Treasury's lawyers should simply announce at 9 am Monday morning that (a) since the Constitution prohibits questioning the validity of the national debt, and (b) since the continuing resolution that mandates spending through September 30 was passed later in time than the restriction on borrowing, that (c) the debt ceiling is a dead letter. This is so by the oldest of the principles of black-letter law: a law inconsistent with a previous law is deemed to repeal the previous law even if it does not do so explicitly.
An administration that can find lawyers to say that Libya is not "hostilities" and that wanted to reassure markets and reduce economic uncertainty by solving the debt ceiling kabuki theatre debate would have no problem at all with finding lawyers to advance and justify this well-grounded and wise legal interpretation.
The structure of Tim Geithner's testimony to Congress defending his additional borrowing is:
. The Constitution forbids me from even thinking about default.
. You ordered me to spend.
. A previous Congress told me not to borrow, but no Congress can bind its successors, and those of you who are in this Congress here now ordered me to spend.
. I'm just doing what you told me to do--and what the Constitution directly and explicitly tells me to do.
And then we should move on to the people's business. This episode of kabuki theatre has done nobody any credit. If I had previously had any respect for or confidence in Republicans, this would have shredded it. And each day it continues it further shreds my respect for and confidence in the executive branch.
2. Call the Republicans bluff. Doc G
What needs to be done is for the Democrats in the Senate to present a plain vanilla bill that simply raises the debt limit and NOTHING more. No more wheeling, no more dealing, no more offers hoping for counter-offers that are never ever offered. In other words all the Dems need do is invite their opponents to show their hand. Are they or are they not willing to raise the debt limit? That's ALL that's needed, just that one simple bill. It should have no trouble passing in the Senate, since the Dems have the majority and no Republican in his right mind would dare risk being held responsible for economic catastrophe by filibustering.
Once the bill is passed it's handed over to the House, which will be a moment of truth for the Tea Party. As I see it, there's no question as to the outcome. They will fold.
Wonderful, you say? Not really. Because the Democrats are in total disarray. It's unlikely any of them can see clearly enough to offer up the simplest and most effective solution. After all their failed attempts they will most likely go down to the wire with one lame offer after another, which is exactly what their opponents expect. Holding NO cards at all, the Republicans will continue to bluff, offering nothing in return ever. If the Democrats then hold out, and they might, the "disaster" will be upon us. Checks won't get mailed, the markets will tumble and -- just as with the TARP -- congress will have "second thoughts," the Democrats will act "responsibly" (what a laugh) and totally capitulate to all Republican demands. At that point, the debt limit will get raised. And that will be the death of the Democratic Party.
The Great Barrier Reef is brutally confronted, it is indeed in the front line of the climate change battle, by two aspects of global warming. Most of the warming which is the consequence of human carbon dioxide emissions increasing the greenhouse effect has been absorbed in the ocean. That’s no surprise. As ocean temperatures rise, coral bleaching, which is another way of saying coral dying, events have increased. Indeed since 1979 there have been eight mass bleaching events on the Reef with no known bleaching events prior to that date.
Furthermore as more carbon dioxide is absorbed into the ocean it increase the acidity of the ocean – the last time the ocean’s acidity was this high was 25 million years ago. This is reducing the capacity of hard shelled sea creatures to form their calciferous shells – whether they are krill in the Antarctic or coral in the tropics.
Much of the work that was done by Virginia and her team, many of whom are here tonight, and which continues at GBRMPA was to reduce agricultural run-off into the Reef, reduce unsustainable fishing on the Reef, and was all designed to increase its resilience to deal with these larger, long term existential threats. Just as a healthy person can better battle a disease, so can a healthier Reef better respond to, and at least in part adapt to, the consequences of climate change.
Now, you will be relieved to know I am not going to spoil the evening with another political speech about the carbon tax or Julia Gillard’s broken promise not to introduce it.
