Quiggin does the zombie.

Firstly I'd like to thank you for the conciseness of your piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, unfortunately I might not be able to be as concise as the errors in that piece require a great deal of debunking. My appologies.

The idea that the financial markets always make better decisions than governments is wrong (and irrelevant) but it has nothing to do with "imputing wisdom to the rich and powerful" or the efficient market hypothesis. Government in most countries (including the USA) is made up of the rich and in all countries of the powerful. The financial markets on the other hand are to a great extent made up of the middle class and the people who handle their money. If anything you impute far more wisdom to the rich and powerful than the EMH. The efficient market hypothesis is states that it is impossible to beat the market because the market always correctly incorporates and reflects all relevant information. This is saying much more than that the market can beat the government, it's saying that the market beats everyone.

You might actually be thinking of the Austrian School theories that say that "financial [and other] markets always make better judgements than governments", but I doubt you've heard of the Austrian School as it's criticisms of the EMH were not made "in the wake of the crisis" many years before. In fact it is theorectically possible for governments to make decisions that, on occasion, are better than that of markets, it's just not possible for them to make them consistently enough to deliver a net benefit because the information provided by a price mechanism. Look up "economic calculation problem" on wikipedia, it will give you the outline. It may sound patronising to tell a professional economist that he needs to look up wikipedia for basic facts but I can't help that, you do.

It should be noted that you more correctly summerise the EMH further down in your article, which makes it seem like either you're being deliberately deceptive about what it says or you're simply not putting any thought at all what you're writting. If you're going to construct a strawman you should avoid actually stating it's full implications.

Your claim that economic rationalism was the "dominant ideology of the time" is absurd. Throughout the period you discuss the dominant ideology of all Western nations called for a powerful central bank, tarriffs, minimum wage laws, restrictions of nonabusive and consensual child labour, medical. legal and countless other types of professional licensing and so on and so on. The fact that this ideology was dominant is demonstrated by the facts that it dominated (i.e. it's ideas were implemented) and made it's domination seen natural. If you can find any evidence that for instance the idea that we didn't need a central bank was "dominant" at any point during the last 100 years I will recant this. Or if anyone can read aloud all the regulations applicable to financial markets is less than an hour. Please don't try this yourself, Basel II might make your tounge explode (251 pages of just the INTERNATIONAL regulations, thousands more of national and god knows how much state).

Of course the EMT was indeed used to support this "dominant ideology" in that it supported the idea that there wasn't a central-bank-created bubble and that indeed there couldn't be. But this idea is directly opposite to what "economic rationalism" says about bubbles in general and the bubbles you talk about in particular. The "reforms" after the dotcom fiasco were no doubt an overreaction, reforms made is such circumstances always are, but they were also an underreaction. The main cause of the dotcom bubble was the central bank, that is to say government intervention in the market, which has been the cause of all financial bubbles that don't involve tulips.

Of course if the EMH was right then there wouldn't have been a bubble nothing would be overpriced and therefore Julian Robertson would not have been right to bet they were. He was doing exactly the opposite of what EMH said he should. That he failed doesn't mean it's right (it's not as the subsequent collapse shows), but that you don't understand what it says about investing says you're wrong. Not just about what you say but the idea that you are well-informed enough to comment at all.

Of course you made the usual claim that "booms and busts ... can only be curbed by external regulation" despite the comprehensive failure of regulation to do anything of the kind. There are thousands of pages of regulations and god knows how many pages of decisions by bureaucrats about how they are to be interpreted, is there any evidence that they work? In fact there is good reason to believe that they will never will and I've laid out the arguments in my blog post "Systematic risk, markets and the State". Simply put government regulations don't control the booms and busts they are part of it. http://credible.blogspot.com/2009/11/systematic-risk-market-and-state.html Regulations alternatively cripple markets when they are not needed and spur them on at the worst possible time. The simplest way to reduce booms and busts is to simply eliminate the central bank, which is known to have caused this and all previous (non-tulip) booms and subsequent busts.

There is considerable reason to believe the investment decisions generated by private firms, which are under less pressure to produce short term returns than government, will outperfom those governments. Governments have no incentive to produce value, only to reward interest groups. The government has no shareholders to satisfy, only voters, who practice "rational ignorance" about their policies, and who even if they didn't, would have no reason to systematically advance policies that are for the general good. Private firms on the other hand have people with large interests in whether or not they're creating value and for whom ignorance is therefore not rational. While some of these shareholders may value short term gains, they know that sacrificing the long term interests of the company devalues the shares right now as long term investors will not want them, nor will short term investors who plan to sell to long term investors later on.

Of course this has nothing to do with "the case for comprehensive privatisation" since that case depends on the people benefitting from selling the assets, not the financial markets benefitting (at least that's not ostensibly why it's being sought). The idea that there are bubbles and that assets sometimes getting enormously overvalued is in fact damn good evidence for privatisation, comprehensive or otherwise, properly timed. As I said to my father, you were against selling Telstra shares, I was against buying them, who was right? Not only will privatisation during a bubble benefit financially benefit the government and therefore you no doubt believe the people, but it will extract money from the bubble preventing the enormous new bad investments that often occur during them. Everyone's a winner. Of course this depends on governments investing at the correct time, but if you're right that should be easy. It's startling that you don't even get the implications of your own theories right.

I am unable to tell who you thought would be convinced by your article. The things you support are already the opinions of the unthinking majority, so it can't be them. Anyone who does the least bit of research would see the flaws in your piece so obviously they're not it's target. I can only assume that you wish to give people with no economic knowledge an excuse to believe as they do.

How to excuse a murder (copy of letter sent to "The Monthly".

It's not often that journalistic bias in a piece that condemns it in it's subject is as obvious as in John Birmingham's hatchet job on Julian Assange. First there's the entirely irrelevant start that tries to blame him for an attack he had nothing to do with. Then there's the attempt to link greater efforts to not kill civilians with greater civilian deaths. I note that he wasn't quite brave enough to state claim causality, but without it what relevance does this bit have?

Finally after the ground has been fertilized there is the claim that wikileaks identified "hundreds - possibly thousands" of collaborators. I believe the actual number is three. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread598661/pg1 That's the only number I could get from any source that actually checked the facts, unlike you Mr. Birmingham. If there had indeed been hundreds let alone thousands of collaborators identified then of course that would "damage national security" in the mind of David Lapan. Since he specifically said there was nothing in them that could damage national security even your own piece implies that there were not these hundreds you claim.

Then there are the absurd attacks on the journalistic ethics of wikileaks. They have not to my knowledge published a single false fact in the affair (except what false facts were in official government documents). They have been substantially less biased than the average news report on TV, which is admittedly not saying much. If mainstream media hadn't been caught parroting lies over both wars the claims that journalistic ethics were important might have some crediblility, but they did and it doesn't. As an example of the "long-established ethics and standards of the reporting profession" when was the last time a report about a proposed law didn't assume that it's authors were telling the truth about what the law was for? For instance a law about searching for knives is always presented as being intended as a way to crack down on criminals when we all know the police already have the power to search with probable cause. I see what you mean about a "compact with the state... authorities" though. Without such reporters might actually say what the laws were for.

Anyone who feels themselves wronged by anything that wikileaks says can of course reply, unless they're too stupid to operate a blog. The purpose of a story is not to give people time to excuse their bad behaviour. They did what they did, here's the evidence.

Finally we come to your pathetic and abominable excuse for the mass murders in the "Collateral Murder" video. You state that there is talk of weapons fire in the video yet nobody killed in the video fires a weapon or does anything that looks like they're about to. There is simply no action by any of those killed that would suggest an attempt to fire on anyone or the thought that they might have to. People who are about to fire on US forces take cover they don't stand around in the middle of the street. I have never been clearer about anything that I've seen in film than I am that these were not people about to engage in combat. Of course you can claim that I'm wise after the event, but that's just bullshit. Anyone can see they're not threatening. There is nothing that looks enough like a weapon to justify taking a life. The claim that weapons were later found merely makes it look like someone brought a throw-down, as is known to happen in Iraq. The video shows NO evidence of them and nobody has claimed it does. Not even you.

