The Thinking Man's Fridge

The simple, yet ignored truth behind the UK riots...

2011-08-15T11:00:00.003+08:00

In the past week the international media has exploded with the animalistic behaviour of those involved in rioting across the UK. Commentators everywhere are finding remarkable the blatant loss of social fabric, and blame the riots on everything from disenfranchised youth, austerity measures, unemployment, and even the overpayment of sporting personalities, racism and religion. The main assessment of the looting across London, however, is that it has nothing to do with a statement of politics, and everything to do with greed. There is one simple, underlying cause for the civil unrest throughout the streets which is being entirely ignored, with the actions being incorrectly dismissed as simply the work of yobs and hooliganism.

Only 15 months ago, in May 2009, the rorting of the expenses system for British politicians was leaked to the mainstream media. Although the politicians, terrified at the prospect of having their claims aired to the wider public, fell over themselves to make claims of ‘accounting oversights’ and ‘human error’, the published expense statements highlighted a deep and inherent culture of flagrant and gross misuse of taxpayers’ money for personal gain.

At what point does this swindling of public taxpayer funds for personal gain become looting? The overwhelming image of news reports with regards to the ransacking and looting is rioters tearing plasma and LCD televisions off the walls of stores before running off into the night. Can falsely claiming expense accounts really compare with looting a flatscreen television?

KEVIN BRENNAN
Claim: It is claimed the junior minister had a £450 widescreen television delivered to his family home in Wales and then claimed it on his allowance for his second home in London.

GERALD KAUFMAN
Claim: Veteran Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman is alleged to have claimed £1,851 for a rug imported from a New York antique centre and tried to claim more than £8,000 for a television.

It seems that so long as you pay for delivery, you can steal what you like. One man’s suit is another man’s hoodie.

Despite the expenses system limiting claims to those things which are essential for the parliamentary duties of politicians, some claimed expenses that are simply well beyond the lifestyle of the average person, yet were happy this lifestyle to be funded at the taxpayers’ expense.

DOUGLAS HOGG
Claim: Submitted claims for more than £2,000 to clear a moat around his Lincolnshire estate.

SIR PETER VIGGERS
Claim: Claimed £30,000 in gardening expenses, including £1645 for a "duck island" in his pond.

SIR JOHN BUTTERFILL
Claim: Did not pay capital gains tax after making a profit of £600,000 from a house funded by the taxpayer. Lodged claims under second home allowance for his six-bedroom country house, complete with swimming pool and extensive grounds. He was reimbursed to the tune of £17,000 for servants' quarters.

It is important to acknowledge that the people making these claims find themselves amongst the wealthiest individuals in the country. They are already the owners of multiple properties, some with over 40 properties to their name. So surely people with this sort of financial worth can be expected to cover at least the basic expenses of daily life?

AUSTIN MITCHELL
Claim: Expenses submitted by the Grimsby MP included 67p for Ginger Crinkle biscuits and 68p for Branston pickle.

FRANK COOK
Claim: The MP for Stockton-on-Tees claimed for a £5 donation that he made at a church service to commemorate the Battle of Britain.

JOHN GREENWAY
Claim: The MP was reimbursed for a 59p box of matches, and two boxes of firelighters worth 99p each.

Perhaps what is even more of a slap in the face is what has become known as ‘flipping’, where MPs use taxpayer funds to extensively renovate properties designated as ‘second homes’, before switching this to their ‘primary home’ and using taxpayer funds to extensively renovate another property. Even more are claiming mortgage repayments for homes which have already been paid off in full.

SIR ALAN HASELHURST
Claim: The deputy speaker claimed £142,119 in second homes allowances since 2001, despite having no mortgage on the property.

DAVID CHAYTOR
Claim: The MP claimed nearly £13,000 for a mortgage he had already cleared. Between September 2005 and August 2006, the Labour backbencher claimed £1,175 a month in interest on his Westminster flat. However, Land Registry records show the mortgage was paid off in January 2004.

ELLIOT MORLEY
Claim: The former environment minister claimed £16,000 in mortgage interest payments on his home in his Scunthorpe constituency even though the mortgage had ended 18 months before.

But to take it even further, the MPs avoided the paying of stamp duties on properties sold (at inflated profit due to taxpayer-funded renovations) by lying on legal documents, claiming the property as their ‘primary home’.

DAVID MACLEAN
Claim: The former Tory chief whip claimed £20,000 for renovations on his farmhouse under the second home allowance. However, he avoided paying thousands in capital gains tax by declaring to Revenue and Customs that it was his main home when selling it for £750,000.

In what is essentially a double dip, these wealthy MPs are using the assets of their wealth to desperately avoid contributing to the very same tax pool which they are looting to feather their own financial nests.

Surely it can’t get worse than this?

BARONESS UDDIN
Claim: Claimed at least £180,000 in expenses by designating an empty flat, and previously an allegedly non-existent property as her main residence.

These are the type of claims that British MPs, those charged with the leadership and direction of the nation, are trying to explain away as ‘accounting oversights’.

But some found themselves lucky enough to have nothing to explain at all…

“Tony Blair's expenses were shredded 'by mistake' when they were the subject of a legal bid to have them published.”

Tony Blair’s catchphrase in leading up to the 1997 general election was “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”. The simple truth is that these politicians are looting taxpayer money, with the same ‘as long as we don’t get caught’ mentality as those involved in the London riots. The only difference is that those in the riots at least have the courage to stand up and admit what they’re doing, and not trying to hide between ‘accounting errors’ and ‘oversights’.

Overwhelmingly, if these were ‘honest accounting errors’ and ‘simple oversights’ why were so many politicians so desperately keen to pay the money back once the story broke? After all, this looting of taxpayer money was occurring as far back as 2001, yet the story broke 8 years later? The message – looting, fraud and stealing is OK as long as you don’t get caught. Which is exactly what the looters in the London riots are claiming.

More than half of the MPs have argued that all of their claims have been ‘within the rules of the expenses system’. So who is writing these rules that inherently favour those of the ruling class with the shameless excesses afforded to them using the money of taxpayers? The same money which is now being withdrawn from desperately needed social services due to ‘austerity measures’?

In no way am I condoning or justifying the animalistic behaviour that has been demonstrated throughout London streets over the past week. It has been nothing short of disgraceful, and has shown only the appalling lows of human nature and pack mentality. Indeed, far from the uprisings in recent months for political freedoms, these London riots, and the looting and ransacking which has occurred throughout, are fuelled by nothing more than opportunism and bare, basic greed.

