Posts by Terence Wood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Neil and Danyl,
Can I humbly suggest that you read Quiggin's review. While there were Nobel laureates, and very fine economists, in the Copenhagen consensus, the make up of the group provides reason to be suspicious. Of economists who got to do the prioritising , the majority were right wing, several had clearly stated previously that they opposed action on climate change. And surprisingly few were either development or environmental economists. None of them were more qualified than Jeffrey Sachs, or Amartya Sen, or Joseph Stiglitz, or Nicholas Stern, or a host of other economists who weren't invited - one imagines - because they actually believe in taking action on climate change.
-
Graeme,
Isn't John Key's mother Jewish? This would make him Jewish, at least to orthodox Jews; although not to reform Jews (who would, I think, rely on Key's own identification).
Not that that matters at all, but, if Moore has tangible evidence of anti-semitism, on Peters' behalf then he should front up and, if it's verifiable, Clark should dissolve the government and call an election. Or Peters should sue if it is not.
Simply because of the heinousness of the crimes associated with it, anti-semetism should never be a charge that is thrown around lightly. It should be leveled seriously and taken seriously.
-
Neil Morison,
I've no time to read the Salon review, but this review by Australian economist John Quiggin is both graceful and makes all the right points about Lomborg's previous book.
The following quote explains clearly the deception involved
The selection of projects is another fundamental problem. Even if, say, improvements in basic health services rank poorly when compared to action against AIDS, they might rank well by comparison with military spending, or advertising, or cosmetic surgery. Lomborg dismisses these from consideration as being ‘not motivated by doing good outside the country concerned’.
But much the same point applies to proposals to mitigate climate change. Adverse impacts species extinction and loss of biodiversity are mostly of concern to people developed countries, and other impacts such as loss of coastal land affect rich and poor countries alike. Similarly the costs of mitigation will be spread across the economy, not funded from a specific government budget item that could be reallocated to foreign aid. Treating climate change as a foreign aid project fits Lomborg’s own framing of the issues, but it is not an accurate representation of the actual problem.
As for Mike Moore's time at the WTO, Robert Wade has some helpful details in his review of Moore's book:
In forging an agenda for a new round of trade talks, Moore’s first task—‘through hard work, aggression and more than a little arrogance on my part’—was to break down the resistance of the African and Asian trade ministers who had rebelled at Seattle against the us and eu’s retention of massive farm subsidies. One tactic was to lard the Draft Declaration with talk of development—the word occurs 63 times in the 10-page document—while quietly inserting the new issues (rules on investment and competition policy) that the West wanted. Another was to find a site relatively free of the protesters that had made Seattle look, in Moore’s description, ‘like the bar scene from Star Wars’, with the official opening delayed for half a day while Kofi Annan and Madeleine Albright were imprisoned by demonstrators in a hotel across town. The Qatari trade minister’s offer of the Doha conference centre was, unsurprisingly, ‘very attractive’.
Equally important was the practice, described by both Moore and Kwa, of going over the heads of wto ambassadors at Geneva—often highly educated in the technical nuances of trade issues—to put direct pressure on their governments. As one delegate explained to Kwa, ‘If the us phones my capital, they won’t say, “There’s this boy, he’s trying to change trips for the good of his country”. They’ll say, “There is this boy, working against the interests of the us, infringing on the good relationship between the us and ——”.’ Critical wto ambassadors were increasingly targeted in the run-up to Doha, with permanent pressure exercised on domestic governments for their removal.
...
The developing countries had resolutely objected to the inclusion of the new Singapore issues (investment, competition, etc.) in the Draft Declaration. But the text, as one Third World delegate explained to Kwa, had a magical quality: ‘We would make objections, but these would not appear’. A Green Room was carefully selected by the French Deputy dg, Paul-Henri Ravier, on the grounds that it was not too large. Only 23 countries could be squeezed in to attend the drafting sessions there. The Declaration, when it finally emerged, contained the Singapore issues
...
In the final session, Moore sat beside the Qatari trade minister, the ostensible chair, instructing him on who should speak; the unmistakeable Antipodean tones—‘Don’t give him the floor!’—echoing loud and clear through a serendipitously live mike. Thus was consensus achieved.What. A. Lovely. Man
-
Hi Neil,
Conor Foley's great isn't he.
That being said, anyone who wants to pin the police repression tag on Chavez is going to have to do the same to Lula too. I've always had my doubts about Chavez and I've always been a huge fan of the PT (Lula's political party - heck, I liked them so much I wrote my masters thesis on them). But police repression is, in all probability, every bit as high in Brazil as it is in Venezuela. And there's not a whole heap that Lula has been able to do about it (in many Brazilian cities the police function more or less as a gang in their own right). I suspect the same is true in Chavez's case too.
As for the banning television channels and meddling with the constitution - I agree there - Chavez looks definitely to be on the slide.
-
sigh
-
testing gravatar - testing
-
Thanks Russell,
For what it's worth, I think that a 35 hr working week and longish leave entitlements are pretty good ideas but, yes, if they are not coupled with similar adjustments to salaries, and combined with other burdens on employers - depending on the extent to which labour markets are functioning in something resembling perfect competition - they could well be contributing to high unemployment.
It's worth noting that increased holiday leave entitlements here in NZ haven't lead to a a surge in unemployment, which might suggests that there is some wiggle room at least for policy makers concerned with work/life balance.
-
Sigh, Sue - 'first they came to micro-chip my dogs' - Kedgely; I think the Greens just lost my vote.
-
Rich of Observationz,
For the most part I agree - France's economy is most certainly not in a death spiral. Nevertheless there are, as I understand it, problems with its labour markets. Like I said they are not across the board, but they exist - particularly for new job seekers. There are flipsides, of course, increased security and better terms for French workers who have jobs.
Anyhow, back to my original point to Russell: none of this has anything to do with their health care system - so it may be a bit unfair to pin this particular criticism on Michael Moore.
-
His loving depiction of the French social system ignores the social and economic slough the system has helped produce there.
I haven't seen the movie, but - unless he starts drifting well beyond health care you are mistaken, I think
It isn't France's high level of social spending (with the possible exception of benefits) that are causing its economic malaise. The most likely cause is labour market rigidities combined with over aggressive European Central Bank inflation targeting and downwards wage presures associated with Globalisation. Even then the problem doesn't appear to be across the economy IIRC - it's limited to certain groups (the young, those new to the labour force etc). This in turn, is amplified by France's failure to find viable multiculturalisms
Free doctor's visits, they're innocent sorry.
He doesn't acknowledge that, although it is plainly and unforgivably awful at safeguarding the welfare of many citizens in most need, the US system does provide incentives for the development of novel treatments that help the rest of us.
I'm genuinely interested, how does a private insurance mediated health care system provide such incentives (or, why would they not still exist under a public insurance mediated system?)