Naturally you refer to the graininess of the video to excuse the killers. But they knew of the quality of their equipment and choose to use it, badly, to determine whether someone lived or died. That was their moral decision and if they can't make moral decisions in combat they shouldn't be in it. If they gather and use information in a firefight in way that allows them to act like moral people then they were morally reprehensible for every getting in that chopper. This is not "naive" or "simplistic" or any of the other words horrible people use to describe people who are inconveniently decent. It's is simply the truth.

This didn't need to be leaked you claim, which is a lie and you know it. If the video showed only facts that were previously reported then why was it suppressed for years? I understand that someone who was embedded with the troops and sympathetic to them reported on it, but he didn't see the video did he? So he reported on reports by those involved, which is no substitute for the real facts. He explained "minute by minute" how the reporters came to be fired on. In that report did he mention that at the time NONE of the forces involved was being fired upon or believed that they would be fired upon between the firing and their reaching the site? Because that is obvious from the speed of their arrival and the fact that this non-threat was occupied the Apache's time. Did he leave that bit out or was that just you? I'm trying to pinpoint precisely who is making what excuses for murderers.

Murder, motive and militarism.

Stefan Molyneux's comments on the video of two journalists and several others being killed is correct, but misses something. Sure nobody with even a basic understanding of how the State works is surprised that they murdered people, or that they murdered people that weren't the people they were “supposed” to be murdering. What the video showed to me was that the purposes of the murders was not what even the more cynical observers assumed. The theory that US and allied forces are there to make the world safe for oil corporations is shown to be fundamentally wrong as is the theory that they are there to maintain control of the Iraqi government for whatever purpose. There is only one credible motivation for the actions of US forces as depicted in this video and it's far scarier than anything Molyneux attributed to the politicians.

First of all let's think about the sequence of actions.
1)Helicopter crews observe things that don't look a lot like armed men and report that they are armed.
2)Crew requests permission to fire on these men.
3)Their commander at base gives permission to fire. This third action is the critical point, logically what should have been the third action, if the goal of these actions was as what is commonly claimed either by their supporters or detractors? What should have come between 2. and 3.?
4)Murder, bloody murder.

Ok so to put this in context, the US military has been in Iraq at this point for ~4 years and had examined the reasons for violent action against it using both information from guerrilla conflict and others with similar ethnic groups. From this a basic rule was deduced that killing civilians or even active guerrillas resulted in recruitment of additional opponents for revenge. This was not a secret, it was very well known by this stage of the war. Indeed this principle was well known to military theorists for decades, although of course it is possible that they weren't listened to by those actually in command. By this time however these facts were well known to all commanders in theatre. Additional fighters obviously caused additional casualties and prevented the accomplishment of tactical and through them strategic goals of the coalition. This is true even if the coalition has no clear idea what it's goals are, except if they are a certain set of goals which I will mention later.

So we have personnel acting against the supposed interests of the people they work for. They do so despite their employers being able to easily access audio-visual records that clearly show this behavior and show no concern that they might be fired for being amazingly bad at their jobs. This confidence is well-placed since there is no mention in this controversy of anyone being fired, demoted, redeployed or inconvenienced in the slightest by said bad actions. Numerous other incidents similar to this have been uncovered and yet nobody is getting fired. Nobody is even being warned that they will be fired if this continues. I'm not talking here about morality, only about efficiency in accomplishing things that are claimed to be goals of those involved. This is an own goal, yet the players are still out there next week as center forward and the coach isn't even telling people not to do that, what gives? Is it possible that there are other goals more important than achieving “victory”? Indeed is it possible that “victory” is not a goal at all for the people actually firing the weapons?

One clue to a particular goal is the calls to request firing clearance (or whatever they call it, I don't know the technical term). They consist of unsupported assertions that cannot be checked up on at the time followed by somebody giving permission if the facts reported fit a protocol that the asserter knows. Obviously if permission is wanted all the asserter has to do is concoct a story that fits the protocol for firing. How then is this useful? All it does is delay firing if permission is asked, which could be lethal if it is actually required. If the situation doesn't in fact fit the protocol it does not prevent firing since the assertion can't be checked. The punishment for lying about the situation is presumably no worse than for inappropriate firing if you didn't have to seek permission but simply obey the protocol. Indeed given that any real danger would result in firing without permission (hey would you ask if an RPG went past your head?) asking permission would tend to be positively correlated with bad shootings. So why do it? The answer is simple, CYA. The military needs to prove that it had procedures to avoid bad results and followed them, thus avoiding the criticism that it did nothing to prevent tragedy. The fact that what it did to prevent tragedy is ineffective or counterproductive is irrelevant since the goal is not to avoid tragedy but to look like one is trying to avoid it. Since few people are familiar enough with military procedures (particularly if these can be classified, as they are) to know how bad they are the military gets to say “We're trying our best, it's just really hard not to kill innocent people.”.

Now lets look at why the military isn't taking simple steps to avoid death or injury to it's members or damage to the strategic goals that are assumed important to the US government, from “liberating the Iraqi people” to “boosting oil company profits”. Remember two things, your boss is who can fire or promote you, your job is what you get fired for not doing or promoted for doing. If you can't be fired or not promoted for being a bad teacher but you can be fired for saying “nigger” you are not a teacher, you are a professional non-sayer of the word “nigger”, a pretty stupid job but hey there's a paycheck, someone will do it. If you can't be fired for not achieving victory but you can be fired for making it clear that military success is not in the long term interest of the voters you are not a soldier you're a professional obscurer of that particular truth.

Consider that for about 65 years the net effect of US military activities on the welfare of US citizens has been negative. If US entry into WWI is considered a cause of WWII then the period stretches back to 93 years at least. Yet the generals are still employed, the bases thrum with activity, people are refueling planes, repairing tanks, shooting journalists and otherwise “earning” a paycheck. If the perception of US military activities were to change to a realistic one they'd all get fired. Not immediately of course because the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) wants to protect their pork, but sooner or later other complexes (e.g. the Medical Industrial Complex) will promote a politician that proposes to take MICs pork and slough it in another trough. Said politician will get the votes of the disenchanted and the money of the competing thieves, an unbeatable combination. If you doubt that popularity plus loot can overcome powerful lobbyists I've got three words for you “State Tobacco Lawsuits”.

If a serious review of how the US military operates in Iraq and elsewhere and how this effects the strategic and political aims of the US government were to be undertaken and publicized most of the US military and almost all of it's high command would be fired. This need not occur because of any harm to the interests of the general US public, the harm to special interests is more than sufficient to have the generals canned if the government doesn't give a damn about it's constituents. Needless to say before any of the high command were fired they would certainly make sure anyone who caused the review to happen were taken down with them. Preferably in a manner that made it difficult or impossible for them to get another government job and severely limited their private employment opportunities too. So your job as a lieutenant, captain or other junior officer is to avoid serious examination of the performance of the US military in general and your unit in particular. Failing that allowing the performance revealed to become widely known and believed must be avoided. Whether this performance leads to attaining any goals of the government is irrelevant. While it is possible that non-performance in stated goals might lead to serious examination of the military and it's procedures this is extremely unlikely. This came close to happening after the Vietnam war, but nothing came of it, and nothing will come of it if both Iraq and Afghanistan are “lost”.

So what's the best way to avoid rational discussion of the US military's effects either happening or penetrating public consciousness? Well ironically being in a war helps. So does increasing the size of that war so as to turn as many voters and campaign contributors as possible into members of the MIC. Failure is not only an option for the military, it's the best option. When the military is actually in a war any complaints about it's performance or the cost are deemed “unpatriotic”. It's only in peace, where the activities of the military hardly matter, that it can be questioned. Once they stop performing brave self-sacrificing activities they lose the strange moral shield that self-sacrifice endows. So in the end what the military wants is to lose for a long time but not so badly that their paymasters lose patience with them and give up. Then they want to salvage something that their paymasters ( not their bosses) call victory. This avoiding a backlash for the paymasters that could cause them to come down on the military's masters. As long as those who control the government can be fooled into thinking that the military will serve the government's purposes and that the government's purposes are basically theirs the military will be allowed to do what it wants. That the corporations fall for this over and over again is partly due to the profits for being part of the MIC but mostly because they are run by people already invested in the strategy who would be fired if it's general failure became apparent. Ending the war in Iraq won't happen because people realise that it's unjust but because it's in their interests to oppose it. Telling the corporate elite that you believe they benefit from it won't help that.

