Economists from across the political spectrum understand that one of the major factors driving health care costs is our third-party payment system that insulates consumers from the cost of their health care decisions.

More Than A Theory: Medical Savings Accounts at Work (CATO)

I'm not sure what CATO considers the full range of the "political spectrum" to be, but this statement is pretty much just wrong. There are plenty of economists who don't believe this, and if I count as an economist then I am one of them.

You could conceivably argue that the reason we have "high" health expenditures is because our system "insulates consumers from the cost of their health care decisions". But I can't understand how a system that has scarcely changed in 30 years accounts for the rapid increase in health care expenditures over that same period. The US system has probably became less socialist in that time, and yet health expenditures are increasing a lot. It seems to me that it's less a problem of overconsumption and more a "problem" with the income elasticity of demand for health care. As people get richer they look after themselves better and spend more on health.

But it's still a crisis the economists will say. Health expenditures can't grow faster than income forever. It's true, but isn't necessarily a problem for a long time yet. If our income increases by 5% each year, it's really no problem if our health expenditures increase by 10% each year. Obviously that can't happen for ever, but we don't have to worry about it just now.

Using that example, we have another 60 years before we have to be concerned. If health expenditures continue to grow by 10% and total income continues to grow by 5%, the amount of money we have left over after health care won't actually drop until 2070.

And if health expenditures grow by 15% a year (instead of 10%) then we still have 30 years before our residual income will drop. At that point we'd be spending 77% of our income on health care and we'd still have more money to spend on other stuff than we have now.

Alternatively, if income only grows at 2% (instead of 5%) and health care costs grow by 10%, we also have 30 years.

So I really feel like it's not a big deal. When they make scary claims like "health care costs are rising by 15% every year" you forget that we only spend 5% of our income on health right now.

My original point was mostly just that CATO are silly. And they are. But they're not the only ones. Every research paper or news article about health insurance or health system finance seems to include some spiel about the impending health funding crisis. Sometimes I wonder if economists and bureaucrats just love having crises to make themselves feel important.

If ever there was a situation and a group of Australians who deserved just a tiny bit of generosity of spirit; just a brief pause in the waging of partisan ideological crusades, it is the Stolen Generations. But even that is beyond the modern-day federal ‘Liberal’ Party.

Andrew Bartlett

I want to make it clear, we will be in for the long haul when it comes to RAMSI. The ordinary people in the Solomon Islands want Australia there. They appreciate the help and they’ll be there irrespective of who is in power in that country.

John Howard in response to requests from the Solomon Island prime minister to withdraw Australian troops

I get a bit cross at all the folk to don't like Labor because they're mushy and don't understand economics. When Keating did exactly what every macroeconomics textbooks tells you to fight inflation and allowed the recession from 1993 to happen everyone yelled and him and told him he couldn't be prime minister anymore. And yet he's probably a fair bit responsible for the happy inflation of the last 14 years. At least the textbooks would say he was.

If you want to yell at Keating you should yell about things like being an arrogant pug and always doing what the economics professors wanted him to. You could yell at him about sacrificing the working class for the interests of the economy. And I sure would have a bit of a yell about those things. I just don't understand how you can yell at him for being mushy. He made tough, "economically responsible" decisions and told us he was making them. Which is what we say we want. Except we don't. We want mushiest economics our votes can buy and the right to yell at anyone we randomly decide is mushy about being too mushy.

I love Paul Keating. But not for his economic policies. Keating wasn't near mushy enough for me.

I love the Greens. Who else would spend as much energy as them chasing the TPV refugee vote? Probably Australia's smallest constituency and also, technically, ineligible to vote.

The dotted line is the 1972 border negotiated with Indonesia. The black line is the equidistant line between the two nations, which Timor-Leste argues is based on international law.

This is from a letter "leaked" to Wikileaks, from Ramiro V. Paz to Mari Alkatiri.

I'm inclined to think that Timor-Leste has a fair point. But then I am a rabid pinko, so I would say that.

I suppose it's not especially surprising to find Australia bullying small, newly independent nations into maintaining agreements made under colonialism. Even less surprising that Australia supported the Indonesian occupation for as long as they could.

Bob Brown leaves those other fellas for dead.

I find it a little amusing that the HSC question "Discuss, using examples, the impact of government legislation on employees" is labelled a "slur" against by the Liberal party. Surely, that question gives students an opportunity to talk about how much employees have benefited from the opportunities and freedom provided to them by Workchoices.