But it is bordering on civil neglect for those in charge to simply dismiss this as a characteristic and trait inherent amongst ‘disenfranchised youth’. Those in positions of power have universally denigrated all they have seen, yet they are missing the point entirely.

To end, if I could ask David Cameron only one question, it would be:

“To what extent do you and your parliamentary colleagues accept that the culture of greed amongst those rioting in London, and the notion that stealing and looting is actively encouraged as long as you don’t get caught is a result of those elected into positions of leadership around the country displaying exactly those sentiments towards taxpayer money, month after month, year after year?”

If those elected as leaders of the nation can treat the public purse with such contempt and disregard, and display such ‘smash and grab’ tendencies towards taxpayer money, why should those in their constituencies feel any different? Politicians seem to so quickly point the finger at others in society for social problems. They point at footballers, musicians and movie stars. They point at single-parent families, at lazy youth. They blame race and religion (because deep down, they can always rely on the perceived failings of multiculturalism for public support). They blame social media. But at what point do they need to stop and look in the mirror? It seems that, more and more, society allows violent looting of communities, but only if it’s bankers or people in power, or simply people who wear a suit and tie, who are doing the looting.

On pondering this, I’ll leave you with the following list of just a small sample of the looting that has been endorsed and encouraged by those elected politicians for years…

SHAHID MALIK
Claim: Claimed £66,827 from the second home allowance - the maximum allowed - over three years towards the cost of his London flat, bought in 2001 before he was elected. Claims over the period included £2,100 for a flat screen television, £1,420 for a bathroom, £671 for a fireplace and £730 for a massage chair.

SHAUN WOODWARD
Claim: Taxpayers contributed almost £100,000 to help pay the mortgage on a £1.35m flat owned by the Northern Ireland secretary. The money went on mortgage interest payments and council tax between 2004 and 2008 for the flat. Married to a member of the Sainsbury family and worth an estimated £15m, Mr Woodward is the richest member of the cabinet.

PAUL GOGGINS
Claim: Claimed £2,800 for a settee and £2,000 for a carpet to furnish his second home. Also accused of "flipping" his two houses in London and Manchester to make a profit. Mr Goggins also allowed a university friend to live rent-free in a home paid for by the taxpayer. Mr Goggins defended his household purchases by saying he liked to ‘live by decent standards’. "I do not lead an extravagant lifestyle, people should remember that we have to furnish our first home with our own money.”

KEITH VAZ
Claim: The chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee claimed more than £75,000 to fund a second home in Westminster, even though his family home is just 12 miles away in Stanmore.

BARRY GARDINER
Claim: The MP for Brent North made a profit of almost £200,000 from a flat mortgaged and renovated with the help of taxpayers' cash.

STEPHEN BYERS
Claim: The former Trade Secretary used the expenses system to claim more than £125,000 for the London flat owned by his partner.

ALAN AND ANN KEEN
Claim: The Labour MPs Alan and Ann Keen, who are married, have claimed £137,679 between them towards a central London flat despite the fact their family home is less than ten miles away.

RUTH KELLY
Claim: The former cabinet minister claimed £31,000 of taxpayers' money for flood damage to her second home, even though she had a building insurance policy at the time.

IAN GIBSON
Claim: Dr Gibson claimed for a flat which his daughter and her partner lived in rent-free. It also claimed the Norwich North MP then sold it to them for less than he paid and well below market value.

BOB MARSHALL-ANDREWS
Claim: Claimed £118,000 for expenses at his second home, including stereo equipment, redecoration and a pair of Kenyan carpets.

JOHN AUSTIN
Claim: Claimed more than £10,000 for the redecoration of his London flat, which was just 11 miles from his main home, before selling it for a £30,000 profit. After buying a new property, he claimed £10,000 in stamp duty and other expenses incurred in the move and a further £15,000 for a new bathroom, kitchen, carpets, and appliances.

MARK TODD
Claim: Claimed £24,877 in expenses to refurbish his second home in London. Kitchen units, lighting, bathroom items, carpets, tiles leather chairs and a marble table were all among the goods for which he claimed.

ROGER GODSIFF
Claim: The Labour backbencher made claims for a bath mat, gardening equipment and more than £7,000 for property repairs at his home in Birmingham, labeling them as office costs.

CHARLOTTE ATKINS
Claim: The Staffordshire Moorlands MP claimed more than £35,000 for renovations to her second home, which included £20,000 for windows and £4,000 for pulling down and rebuilding a chimney.

BILL CASH
Claim: Mr Cash used parliamentary allowances to pay about £15,000 in rent to his daughter in 2004-5 after nominating her London flat as his second home. He did this even though he owned a flat closer to Westminster in which his son was staying rent free.

BERNARD JENKIN
Claim: The Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin used £50,000 in expenses to pay his sister-in-law rent for the property he uses as his constituency home.

FRANCIS MAUDE
Claim: Shadow cabinet office minister Francis Maude claimed almost £35,000 in mortgage interest payments on a London flat that he bought, close to a house he already owned and then rented out.

ROBERT SYMS
Claim: The former shadow minister for local government claimed more than £2,000 of furniture for his second home in London but had it delivered to his parents' home in Wiltshire.

CHRISTOPHER FRASER
Claim: The South West Norfolk MP claimed over £1,800 in expenses to buy 215 trees and fencing to mark out the boundary of his house. Mr Fraser stated "I have been conscious whenever claiming that my costs must be wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purposes of my parliamentary duties."

SIR ALAN BEITH
Claim: Sir Alan, the first MP to declare an interest in succeeding Michael Martin as Commons Speaker, claimed £117,000 in second homes allowances while his wife, Baroness Maddock, claimed £60,000 from the House of Lords for staying at the same address.

The height of narcissism...

2010-02-15T09:51:00.005+08:00

I’m completely over these signs...

What an incredible sense of narcissism that the rest of the world should care about the offspring strapped into your car, especially when you’re usually the one driving like a retard. And the increased sense of urgency carried by the ubiquitous exclamation mark makes my growing urge to punch you that little bit more irresistible.

Let’s face it. Having a child is not a monumental achievement. If these people manage it, then it clearly requires no formal level of education or physical superstardom.

Besides that, you have, at best, a 50-50 chance that your kid will end up looking like this:

…so the preservation of your kin may or may not be for the good of the nation anyway.

But perhaps the ultimate show of narcissism is seeing one of these annoying signs suction-cupped next to your P-plate. Chances are, we’re not the ones who need to be a little more careful, are we?

You're a fat, lazy slob. Stop blaming planners for your problems.