The democratic restaurant

Imagine you go to a restaurant and see on the menu two choices
each for apertizers, main course and desert. You order the salad
for starter, then the steak and finally the fruit cocktail, a
nice white would go well with that you think. The waiter tells
you that you can only have either the salad, lasagne and fruit
salad or the garlic bread, steak and ice cream. Only 2 choices
on the menu. You pick the first option figuring you can swap
your main course with someone.

Unfortunately you don't actually get to pick which menu option
you get, you just get to vote for it. If you win then everyone
has to eat what you're eating, if you lose then you have to eat
what the majority ordered. You try to explain that you're lactose
intolerant but the waiter is too busy tallying votes. He doesn't
seem too concerned that half the diners don't bother. After the
vote goes against you, you decide to leave. Security stops you
and insists that you pay for a meal you did not order and have
not eaten. They won't let you leave until you do.

Looking at people's bills you notice that some are larger
than others, although everyone ate the same type and amount of food.
You eat up and leave vowing never to eat there again. The
security guards tell you not to eat at any other restaurant, else
they'll break your legs and that if you eat at home, you still
have to pay for the food here.

This is democractic dining, with as much freedom as voting for the
government allows. Bon appettit.

Vogter2100 and moral stupidity.

AngieAntiTheist has a video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zURPZ6r_fUg in which she describes how she brings up her kid to be moral without religion. It's well thought out and clear both in terms of how she intends to raise a moral child and why.

Then the idiot Vogter chimes in with a response that calls the question stupid. He claims that morality is in our DNA and therefore we don't need to find out anything about it to be moral. As usual he accompanies his claims with insults to anyone who believes differently from him, in this case against their intelligence. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Rand, Russel, Molyneux they were all wasting their time according to him. All we have to do is let the instincts flow. Now I don't deny that we have a certain amount of morality encoded in our DNA but that this is sufficient to look after us without thinking. If that's the case Vogter, then how the hell did we get religion? Religion is against practically all the moral instincts that scientists have found to be inherited in our DNA, so how could it arise if simply allowing them full sway works? The fact is that the moral instincts like compassion don't answer often critical questions about morality well and sometimes they don't answer them at all.

For instance should we sterilise retarded people so that future generations aren't forced to take care of their subnormal offspring? Compassion tells us that burdening the poor of the future with the support of these people is bad. It also tells us that taking away the joy of raising a child from someone is also bad. Compassion tells us to help those in sweatshops in the third world, it does not tell us whether we do this better by boycotting sweatshops or by buying as much as possible from them so demand for and therefore the price of sweatshop labour goes up. Should we be compassionate for a whale killed to feed thousands of people or for the hundred of cows that would be slaughtered to feed them if it's spared? Is it better to spend one's time collecting money for Haitian earthquake victims or telling people why so many died in the first place? Because it looks like compassion would recommend the former, but without the later Haiti will continue it's present abysmal system and disasters will continue to kill Haitians in obscene numbers. As usual Vogter doesn't consider any non-obvious facts and even obvious facts that don't fit his viewpoint he ignores. In fact looking at any of Vogter's videos shows me why morality is never easy and what happens to you if you fail at it.

Systematic risk, market and the State.

Market participants have taken taking system-threatening risks in the securities market. Many commentators have taken this to mean that government should intervene to prevent them doing so in the future. I explained previously why this won't work, but now I'd like to focus on how the State encourages and facilitates the taking of "systematic risk". First a definition, "systematic risk" is a risk that could rationally be considered to endanger the entire system it is taken within, necessitating a change to another system if a misfortune occurs. A system is "an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole" (http://dictionary.com).

The theory behind the call for more regulation is simple, market participants have a motive to protect themselves from risk, but no sufficient motive to protect the market from systematic risk. Because any prevention of systematic problems costs the person or institution, but they don't gain the full benefit. Their own risk goes down and that's a benefit, but it's small compared to the full cost of the risk across the market. So the preventer pays the full cost of prevention but doesn't gain the full benefit. It's like paying to purify a entire river so you can take a clean shower. Therefore people theorise that a "domino effect" could happen where one firm goes bust sending one or more of their creditors bust leading to the bankruptcies of their creditors and so on leading to too many bankruptcies for the system to handle.

This analysis ignores the fact risks that could result in defaults to your own creditors are more expensive. Naturally there are creditors out there who will loan to risky people or companies. Just as naturally they charge more than more conservative creditors so announcing that you are taking a risk likely to endanger repayments costs a firm money. This includes any exposure sufficient to destroy the firm no matter how apparently safe the firm you're exposed to. Passively concealing the nature of your risk-taking costs just as much since creditors and investors naturally assume that if what you were doing were safe you'd rush to tell them of it. Actively lying about what financial risks you're taking is called fraud and it's easier to detect and harder to actually profit by than you'd think. Investors and creditors (as well as potential short sellers) have an incentive to ferret out the lies. So any "domino effect" would have to overcome continual barriers to this like bulkheads in a well designed submarine.

A risk to an entire system is more likely if a single factor affects all participants directly, or at least a large number of participants directly and the rest through their connection to those directly affected. A risk is more likely to be systematic if could cause sudden problems, without time for participants to adjust their actions to minimize the problem. Government intervention is of course the most likely thing to create such risks due to the sudden and universal change it causes.

The most obvious government intervention in financial markets is the setting of the "risk free" interest rate by central banks. Since all economic processes include a delay between input and output this affects all economic processes. It also profoundly affects the prices of productive assets. Paying more than the return on an asset divided by the interest rate loses money. For instance if a factory had profits of $1M a year and you paid $10M for it, interest rates of 10% lose you money. So high interest rates mean low asset prices and sudden increases in interest rates mean sudden reductions in asset prices for all participants. This can lead to capital adequacy problems, i.e. a company not a big enough difference between the value of it's assets and it's liabilities. Financial institutions need this gap to be big to reassure investors, creditors and regulators that they're not about to go broke. The usual response to capital adequacy problems is to sell off assets to reduce debt. If many firms have the same problem of course the market is swamped with assets and a good price can't be got for them. This is because the opportunity cost to the buyer of buying your cheap assets is buying someone else's even cheaper assets. Since the government can subject everyone in the system to this same risk the government IS a systematic risk.

So called "credit ratings" were in effect licenses to commit fraud. Since by definition investors in funds lacked either the motivation or the knowledge to investigate individual investments. Therefore they hire someone to do so and get them the best combination of risk and return. Without the previously mentioned motivation or knowledge they had to rely on credit ratings as a proxy for risk. Fund managers delivered not the best combination of risk and return but the best combination of return and credit rating. To make a promise intending to deliver something entirely different is fraud. No fund manager will be prosecuted though because they will all say "But we invested in safe things, look they're all AAA rated.". Indeed the government required that some funds (especially retirement funds) invest only in things rated highly by it's designated defrauders, Moody's, Standard & Poors and Fitch.

Ratings agencies didn't rate unsafe firms or securities highly because the owners and issuers paid them. Although this seems like a good idea a little thought we show that's a bad strategy. If you label every piece of rubbish as caviar why would anyone want to eat in your restaurant? Ratings produced solely because someone pays you to say something are worth about as much as the paper they're printed on, that being how much competitors could produce them for. The only point in producing a rating is having people believe you, and over the long term saying things that aren't true doesn't help that. The reason that ratings agencies went the short term route of simply saying what others wanted them to say is that they have no competition. It's a government-enforced cartel that fund managers can't even refuse to deal with. If they had real competition then people who invest according to what the most credible firms said. But since they don't have to compete they can simply maintain the same low standards as the other two firms and rake in the cash.

Maturity and the State.

