Henry, I have no problem with Kevin Rudd going on the road to disaster but I don’t wish to go with him. I have been patient and tried hard to make some sense of the governments’ attempts to formulate and execute their policies. In business we were exhaustively trained to rigorously apply “filters” to the formulation of policies, in all their forms.

The “quick check” method was to ask the questions, what is it? What does it do? Who uses it? and who benefits?

I have failed to get a single government policy to pass this test. The first point of failure is, as you point out, the absence of, or refusal to provide the projected outcome data, therefore the “benefit” cannot be quantified. Secondly, that the stated beneficiary does not actually benefit. Thirdly, when the question “what does it do?” is applied, there is no “real” link between what it is supposed to do and the predicted outcome.

My conclusion is that not one of these policies would get up in the real world and that such policies are designed only to hold the 4.7% percent swinging voters that changed the government. They are marketing policies rather than real.

As I suggested in another thread, we are “sold” on an ETS policy that removes the threat of an evil legacy being visited upon our children, whilst at the same time we are happy to “buy” a stimulus package that loads a terrible debt onto our children’s’ credit card. Can anyone make sense of why we are supporting such contradictions?

Spindoc

I am not inclined to compare government with business in the way you do. They are a completely different species (IMO), but I understand your point.

I also think you over-simplify the complexities of addressing the issues of climate change - it will cost heaps and it won't happen over night. However, first steps must be taken otherwise the future costs will be much more (whether you believe in AGW or not), don't you think?

I am not really sure what the author is trying to buy into with his own brand of rhetoric, what would he or yourself say about the outcome of the G20?

A last and probably the most important aspect of any new project proposal as spelled out by spindoc (above) would be measurement and feedback. As any or the most junior project managers would know: if you can't measure what you are doing how do you know you are doing the right thing?

In the case of the Dec cash splash the government deliberately timed the splash for the most spendthrift time of the year when people will emotionally spend beyond their means and retailers will encourage them through crafty marketing schemes - and not inconsequently significant price reductions. With all the holiday spirit marketing emotionalism sloshing around it would be impossible to determine the effect of the splash thus obsfucating any potential of determining the effect of the stimulus but not, however reducing the government claims of magnificent success.

This government apparently is not at all interested in doing the right thing to improve the economic situation. Even the Wall Street Journal has jokingly admonished the Rudd government for building lots of new town halls and school libraries where the previously employed can gather to reminisce about how good things were when there were jobs.

Hi Q&A, I once did much business with governments, US, UK, OZ and Asia. These all differ between each other and, as you rightly say, “They are a completely different species” to private enterprise. However, once the key differences are isolated and mitigated, I have mostly applied the same analysis to the beast. I mentioned that this was a “quick check” method, other criteria tools are needed to further test government policy however, in the private sector, if the stated outcomes fail this first test they simply don’t get up.

With government policy development, non-starters can be “sold” based upon non-tangible criteria such as social, political, ideological and so on. If our government “sells” us on tangible benefits we are entitled ask for them. If they are not provided we are equally entitled to assume a non-tangible reason. There is nothing wrong with any government applying non-tangibles as long as it’s not sold as tangible. It is, as Henry points out, a matter of transparency and democracy.

This leaves the governments’ raft of policies very weak to non-existent on tangibles and the case for non-tangibles very strong.

As to AGW, I simply can’t make ends meet on this and sitting on the fence is quite painful. Every claim by a “reputable scientific source” can be refuted by an equal and opposite “reputable scientific source”. Therefore on all the key claims, one cancels the other leaving no undisputed claims. It’s a zero sum game. The government policies relating seem to have only one tangible benefit, cash flow. Heavily sold intangibles covering a very tangible new tax system?

The G20 outcome? Not sure there is one yet. It’s instructive that it highlights the fact that the USA and the UK have the same problems and therefore the same solution. The EU has different problems and sensibly won’t buy into the UK/US solution. As for OZ? We have an EU type problem but much less so, and yet incredibly, we seem to be applying a solution that only applies to someone else’s problems. Could this be another example of the intangibles in play?

In Truth and Reality the disaster has already happened, and nobody has a clue as to what to do---least of all the adolescent Beavis & Buttheads that infest the Oz, and indeed all right-thinking propaganda outfits. All of which are now featuring such articles, masquerading as "informed" opinion.

But then again the disaster also happened a very long time ago too.
This reference communicates in very stark terms the coming of the disaster of the power seeking European white man with his "culture" of death and his tribalistic "god" to the native "americans"

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/Orozco/panel13.html

Since then the disaster thus portrayed has engulfed or encircled the entire world. And as in all would be world conquering SCAPE-GOATING memes, everything thus encircled is now being systematically destroyed.

Once a weak politician like Rudd is adored and loved by the crowd it’s almost impossible for him to escape from its warm and loving embrace and is constantly forced and motivated to adopt and implement populist policies so he will not be jilted by the crowd. But the present critical times abhor populist policies which by definition will be prolonging the economic crisis and will be placing a heavy burden on Australians who ultimately will be paying the costs of a weak Prime Minister who cannot detach himself from the embrace of populism.

http://www.viewfromtop1.com