2009-01-16T11:43:00.006+09:00

The planning profession needs to narrow its perspective. Regardless of its roots in various social fields throughout time, it exists to perform a very specific role and fulfil a specific need. As the profession is continually watered down with other concerns and goals, it is doomed to fail, and will only succeed in churning out and endless supply of urban environments which will be a jack of all trades, and a master of none.

Planners need to make the decision as to whether they are going to create a Functional City or a Foolproof City. The only problem with trying to create the latter, is that as soon as you make something that is foolproof, someone designs a better fool.

Planners need to abandon the responsibilities hoisted upon them by other notional groups in society who either have little or no understanding of what the planning profession is all about, or have given up trying themselves. We need to build functional cities – cities that work. Not walkable, thin, healthy, visually attractive, crime-free, pollution-free cities. We should not concern ourselves with the principles of CPTED – we have police and a judicial system for this. We should not concern ourselves with redesigning cities to be ‘walkable and healthy’ – we have basic education and a health system for dealing with this.

Look at Mexico City – it is a functioning city. It has nearly 30 million people, but you can still get from one side to the other on public transport in under 30 minutes. Perth, regardless of the criticism it receives due to its sprawl, is a functioning city. It houses over 1.5 million people, and yet you can still drive from its northern-most suburbs to its southern-most in less than an hour. There is a wide diversity of housing styles, from high-density towards the city, to an endless supply of the Great Australian Dream, to semi-rural style living within 20 minutes of the city centre. It may not be attractive, crime-free, healthy, or pollution-free, but it functions as a city, and that is the key.

What society wants planners to do is create the foolproof city, but we will constantly be undone by a more superior fool. We need to let go of the notion that we can simply trick people into walking to work by making the streets look attractive. We need to let go of the notion that we can trick people into being healthy by making them ‘accidentally’ get exercise whilst walking to an imaginary ‘public meeting space’. We need to let go of the notion that we can simply fool people into taking public transport and leaving the car at home. These are real people we’re talking about here. Society seems to forget that.

Planners are not here to pick up the pieces of a justice system which fails to deliver. Do they really think that the problems with Aboriginal gangs in Northbridge are the result of poor planning decisions? It is only blamed on planners because to suggest it’s the fault of the Aborigines is somehow racist. So we look for non-specific, nondescript groups to pin the blame on, like ‘planners’ and ‘the welfare system’. That way, no-one is offended, and we can go on complaining about it because no-one will be able to work out why we can’t seem to solve the problem by adding public lighting. They’re Aborigines, not vampires.

We are not here to provide exercise and health benefits when our food producers promote expediency and profit above healthy and responsible foods. We are not here to save the environment when the Capitalist system encourages profit before environmental sustainability. We are not here to save the environment when builder fail to use environmentally sustainable practices, like recycled materials, lightweight construction, and alternative solutions like hemp-based concrete. We will never achieve this as long as these methods are constantly referred to as ‘alternative’ building methods. They need to become the norm. They need to challenge how things are done, when they’re only done that way because they’ve always been done that way.

Planners need to focus on building a functional city. Once that is done, a functional justice system can work on providing the security and safety we need. After all, that’s what it’s there for. Once it’s there, the building companies can reduce the environmental impact. After all, that’s where the real damage is done. Once it is done, the food suppliers can provide all the healthy food we need, and the education system can empower people to make smarter choices. After all, that’s what they’re there for. And if that doesn’t work, and people still eat themselves into obesity and an early grave, well… who cares. That’s the best thing about a democracy. That’s their decision, and they’re free to make it. I’m not going to redesign an entire city because some fat bastard can’t get off the couch. I mean, shit, we even make shows like the Biggest Loser to get the message across, but it really just gives them another reason to spend another 30 minutes sitting on their asses. Does no-one get the irony?

Urban sprawl exists not just because we couldn’t see far enough into the future to realise the problems it would cause. It exists because it serves a purpose, and in serving that purpose, urban sprawl works. It provides space for those who value it as a necessity. It provides options of lower-cost housing. It provides a sense of living that some people value. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but people are not lemmings. They have their own needs and values.

A functioning city will also have roads. Lots of them. The notion of a ‘walkable city’ is entirely unrealistic. Goods will always need to be transported. Walking to the shop is fine for a litre of milk, but not when you’re doing the weekly shopping for a family with 3 kids, or shopping for a new fridge, or a 42” plasma. Or when it’s raining. Or when it’s a hot day. I’m fairly certain when the washing machine repairman comes around to fix my washing machine, he’s not going to come by bus, bringing his tools and spare parts with him. Neither is the guy who comes to mow the lawns, the guy who comes to clean the pool, or the guy who comes to install the Foxtel. And while I’m happy to live within walking distance of a sporting facility, I can’t vouch for all the other people in my team, or all the other people making up all the other teams who we play against.

Planning will ultimately fail when it blindly follows unachievable goals like those presented by theories such as New Urbanism. We laugh at people when they take a horoscope as gospel. We laugh at them when we point out that for a horoscope to be true, one-twelfth of the world’s population would have to have exactly the same personality traits and characteristics. Yet we revel in the notion that if we design a city to be visually attractive and walkable, 100% of the population will react the same way, and we can save society from itself and its obesity. This is nonsense. Such rhetoric and broad generalisations will get us nowhere.

The planning profession needs to abandon the notion of the foolproof city. So too, the notion of the ideal city, the perfect city, and urban utopia. These things can never exist, and never will as long as society continues to grow or change. We cannot succeed as long as we challenge ourselves to meet goals and expectations that cannot be measured. How can ‘sprawl’ be measured. Who is to say that the detached dwellings on 300m² R30 lots will not be the ‘sprawl’ of the future? Yet this is being heralded as evidence that urban consolidation is alive and working. We will never win a battle against an immeasurable entity. We can not win a war against a noun, just like the ‘war on drugs’ or the ‘war on terrorism’. We can, however, design a functioning city, and we can design it very well.

Why I hate Corporations (part one)

2008-12-16T10:21:00.004+09:00

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed” (Abraham Lincoln)

I can sum up my feelings on this one in one simple edict – Corporations are bastards because they actually believe that ‘globalisation’ should only work for them.

Corporations love globalisation (read ‘exploiting poorer nations’) as it allows them to bypass those tricky parts of national laws like Occupational Health and Safety, Minimum Wages, Union Representation and Environmental Responsibility, and manufacture sh*tty plastic goods for absolute rock-bottom costs. Megalopolis crap-merchant Wal-Mart have a very simple policy when it comes to this ideology: if it’s made in America, it doesn’t make it to Wal-Mart shelves. They serve as nothing more than a retail outlet for mass-producing Chinese factories.