I have recently [not so recently now, I left this post as a draft for a long time] been accused of "an impersonation of a spoiled brat" for refusing to take responsibility for the actions of my government. This is a common complaint about the enemies of the State, that they are not mature enough to accept things they ought to. So let us examine the accusation against me in particular and libertarians or anarchists in general.

The reason that "axiomiser" claimed I was immature was I would neither "shut the fuck up and accept the majority vote" or "make some effort to change peoples mind". I was under the impression that I was already doing the latter but let's examine whether this is a reason to accept responsibility for my government.

Let's assume that I can convince 100 people each in Australia, the UK and the US to vote for the candidate that most opposed the war in Iraq. Bear in mind I have NEVER convinced anywhere near this many people to do anything. This is what axiomiser was so upset that I would not accept responsibility for. Of these about half would have voted for that party anyway on other policies. Assuming a two party system and that each person has a 50/50 chance of voting for each party the chance of one vote changing the election is approximately 3/(number of voters). So basically bugger all chance of it EVER happening on a national level. Some chance perhaps that I could change one seat but that rarely changes who forms a government.

So given that I can't change the government, why must I accept responsibility for it? I can't change whether my mother's labor was painful should I accept responsibility for that? I can't change the mind of a terrorist, should I appologise for 9/11? I can't change my socks, should I be blamed if they stink? Oh wait I can change my socks, just a minute... Ok, that's better. But you see the difference, right? Socks, changable by me so I should accept them, or change them. Majority vote not acceptable by me so I need do neither. But the "axiomiser" can't accept this, because he's a spoiled brat. He thinks that he should be given what he wants and everyone should shut up about it. In fact that's what the State is, an attempt to get everyone to shut up about the rights and wrongs of giving the big boy what he wants. Maturity does not consist or resignation to the acts of bullies. It consists of acceptance of reality, and while reality says that the bullies win here, now, it also says that I don't like it. For those that don't wish to hear this, GROW UP!

Swine flu, inefficency and am I crazy again?

Ok, so I've been hearing about the swine flu, which naturally the MSM is declaring as a massive emergency that requires huge government action to prevent thousands of deaths etc. Now I'm not going to talk about the implict assumption that such actions is justified by "emergencies" or the responsbility of government for the rapid spread of such pandemics (given the persistent and large-scale subsidy of rapid transportation). Instead I'm going to make a case that government is seeking to maximise that amount of resources spent on these efforts rather than solve the problem.

This case depends on several things being true and if I'm wrong about any of them, please tell me.

The first is that I'm not an Einstein, a Linus Pauling or indeed the intellectual equal of any Noble prizewinner (with the exception of the "Peace" prize, I'll write something about that farce some other time). By this I don't mean I'm subnormal intellectually, merely that my intelligence is not such that it can routinely find implications of facts that nobody else in the world can. If I can see it, chances are other people can too if they want to.

The second is my understanding of the mathematics of epidemics/pandemics. Basically to be an epidemic the average number of people an infected person will in turn effect must be greater than one. If on average each new victim gives the virus to less than one person the total number of victims will be limited to n = a/(1-r) where a is the number of people infected at a particular time and r is the number of new victims each person infects. This is why schools, swimming pools, etc used to be closed, so that on average each person would interact with and have a chance to infect less people. If these measures reduced r below one then an epidemic could be nullifed without any effective treatment for the disease itself. Traditional responses to Ebola outbreaks (developed well before modern medicine) are an extreme example. Sufferers (or suspected suffereres) are simply left in their hut and food pushed in with a long stick. If the person doesn't collect the food for three days a torch is throw onto the thatched roof destroying the virus present in the victim's dead body.

Third is my understanding of what affects the how many people the average victim infects. One of the chief factors is how many people they come into contact with. This varies enormously over the population. Drivers, door-to-door salespeople, shop assistants and airport ticket personnel contact more people than housewives, computer programmers or carers, I will call the former group "high contact" and the latter "low contact" people. Anything that minimises the chances of high-contact people getting the disease is going to be doubly effective at reducing transmission. Firstly the chance of high-contact people getting the disease is higher because they obviously they have more opportunities to catch it. Once infected they similiarly tend to transmit the virus to more people for the same reason. The average number of people a person will infect during an epidemic is therefore increases with the square of his/her number of contacts minus the number of contacts*. If high contact people have a greater tendency to contact other high contact people (for instance if airports have large numbers of high contact people contacting each other) then the situation is worse, increasing with the cube at least of the number of contacts.

If this is true then it's obvious that a small investment in reducing average chance of transmission (either to or from) high contact people will have a large effect on total infections and therefore deaths. Reducing the chance of someone who contacts 10 times more people than the average person is close to 100 times more effective tranmission chances for the average person. What happens if his contacts are only a 10% more likely to be people like him (10 times as high contact) than the contacts of normal people? Well the average number of people infected by the people he infects goes up by close to 1000%, multiplied together this implies over a thousand times more infections from this person than the average person. All of this is an average which includes the possibility that he is never infected.


So clearly these sorts of people, if they exist, are a huge part of the epidemic pandemic problem, yet the targeting of vacinnes is generally towards the elderly, the young and other people who are likely to die if infected. Many of these people are low contact, in fact in the case of the elderly the lack of interaction is often a serious mental and physical health issue in itself. Now of course likelihood of death or serious illness if infected is rightly a factor in determining who should be protected. However isn't it true that the most effective protection of these people is the dramatic reduction in the transmission of the disease?

Now if I'm right about this then it logically follows that, not being a genius, other people could have also figured this out. This is particularly true of those who job is supposedly to prevent or reduce the death toll of epidemics/pandemics. So if they did so and ignored the implications, what other motive is there to do that but to continue wasting resources? The reason they'd want to do that is clear, so they can keep paying the politically influential drug companies and so that the UN's health employees have something to do.


* Because he can't infect the person who originally infected him, therefore the number of people who could infect him is c and the number of people he can infect is c-1.

The Underbelly of the State or the drama comes to the airport.

I'd like to start by offering my condolences to the family of Anthony Zervas, may you find peace and consolation. Mr Zervaswas murdered in full view of two police officers with guns and numerous security officers with clubs and pepper spray. Later his brother was shot and critically wounded outside his home. The police were waiting for backup, because having a gun against clubs isn't enough for them. Sure there were about 14 thugs, but 4 were fighting the other 10. All they'd have to do would be to scare someone who doesn't have a gun with their own guns, which is not usually difficult. The security officers weren't totally useless of course, they stopped other people from saving Mr Zervas. Now that may not sound useful, but it is. If the general public had stepped in and saved someone when the State, it's agents and those it licenses to protect people it would make the State look stupid. That would be far worse than someone dying. Of course the agents of the State could simply have yelled "Everyone start taking pictures" and the fight would have probably stopped. Not many murderers want their crimes in the holiday snaps of half of Asia. Even if they hadn't stopped at least we would have been able to identify all the attackers. Naturally you can't do this from airport security cameras because, 8 years into the "war on terror" security cameras still aren't good enough to identify anyone.

Of course the small-s state being New South Wales, our old friend Laura has to rear her ugly head. That's Laura Norder, the bitch of Macqurie Street. Every time politicians want to do something bad in Sydney they say it's for "Laura Norder". The murder and later shooting of the victim's brother were part of an ongoing bikie war. The worst kept secret in law enforcement is that this war is over methamphetaimes and hence the fault of the State. Even the mainstream media have said that the violence is the result of drug prohibition with the Sydney Morning Herald editorial openly saying so. The violence of the methamphetamine market was the subject of "Underbelly" the most popular series on australian television. So naturally Premier Rees says nothing about stopping prohibition, instead seeking to make bikie gangs illegal. The proposed law would allow the police to declare an organisation prohibited and not allow it's members to meet. They could also declare people part of these organisations. Of course the police don't have to say why they are making these declarations they just announce that from now on, if you see some of your mates you go to goal for 2 years. They don't have to prove that you and your mates were doing anything illegal, conspiring to do anything illegal or even that you were "consorting" with known criminals. Naturally laws against all these things are already on the books. Only those against whom a case cannot be made for any of these, or indeed anything else, will be caught by this law.