Rather, I wanted to say something to you about the importance of science.
But first, let me say straight up that the question of whether or to what extent human activity is causing global warming is not a matter of ideology let alone or of belief. The matter is simply one of risk management...
It is, moreover, not a question of left versus right indeed it was Margaret Thatcher who more than 20 years ago called for immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Her words, on our response to climate change were as wise and as relevant today as they were in 1990. Mrs Thatcher said then:
“Many of the actions that we need to take would be sensible in any event. It is sensible to increase energy efficiency and to use energy prudently. It is sensible to develop alternative and renewable energy sources. It is sensible to replant the forests which we consume. I note that the latest vogue is to call them ‘no regrets’ policies – certainly we should have none in putting them into effect.”
And let us not forget it was Margaret Thatcher who in 1990 committed Great Britain to reducing emissions by 2005 to a level no greater than 1990 and who as that commitment to combating climate change committed £100 million to sustainable tropical forestry. So so much for those who suggest that people in the Liberal Party or on the centre-right of politics more generally who support effective action on global warming are some how or another from the left.
If Margaret Thatcher took climate change seriously and believed we should take action to reduce global greenhouse emissions, then taking action and supporting and accepting the science can hardly be the mark of insipient Bolshevism.
Nonetheless, there is no doubt that many people are grounding their opposition to the Gillard Government’s carbon tax on the basis that climate change is not real and that the scientific consensus which supports it is not soundly based.
It is important to remember however that the rejection of the consensus scientific position on global warming, rejection of the CSIRO’s position on global warming, is not Liberal Party policy.
Quite the contrary. The Liberal Party’s policy is to accept the scientific consensus that the globe is warming and that human greenhouse gas emissions are substantially the cause of it. It is also the Liberal Party’s policy to take action to cut Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions such that by 2020 they will be at a level equal to 95% of their level in 2000. This is the same unconditional target adopted by the Rudd Government and the Gillard Government and pledged at Copenhagen.
That 5 per cent cut is not expected to single-handedly stop global warming but is a measured and prudent contribution to what needs to be a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so as to prevent, it is hoped, temperature rises beyond 2 degrees Celsius in the course of this century.
Having said that, it is undoubtedly correct that there has been a very effective campaign against the science of climate change by those opposed to taking action to cut emissions – many because it is not in their own financial interests – and that this has played into the carbon tax debate.
Normally, in our consideration of scientific issues we rely on expert advice. Agencies like the CSIRO or the Australian Academy of Science are listened to with respect.
Yet on this issue there appears to be a licence to reject our best scientists, both here and abroad, and rely instead on much less reliable views. Some of those less reliable views are from scientists – although most are not.
In an age where the Internet gives everyone the opportunity to be a broadcaster, you can find an opinion to support any proposition. If it doesn’t suit your interests to reduce the use of fossil fuels, there are plenty of blogs and articles online to support your self interest.
Some of this material online can be very embarrassing to rely on. A good friend of mine recently contended that the CSIRO were utterly wrong on climate change and he sent me a paper from what he understood was “a leading scientist in a leading journal”. As it turned out the paper was in journal published by the Lyndon LaRouche Movement and was written by a man who had recently served time in gaol for securities fraud. The only peer review to which his work had been subjected was, in fact, a criminal jury.
I might note for those unfamiliar with it, that the local wing of the LaRouche movement is the Citizens’ Electoral Council (CEC) an extreme, rightwing, racist organisation that I’m proud to say that the Liberal Party emphatically and invariably puts absolutely last in any how-to-vote form that we distribute.
These are the charming people who recently disrupted a scientific conference in Melbourne by threatening Professor Hans Schellnhuber, a leading European climate scientist in the midst of his lecture by waving a noose in front of his face and saying “Welcome to Australia”. Just think about that. What a wonderful welcome to Australia from these people.