However, when the consumer tries to use globalisation and the so-called ‘global economy’ to their own advantages, Corporations cry bloody murder, and try to grind it to a halt.

Case in point: Line 6. Line 6 are well known for making musical equipment, and perhaps their most revolutionary item was the famous Pod range, and its associated spin-offs. To buy a Pod Pro unit in Australia, it carried the RRP of $1600-$1950, depending on the unit. However, for me to buy one new from the US, and ship it over to Australia cost me $450. That’s even taking into account the paltry exchange rate. The question is, why would ANYONE buy locally when globalisation provides such a cost saving? Well, they wouldn’t, and everyone is happy.

Until something goes wrong.

And here’s the kicker… when something goes wrong, Line 6 Australia don’t want to know about you. They can’t help, because even though it was bought new from a licensed retail outlet, and even though it has a receipt, it wasn’t bought in Australia.

So f*cking what? It wasn’t built in Australia either, you dumbsh*ts. It was built in the same forced-labour sweatshop in Mexico as the ones which ARE sold in Australia. What’s the difference? But things get really strange when even the Line 6 in the US say they can’t help, because it was sent out of the United States. Again, they were shipped into the US from Mexico, so what’s the difference?

The difference is when consumers begin to use globalisation to benefit themselves through competitive pricing, the bastard Corporations don’t get to rely on the income from grossly inflated pricing structures used in the consumer’s native country to multiply their obscene profits. Line 6 Australia won’t be able to charge me $1900 for the exact same item from the exact same Mexican sweatshop which I bought myself for $450. Boo hoo.

The simple solution? Buy another item in Australia, switch it with the dud, and take it back for a refund. The unit now gets sent back to Line 6 for repair anyway. Way to go, corporations! I can, and I will, because f*ck you.

The truth is, behind all the hype about the global economy and the wondrous benefits of globalisation, it’s simply not meant for you and me. It’s meant for national Corporations to increase profit margins through the exploitation of poorer nations into mass producing sh*tty products at such a low price that dumbsh*t consumers will overlook the notable lack in quality. Anyone who sees it as more than this is quite simply kidding themselves…

Banks should pay for First Home Buyer's Grant...

2008-11-05T10:29:00.000+09:00

Kevin Rudd made a very popular decision recently to increase the First Home Buyer’s Grant from $7,000 to $21,000 for newly-built homes. While this appears to be a generous bonus for first home buyers, in reality, nothing could have been further from Rudd’s mind.

One of the most reported outcomes of the Great Depression in the 1930’s was the ‘run’ on the banks, when people began to realise that the money they put in the bank doesn’t just sit there on a shelf gaining interest – it needs to be invested somewhere else to do that. This is how banks make a profit. Back then the banks relied on the fairly safe assumption that every person won’t want all of their cash at the one time. As we saw, people got scared, and the banks assumed wrong.

With the news of the ‘economic crisis’ spreading to Australia, Rudd made two moves to help support the banks. First, he guaranteed people’s savings so that people would feel safe leaving their money in their accounts, which the banks actually have invested elsewhere.

Secondly, he announced that he would triple the First Home Buyer’s Grant.

Why is this such a bad thing? Let’s face it – two days before the announcement, if someone told you to go to a bank and borrow $400,000 to buy a house, you wouldn’t touch it. Now, first home buyers (generally those at the lower end of the economic spectrum) are going to be falling over themselves to take advantage of the offer.

Put simply, Rudd’s plan is to support the banking system by encouraging people, particularly those who can least afford it, to jump into massive borrowings and personal debt. He’s trying to solve the current economic problems caused by the banks by using a taxpayer-funded carrot to get everyday people to borrow more from them.

But perhaps the most conflicting news came two weeks after Rudd’s announcement to triple the FHBG, when the first of the Big Banks announced that even amidst the ‘economic crisis’ gripping the world, they’d cleared $8 billion in profit. That’s one company with a profit equal to more than one third of the entire nation’s budget surplus.

So wouldn’t it be fair to ask for some of that taxpayer-funded $21,000 back? After all, that $8 billion profit of just one bank is roughly equivalent to 381,000 First Home Buyer Grants, and I just don’t see there being that many first home buyers out there at the moment.

At the end of the day, a mortgage is an exclusive relationship between a home ‘owner’ and a bank. It does not benefit the greater society in any way. The home ‘owner’ gets to borrow a house to live in. The banks get to reap in profit from the repayments (a $400,000 mortgage at 7% over 30 years will reap in nearly $560,000 in interest repayments, on top of the original $400,00 which needs to be repaid – that’s nearly $1 million in total). This is then invested elsewhere, for even further growth.

I guess my question is, if the banks require lucrative carrots to be thrown about to keep them in business, why does it have to be the taxpayers funding it? I pay my taxes for the government to build roads, schools, hospitals and getting me a better seat at Subiaco stadium. Surely the banks can take $21,000, or even more, out of that $560,000 interest and still turn a healthy profit?

Just when US$700 billion couldn’t get any worse…

2008-10-03T10:00:00.003+08:00

My post below outlines why I think the Paulson Plan is an outright terrible idea. But just when you thought the idea to dump US$700b into the failing banks in the United States couldn’t get any worse… it has.

Recent insight from an interview by Rep Brad Sherman provides some further clarity on the plan:

"It (the bill) provides hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts to foreign investors… The Bank of Shanghai can transfer all of its toxic assets to the Bank of Shanghai of Los Angeles which can then sell them the next day to the Treasury. It had a provision to say if it wasn't owned by an American… the Treasury can't buy it. It was rejected.

“The bill is very clear. Assets now held in China and London can be sold to US entities on Monday and then sold to the Treasury on Tuesday. Paulson has made it clear he will recommend a veto of any bill that contained a clear provision that said if Americans did not own the asset… that it can't be sold to the Treasury. Hundreds of billions of dollars are going to bail out foreign investors. They know it, they demanded it and the bill has been carefully written to make sure it can happen."

Hmmm. This helps to explain why, for nearly a year, investors and foreign banks have been buying up billions of dollars worth of debt from US banks. They’ve been able to buy up huge amounts of debt, at bargain basement prices, with the intention of selling it back to the United States Treasury, to be dumped on the tax-paying American public.

Now, here’s the real kicker…

On September 29, the Bloomberg News reported that "the Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression. The Fed increased its existing currency swaps with foreign central banks by $330 billion to $620 billion to make more dollars available worldwide”.