We are supposed to trust that people who let killers drive away in a taxi despite having 22 cops on the premises and cameras all over the place. These are the people who we're supposed to believe will handle their new powers competently and honestly. It's the same everywhere, when they don't have the competence to solve problems they want power to solve them without competence. Of course attempting to solve problems without competence simply creates more problems that the creator isn't competent to solve. Admitting incompetence to solve these new problems would lead to questions about the competence of their previous solutions so of course it doesn't happen. While people are allowed to use power, force in other words, to solve their problems this cycle will continue. While this cycle continues the people will continue to want their leaders to "get tough" because deep down, everyone knows them getting smart is not an option. And when it all goes horribly wrong, when the powers are used in ways that their supporters didn't expect, guys like me will say "I told you so.". When the lastest laws are used to crack down on antiwar protesters, unions, community groups that oppose whatever idiocy the government pushs on us, or bunchs of suspicious looking muslims, I want to be the first to say "No surprise". Because that's all the government ever gives you, the feeling of wisdom that comes with predicting what others wouldn't. Note not couldn't, they could all have predicted it. They just decided not to.

The murderless club basis for objective morality.

It has been claimed by theists that without god it is impossible to have objectively-based morality. Leave aside that doing what someone else says you should do is not an objective morality, how hard is it to make a basis for morality that is objective? Well I thought I'd try and it took it less than 10 minutes.

Imagine a world without rules, no morality, no law, no binding customs (although they might have habits). Obviously you would be better off with some system of rules to limit undesirable behaviour. One of my friends comes up to me and says "I want to be able to trade without fear of being murdered and my cargo stolen. What can I do?". I say well let's form a club with only 1 rule, if you murder someone in the club you are expelled. The only bad thing about being expelled is that members of the club can then murder you without consequence just as they can murder people who never belonged to the club. This club would be very popular. So would a club that had as it's condition that you don't steal from the other members. It is objectively true that if any of these clubs were opened in such a rule-free world I'd join them. I know this objectively because I have sufficent knowledge of my own preferences. These preferences are subjective, but my knowledge of them is objective. So if I base my morality on not doing anything that would get me thrown out of a "rule club" that I join it's objective morality.

Like I said, less than ten minutes.

The regulatory cycle or why new rules aren't the answer.

Deregulation has taken a lot of the blame for the current crisis. Most of the people saying that conclude that if deregulation caused the problem, regulation can solve it. They are wrong.

To understand why you must abandon the common, if largely unconscious assumptions about regulatiors and how they produce regulation. Generally people assume that wise, impartial regulators sit down, look objectively at the facts and, unswayed by intellectual fashion and the irrational exuberance or depression of the market and society, make wise, impartial, objectively based decisions. If that were true then why is it that such decisions are only made exactly when they are not needed, as is presently happening. Currently the US government is writing rules about overextending your company, investing too much in doubtful financial assets and everything nobody wants to do any more because it loses money. No doubt other governments are too. It's like making sure everyone has cleaned the leaves out of their gutters after a bushfire has demolished half the town. To understand why they're passing such laws and regulations now, you must understand the financial regulatory cycle and how it trails the monetary cycle.

Stage one of the regulatory cycle is Crisis, caused by the excesses of monetary expansion. Crisis creates a demand for immediate action to combat the cause of the present catastrophe. The cause is however the state of the regulatory cycle some time in the past so correcting it has no immediate effect.

Nevertheless the second stage, Action occurs. Regardless of the immediate effects of Action the monetary cycle moves on and things correct themselves. The Action may speed this up, slow it down, make it easier or harder, more expensive or cheaper.

This leads to the third stage, Inefficency. During Inefficency actions taken during more frantic times are observed to be hampering the markets efforts to create wealth. Since the market is still in recovering from a bust there is little chance they are actually preventing bad behaviour anyway, since that only happens in the boom phase. Thus their effect is to impose large present costs for very small or nonexistant present gains.

This leads to the fourth stage, Circumvention. Firms in the financial market do two things. Lobbying to remove the restrictions placed in stage 2 occurs to the general appathy of the population. Few if any voters and political masters understand the present rules and why or even if they're important. Resistance to selective deregulation is low as the circumstances that led to the need for the regulation are gone. Firms also develop practices that go around the current rules while having largely the same effects as the practices forbidden. This makes the original regulations even less important, even counterproductive if they simply shift activity to less transparent or accountable sections of the economy. Circumvention accelerates when during times of monetary expansion because during those time the need for caution and restraint is weakest.

The combination of the monetary boom and Circumvention above leads back to Crisis.

You might ask, "Is this cycle inevitable?". Might we act appropriately and promptly to prevent such a destructive turn of events. The answer is "Why would we?". During the times when such action is neccesary by it's nature few people think it's warrented. If people were in general worried about the negative effects of asset price bubble then we would not have one, since a precondition of such a boom is that people don't think it's either happening or going to happen. To impose or keep regulations to prevent it happening regulators must go against the wishes of pretty much everyone who's paying attention to their activities. They must do this despite not being able to offer any evidence that their actions are warranted, predictions being notoriously difficult in economics. Those wanting to remove restrictions can point to solid evidence of costs in the here and now. In any case in many or even most cases they're right about the high costs and low benefits of regulation, because much of the regulation was passed in panic during stage 2 (Action) when it was felt there was little time to think through the costs and problems. A case could and will be made that the actions in the Action stage were hasty and ill-considered and possibly now out of date. A general mood of caution and pessimism will defeat this case, which is another way of saying regulation won't be abandoned until shortly before it's needed.

And yes, my blogposts are like buses, none for yonks then three come at once.

Dexter Morgan for President.

Recently the TV show "Dexter" has won my heart. Something about the deeply flawed individuals struggling both make sense of mysteries and keep their own facinates me. For the uninitiated the title character (Dexter Morgan) is a serial killer who preys exclusively on murderers. His foster father taught him to direct his sadistic and depraved instincts to something approaching justice. He claims not to be able to resist these instincts, but there is little evidence that he tries. Dexter is a bad man, if he makes the world better or fairer, it is in spite of his nature, not because of it. Relief floods his face when he finds out the Ice Truck Killer has not been found and will be killing again. The deaths of the victims are nothing to him compared to the prospect of taping the killer to a table and cutting off his head. Evil dictates, directly or through his efforts to conceal it, almost every one of his actions.

Part of Dexter's appeal is of course revenge fantasy, the idea that there is someone to inflict misery, degradation and death on those who frighten us. Dexter is powerful in a way we cannot and will not be. We are unable to dedicate the time and energy needed to find those who scare us, he gives up almost all his free time for it. We lack the strength and skill to seize them, he has it down to a routine. We fear the consequences of pursuing monsters, he can't be dragged off their track. Our conscience makes us hesitate to wound, his is not a problem. Every angry thought summons up a wish for a tame Dexter, to give us the blood and yet keep it from us.

The State is our tame Dexter Morgan. We know the State is evil. We know of it's murders, it's enslavements, it's discrimination, it's lies, it's unjust imprisonments and inhumanities of every stripe. We excuse them like uncles who get a bit overenthusiastic with the bottle at times. They not alcoholics, not like the neighbour's addict black sheep. But deep down we know the truth, that the State will always come back to badness, to viciousness, to evil, to power. We want to know that we can unlease that badness against our enemies, crush them and yet remain untouched. People who wouldn't shoot a dying dog are willing to let the State commit all sorts of horrors in their name and at their behest, safe in the knowledge that they did nothing.

However Dexter, unlike the State, does not believe in his own goodness. He knows, and we know, that he is deeply evil. He does not contend that he does what he does for the common good, and we would not believe him if he did. We do not celebrate our dedication to helping his bloody work. We do not feel that attacks on his credibility or honour are attacks on our own. Yet with the State we do. We feel insulted by slurs on "our" countries honour, and react emotionally to them, sometimes regardless of the evidence. Yet we know that the State is a far less discriminating killer than Dexter. They get it wrong all the time. Indeed more innocent Americans were killed by American cops (by the State's own figures) than by terrorists in all but 2 of the last 16 years. And in one of those it was pretty close. In none of those years did terrorism kill more Americans than the direct and indirect effects of government violence*. Yet most people defend it and justify and minimise it's crimes. The true danger of the State is not it's evil but the willingness of people to call it good and thus not act against it.

