Greens on poverty

The Green’s have a press release out saying there is a “need to tackle the causes of child poverty”. Sue Bradford is upset that some poor children in South Auckland didn’t know when their birthday’s were – which is sad. At the most it indicates their families can’t afford presents. Then she lists other tragedies of poverty as having not traveled over the Auckland Harbour Bridge, or not traveled on the adjacent motorway.

Now at worst these are sad signs – it is a sad that a child doesn’t get birthday presents, though it isn’t really a big deal if they don’t get to travel on a road. This isn’t a big deal in terms of poverty, not compared to starvation, lack of shelter or clean drinking water.

However, you guessed it, Sue Bradford wants Nanny State to throw more money at these families (although the causes of child poverty aren’t noted).

Charity is a fine way of giving people in poverty a leg up, and a chance to move forward- but having the state use force to take money from others to give to these families is not. It is state violence justified because some children have “sad lives”. Whose fault is that? Well the primary responsibility for children lies with their family – it is up to them to have children when they can afford them and provide for them.

The main causes of child poverty come from people having children when they cannot afford them. Taking more money from those who can and giving it to those who can’t increases the incentive to continue the behaviour of breeding irresponsibly.

The Greens want to use welfare to "fix" this problem, a problem that is better fixed by people choosing to give, and by actively assisting those who are poor, such as the work Auckland City Mission does. You’ll do far more for the poor giving to organizations such as them, instead of paying more in taxes so bureaurats can dish out money.

In fact a good start would be to abolish taxes for people on the lowest incomes - Libertarianz support the Green Party policy for a tax free threshold to be implemented immediately. Of course Libertarianz would ask for a higher one - I think $10,000 tax free would be a good start, of course you wouldn't have state welfare either :)

Government murder toll

Hat tip to PC for his linking to the story about democide or death by government action.

The left like to focus on what companies do, and on the cost of war in terms of lives, but war is a drop of blood in the bucket compared to what government’s do. Democratic peace defines democide as:

“any murder by government, and includes genocide, politicide, massacres, mass murder, extrajudicial executions, assassinations, atrocities, and intentional famines”

He categorises democide into several groupings, and has detailed results on his website here.

262 million people murdered by governments – over 76 million in communist run China alone, 50 million from colonial governments (a good deal being Leopold’s Congo, probably the most brutal colonisation in history).

This is six times higher than those killed in combat. That is why peace between countries is important but not the MOST important pre-requisite for civilisation.

The WTO is good!

The WTO is the one intergovernmental organisation that I hold in high regard. It advocates consistent, non-discriminatory rules on trade, has a dispute settlement mechanism for it and is pro free-trade.

There are umpteen protestors now in Hong Kong claiming that the WTO is unfair. Mostly these are South Korean farmers who can afford to fly to Hong Kong protesting against the looming opening up of the South Korean rice market to cheaper foreign rice from the likes of Thailand (which is far poorer and a far more efficient rice producer). South Korea is a very small country with a high population, so in all likelihood there will be less rice producers in South Korea over the longer term, as the pressure for land shifts the country further from agriculture to manufacturing and services (which it is very good at).

The WTO puts pressure through its members for global liberalisation in trade of all goods and services. It puts the same pressure on the EU to abolish its export subsidies for agriculture as it does to India to abolish tariffs on car imports. All countries should liberalise – but what is happening is that the two largest blocs at the WTO are saying “you first”.

The US is willing to abandon agricultural export subsidies if the EU does so, and developing countries also abandon protectionist policies for agriculture.

The EU is willing to provide special access to products from least developed countries, thwarted the MFN principle which states that all WTO member states should be treated equally (though the EU itself is a great example of thwarting MFN!).

Both the EU and the US want liberalisation in manufactured goods and services in developing countries. Developing countries want an end to export subsidies and protectionism for agriculture and textiles in developed countries.

Most of them are right! However, no deal can be struck without agreement between member states - which is more fair than any United Nations organisation (the WTO is not part of the UN) which works on majority most of the time (and since the majority of countries are corrupt and often despotic, the result is clear).

New Zealand fortunately can step to one side given that it has almost totally liberalised trade (tariffs remain thanks to Jim Anderton’s deal with Labour when the Clark government was first formed), and can argue philosophically for free trade in agriculture, goods and services.

Even this French dairy farmer admits that New Zealand dairy farmers can produce milk at half the cost French ones can. If the Greens were in France, they would argue that New Zealand (foreign) milk cannot be allowed to undercut local producers- in short, the Greens would argue to render New Zealand a small country backwater unable to earn foreign exchange from agricultural products, and unable to afford the capital goods produced in other countries.

Interesting the steel worker in this BBC interview in Brazil understands things a lot better than his US counterpart – arguing that US car manufacturers would be more competitive if the cost of steel were lower for them (which means importing steel from more efficient producers), and that Brazilian steel mills are more up to date and competitive than US ones. Remember Bush agreed to reintroduce tariffs to protect the US steel industry.

Free trade is a no brainer. Professor Jagdish Bhagwati is a world renowned author on free trade. His website contains copies of many papers and articles he has written on trade and related issues. His latest book is In Defence of Globalization which I am currently reading.