What’s that? The Federal Reserve has ALREADY dumped close to US$650 billion into the failing banks to prop them up, and it HAS NOT WORKED. Why then, is Henry “no Plan B” Paulson’s suggestion to dump another US$700 billion of taxpayer money into the problem going to make any difference, particularly when most economists estimate the true damage to be between US$3-5 trillion?

Wouldn’t the tax-payer money be better spent on education, health care and infrastructure? What are the odds that Goldman Sachs (the bank where Paulson worked since 1974, and who paid him an estimated US$35 million in 1995 alone as the CEO) gets a good seat at the table when it comes to dividing up the US$700 billion amongst the banks?

A US$700 billion dollar failure...

2008-10-01T10:23:00.008+08:00

“What we are witnessing today is how empires end” (Buchanan, 2008)

The United States’ Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s plan to pour US$700 billion into the failed banking system is possibly the worst idea hatched yet under the Bush administration.

Firstly, forget that since mid-2007 thousands of home ‘owners’ around the US have lost their properties under forced foreclosure (a search of any foreclosure website will list hundreds upon hundreds of listed properties over the past 12 months alone), and that throughout this time the US government has not been able to find a cent to help these people out. Also, forget that the CEO of one of these failed banks walked away with a US$10 million dollar bonus, as the bank he ran into the iceberg slipped below the waves. And now that it's the people at the top who are in trouble, the US government has US$700 million to throw into the fray?

As with so many disasters, the banks are crying ‘Government, save us!’, even though it was not the government that got them into trouble. It was the Federal Reserve and its cheap money, reckless ‘gambling’ and inflated valuations of assets which got the banks where they are.

The first sign that something is awry here is that Henry Paulson has openly admitted that “there is no Plan B”. The second is that he is the ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs, one of the very banks he is trying to help out, as he watched others like Lehman wipe themselves out.

Economist Nouriel Roubini notes that "the Treasury plan is a disgrace: a bailout of reckless bankers, lenders and investors that provides little direct debt relief to borrowers and financially stressed households and that will come at a very high cost to the US taxpayer”.

In many ways the United States' economy needs the recession-come-depression that is coming. It is built on money that, quite simply, does not exist. One of the biggest rorts in the history of the Wall Street model is the mortgage-backed derivatives market which has got the US into the situation it is now.

Derivatives are essentially bets. The problem is, however, that unlike investing in a tactile commodity, derivatives actually create nothing. Worse still, you can gamble with things that you don’t even own. And herein lies the problem. This process was essentially made legitimate in the 90’s by the Federal Reserve Chairman and general dirty sh*t Alan Greenspan, when the process was challenged as an illegal form of gambling. Basically, derivatives have no value, but derive value from something else. This is very similar to the modus operandi that brought down Enron, regarded as the corporate scam of the century.

To outline how grossly inflated the situation has become, the Bank for International Settlements recently reported that total derivatives trades exceeded $1000 trillion, which is remarkable given that the GDP of all the countries in the world combined is only around $60 trillion. The bankers have been free to bet as much as they want, even with money they don’t have (or doesn’t even exist). Warren Buffett refers to derivatives as "weapons of financial mass destruction". What we are seeing now is just the system starting to find its natural equilibrium.

Now, here’s the REAL catch. Why does this system need the US government to pour in US$700 billion? Because that’s a GUESS of the grossly-inflated value the banks put on their own assets.

The Bush administration AND the banks claim that the banks’ assets cannot be sold, but this in not true. These assets can be sold, but only for a fraction of the inflated value that the banks place on their OWN assets. Hence, to sell them at the real market price would leave the banks broke. And here’s the kicker – Paulson’s US$700 billion plan revolves around the US government buying these bank assets at the full inflated price. It’s really that simple. The banks then keep their grossly inflated value, but converted to cash instead of thin air, and the debt gets transferred to the taxpayer, through the hands of the US government.

The question that stands out is why should American households earning $50,000 a year subsidise the Goldman Sachs partners who earn $5 million a year, and who have been gambling at this insane rate for years, and bringing the current situation upon us?

And for those that still don’t feel that something fishy is going on, prior to their bankruptcy, 14% of Lehman Brothers’ assets fell into the 'imaginary' category described above, yet Goldman Sachs is still in business despite the fact that 13% of their assets are in the same boat. Perhaps if the Treasury Secretary claiming that Congress needs to endorse this plan immediately, and that there is no Plan B, wasn’t once the CEO of this bank, they would have succumbed to their own fraud long ago.

So why do I care what happens with this latest Wall Street collapse? I care because the media, particularly in Australia, is mindlessly spouting the virtues of this bailout plan without understanding what it’s all about. Just this morning, the presenter on Channel 9’s morning program dropped into an interview that “the US Congress need to consider this plan again, and we’re praying they accept it”. How did the media lose the ability to scrutinise what they spew forth? I’m not praying that Congress accept it. Maybe their initial decision to knock back the disgraceful Paulson Plan is the first step in restoring sense and order to an economic system built on thin air?

Fine with me...

2008-09-11T15:08:00.010+08:00

“In justice is all virtues found in sum” (Aristotle)

There’s been a lot of public whinging lately about the inappropriate penalties handed down by our nation’s judicial system. However, after some brief research, I’ve concluded that the problem is not with our justice system, it is with what the naïve and inexperienced public believe constitutes a crime these days.

To help you all I’ve compiled a list of more notable fines handed down by courts around Australia over the past 2 years. As the courts represent the highest purveyor of judicial legislature we have, it is only right to assume that the more serious the crime, the more substantial the fine will be. Right?

Fines and their crimes (from most severe to least severe):

$5,500,000 - Sending spam emails
$40,000 - Harvey Norman opening illegally on Sunday in WA
$22,000 - Pirating 200 CD's and DVD's
$9,000 - Fishing for abalone outside of permitted area
$7,000 - Running onto ground during an AFL match
$5,640 - Exceeding rock lobster fishing quota
$5,500 - Wearing anti-Catholic t-shirt
$5,000 - Selling used cars without a motor car trader licence
$5,000 - Criticising an AFL umpire
$4,000 - Baker supplying underweight pastries
$3,500 - Streaking during Bledisloe Cup match
$2,000 - Torturing kittens
$2,000 - Killing a grey nurse shark
$1,000 - Yelling 'Go Nazis' at an orthodox businessman
$1,000 - Recording Simpsons movie with mobile phone
$1,000 - Working as a crowd controller whilst disqualified
$1,000 - Smoking on Qantas flight and not wearing a seatbelt during landing
$1,000 - Shooting a western grey kangaroo
$700 - Shooting a person to death over a $100 drug debt
$600 - Supplying underage son with alcohol
$600 - Driving without a licence
$527 - Notifying 3 home owners that their neighbour is a convicted child molester
$500 - Driving without a seatbelt
$400 - Assault occasioning bodily harm
$400 - Swearing and offensive behaviour in McDonald's
$400 - Poking policeman in the eye with a lit cigarette
$318 - Not stopping at an amber light
$300 - Supplying cocaine causing the death of a prostitute
$300 - Shoplifting from Woolworths
$300 - Professional kick-boxer breaking policeman's leg
$250 - Using a mobile phone whilst driving
$250 - Choking a policeman
$97 - Vandalising coal ships with environmental slogans