Now my friend had spent much of his career drawing on expert advice in business, economics and science. He goes to the best consulting firms for his advice, the best law firm, the best accounting firm. And yet on a subject as important as climate change he has been taken in that was anything but the best. And needless to say he was a little bit embarrassed by it.
But this is not an isolated case. And I have to say this is like ignoring the advice of your doctor to give up smoking and lose 10 kilos on the basis that somebody down the pub told you their uncle Ernie ate three pies a day and smoked a packet of cigarettes and lived to 95. Now that is how stupid it is and we have to get real about supporting and responsibly accepting the science. And if we want to challenge the science, do so on the basis of peer reviewed work of which I have to say, there isn’t a lot on the contrary side of the argument.
And this is actually — this war on science and on scientists which is being conducted is much worse than the case of person who ignores his doctor’s advice and follows the advice of his friend down the pub, drawing on the life experience of the fortunate Uncle Ernie.
Because the consequences of getting our response to climate change wrong will not likely be felt too severely by us, or at least not most of us, but will be felt painfully and cruelly by the generations ahead of us. And the people in the world who will suffer the most cruelly will be the poorest and the people who have contributed the least to the problem. There is an enormous injustice here. When people try and suggest to you that climate change is not a moral issue, they are wrong. It is an intensely moral issue raising grave moral issues.
Those of us who do not believe the CSIRO is part of an international Green conspiracy to undermine Western civilisation or do not believe that leading scientists like Will Steffen are subversives should not be afraid to speak out, and loudly, on behalf of our scientists and our science. We must not allow ourselves to be deluded on this issue.
If you are a Liberal, as I and many others here in this room are, most of us are perhaps. If you are a Liberal, do not imagine that taking that position puts you at odds with Liberal policy – it does not. It does not. And remember too that if we form a Government in Canberra and then seek to meet that 5 per cent target through purchases of carbon offsets from farmers and payments to polluting industry to cut their emissions, the opponents of the science of climate change will be criticising that expenditure too as “pointless” and “wasteful” with as much vehemence as they are currently denouncing Julia Gillard’s carbon tax.
As Liberals, we have to stake our environmental case and our position on the right way to deal with climate change on the basis that we are supporting the science. That is our policy and we should not allow ourselves to allow people to imagine that it is not. In my view, we cannot afford to allow the science to become a partisan issue as it is in the United States where it appears that it is apparently no longer politically acceptable for any would-be Republican Presidential candidate to say that he or she believes that global warming is occurring and is caused by human activities. Now the change in the Republican Party is extraordinary. In the Presidential Election in 2008, John McCain, the Republican candidate, ran on a policy in terms of climate change that was only marginally different to that of Barack Obama. I mean, the differences were one of detail. And there has been an extraordinary swing, not against cap-and-trade versus direct action; not against one mitigation policy against another; but there has been a swing against the science and that is profoundly dangerous. Because we run the risk that we diminish the science, that we discredit the science and that of course is the ultimate justification for doing nothing about it.
Now not so long ago I was with a friend, a very long serving and distinguished Environment Minister from our region and we discussed the progress of the climate change issue globally. And he said that he thought that human selfishness and greed was so great that there would no effective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that by the end of the century our planet would be uninhabitable for billions for people. And as he said that, I felt a chill going down my spine. I feared that he was right but my natural optimism reasserted itself and I thought to myself, ‘we are better than that’. We are better than that but you could not fault him in terms of his objectivity or realism.
Now let me just say this to you: The idea that our country, this great country of ours, can sail through a 3, 4 or 5 or more degrees rise in temperature this century with our prosperity and freedom, let alone the Great Barrier Reef, intact is very naïve. So this is a big issue. So in the storm of this debate about carbon tax and direct action and what the right approach to climate change should be, do not fall into the trap of abandoning the science. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that what Lord Monckton says or what some website says is superior to what our leading scientists or leading universities would say.