Perhaps it's just the thought of young people discussing politics that upsets Liberals.

John Howard is now suggesting that if we truly care about Indigenous reconciliation his party is the only option. WTF?

Liberal

Peter Costello: I think it was a very strange time for the Labor Party, to come in support of the Bali bombers.

So official Liberal policy now is that we absolutely, undeniably, cross-our-fingers, do not love our enemies. It seems that Rudd has adopted this policy as his own and can't express enough support for it.

Labor

Describing himself as "hardline" when it came to terrorists, Mr Rudd said terrorists should be left to "rot in jail".

Kevin Rudd has criticised his own foreign affairs spokesman over a speech that indicated Labor's disapproval of death sentences for the Bali bombers, calling it "insensitive" and saying Labor would never support clemency for terrorists.

But then, perhaps this is just the nature of the Australian people. I want to live somewhere else.

Human beings sure suck balls. Robert McLelland had to apologise to "victims of the Bali bombings" for suggesting that the Bali bombers shouldn't be executed. He made a speech about how Labor opposed the death penalty anywhere.

A wedge though it may be, I agree with what John Howard said:

He's absolutely humiliated a decent bloke for what? Articulating his policy.

Becker and Posner are completely bamboozled as to why college faculty staff still seem be more left-wing than everyone else. Why are college professors so opposed to capitalism, when it has been fully proved that capitalism is awesome and communism is lame?

They end up both concluding that intellectuals are opposed to capitalism because they don't get as much power and prestige in a capitalist system as a socialist system. That's why there has been this battle between capitalists and communists for all these decades. When you think about it, it's actually totally obvious.

There isn't very much sadder than an economist bumbling around, determined to find an economic solution to non-economic problem.

Update: On reflection it struck me that this isn't so much a problem of naivety as cynicism about humanity. So perhaps it's depressing more than it is sad. Particularly since we seem to systematically give power to those people who are most cynical about humans. Perhaps the cynical ones will get burnt less often, but I also think they're contributing to the creation of a society that rewards further cynicism. Ideas create as well as reflect reality - even the grumpy theories of grumpy, old economists.

Peter Garrett's speech on the NT Emergency Response Bill is enough for me to believe that he is still fighting the good fight.

I finally joined The Greens yesterday. There go all my plans of a long and glorious career as the Liberal party politician.

Bills of rights do not protect essential freedoms - all they do is present the very real risk of having judges imposing personal opinions as law, leaving everyone to guess about what the law might be.

In Canada, for example, without direction from the parliament, judges have decided that all asylum seekers are entitled to an oral hearing, that there should be gay marriage, that persons awaiting trial must be released after eight months on remand, no matter how serious the crimes involved (this position was later reversed), and that tobacco advertising is free speech.

Phillip Ruddock

I don't think Phillip is going to persuade many Bill of Rights advocates by using the example of asylum seeker and gay rights. They're interesting examples of what he presumably thinks are extreme outcomes of a Bill of Rights. Are gays and asylum seekers the worst groups he can think of that might accidentally be protected by a Bill of Rights? No, people who commit serious crimes seem to be a bit scarier. And possibly tobacco companies. I thought he was a Liberal - why does he even oppose tobacco advertising?

In the article he does make some good points about why people are choosing to support a Bill of Rights now. And it's mostly because those people disagree with the majority of Australia and are wanting to give the courts the power to override that majority.

I'm planning to go and "protest" at the APEC meeting if I can. Quite a few people have asked me what I'm going to protest against. I've thought about that, and I've decided I'm going to protest everything. It is almost like there are so many issues that it becomes impossible to reasonably pick any particular one. And then people feel like if you don't have a specific beef, then it's silly to go and protest. But I'm not happy with many of the government's foreign policies (nor a policies of many of the leaders attending). If going and standing around with a bunch of people is able to cause the tiniest bit of embarrassment to the current government, then I think it's worth it.

For the record, as of August 2007, I am opposed to:

• our treatment of indigenous people,
• undermining the unions,
• our treatment of asylum seekers,
• our new anti-terror laws,
• killing people in Iraq,
• our occupation/liberation of East Timor,
• the nature of our relationship with China,
• the nature of our relationship with Indonesia, and
• our opposition to Kyoto and pretty much anything that looks green.

(4) In this section, a reference to:
         (a) any acts done includes a reference to any failure to do an act;

Are politicians allowed to change the structure of a language that way?