I find it particularly strange that the bigger the animal you kill, the smaller the fine. I’m also bemused that not stopping at an amber light is slightly more serious a crime than causing a prostitute to overdose on cocaine, that giving your underage son some alcohol is only slightly less serious than shooting him in the head, and that breaking a policeman’s leg is roughly equivalent to shoplifting from Woolworths. I can imagine the prison cell banter:

“I’m in here for breaking a copper’s leg. You?”
“I stole some Tim-Tams from Woolies…”

Chances are the second guy is going to be someone’s b*tch. But I suppose a $97 fine is a fair kick in the pants for a hippy.

The sooner we, the public, get a grasp on what constitutes a serious crime, as opposed to a misdemeanour, the sooner we'll find that our courts are doing just great...

Wasted opportunities...

2008-09-05T15:14:00.004+08:00

"Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently" (Arens)

During a trip to Melbourne earlier this year, I learnt that the Queen Victoria Markets is in the process of harvesting the rainwater which falls on the roof of the enclosure, which is stored in tanks underneath the car parking areas. On average, they will collect around 10,200,000 litres of water every year, which is then used for the flushing of public toilets, among other things. Whilst it is not used as potable water, it replaces the use of potable water for these activities. Melbourne is a city famed for its rainfall, and is far from being in dire need of water restrictions.

So why then, here in WA, where we are burdened with television, radio and newspaper advertising 12 months a year about the drastic water shortages we’re facing, do we not have a similar scheme in place?

Let me think… we’d just need a building with a great, big, flat roofed area… if only there was – wait! That huge pile of s**t, the Perth Convention Centre, would be perfect!

The Perth Convention Centre has a custom BlueScope Steel roof measuring approximately 40,000m². One square millimetre of rain falling on one square metre of roof totals one litre of water. Perth’s average annual rainfall since 1975 is 791mm.

Therefore, the Perth Convention Centre would, on average, lay claim to 31,640,000 litres of water every year. So what happens each year to those 31.6 million litres?

According to the City of Perth’s Engineering Department, the roof stormwater is connected to the City’s stormwater system, which drains out into the nearby Swan River.

Way to go.

We’re chastised for spending the extra minute in the shower because it wastes 9 litres of water, but nearly 32 million litres falling from the sky gets flushed into the river!?! Way to run a City! Are we really that f*cking stupid? Apparently so…

And for those who would argue that rainwater harvesting would be too expensive because of the extra cost for the storage tanks and plumbing, keep in mind that the Perth Convention Centre cost $220 million dollars, so I’m sure the owners weren’t short of a few quid.

In comparison, the Queen Victoria Markets’ roof covers only 2.7 hectares, or 27,000m². And here’s the kicker – Melbourne’s average annual rainfall is around 650mm – that’s right, less than Perth! The total rainwater harvesting project cost? A miserly $800,000, or 0.36% of the cost of building the Perth Convention Centre from scratch. Potable water in Perth costs around 7 cents per litre, so replacing 31.64 million litres of potable water with stormwater runoff would save around $2.2 million every year. Sounds like a one-off outlay of $800,000 would be a pretty wise investment. And that's just one sh*tty building... imagine if we really got our act together...

Money well spent...

2008-08-01T11:06:00.000+08:00

“I got this powdered water – now I don’t know what to add” (Wright)

Breaking news this morning is that NASA has confirmed that the Phoenix mission to Mars has discovered water on the red planet.

It’s just cost us $457 million dollars to find traces of water on a planet 278 million kilometers away. F*cking great. Money well spent.

Surely we could have been a wee bit more productive and spent that $457 million on finding water in Africa?

It ain't easy being Green...

2008-07-29T15:51:00.001+08:00

“Colour it green, and you can sell it” (Friedmann)

You know why this whole ‘green’ push the world is running with at the moment just won’t take off? Because there’s just too much money in it. Friedmann was a (mere) planning theorist, but his words can apply to a lot here.

Just the other day, I bought a new mop. Nothing super. Just a mop with the replaceable foam heads. The mop (with foam head) cost me $8.45. The replacement foam head for the mop costs $8.90. Go figure.

This means that from an economic rationalists point of view, every time I wear out the head of the mop, it’s cheaper to throw the whole thing out and start again. It kind of got me thinking that maybe the manufacturers don’t assemble the mop parts in the factory, they start with a complete mop, and take parts off until there’s nothing but the foam head left. That’s the only way I can figure it – all the extra labour involved in stripping it down to a foam head results in the extra 45 cents.

It’s the same with razors. I like Schick Mach 3 (and no, Schick, I don’t need a gentle reminder to upgrade to the 5 blade model, because shaving with 5 blades is just f*cking stupid). I like the Mach 3 because it bends, and I once went 5 months on the one blade, and that’s shaving my head and face, and that’s great and I’m awesome.

My problem is, 4 replacement heads for my Mach 3 handle costs $11.90, whereas a 4-pack of Mach 3 disposable razors only costs $6.90. Again, go figure. And don’t give me some rubbish about using higher quality blades on the replacement heads because that’s just crap and you know it. I’ve shaved my head for nearly 10 years now, so I know a crap quality razor when I see one. All of those plastic handles go to waste (and don’t forget, plastic is made of oil, too).

So at the end of the day, we’re supposed to minimise waste and save power and save water and save the f*cking planet from the parasitic leech that is the human race, but it’s going to cost us more, because everyone’s in it to make a killing.

The Art of Wearing Black

2008-07-15T19:55:00.001+08:00

I just got back from my first ever trip to Melbourne. Everyone in Melbourne wears black. A lot of black. You go out at night and you can't bloody see anyone. They're like lots of well-dressed ninjas.

The Cost of War - well worth a look

2008-07-06T18:07:00.002+08:00

Kudos to whoever made this clip. Simple, yet poignant...

Who do these people think they are?