And I just ask all of you, many of you here, have had important dealings with the medical profession. Would you allow yourself, your own body to be operated on by some medical theory that you picked up on the website or would you seek to get the most highly respected specialist in the field to operate on you. We all know what the answer is. That’s what we do with our own bodies. What we’re talking about now is the future and the health of the planet.
Now I think an effective response to climate change does not depend on one mitigation policy or another being adopted. Different countries will have different views on what is the most cost-effective way to reduce and indeed so will different political parties and different political leaders. But we must not allow opposition to a particular policy to undermine or diminish our commitment to take climate change seriously and to work effectively both here and globally to ward off the avoidable consequences of global warming.
We also need to be very clear-eyed about what an effective global response to climate change requires. There are many calculations on the scale of emissions reductions required. But it is quite clear that to achieve the necessary cuts by mid century all or almost all of our stationary energy – and when I say our, I mean the world’s – will need to be generated from zero or near zero emission sources.
This could be renewables like hydro, biomass, wind, solar or tidal power. It could be geothermal power, it could indeed be nuclear power. But it will not be burning coal unless the emissions from that coal are captured in some form or other.
Australia generates most of its electricity from burning coal – much of it very emissions intensive brown coal in Victoria or South Australia. That is why our carbon dioxide emissions are among the highest in the world on a per capita basis – a reason why the Chinese (whose emissions are about one-fifth of ours) and the Indians (whose are less than one-tenth of ours) find our regular references to their emissions – and why should we do anything until the Chinese or Indians do something – why they find those references incredibly galling. Those of us, and David’s a member of this club with me, who have represented Australia at international conferences on this, know how incredibly embarrassing statements like that are when you actually confront the representatives of those countries.
We are also the world’s largest coal exporter – we have 19% and 58% of the global trade in thermal and metallurgical coal respectively. In 2009, thermal coal exports were worth $18 billion, and metallurgical coal exports worth $40 billion.
Some people would say, I trust that most would not, that as we have a vested interest in coal being burned we should oppose action on climate change and rather like the tobacco companies who sought to discredit the connection between smoking and lung cancer muddy the waters on climate science in order to prolong the export billions from coal mining.
Others might say that we should not be troubled by the long term prospects for coal because we have abundant resources of the alternatives – gas, the least emissions intensive fossil fuel, uranium, geothermal power and, of course, plenty of sunshine.
A more responsible approach would be to encourage the development of those alternatives at the same time as we promote and develop technologies to capture CO2 emissions from coal burning – whether that is by pumping it into the ground or by turning it into other useful products.
Indeed many would say that no country has a greater vested interest in clean coal than Australia.
And yet I regret to say to you that neither the Labor government led by Julia Gillard – who is a woman fond of a hard hat, I must say – nor the coal industry itself have shown much enthusiasm for investing in Research and Development or trials for Carbon Capture and Storage. In fact funding has been cut again as part of the recent carbon tax package.
A handful of large firms dominate production of thermal coal and coking coal. BHP, Peabody, Rio Tinto, Anglo-American, Xstrata, Wesfarmers. The operating earnings generated from thermal coal production alone are not easy to estimate, but they may approach $10 billion in good years. There is plenty at stake at both the level of producers and export earners, not to mention the taxes they pay along the way for there to be a critical mass of parties with the motivation and resources to move on carbon capture and storage.
Now one of the most dispiriting parts of Professor Garnaut’s updates was his analysis in volume seven on carbon capture and storage. Essentially he said work had come to a halt in 2008 and no technical progress or commercial pilots of significance were apparent. The estimate of coal capture and storage adding 40-plus per cent to the cost of coal-fired electricity was about the freshest fact on the page.