Currently the American State is run by people who openly boast of extrajudicial killings. They are openly declaring themselves to be Dexters, but nobody thinks they have his precision, self-awareness or intellect. So why are we settling for second best? Why not get the real deal? Dexter Morgan for President, because lesser evils are for wimps.




*Even if you don't count terrorism as the indirect effect of government violence.

Counter-arguments to central bank supporters or why you're being given bad paper on this deal.

This paper is written for Michelle, who couldn't think of a good reason why we need central banks but thought it was "silly" not to have them. So this is an attempt to anticipate the arguments for a central bank and counter them.

Firstly there is the argument that the government should determine the rate of interest. Why? Interest rates are a price, the price of future good and services relative to present goods and services. We don't let the government set the prices of petrol, shares, rice, sex, books or chocolate because they set it too high/low and cause shortages/surpluses.

Why would the correct price of getting something earlier be more suitable to government calculation than the price of anything else? The market-clearing price is the price at which as much is produced as is consumed. Interest rates are the same, the correct one is where as much money is availible to borrow as people want to borrow at that price. Any greater and more immediate satisfaction is provided for future reward than people want, any less and the opposite. The correct rate depends on people's personal preference for immediate versus future value. There is no way for the government to know personal preference. That's why they can't efficently decide how much petrol, shares, rice, sex, books or chocolate should cost.
Stability is a common argument for central banks, which is surprising considering that central bankers themselves have admitted to causing the greatest example of instability in economic history. Well perhaps that's unfair, perhaps the great depression wasn't as big as some of the many hyperinflations that central bankers have not admitted to causing. The problem is that central bankers caused all of those too. The extremes of financial and monetary variability are the direct product of the actions of central banks. To argue that they create stability you'd have to find more examples of financial crisis before the advent of central banking than after it. The trouble is that there's only been one real bubble where the government didn't have control of monetary policy and that's "Tulip Mania" (say it with massively overpriced assets). There's been more bubbles than that in America alone in one Fed chairman's reign.

Of course perhaps central bank is more stable but the instability comes in greater doses when it comes. The problem with that theory is 1) there's no evidence of it and 2) there's is good theorectical reasons to disbelieve it. Financial and monetary instability is based in part on perceptions of instabiility itself. If there is a perception that a central bank will lead to large instability then that will by itself cause small instability. We know that there certainly is a perception that central banks contribute to extreme inflationary instability (hyperinflation) because anyone who studies it notices that they're the only known cause of it. And financial markets are comprised of people of people who know at least that much economics. Since at least Bernake's admission that "We [the central bankers] caused it [the great depression] they know that central banks cause extreme deflation too. So why would market be more stable knowing that fundamental decisions are being made by an institution that, every so often, causes massive instaiblity?

Of course there is more to stability than perception. Individual shares, debts and assets values vary depending on individual factors, but the market as a whole varies according to underlying economic facts. So which monetary system would cause these facts to change unpredictably and quckly? The one where a stroke of the pen can increase or decrease money supply by an infinite amount or where it can only increase after years of searching and expensive extraction.

Keynesian theories of economic instability are based on "irrational exuberence" and systematic stupidity of market players. Such stupidity is extremely expensive so why would it persist? Those who resisted such insanity could simply sell assets during the expansionary phase, buy more during the contractionary phase, rinse, repeat. This process would stabilise the market by itself. These "countercyclical investors" might not be rich enough to significantly stabilise the market, but they get rich every cycle. They also get access to greater control of other people's funds as there successful record grows.

Assuming a 4 year cycle with alternative 10% over and under valuations makes a 5.5% return a year on top of normal investment returns. Anyone who gets those returns for say 8 years in a row can easily borrow more to leverage their money. Leverage of only $1 of debt to $1 of your own money gets you 11% p.a. return above market. Such a system working since say 1913 would pay 2,021,543% plus normal investment returns. In other words if you had invested in such a system when America founded it's central bank and borrowed a modest 50% of the funds, you would have 20,215 times your what the average investor would have. And that's assuming you actually buy and sell things, rather than derivatives, which reap higher rewards when you guess right*. The "Mystery of banking" would therefore be, why don't these people own everything? They have had the chance to use this strategy since the first stock exchanges, why weren't they rich enough to stabilise the market by the time America got it's central bank? There must be something actively working against stability. I contend the central bank is it.

It has been contended that central banks should try to set the inflation or interest rate for the common good. This is impossible because, as with all prices there is no common good. That which is good for buyers is bad for sellers. In the case of the inflation and interest rate any movement that is good for those that borrowed money (inflation up, real interest rate down) is bad for those that lent it.
Balancing the interests of these groups is essentially a political decision. In fact it's a class warfare decision since the richer you are after all the more money you usually borrow (the poor can't afford loans). Why would anyone expect that it would be make objectively, if that's even possible? Any government organisation that controls interest rates is either going to be democratically accountable or not. If not then it's going to be used to benefit the ruling class. If it is then it's going to be used to benefit that portion of the population that is most able to intimidate their representatives. In neither case is it likely the good of the country will be the deciding factor.

Without a central bank, who would print the money? Well anyone who wants to and can convince you to accept it. There is no particular reason why printing money should be a government activity, let alone a government monopoly. After all what do you want from your money that only government can provide?

Firstly you want it to be accepted as money worth a predictable amount. You don't want to go to the store and find it's worth less than you expected it would be when you got it. When that happens people's economic plans are thrown into chaos because they cannot properly value things over time. Similarly you don't want it to be worth more than you expected, otherwise those who owe $100,000 suddenly find they need to pay back with goods and services they thought were worth $105,000. Either way people simply can't operate efficently. When people hear that the metric standard for mass is losing micrograms of mass they're rightfully alarmed, they should be just as alarmed when the standard of value unexpectedly changes.

Note that this does not mean that the value of money can't change, just that it should be relatively easy to predict when and by how much. This is not the case in central banks, which even their supporters claim are secretive and operate under principals that most people don't understand (quick what's M3? Is it better than M1? Why?).

Commodity based currencies on the other hand are a constant relative to the difficulty of producing the commodity. If the $US is defined as worth 1/20th of an ounce of gold then any someone can produce an ounce of gold for less than $20 they will. The increased supply of money relative to other goods will push up prices until it costs $20 to produce it again. The only way there could be a change in the value of money is if it became a lot harder or easier to produce the commodity relative to other goods. This happens slower and more predictably than arbitrary decisions of government officials. If a currency is based on a basket of commodities, with each unit entitling them to set amounts of each commodity, it would move even slower and more predictably. I'm not sure the world's ready for the McDollar based on the Big Mac though. These currencies can be issued by anyone who people trust to actually fork over the underlying commodity.

This brings us to the issue of trust. How do we know that private issurers of currency will actually honour their promises? Well the same way we know that the mechanic won't steal our car and that the child minding centre won't sell your kids to white slavers. In any case it's a moot point since we don't know that government will honour it's promises. The American government had promised to provide 1/20th of an ounce of gold per dollar, it then decided to only provided 1/35th. That's better than the British though who only a few years previously had refused to provide anything of value at all for the pound. Various hyperinflations under fiat money make such thefts look like small potatoes.

Secondly money should be transferrable with the minimum of cost. This includes being acceptable in as many places in as wide an area as possible to reduce the costs of changing money into something acceptable to the seller. Governments only advantage here is that it can threaten people with violence if they do not accept their notes. This is somewhat unfortunate to those that don't want to accept them, often with good reason. There is no reason why the free market can't design widely accepted money just like they design widely accepted credit cards. If there is a demand for money that can be spent from Bagdad to Cordova the market will provide it**.