2008-07-04T16:18:00.002+08:00

A report released this morning proves the absurd ‘alco-pops’ tax has had the OPPOSITE effect to what was intended (like every forward-thinking person naturally assumed it would), as teens are now switching to full strength spirits mixed at home in unmetered doses.

So if increasing taxes, and therefore prices, on pre-mix drinks has made the binge drinking situation worse, then by deduction LOWERING the prices would make the problem better, and to me seems like a good proposition.

But do you think that the Australian public would have a hope in hell of getting the prices of alco-pops reduced? Absolutely not. Instead, the government will simply hike up taxes on straight spirits, and probably beer and wine to boot, so that everyone is worse off. Was this entire move just a scam to rake in more taxes from alcohol across the board?

Even if, by the slimmest of chances, the taxes were removed from 'tart fuel', the retailers would only reduce the prices by a small percentage, just like what happens on a weekly basis with petrol price fluctuations, so that the consumers, at the end of the day, are still the ones who are worse off than before the government implemented its narrow-minded and entirely flawed stunt.

As usual, it is the consumers who foot the bill for the politicians’ stupidity, and the retailers’ greed.

Follow up: Just today there was a government boofhead who issued a complaint that a bottleshop was selling ‘cleanskin’ bottles of wine for $2, saying it was far too cheap. Well, just for once, if it cost $2 to produce and sell something at a profit, then I want to pay two f*cking dollars for it - not what some government bullshit-o-crat thinks it should cost. Isn’t that the very basis of the capitalist social system we’ve created? Why does it only serve to benefit people in positions of power (particularly those voted to positions of power to serve the population)? Who the f*ck do these people think they are? Why do I have to hold the hand of binge drinkers and alcoholics, and suffer the consequences for their piss-poor self-control?

What is the deal with these taxes? Is it more important to merely point out a health issue, or encourage people to actually make the change? When the government comes out with this sort of crap every 3-4 months, people just start pulling their hair out with frustration. “Please, Government! Just leave me the f*ck alone! I work 40-50 hours a week to pay record high inflation, record grocery prices, record fuel prices, record taxes, but do you think I can get in to see a f*cking doctor or get a bed in a hospital? All I want is a few minutes to myself to have a bunch of drinks with my mates. At least let me have that!”

The nature of justice...

2008-06-30T13:29:00.002+08:00

“Justice is the bread of the nation, it is always hungry for it” (François Chateaubriand)

This weekend saw four children, aged 10, 11, 15 and 17, die when they crashed the stolen car they were travelling in. New reports say that the four had stolen another car earlier that night, thrashed it, bogged it, and set it alight.

Amidst the usual throng of people who jump up and down blaming the parents, the teachers, the government, society in general, and anyone else they can think of, there is always a loud public voice screaming ‘they got what they deserved’. This usually is rebuked as being a heartless and Draconian response to what initially appears to be a tragic situation. Comments such as this appeared almost immediately on internet pages:

“Well all I can say is if you are going to go stealing cars and driving at excessive speed… then you got what was coming.”
“Tragedy? Four less out-of-control louts who would have been of no benefit to society? Almost certainly.”
“They wont do it again.”
“Four less criminals off our roads.”

So why, now that we’re nigh-on a decade in to the 21st century, does the public mass still make such proclamations? Have we, as humans, regressed to a Colosseum-like lust for blood? It’s not as barbaric as people think. No, I think it’s actually far more simple than that.

It is the legal system that has a lot to answer for in regards to the incredible public response to this accident.

For many years the legal system has been handing down weaker and weaker sentences for crimes throughout society. The usual ‘slap on the wrist’ response which we are now accustomed to leave no feeling amongst the public that justice has been done. This is particularly reinforced from time to time when a driver’s actions cause the death of other people, and we find out that they have multiple driving, drinking or drug offences for which they have not served one day in a prison cell.

The public is tired of this happening over and over and over again: car theft, home invasions, attacks on the elderly, rape and child murder, attacks at trains stations and being afraid to walk through public places. If sentences for crime were such that the public could say about the offender ‘they got what they deserved’, then we wouldn’t be waiting for incidents such as this, where the criminals end up killing themselves by their own misadventure, so we could say ‘well… they got what they deserved’.

If you want to find out why the public has such a revengeful or vitriolic response to these incidents, it’s because they have not been able to rely on our legal system to provide a sense of justice when criminals are caught.

I firmly believe that the sense of revenge is a very key part of what makes us human (and before anyone starts lecturing me about ‘an eye for an eye’, learn to read the Bible in context, rather than spouting useless quips like an infomercial, and look up a guy called Hammurabi while you’re at it). Now that custodial sentences have been watered down as being a time for rehabilitation rather than punishment, that sense of revenge and social justice can’t be found by the public. At that point, as happened in this incident, people rely on a sort of ‘natural justice’, where those perpetuating the crime are killed by their own misadventures, to feel that sense of social justice, and to have that desire for revenge placated.

The State of WA – What Appliances?

2008-06-27T15:32:00.003+08:00

Well, the State Government, in all its wisdom, has finally come clean and released the figures showing that only 2.3% of the state’s gas usage is attributed to residential purposes. So when Premier Carpenter made his semi-presidential address to the nation of Western Australia last week, pleading with us to reduce our gas use by 10%, the overall impact was a potential statewide saving of 0.23%. Brilliant economics, and once again, missing the point entirely. Way to solve a problem.

Why does the State Government continually act in such a way as to serve a guilt-trip for every resident when it’s the piss-poor management to blame for every f*ck up we have? In summer, the power shortages meant we couldn’t use our air conditioners. Never mind the fact that residential power usage accounts for less than 10% of statewide energy demand. It’s still our fault. Go out and swim in your pool. But don’t fill it up, because we don’t have any water, either.

In summer water shortages meant we weren’t allowed to use our sprinklers to save our gardens, even though once again the residential demand for water accounts for less than 10% of overall statewide consumption. It got to the sad state that people were ENCOURAGED to dob in their neighbours if they saw them watering outside their allocated days so the Government could issue a fine. One poor bastard in Sydney died from a one-punch assault that began as an argument over watering the garden. What have we become!?! Don’t get me wrong – I only watered my garden three times last summer, and lost my lawn accordingly, but my choice to do so is a general appreciation of the shortage of the resource, NOT because my retarded Government bean-counters have given me a guilt-trip to make me change my ways. Admittedly, my choice may also have been because I’m the absolute antithesis of Don Burke, and am much happier looking at pictures of plants on my TV, but it’s still MY choice. And besides, when you go past a Council park during the night and the sprinklers are on every day of the week, it’s kind of hard not to get a mixed message.