And then there is this little pearler.

(1) Subject to subsection (3), the provisions of this Act, and any acts 11 done under or for the purposes of those provisions, are, for the 12 purposes of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, special measures.

i.e., Anything we say that seems racially inappropriate or illegal is, by this definition, not bound by existing race legislation.

Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory National Emergency Response and Other Measures) Bill 2007

London's privately run metro network has gone into administration, but the government is going to cover its debts (£2 billion.). Gordon Brown was one of the original drivers of the project. The Major of London, Ken Livingstone who opposed the privatisation has attempted to downplay the bail out.

Livingstone’s determination to reassure the financial establishment and the government was so great that London Assembly members were moved to ask whether he had been asked not to “gloat” to the Prime Minister after years of attacking the PPP. Livingstone retorted, “How many people have you heard saying ‘I told you so’ and found that it makes them a more attractive human being?”

The collapse of London Underground’s privatisation: Ken Livingstone to the rescue

Sometimes politicians surprise me by actually acting like the decent, thoughtful people I figure most of them really are.

So. To keep score. The United States is supporting: the Shia government, which funnels money and arms to Shia militias, death squads, and insurgent/terrorist groups; the Sunni opposition, which funnels money and arms to the Sunni insurgency; the Sunni insurgency directly, so that they will combat the Shia militias as well as al-Qaeda in Iraq, a group of Sunni terrorists supposedly supported by Shia Iran; the Saudis, who fund Sunni insurgents as well--almost surely--as Sunni terrorist groups; the Iraqi Kurds, who have their sights set on an independent nation that includes a de-Arabized Kirkuk; and the Turks, who have their sights set on never, ever seeing an independent Kurdish entity anywhere, anyhow, anyway, ever, amen.

Who is IOZ?

The Bush administration is thorough, at least, if not much else.

I am now the proud owner of two Wikileaks domains and Wikileaks Australia, a non-profit organisation dedicated to truth and democracy and all that jazz. If I am ever spontaneously assassinated by the CIA you'll know why.

I've just read a couple of blog posts about unwillingness in the US to increase petrol taxes purely because they're politically unpopular. This is despite the fact that a large number of economists believe they're a good (perhaps best) way to reduce carbon emissions and the fact that a large majority of Americans think more needs to be done to reduce emissions.

I wonder if there is an argument for putting a lot of these decisions into the hands of independent bodies. People might suggest that democracy is damaged this way and these decisions should only be made by elected officials. I don't feel like having an independent Reserve Bank harms democracy in Australia. The government ultimately still has the power to abolish the Reserve Bank. And a huge number of decisions are delegated to people who aren't elected. Government bureaucrats have a huge amount of power. I expect, for many issues where short-term politics doesn't get in the way, decisions are frequently delegated entirely to bureaucrats. That is because our elected officials know that unelected officials (such as people at the Reserve Bank) will do a better job of many decisions, and can mostly be trusted to act in the best interests of society.

I believe that in many cases politicians would prefer to make one choice, but end up making another because the obviously superior is difficult to sell. I wonder if it would be better for the government to write legislation governing a whole swathe of independent bodies, as they have for the ACCC, Reserve Bank and judiciary. If things get crazy, they can write more legislation or take that power back. If Australian judges all went mad overnight, I think people would be happy for the government to take control of the process for a little while. No independent body is sufficiently sacred that voters will permit it to run the country into the ground.

Perhaps there could even be a process for suggesting areas of governance that might be moved into independent control. I would propose petrol taxation and probably a more environmental decisions.

I like Brendan Nelson and I wouldn't mind if he became prime minister. I think he works hard, thinks about issues more than average and is effective in what he does. I would disagree with him on the solutions to most social and foreign policy issues, but I would rather have those debates with him than almost any Liberal member. I think he's the sort of Liberal that gives other Liberals a good name.

John Howard made a very good speech last night to the Sydney Institute about his indigenous NT plan. I agree with most of his suggestions, but I don't trust his motives. Him being John Howard and all and being a few months out from an election. And I don't generally believe that good things happen for bad reasons, although I wish I did.

I've been on the Wikileaks mailing list for a few months now, and it looks like things are starting to speed up. It's trying to create an anonymous database of of leaked documents, that can be reviewed and evaluated by the public. I reckon it's a fantastic idea and wish there was more I could do to help them.