Attempts by governments to provide international currencies depend on unifying fiscal and monetary policy across many nations. That hasn't worked out as well as it should. In the mean time fiat currencies vary in value relative to each other making international trade needlessly risky and therefore expensive. When money was gold and silver people didn't care what country your coinage was from as long as it had the weight of metal***. Imagine getting off the plane anywhere in the world and not changing your money. Well actually you don't need to imagine it, credit card companies already provide that service.

Thirdly money should be hard to fake and easy to differentiate from fakes. That is not only should it be hard to make copies of the money, but when people do it should be relatively easy to detect them. Again there is no particular reason why governments should be better than private enterprise at doing this. It is possible that government monopoly would mean that money is more familiar (since you don't need to remember what several competing firms money looks like) remember there is only a monopoly within the territory. Free market provision of money could easily lead to less issuers of currency.

* Derivatives are financial instruments like puts and calls where you don't actually buy or sell things, you buy or sell the right to buy or sell things. For instance a put is the right but not the obligation to sell a thing at a certain price during a certain time period a call is the opposite, the right to buy. If you buy a put for say 20,000 tonnes of X at a price of $100/tonne and the price goes down to $90/tonne during that period you've got something worth $200,000. If the price is stays above $100/tonne you're not obliged to buy or sell anything, but you've wasted the money you paid for the put. Depending on how likely people thought the price was to go below $100/tonne it could be very cheap. Given that in the "irrationality' theory prices are quite likely to be much higher/lower the market thought they would be profitabe derivatives will often be cheap.
** Those that get the reference will should have a good profit. ;>
*** With some exceptions, the priests at the Jewish Temple insisted on shekels, hence the presence of money changers.

The Dark Knight is darker than you think {SPOILERS}

In the latest Batman movie, the Dark Knight there is a scene with two ferries. Stop reading now if you haven't seen the movie and don't want to spoil the suspense. The Joker plants bombs on each ferry and tells the passengers of each that they can save themselves by pressing a button that will blow up the other boat. One of the boats is filled with criminals that Harvey Dent has arrested under RICO statutes, basically most of organised crime in Gothan, plus guards. None of these have been convicted or tried yet. The other is filled with typical Gotham residents trying to get away.

On the "civilian" boat many people immediately cry out to press the button. Those in charge are intimidated into allowing a vote on whether to murder 500 people. Admittedly many of them have commited heinous crimes, but a deliberate killing without even an attempt at a trial is still a murder. The vote goes something like 350 - 150 in favour of brutal murder but those in charge refuse to push the button themselves. They then hand the button over to on of the passengers who also cannot bring themselves to personally kill 500 people.

I have heard it said that this is a hopeful and positive thing, that it lifts the moral stature of the typical Gotham citizen above the dregs. To me not tripping the switch when you voted for someone else to do so is nothing more than moral cowardice overwhelming physical cowardice. Think about it, why do you vote for something? So that if everyone else is tied on the issue it goes your way. There is no other purpose in voting. If you are on Socrates' jury and you vote for Socrates to be killed and it's not going to be a tie otherwise your vote changes nothing. If it would be a tie otherwise then kill him. To then say "Well I'm not going to do the thing that actually kills him." is a lie, since you already have. Three hundred of that boats passengers tried their best to blow up the other boat when nobody knew who was doing it. None of them had the guts to do it out in the open. To me that puts them beneath contempt. To be a multiple murderer is bad enough, but to be one who doesn't even have the guts to pull the trigger himself? To be willing to sacrifice 500 lives but not your reputation? I call them scum.

That said the reason I would have voted no would be that of course the Joker rigged the triggers to their own boats (remember his "information" on where Harvey and Rachel were?). Whether the convict who threw the trigger out did so because it was the right thing to do or because he realised this we'll never know.

Ron Paul is a conspiracy theorist, are you?

There is a popular saying that if there are two explanations for an event, conspiracy and incompetence, go for the incompetence explanation every time. The problem with this idea is that it's obviously untrue. If a candidate you dislike had recieved political donations from a neo-nazi and failed to report them in accordance with the law, which explaination would you go for? I thought so. Welcome to the "conspiracy theorists" club then, meetings are rarely held and only attended by police spies.

Yet membership in this club is somehow looked down apon as unhealthy, even insane. It's as though no sane person would say that conspiracies happen, and yet every day we see people behaving as though they did. Do act as though everything your government says to be true or do you assume that some of it is lies and distortion? Of course you act as though they lie, which is why you like investigative reporting? How about other governments? Do you get your news about countries from their governments press office or do you prefer that someone digs deeper? Do you think that political parties are engaged in a quest to show you the truth or to spin it? Of course in all cases you answered "cynically" to all these questions. Your beliefs and behaviour were in all cases that of a "conspiracy theorist", yet you are ashamed of it! If asked you'll deny it why?

Well isn't the answer obvious? People have acted in concert to make you feel that way. And have the done so openly or claimed to be merely expressing "common sense"? Yep that's right, it's a
[post ended due to technical problems]

A moral election.

Imagine if you will going to two job interviews on the same day and telling both that you had the other interview and take the best offer. Imagine also that both employers wanted you and sent you details of pay, conditions and how the company operates including the broad outline of it's business plans. One has a great dental plan, mediocre superannuation, excellent pay and highly successful strategy of firebombing the buisnesses of competitors and murdering their employees if they attempt to bid for the same contract. The other has no dental plan, reasonable superanuation, the opportunity to learn more valuable new skills and does not use violence in it's business. Would you spend any time at all wondering who to work for? Of course not unless you're a sociopath, yet this (Australian) election people are doing exactly that.

They are deciding that although they don't think the use of lethal force in Iraq is justified or rational they are going to vote on the basis of who can give them enough goodies. Free dental work, more free education (if it's worth it why don't people pay for it?), better hospitals, they think of everything that can be taken from someone else's pocket and given to them. In no other situation do people think like this. Only in politics is it OK to be this mercenary when issues of life and death are at stake. And yet people will claim they are voting on the basis of a "fair go" or "moral values". My arse they are.

They're not voting on the basis of common sense either. The latest war on drugs nonsense is proof. I can't fight the war on drugs because they're too expensive so I have to fight the war clean and sober. Anyway they're going to "quarantine" the welfare payments of people convicted but not jailed for drug offenses. The idea I suppose is that they can prevent drug takers spending money on drugs and get them to spend it on their kids, a new bible I don't know I lost interest. Of course this qualifies as the second easiest to dodge bad social security idea in history. The worst was that "work for the dole" scheme where all you had to do was claim to be doing $62 worth of work a fortnight to avoid the obligation. This isn't quite as easy. You actually go into the supermarket, buy things on someone else's shopping list and have them pay you for them later. So really less trouble than getting the drugs in the first place. Fuck I hat it when it takes longer for the government to explain the scheme than for me to figure out how it's fucked.

Oh and BTW remember those new "road safety" laws prohibiting P platers from taking passengers at night (or was it any time? DKDC)? Well it turns out that teenagers responded to said laws by carrying their friends in the boot (trunk) or lying down and thus unseatbelted. So another effort by the powers that be to make us safer through coercion failed. And I also have failed to predict that failure months beforehand. So from now on there's a competition. As soon as I mention an effort to make us safer everyone send in how they think it will bankfire. A special "No Prize" awarded to the first accurate prediction.

Andrew Johns a role model for our times.

A lot of people will say that Andrew Johns has set a bad example to our kids. Those little nippers who looked up to him have been given the wrong lessons. On the contray his behaviour on all occasions taught exactly the right lessons for those who wish to succeed in modern society.

Lesson one; If you like to take drugs and can avoid negative consequences for doing so, take drugs. Specifically take drugs that won't show up on the deeply intrusive drug tests you're
made to take. And take them on the off season wherever possible.

Lesson two; Do not complain about the deeply intrusive drug tests you are made to take for your high paying job. Never mention the fact that it's none of your employers buisness what you do in your leisure time. Never mention the fact that it's none of your fans buisness what you do in your leisure time. If asked about drug tests say they are neccesary to keep the sport clean. Do not ask why we need clean athletes more than clean taxi drivers, politicians, or sports adminstrators. Never make clear the distinction between testing for performance enhancing drugs and recreational drugs. Go along with the claim that the testing is all about keeping the sport fair, even though testing for coke, ecstasy or marijuana has nothing to do with this.