And now, with the gas, once again it’s our f*cking fault. Never mind that the Government has rejected numerous plans for a second gas pipeline to serve the metropolitan area. Absurdly, Minister Roberts believed not enough consultation had taken place with the native title holders who would be affected, but she had the WRONG TRIBAL GROUPS! The two groups consulted had NO native title claim anywhere near the area, and the group WITH the native title signed agreements for the pipeline to be built. Once again – way to solve a problem.

So we can’t use our air conditioners, except in winter, and we can’t use our heaters, except in summer, and we can’t use our sprinklers ever because we don’t have enough water in summer and we don’t need them in winter… WTF!?! How did it get to this? What sort of piss-poor third-world nation are we turning into?

So I’ve finally worked out that WA does not stand for Wait Awhile. It clearly stands for What Appliances? As for the BOOM economy – Bastards Owning Our Money…

A book I want to read...

2008-06-20T16:31:00.013+08:00

I really want to read this book. I heard about it years ago, but haven't tracked down a copy yet. I haven't looked, really. In fact, I think I've only ever asked in one book store, but they didn't have it.

Here's a review I blatantly plagiarised from Amazon.com:

"According to British journalist Jeffreys' well-documented book, aspirin was born a little more than 100 years ago. That is, the word aspirin was coined in 1899 as a label for a new product, acetylsalicylic acid, manufactured by the German textile dye and pharmaceutical company Bayer. The concoction had been a known pain and fever reliever for well more than 6,000 years, but it took Bayer, which would eventually lose control of its baby in America for more than 75 years, to create the very first drug that owed its existence to a commercial rather than a scientific or medical ethic. Yes, aspirin was the earliest offspring of the increasingly uncomfortable yet wildly profitable marriage of medicine and commerce. What with Americans knocking back about 80 billion (yes, billion) 300 mg aspirin tablets a year, to say nothing of even more billions taken throughout the rest of the world, the story of this little white pill makes fascinating reading. Besides the drug's widely known medical applications for pain and fever relief, heart attack and stroke prevention, and more, its colorful history includes drama, pathos, plot twists, humor, intrigue and even a handful of scurrilous and despicable characters."

I find it particularly intriguing because Bayer was once a part of IG Farben, the company responsible for producing the Nazi's supplies of Zyklon B, used for gassing humans in their numerous extermination camps throughout World War II, when the German military leaders decided that using bullets to execute their prisoners was too slow, and far too stressful for their soldiers. Bayer also used slave labour extensively throughout the war, using prisoners from concentration camps such as Mauthausen. They also reportedly sponsored the experiments of Josef Mengele (Google him - I'm not going into it now). One of Bayer's executives, Fritz ter Meer, was actually sentenced to 7 years prison by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. On his release he became the supervisory board chairman of Bayer until 1961.

I find it funny that the social conscience can be so readily placated by a head-ache pill. I suppose if a company like that are still free to trade in the global economy, IBM have nothing to worry about. Ironically, the Bayer scientist who discovered the right formulation of Aspirin, and indeed came up with the name 'Aspirin' was Jewish, and therefore never credited, with Bayer claiming it was discovered by an Ayran scientist.

As fate would have it, Bayer also discovered Heroin (which was a Bayer trademark until around 1914) and Mustard Gas (which is much more dangerous than normal Mustard), but on the flipside they also discovered the polycarbonate used for making Lego, and Levitra, used for fixing erectile dysfunction, so, you know... it's not all doom and gloom.

Update: I bought a brand new copy off Amazon.com last night. It cost me a meagre $1.98 for the book, and a whopping $12.49 for postage - I love the global shopping experience! I'll let you know how it reads...

Getting this place Organ-ised...

2008-06-20T14:00:00.008+08:00

"The greatest wealth is health" (Virgil)

There’s been a lot of talk around Australia in the last few weeks with respect to changing the current opt-in system for organ donation to an opt-out one. I am frustrated that once again the Government is playing around with an idea that has been implemented elsewhere and shown to have negligible impact on the rates of organ donors. If a person has a genuine personal, physical or religious basis for their reluctance to become an organ donor, surely they are just as likely to opt out, as the system would permit.

The bottom line is, the solution to this problem has to be better than the Government hoping that they’ll reap a windfall of organ donors because people are just too darn lazy to strike their name off the organ donor list (obviously assuming that the only reason they’re not currently organ donors is because they’re just too darn lazy to put their name on the organ donor list in the first place).

I think, as with everything in life, that people respond to financial incentives. It’s sad, but it’s just a part of the human condition.

I’m not suggesting that people are able to sell their organs. That’s a little creepy. But what if people who donate organs on their passing were to have their funeral paid for by the Government, up to, say, $10,000. How would that compare with the costs of the health system supporting someone in need of an organ until one finally becomes available? Probably great for families left behind to give their loved one a fitting send off, too...

It's just an idea, though. It's not rocket science. Rocket science is all about space-age plastics and rockets and stuff.

Bad haircuts and dumb ideas...

2008-06-19T11:45:00.005+08:00

"There's no such thing as stupid ideas, only stupid people" (Anon.)

If Brendan Nelson’s haircut wasn’t enough of an indication that he was living in the 90s, his gallant claim that the Liberals would save everyone the heartache of inflated living costs by cutting 5 cents per litre off petrol should surely ring some alarm bells.

I’m going to make the bold assertion that Nelson hasn’t filled a car with petrol in quite some time. He was elected to Federal Parliament in 1996, at which time I can only assume he embarked on his lifetime journey of tax-payer funded cars and fuel cards. Even before that, he was the Federal President of the AMA, after three years as Vice-President (positions which I would certainly presume had similar tax-payer funded entitlements).

I’ll put it to you simply, Mr Nelson. The other day I put $60 of petrol in my car. I used my docket which cut 4 cents per litre off the final bill (another consumerist rort), saving me a whopping $1.62. Going by a 5 cent reduction, my saving would have been $2.02. Do you REALLY think you’re going to ease the incredible financial burdens on families by saving them $2.02 on their weekly tank of fuel? How the hell will a 5 cent reduction make an impact when some petrol stations vary their petrol prices by up to 12 cents between a Tuesday and a Friday?

Worse still, this frivolous token gesture is set to ‘cost’ the Government millions (and I argue the Government’s use of the term ‘cost’ here). I’d rather those millions of dollars were used for something productive, like a cheese factory.

Mr Nelson, if this is the best you can come up with, please sit down and let someone else have a go.