One need only look at the vast expansion of new investment in coal-fired generation underway in China, India and elsewhere to understand the importance of this issue. Carbon Capture and Storage isn’t just about saving Australia coal exports or generation capacity. It is about addressing the reality which the MIT study on the future of coal baldly stated as long ago in 2007: “We believe that coal use will increase under any foreseeable scenario because it is cheap and abundant.” Now if it increases and emissions increase and the science is right, the Reef is finished. And that is a very small part of it. So this is a very serious issue and it is remarkable that with all the rhetoric about the need for action from the Gillard Government, the single most important area of research and development, the one that is arguably the most important in terms of the world’s future and most certainly most important from the point of view from our own economy, is being neglected.
So the commercial feasibility and large-scale deployment for Carbon Capture and Storage is the only way – in the absence of some great technological shift, and you won’t find me discounting that, I’m a great believer in the disruptive power of technology – the world has any chance whatsoever of achieving the cuts needed to get to the 60 per cent or 80 per cent 2050 targets that leaders have committed to.
The thermal coal industry and the Gillard government both know this. So how should Australians interpret their disinterest in this technology? As an acknowledgement that Carbon Capture and Storage doesn’t work and is too expensive and hence thermal coal is finished? Or a sign they don’t ever expect to be answerable for those 2050 targets? I fear that is probably the answer.
Australia has had 21 years of direct action to tackle climate change. And, in all but one case, it has been failure after failure.
In 1989 Bob Hawke pledged to plant 1 billion trees over the coming decade as part of an effort to improve the environment.
It’s a good starting point for the history of direct action.
What could be wrong with planting trees?
They make us feel good, they consume a lot of carbon dioxide, they stabilise the soil and they also reduce the air temperature around them.
But, more importantly, did all those trees make a substantial difference in cutting our greenhouse emissions?
Ultimately, you can talk about feeling green and doing our bit but unless the policy is working it is just empty rhetoric that comes at a cost borne by the taxpayers of the country.
Since Mr Hawke wandered around the country urging us to plant trees there have been a host of government efforts to improve the environment and cut greenhouse emissions.
Here’s the bottom line.
Since 1990 Australia’s greenhouse emissions have climbed (by about 6 percent) and are on their way to being about 30 percent higher by 2020.
According to the Grattan Institute, an independent think tank based out of Melbourne which has looked at this issue, the Federal and State governments have tried more than 300 emission reduction policies and programs since 1997.
There’s plenty of evidence available of what works and what doesn’t, of what gets some bang for its buck and what should be dumped because it’s hurting taxpayers and doing nothing for the environment.
One of the key elements of Tony Abbott’s "direct action" is a tendering process for farmers to sequester carbon in the soil...
More than half of the cut in emissions he promises under a coalition government come from this process at a fraction of the cost of a carbon tax (although how it would be monitored and policed is left out).
This is the track record of tendering processes to achieve environmental outcomes in this country.
"Analysis of a range of grant-tendering programs – involving $7 billion in budget funding – shows that they cannot reduce emissions at the necessary scale or speed," the institute’s economists and analysts found.
"On average, for every million dollars the government commits to such schemes, only $30,000 of operational projects result within five years and only $180,000 within 10 years.
"Based on experience, government would need to announce an abatement purchasing fund of $100 billion to meet the 2020 emissions reduction target."
Governments have channelled $5 billion of our money into rebate programs.
They were found to have produced "relatively little" and, to achieve the bipartisan goal for 2020 emissions, would require spending another $300 billion over the coming decade.
Grattan also reviewed energy efficiency standards.
We’ve got energy efficiency stickers on our fridges, dishwashers and big screen TVs, our homes are rated on energy efficiency. Surely it must be working?
"Because they are limited in scope and slow to take effect, they cannot play more than a support role in meeting the 2020 targets," the institute found.
One of the Abbott direct action plans is to put "one million additional solar energy roofs on homes" by the end of this decade.
To do this the Government would offer an extra $1000 rebate for either solar panels or solar hot water systems, with a cap of 100,000 rebates a year.