Lesson three; If asked about effects on drugs be very much against them, even though the effects of drugs on you are overwhelmingly positive. Never imply that there would be any situation where taking drugs is the right thing. Unless of course a doctor orders it, and even then if some blowhard cop or administrator says otherwise immediately fold like a deck chair.

Lesson four; If caught doing something some people think of as bad do not defend your behaviour in a principled manner. Make excuses that clearly show remorse, even if the behaviour hurt no one and was none of anyone else's buisness. If there is no evidence of any harm in your case do not explore the implications of this. Specifically do not say that there are people who take drugs who benefit from it and they should not be punished for this. Instead invent negative consequences you have suffered so will be pitied and therefore excused. It doesn't matter if there is no evidence for said drawbacks or considerable evidence against them in your case. Claims of harm to family life are especially effective even when all evidence is that your family life is fine.

Lesson five; An ounce of acceptability is worth a tonne of credibility. For instance confessing that you like drugs because they are fun would be bad no matter how obvious. "Confessing" you needed drugs to handle the pressure of being a football star, even when you say in the same statement that you mostly used in the off season where the pressure is much less is much better. Remember, it doesn't matter if the statement is credible, it matters whether people will pretend to believe it.

Lesson six; Always present your interaction with drugs as a "battle", a "struggle" or some other noun that implies that you have a real problem with drugs. Do this even if it's clear from your own statement that you can quit using drugs for months at a time with no negative consequences.

Lesson seven; Reform. Reform totally and never sin again. Do this as often as is needed.

The big lesson that we learn from the Andrew Johns debacle is that sports stars making sports stars role models makes no sense. A good role model would have been honest with reporters and with their fans. They would have said "You know what? It's none of your buiness if I take drugs. It's none of my buisness if you do. You should stop assuming that just because someone takes illegal drugs their lives are worse for it. You should stop assuming that the messages sent by people paid by powerful sporting bodies and through them powerful media organisations are correct. You should think for yourselves about whether what I did was wrong. And if you come to a different conclusion than your teacher, your parents or the cops that's OK. If you see someone doing something illegal and you approve of it, that's OK too.". Of course nothing of the kind will be said by anyone who wants to keep the approval of the mob, as all celebrities do. So don't use sporting stars as your role models. Use those who act in principled ways.

The Unhealthy Obsession with enslaving me.

Gerard Henderson (SMH july 3) has a right to be unhealthily obsessed with terrorism. It doesn't follow that those that aren't are committing non sequiturs. Nobody claimed that there was a causal link between AIDS and terrorism Mr. Henderson, but there is a causal link between AIDS deaths and the war on drugs. Deaths caused by government policy in the West outnumber deaths caused by terrorism even assuming only 10% of AIDS deaths resulted from policies that encouraged needle-sharing.
Governments do not have the right to be obsessed with terrorism or anything else because by definition obsession is excessive focus on a thing to the detriment of other things. The fact that a population was attacked does not give it's government a right to destroy it's people's freedoms. Historically the death toll from government limitations on freedoms dwarfs that from terrorism. September 11 added up to about 3 average days of Nazi murdering or 4 days of Soviet murdering. Clearly what we should be "obsessed" about is the limitation of government power, something Mr. Henderson used to be concerned about himself.
Nobody denies that islamic terrorists want to destoy our way of life, but why should we help them?

Another Pathetic Excuse for Coercion (APEC).

There are types of laws, those designed to punish the guilty, those designed to hurt both the innocent and the guilty and those designed to hurt only the innocent. The new laws put in place for the APEC summit are the latter. Nobody who should legitimately be detained will be detained by these laws, nor will these laws serve any purpose other than to prevent the exercise of a persons rights. Nor is it the case that this is the result of ignorance or stupidity on the part of legislators, it is the sole consequence of malice. Put plainly these laws are acts of conscious evil.
When people are arrested under these laws they are detained for a period determined by politicians with no fair trial, either to determine guilt or an appropriate period of detainment. Judges will be required to have a presumption in favour of jailing people, who have not been convicted of anything. This is not only a blantant violation of their right to due process and presumption of innocence but wholy unneccesary for punishing the legally guilty. The legally guilty are by definition provably so, and therefore evidence of their wrongdoing can be put before a judge. Judges routinely remand defendents in custody if the benefit to the public interest outways the private interest in not being detained. Not only are the legally guilty detainable by this but those who the judge thinks are likely to be guilty and to reoffend while on bail. The new laws do not affect this, they only affect those a judge would not think are likely enough to offend that their remanding is justified. Only those the judge thinks are not a threat suffer. They suffer at the sole behest of the police, with no judical input whatsoever, contray to the Magna Carta. That’s happening a lot lately mostly (although not in this case) due to a ruler called John. Gee what happened the last time we had a ruler named John and our rights weren’t being respected? Could we do that again? Would that work?
The argument will be advanced that these measures are neccesary to protect the public, but as I’ve shown they only affect those who are no identifiable threat to it. So how do they protect anybody? Well perhaps they protect us against people who are a threat but can’t be proved as such even to the low standards of a bail hearing. This is a rediculous argument, the whole point of a bail hearing keep people in jail where the cost to the community of being free until trial is higher than the cost to them of letting them free until them. Therefore this law only results in detaining those who it is not worth detaining, thus costing the community through detention of it’s members. So the protection is evidently not worth the cost as judged even by those the state hires to make such judgements. Bear in mind these are people are paid by the government, not the community and responsible to the government not the community. So it’s asking for the power to lock people up when even people it pays won’t back it’s decision to lock them up without a required presumption (i.e. prejudice) against them!
However there’s one intelligent suggestion Iemma and co., random police searches. I’ve wanted to randomly search police for years. It’s amazing how often they’re carrying dangerous weapons. They claim they carry them to defend themselves and enforce the law. However I’ve checked and according to the new laws I’m not allowed to have guns for that purpose. Some people have suggested that the police randomly search people in the city, which makes no sense. It’s an admission that you have no idea how to stop terrorism and now you’re just guessing what might work. Even inveterate sociopaths do not generally have incriminating evidence right on them. The terrorist population is less than 1/100,000th of the population, unless there’s more than 40 terrorists in Sydney right now. So clearly if the aim is to catch terrorists the resources wasted will be massive. Since any terrorists will be aware of these searches they will have scouts out to guide them away from points where they might be search. Of course if the idea is to get the populace used to warrantless, unjustified searches and random police harrassment it’s brilliant.
Those who drafted and passed these law are not ignorant of the law, most of them are qualified lawyers and/or experienced legislators and those that aren’t have the advice of others that are. It is ludicrous to expect that legislation to could reach parliment without a lawyer examining and advising it’s proponents on it’s actual effect. This is particularly true regarding the NSW labour Right who excel in intelligence and knowledge, if not morality. So we cannot conclude that these laws were a mistake, they were a deliberate attempt to subvert our freedoms for political gain and thus a violation of the oaths of office of all the legislators who either voted for them or advanced them. Simply put they are immoral and somewhat treasonous and those who voted for them mostly knew it.

Why Labour's policies are the Liberals fault.

The Labour Party's new labour policy has just been announced and from what I can tell it's a shocker. They openly boast about how they'll be an interfering busibody in every shopping centre ready to tell you how to relate to your workers. But I don't blame the Labour Party I blame John Howard, who was the one who usurped vast power over the labour market from the states. When labour relations were largely a state responsibility each state competed with the others to have a good investment enviroment. As much as the unions wanted them to screw over their employers and as much as the Labour Party wanted to oblige them they had to contend with the possibility the employers would flee. With the decisions being made at national level it is now far more expensive to flee their reach and so far more onerous burdens can be placed on the shoulders of employers or non-union employees with non-standard contracts. The new policy is an entirely predictable, and predicted outcome of the WorkChoices initiative. Of course few will actually blame Howard for it because his supporters will pretend to see no fault and his attackers will see no fault with the policy. I just wish I had predicted this earlier so I could claim to be a pundit.