If you think that the government should limit imports from other countries or tax them, then explain why you need to be forced to buy local, or penalised if you don’t. Also explain why the arbitrary national boundaries that exist are so precious to anti-free traders? Why not impose tariffs on products moved from the South to the North Island (that damned Mainland cheese!) and vice versa, why not impose tariffs on products coming from Northland or the Bay of Plenty into Auckland, or vice versa? Silly? Well imagine the USA did this, with 50 states – looks a bit like Europe then. Consider Africa, which is covered in protectionist states, most of which have GDP levels a fraction of New Zealand, with many times the population – see what a lack of free trade does for them.

If you are still not convinced, what if we extended the protectionist principle to its logical conclusion. You are now heavily taxed if you buy anything from outside your own home, but not on anything you grow or make yourself – see how wealthy you are now? Free trade is what happens everyday between you and your community, town and country – if it works within your country, where councils have differing levels of taxes and laws, it will work between countries.

Australian - or rather proletarian racism

A combination of common racism and a latent desire for random thuggery has surfaced in Sydney, with the riots in Cronulla. The Sydney Morning Herald has umpteen articles linked about it here.

Those on the left want to paint this as something encouraged by the Howard government’s approach to refugees, those on the right want to downplay the racial component of it – both are wrong.

There is an undercurrent of violent potential among a certain calibre of young men in Australian (and dare I say New Zealand, British and American society as well) which in certain circumstances sees them willing to act in ways that they wouldn’t as individuals. They get courage they wouldn’t have on their own, and they seek to prove themselves to their “comrades” by being destructive towards other people and their property – it is a brutal, cold, mindless savagery. It is a savagery seen at times with football hooligans, street gangs and when some of them get drunk on a Saturday night. It comes from being, by and large, pathetic little nobodies who don’t feel like they control the world, the probably don’t own a house, haven’t travelled much and don’t have children. Their main interests are watching sport on telly, getting pissed with their mates and shagging whatever they can find. Being tough is important to them, using their brains and being articulate isn’t.

The left like to put this down to capitalism, unemployment, dispossession and the downtrodden working class being angry – which is bollocks. At a time of low unemployment and relatively high prosperity in Australia, these people still exist – they are not poverty stricken, but they don’t like people who are different from them. It is an ancient tribalism, which in nature makes sense – back in caveman days you feared the tribe that looked different from you, because they might be after your stock, land or women – so it made evolutionary sense to be racist. Civilisation tore that away, now these ordinary Australian men are jealous of young people from other ethnic origins who look wealthier, more successful and who also commit crimes, though no more than “real Australians” (Australians of British origin). It just takes one of them to criticise the bloke who looks a bit different, and his mates go along with it- followers sticking up for their mates, and it doesn’t really matter what you do, you stick up for each other. A few people of non-white Australian origin commit crimes, and it's time for "payback" - alluring to those small minded local men.

It’s a simplistic view of the world – and a fear that people who don’t look like you are taking over “your” public space. “your” beach “your” park and “your” women. The classifying of anyone of another race as "probably the criminals" or the same as someone who committed an awful crime - it is how all racists demonise a group. It is the same mentality that saw Anthony Walker attacked in the UK because he was black with a white girlfriend. No doubt the men who did this were offended because one of “their” girls was with one of “them”. Savage gutter collectivism.

However, those on the right who say it is “just thuggery” and racism isn’t important are wrong. The crime is no different no matter what races are involved, the same people are hurt, but it is the collective brainlessness of racism that is behind all this – and it is a brainlessness that does not only lie on one side. People of all ethnic origins can be racist – it just so happens that the racist undercurrent of part of Australian society has come out. However it also exists in Britain as shown by this lot. New Zealand has its share too.

There are plenty of racist people about – they largely wont admit it. You’ll hear “I’m not racist, I just don’t want there to be too many Asians here”. Remember Australians voted in 1968 about whether to allow Aborigines to become citizens – yes 1968! A majority of “true blue Australians” said yes, how generous of them.

The racism of the past is well known, but it takes a lot to remove the instinctual natural racism based on fear of those who are different from you, particularly with people driven by a close tribal instinct of mateship and being “local”. The only way to do this, is for people to leave, travel and find out what people elsewhere are really like, because if an Arab man is shagging your sister – it might be because she wanted him rather than your slopehead mates?

and may they be sodomised by the erect phallus of a bull

Boycott Telstra Clear - hypocritical supporters of fascism

Yes, I am calling a private company, that claims to compete with a large, formerly government owned company, hypocritical supporters of fascism. I also believe in free market economics.

Why?

TelstraClear is a company I hold in the lowest regard for several reasons but more on that later.

It has accused Telecom of lobbying the government to not introduce local loop unbundling. In short, Telecom, on behalf of its shareholders, was pleading with the government to not interfere with its property rights.

