Lest we forget

Digging through 'stuff' I came across a newspaper cutting of the 18 month old medium S Clark sitting under a Christmas Tree in December 1987.
Lovely photo!
But alongside the lovely photo is an article:
Interest Fall Tipped Home loans may hit 13%

"Home loan interest rates could fall (sic) to 13 per cent by March if economic conditions are favorable (sic) a loans expert has forecast."

We forget that the present rates (whilst not insignificant) at between 5%-9% are certainly not at the frightening rates of 25 years ago!.
Of course there is another side of the coin. My last position was funded by the sale of a building which was then invested at up to 18%...as interest rates fell to the 13% lows...and lower; there was not enough revenue to continue the funding.
As we hear the whining about economic decline we should look back to 1987!!

Doing the maths

Probably the only good thing about this election campaign is the emergence of the population debate in a serious sort of way.

If the recent Q&A showed anything, it showed that the unthinking and unintelligent commentary of those who advocate growth at any cost (see my recent blog here) just will not do any longer.

I have been particularly impressed by the discussion that says that we now have to work out the specifics.

It does not seem to me that this is impossible. It may be complex...but life is complex...but the sums just require imagination and some forethought.

It might include:

• An accurate accounting of the amount of water that is required per head of population. This will include such issues as personal hygiene, food production, industrial needs, agricultural requirements...and so on.
• The second half of this sum (which needs to balance) is where can this come from...both natural and industrial sources. This also is not impossible to calculate, though again it is important to be realistic and not just wishful (rather the problem of the 'growth at any cost' devotees...or the "climate science is crap" group. If we are realistic then
• the cost of water begins to emerge in a realistic sense. The truth is, as we have been told for a decade, is that we are addicted to cheap water...indeed most of us think water should be free...but there is no such thing as a free lunch or free water!
• the cost of energy has parallel questions
• there needs to be serious analysis of age profiles and their trends and movements None of this is rocket science, even if it does require careful thought. What it probably requires more than anything else is that we are serious and frank. We are not always good at this!
• what sort of services, and standard of living can we realistically expect in (say) 2050, 2100, 2200. Not an exercise in 'wishful thinking' but a balance between how much this costs and what we can afford to pay and where this comes from
• From the interplay of these (and other) questions the issue about how these variables influence outcomes we can begin to discern the key issue...what sort of population can we afford. And what price is too high...for energy, for water, for housing...indeed for wages

I am not suggesting that these questions have never been asked. They are often ignored! I heard Elliott say the other night that "This was just rubbish!" when Bob Brown was raising these very questions.

While we maybe need to not be unduly pessimistic. We also need to be sensible. Good stewardship demands such.

There is more, much more to come in this debate.

It's a concern!

Commentators are today suggesting that the world needs to commit to Haiti for at least 10 years. Having had 65% of whatever small economy generating package it has destroyed, this would seem inevitable.

What exactly such a world commitment might mean is unclear. Usually it means that the recipient will have to tow the line if they are to share in the largesse. We are not free from the practice of fettering our aid to our particular requirements (money directed to roads in PNG for example which will facilitate Australia's trading interests...coincidentally improving infrastructure, but what is the driving interest). The US has habitually used its economic might to ensure it has strategic military bases. Russia does the same.

China is following suit. Though it is interesting to note that some analysis of their present frenzy in Africa is much more directly promoting their commercial interests than former colonial powers used to like to attest to.

The attraction of Africa for many Europeans was cheap labour, China has steady supply of such and so often sends its own "guest workers" to staff factories,build roads and so on.

It's all complex stuff.

There is little or no doubt that Haiti will not make it on its own. There is also plenty of evidence that nations are by and large self-serving. It is not ideal, but maybe the most that can be offered.

God help Haiti which has little to bargain with.

Tension in the camp

As we reflect on the Howard-Costello years we see there was this tension between the economic discipline of Peter Costello, and the pragmatism of the successful Mr Howard.
Howard's genius was, I suppose, to be able to persuade Costello when it was OK to loosen the belt in order to buy the votes of the electorate. And to do this without fuelling inflation.
I think voters saw through this at the last election.
But it would appear that present leader Brendan Nelson is trying the populist Howard strategy, whilst his Opposition Treasurer Turnbull is at least as, if not more, fiscally restrained than Costello.
So it comes as no surprise that there was an "exchange of emails" (is this the 21st century equivalent of 'pistols at dawn'?). It also is not surprising that Nelson the present leader won, and I use that description advisedly.
It is, however, disconcerting for the poor dears when it all comes out in the public arena, and Turnbull is exposed as believeing one thing but having to say the opposite.
This is of course the nature of politics. Mr Downer did not bat an eyelid on Lateline last night, (false I hear you cry...but I resist the temptation to comment on Alexander's eyelashes...he was looking quite old last night)...back to to the plot. He said quite clearly that we may believe in one point of view but after the argument is over we tow the party line, even if we are fundamentally opposed. He said this is the nature of the Westminster system. I don't believe that is so, I think the Westminster system is about free and open debate...but he's a politician and I am not.
Of course he did point out that from Opposition fiscal promises are all hypothetical any way.
And we might also point out that the fiscal conservatism versus vote buying strategy is going to be the same issue for the present Government; though we are yet to see if there is the same sort of political opportunism in Rudd's heart as there was in Howard's. I suspect not.
But what would I know?

What's all this then?

I had a conversation yesterday with an older friend who has identified herself to me before as a Liberal voter, she simply said....I hear all this talk about how good the economy is, I just don't know who gets the benefit of it. It's certainly not me.

She is a person of very modest income, whose husband died a few years ago after quite a long period of sickness. She has not lived a lavish lifestyle, and has a nice but modest house. She drives a car. I imagine that is what kills her!

I am (just) old enough to remember the foolishness of British PM, Harold Macmillan, who in the 60s insisted on telling the public in that pompous accent of the old Etonian"Let's face it most people have never had it so good!"

The public however didn't believe him and voted him out at the next possible opportunity.

I think wee Johnny would do better to look at that example rather than to his idol Mr Bush.

What we pay you for?

I suppose politicians have a tricky and responsible job. Which is why we pay them a lot of money. So I am always a little disappointed when they fail to deliver. There is, sadly, not much to pick between both sides. Maybe that is because in the search for truth, justice and....well let's not get carried away....but maybe there are only a few limited answers.
We could at least expect that opposing parties might actually offer us some choice of policy, but they don't seem to.
So I am disappointed when:

• Both sides seem to be remarkably silent about the injustices in Immigration law
• Both sides capitulate to logging interests because there are critical votes at stake
• Neither side seems concerned about the obvious injustices done to Mohammad Haniff as they were about David Hicks
  
• Both sides accept the heresy of the 'free market' which dictates everything about economy

When will one side or other actually offer something that looks not just like pragmatism, but like hope and vision. If we can't have vision couldn't we have a little imagination instead of this wretched cynicism that you seem inten to dish up.
Isn't THAT what we actually are paying you for?

Trust

My morning reflection and prayers today ask me the question "What things have I been entrusted with?"
It 's not a rocket science question in many ways and I can arrive quickly at the conclusion that I have been entrusted with a great human treasure. Wife, children, family, parish, friends.
I have a lot of material resources at my finger tips, and, in whole world terms although as a priest I am not in any way wealthy, I do not really want for anything.
The meditation goes on as the scripture says...being faithful in small things you will be entrusted with big things. Have I been faithful with the small things entrusted to me?
There is a a sort of 'mixed economy' I have been quite diligent about some things and slack about others.
It is, any way, a thought to keep me going during the day. What sort of a go have I made of what has been given to me?