The criticisms of it have been that people will just release random lies and propaganda. Except that kind of misses the point. Anyway can publish a lie on their website. A lie only has as much credibility as the website publishing it. If Wikileaks is never able to be able to distinguish between lies and leaks, then it will never gain any credibility. The idea is that it should be the public and not bureaucrats who decide if something is worth releasing to the public. You should have to convince a lot of people that they don't need to know something before you can prevent them from knowing it. That's the rather ridiculous paradox of government secrecy, but I think that the burden of that paradox should be placed on those who want to keep secrets.

The only real difference Wikileaks makes is that it attempts to break the link between leaks and resulting punishment. Organisations shouldn't be able to feel confident that their secrets are safe because they can threaten their employees with prison or violence in the event of a leak. They need to convince their employees that those secrets really deserve to remain secrets. If the people who clearly need to know this information can't be trusted to agree that it should be kept secret then who decides?

The Wikileaks folk seem to have a lot more nous than I'd originally thought. At the beginning it was all a bit confused, and unclear if anything was happening at al. I recently sent them an email with a few suggestions about random things in response to an email they'd sent out. They replied with "Thanks. But we've already thought of all that." Which is always very encouraging.

The idea conjures up dreams of a Cryptonomicon type haven and I wonder how many of the Wikileaks guys have read that. I'm not convinced that real anonymity is ever truly possible on the internet. Especially since for the people who need it the whole network surrounding them is controlled by the people wanting to know who they are. I don't think the internet has added a lot to the amount of information shuffling around China for instance.

I've had this niggling impression for many years now that Botswana is the success story of Africa. It has developed really fast for the past 40 years, is a healthy sort of democracy and is now considered "middle income". It has a GDP per capita of $11,400. So, as you do, I was scrounging through the Botswana bit of the CIA World Fact Book to put off starting my assignment. Obviously, I'm mostly interested in the economics section. It turns out that Botswana, united healthy democracy though it may be, has pretty much the highest income inequality in the world. In 1993 it had a GINI index of 63, which is definitely a good deal higher than any other democracy.

Interestingly, especially for a healthy democracy, the same conservative party has been in power since they started having elections back in 1965. I think that Botswana provides a very interesting lesson for African elites who want to get rich but also not die. The most similar country I can think of is Singapore. Although there are plenty of other countries who have shown that you don't need to give the poor a lot. Giving them "enough" is usually enough. I also think that avoiding violence makes "enough" a much lower number for most people. Oddly, I don't really have a problem with all that. Maybe it's my age showing, but I'd rather raise children in Botswana and Singapore than most countries in the world. Personally, if I have enough and it truly is enough I don't really mind what other people do.

I did this a few years ago. From what I can remember, I've moved towards the centre on both scales. Can anyone I know get more right-wing than me?

Economic Left/Right: -3.13

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67

Mr Howard said the fairness test would guarantee that, if people traded off their penalty rates and overtime loadings, they received fair compensation in return.

"I would have thought that was a very fair proposition," Mr Howard told Parliament.

"It was never intended when we introduced this legislation that it would become the norm that that would occur.

So Howard never expected that employers would negotiate the best deals they legally could? That seems a little naive, even for Howard. The whole point of Howard's workplace laws are that there is no such thing as "fair compensation" and that the market should determine appropriate compensation. Does he want fairness, or does he want efficiency and flexibility?

I think Howard has realised that people actually give a shit when you cut their wages or benefits. They won't just take it on the chin, and comfort themselves with the thought that it's for the good of the economy.

I'm reading a book called State Terrorism and the United States. The US Government really is a despicable creature. The ugliness of US realpolitik makes me more ambivalent about terrorists who use the same logic. When it comes to political realism, does the oppressor define the nature of the politics? The US is perfectly happy to kill civilians if it furthers its own goals. The US will use whatever power it has, as effectively as it can, irrespective of ethics. However, in general, setting out to kill civilians doesn't achieve what it wants. For oppressed groups, perhaps this is not the case, and targeting civilians does further its goals. There have been enough instances of the US aiding and participating in foreign state terrorism and genocide, that I feel comfortable assuming the US would use these methods more directly if it thought it would be effective.

I think I shouldn't be ambivalent about terrorism. It is probably better just to say amoral politics and war are crap, whoever does them.

An interesting interpretation of Mandela's rise to power from our friendly neighbourhood Marxists. I'm actually inclined to agree with them.