Remember, Telecom owns its network, the most ubiquitous local phone network in the country, not the government, not “the people”. The “people” (represented by the government) sold it – and the proceeds were used to pay off debt held by “the people” and pay for some current expenditure. Telstra Clear doesn’t own Telecom’s network either. Telecom’s owners on privatisation agreed to allow interconnection so that competitors could connect with Telecom customers, and this allowed competition in long distance, international and mobile calls quite early on. Local call competition emerged when what was then Clear Communications, Telstra and Saturn (which have all since merged into one) established their own local networks. Since then, the government has forced Telecom to resale its network to competitors for local access as well. During that time, of course, another operator provides what could be seen as local phone service- Vodafone, and nothing is stopping anyone else legally from building competing fixed or mobile phone networks. However - it's a lot easier to not bother isn't it Telstra Clear?

Now having the ability to do long distance, international and local calls using its own network, and reselling Telecom's, Telstra Clear wasn’t happy. It wanted full access to Telecom’s property – akin to Woolworths telling New World that it must be allowed to open a store inside New World’s premises, where it didn’t have premises of its own. How about if Air New Zealand was forced to wholesale part of the seats on its planes to Origin Pacific to promote “competition”?

Now one of the reasons I hate Telstra Clear and its predecessor Clear, is because they mistakenly milked New Zealand public sympathy for years, by claiming to be the telecommunications underdog, even though Clear did next to nothing to provide real competition. When Clear entered the NZ market, the prices for international and national calls did NOT change for retail customers. $5 capped national calls were introduced by Telecom in response to competition from smaller operators, Clear copied this. Clear was hardly ever the innovator - Saturn Communications (which was bought by Telstra and then absorbed into Telstra Clear) was. It was looking to expand its local network across Auckland and into Hamilton, Dunedin and Tauranga, before cost and the moans of local authorities who didn't overhead cabling to be installed put paid to that idea.

When prices dropped, it was either because Telecom led it, or responded to reductions in prices from companies like Worldxchange and Compass Communications, Clear copied this. It has almost never been a price leader, the price leaders have either been Telecom or smaller operators.

I know this because I advised the government on telecommunications policy at the time! At no stage did Clear make a dent in the market based on price.

My other beef with Telstra Clear is the drop in standards of service. I was a Saturn customer when it laid its own network in Wellington (note to Telstra Clear – your OWN network, spend your money, build your own network then compete) and it provided an excellent phone, internet and cable tv service at a very reasonable price. The takeover by Telstra and the subsequent merge with Clear saw standards drop. On one occasion the weather damaged my phone line, and the company came out and changed the wires around so my second line (for the internet) had switched numbers with the first line. So people phoning me would get my computer and vice versa, and it took three weeks for them to fix it, after umpteen calls and the impudent bitch at the other end arguing that I had never called. On top of that, I found their switch to Voice of IP saw call quality drop so that I couldn’t always hear conversations to friends overseas. In short, the service became shockingly bad – even when I was leaving NZ, the company claimed to have sent me a pack to post my cable TV box in, but never did, even though I rang 3 times over 2 weeks asking where it was- the company said it was “my fault” because I apparently hadn’t checked my mail box (I had!).

Telstra Clear is not a typical private company trying to provide services with its own resources and compete in the market – it is a leech forever whinging about how it can’t compete because it doesn’t have access to its competitor’s network.

It accused Telecom of threatening the government that if forced to open up its own network to competitors, its share price would drop and it would have a negative effect on the economy.

Now it has come out that Telstra Clear has threatened that if the government does NOT do this, it is in breach of the Agreement on Basic Telecommunications negotiated with other countries under the aegis of the WTO. So why is it ok for Telstra Clear to lobby the government but not Telecom?

Besides which, Telstra Clear’s argument is utter bollocks. Why? Well for one, I was involved in the negotiations of that agreement at the WTO – the text was very carefully agreed and it does NOT require local loop unbundling. It does not prohibit countries from doing it, but it only requires interconnection.

On top of that, Telstra Clear talked utter bullshit claiming that the Australia-US free trade agreement requires local loop unbundling. It doesn’t.

Telstra Clear should butt out, and start doing what it is meant to do – compete. The service compared to Telecom is shocking – and I nearly switched to Telecom twice, and Telecom was only too willing to help me. Telstra Clear should provide good service, at good prices and win people over through their products and services. It has access to Telecom’s network at a wholesale level and for interconnection, it also has its own local network in the Auckland CBD, and through suburban Wellington and Christchurch.

However, here is my biggest complaint - Telstra Clear wont open up its network. If you are a Telstra Clear local customer, you cannot use any of its competitors, like IHUG or Worldxchange for toll calls – because Telstra Clear wont let its smaller competitors use its network. I tried, as an IHUG net customers to use IHUG for phone service, but Telstra Clear doesn't let it happen - Telecom does.

Fascists? Yes. It wants the state to effectively control private property rights of its biggest competitor, so that Telecom holds its property, but Telstra Clear can do what it wishes with its property.

That is why I am calling for libertarians and believers in free enterprise to boycott Telstra Clear – tell the company you don’t want to do business with anyone who does not believe in private property rights for anyone else other than themselves.

and Labour got this one right in refusing to listen to Telstra Clear's moans.