Straight off there’s that rebate issue that worried Grattan, while the thought of 273 roofs getting covered in panels or homes getting solar hot water systems a day, every day, for a decade should worry anyone who watched the home insulation program.
The coalition’s policy document cites a California program of a similar nature as the genesis of this policy.
Which is good, because the Productivity Commission this year had a look at the California program and found the cost of abatement was between $305 and $651 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent.
So there’s the choice between letting the public find a solution at $23 a tonne and a government initiative that will cost between 13 and 28 times more.
Sounds a bargain.
Indeed, it looks like the only real success story on the direct action front has been in land clearing.
On that front, an effective ban on native land clearing – which heavily affected Queensland – is the only thing that has stopped Australia’s greenhouse emissions going through the roof.
Emissions from deforestation have fallen from 132 million tonnes back in 1990 to 49 million tonnes expected to average through 2008 to 2012.
But that ban has not been priceless.
Talk to any farmer who has had this fundamental right to do what they like with their land and you’d get a clear picture of the costs involved.
Governments of all persuasions took away a property right from a group of Australians and did not pay them for it.
To put it bluntly, the farmers and regional communities of this country were ripped off.
The Productivity Commission looked at the various bans on native vegetation clearing back in 2004 and delivered a scathing assessment.
"At their most basic, these effects have involved a reduction in the area of land available for agricultural production. But often they also have imposed significant restrictions on the normal operations of agricultural enterprises, preventing many landholders from implementing innovation in technology and farming methods and increases in scale necessary to achieve the productivity improvements required to remain viable," it reported.
"In the longer term, the entry of new younger farmers is likely to be discouraged because of the significant restrictions on any development of new or existing properties which involves clearing native vegetation."
In fact, both the PC and Grattan have recently found that about the best performed, and cheapest, program in this country to have emerged to cut emissions has been the NSW and ACT Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme.
Not surprisingly, it’s a market-based system which penalises power companies for not cutting emissions.
It puts a price on emitting carbon – something almost every "direct action" program goes out of its way to avoid.
Two decades on from Bob Hawke and his trees, governments of all persuasions have gone out of their way to find a magic bureaucratic bullet to cut Australia’s greenhouse emissions.
The one shot that delivered, banning the clearing of native vegetation, has come at a cost that most of us choose to ignore.
This Symposium has asked, ‘Is Public Policy Getting the Economics it Deserves?’ The answer that is implicitly presumed is (surely) “No”. But we are missing the point if we think that the frank badness of policy in contemporary Australia is sufficient for the answer. For the question is directing us - not to whether policy is good or bad – but how much good could economics do for policy; what is the most that policy could get out economics? And how might that ‘most’ be realized? Briefly, how is economics to be turned to good effect?
Both the broader public and policy elites share the same answer: economics is to make itself useful by providing experts to provide remedies to ills. In this position it is implicitly supposed that economists have access to some terrain of knowledge that is useful, objective and complex - the kind terrain that is the natural habitat of the ‘expert’- and the task of the economics expert to master and cultivate this terrain, and offer up its fruit in the form of policy advice and conduct. In this answer, economists might be compared to agronomists, or, to use Keynes’ comparison, to ‘dentists’
Here I will part from many in our assembly, and assert that this vision of the economist as the expert is badly wrong.
Why? For two reasons.
First, economists simply don’t have the grip on the quantitatively calibrated counterfactuals that are requisite for any reliable repertoire of remedies.
What economists know is highly conditioned, ‘partial’ propositions ,that freeze the operation of most of the economy by ‘ceteris paribus’ clauses. To put it another way, economists can shine a lamp on some parts of the economic machine, but most of the machine, in all its baroque intricacy, is wrapped in gloom. Thus all attempts to predict the response of the machine are fraught. Our difficulty in predicting this machine is compounded by the fact that economic system is integrated a still more mysterious political- economic system. These ‘general equilibrium’ behaviors of this system will mock any aspirations to control it.
The upshot is that we have little “how to” knowledge – which is the surely the adjunct of the acme of knowledge - but posses only a lesser order of knowledge: a “what” knowledge...
Economists can correctly distinguish things, they can rightly say what they are, and what they will become. (‘this is cost; this is a burden; this is a waste’). In medical terms, economists’ knowledge is diagnostic and prognostic, but not therapeutic.
So where does this leave the usefulness of economists?
First, let’s grant that prognosis and diagnosis, even the absence of therapy, are not wholly ‘useless’.
Second, even in the matter of therapy, there is a usefulness of the Socratean wisdom that we know that we don’t know. Economists, in other words, can be useful in the way medicine was most useful before the 19th century; by discrediting quacks, and the false and destructive hopes of their quack remedies.
But despite these two uses, the position I have outlined above appears to imply a quietism that is extreme and intolerable. Is there really no failure (either government failure or market failure) that is so egregious that economists cannot claim to know of some action that would be improving? To put the point more concretely, is there is no policy that so idiotic that economists cannot be said to know that its abolition will be for the good?
Here I have to concede; of course, there are such egregious failures, of course there are such idiotic policies. But I concede without inconsistency, because the kind of cases which irresistibly illustrate those egregious failures are ‘local’ in domain (rather than macroeconomic or ‘paneconomic’ in domain) so that the general system effects that mock our aspirations to control can be safely ignored.
So, yes: with such local egregious failures let’s identify them, deplore them, and crave their disappearance. Let’s do all this, quite sensibly, in the role of the social critic. But let’s not do this in the expectation that what we have to say will absorbed as ‘advice’.
For there is a second deficiency in the vision of ‘economist as dentist’. That vision assumes a dyadic relation: dentist and patient. But in the matter of policy advice the critical relation is (at least) tripartite; the public, economists, power elites. The critical point is that our power elites so ‘impoverished in consciousness’ there is incoherence in expecting our knowledge to be heeded. It is a bit like recommending to a lunatic Benjamin Franklinesque precepts of rational self-management. Or explaining to a thief the benefits to all of everyone observing an honesty box system. There is an incoherence here; if the advice was ever going to be listened to it, wouldn’t be needed in the first place.
I conclude that to hopefully advance our knowledge as ‘advice’ is a bit late in the day; it is trying to dispose of symptoms without dealing with the pathology. We have to go back a bit, or a bit further down. In that respect I will not pin any hopes on formal economics education; we have plenty of that, and what good has it done us? It is a sobering, even melancholy, exercise to enumerate the MPs with formal economics education in the current federal parliament. It is not the fewness that depresses, but the very number, and the particular individuals who can make the claim.
What the political elite is needs is not the drilling in some abstract curriculum, but ‘enculturation’ or even ‘socialization’. So I will conclude by exploring the suggestion that economics can makes it useful through economists constituting a socialising weather system in an otherwise hostile climate.
Socialization is a thing done in informal groups; it is not something that happens to you by reading a book, or by undertaking a qualification. It is often seen as a hierarchical process (from old to young), but has important elements of mutuality.
Think of economists, then, as comprising a group, with a degree of hierarchy (or gradient); at the apex are performers, descending to audience, and then to mere onlookers and passers by. The performances of the performers span the written word, the spoken word audience, the Facebook micro blog and the Twitter tweet. The audience and onlooker receive an impress from these performances. But at the same time the performer is also receives an impress from the reaction of the audience, and even from passers by. There is also a dynamism; there is a percolation inwards as some of the audience join the performers. More importantly, there is a dynamic in the opposite direction, as the passersby pass by, and soak into the wider world bearing their impress; and so silently and tacitly shape the ways of the wider world, and enrich that impoverished consciousness.
The ‘group’ in the above scenario is obviously not an arbitrary aggregate of individuals, but a community. The Economic Society of Australia is the leading example of such a community, and today’s Symposium exemplifies the process I have hopefully described.