Now I'm scared

Here we have a minister in the Rudd Government espousing economic rationalism as though it is the perfect, unquestionable solution to all the world's ills.

There are endless problems associated with economic rationalism and the underlying assumption that 'governments are the problem not the solution'. Any quick study of economic and development history shows the importance of government intervention in a myriad of issues (e.g. public sanitation, public education, infrastructure development, taxation policies etc. etc.). Then there is, of course, the current capital crisis brought on by unrestricted, unregulated lending which has undermined the living standards of so many people round the world.

The reason so many on the Right refuse to accept the science behind global warming is because they are totally wedded to the theory of economic rationalism and free markets, and shut their eyes, ears and minds to any evidence that suggests they could be wrong. Environmentalism, in any form, threatens their world view because it challenges their underlying belief that we can enjoy unlimited, unending economic growth.

These are the true barbarians fighting against Enlightenment thinking. Judging by this article, I fear Craig Emerson may be one of them.

"We dared not release the results of the study for fear of being howled down as environmental vandals."

This is a sad admission of political cowardice and failure. One of the goals of compulsory public education should be to produce people who are capable of understanding logical arguments and making rational decisions. Achieve that, and then speak you can the truth without fear. But as long as our education system is farmed out to vested interests we will continue to make stupid and costly mistakes like the ones described in this article.

The idea of radical free market is much more frightening than anything environmentalists might come up with. (Although an ill-thought out emissions trading scheme might come close).

"Superstition and mysticism" - these are just cheap shots used by someone who cannot present a case with rational and sound arguments. For someone purporting to advocate "rational" over emotional this piece is rather emotive.

Emerson makes the assumption all things 'environmental' = without evidence. And he claims that those who challenge environmentalism are labelled heretics. Perhaps in the same way that anyone who challenges Emerson's "economic rationalism" as the holy grail of economics is labelled a heretic, or worse a mystic.

Does Emerson give the public any credit? Does he really believe that we don't know that a 90% fat free chicken is 10% fat. Does he really believe that we are not capable of reading labels, asking questions,doing our own research.

Yes there are those charlatans out there that might exploit a new market - ethical investments, organic food and environmental products. This is nothing new in the morality free economic system that we live and which Emerson perpetuates.

Why was his own government slow to react to public demands for better labelling on GM products for example. Allowing imported food that we can well produce here and with better knowledge of what chemicals and pathogens might be present. All for the mania of free trade which has done nothing to reduce the cost of food as constantly marketed by free trade zealots.

It is laughable that a politician is groaning about what he perceives as environmental 'spin' and yet cannot take off the rose coloured glasses to his own version.

Most agree foolish environmental reforms do us no favours if we are to make some meaningful progress towards sustainability. Like all worthy goals there will be hiccups and disagreements along the way and there will be articles like this one, with the intent to throw suspicion, fear, uncertaintly and doubt.

I think the public is smarter than this.

<< Does Emerson give the public any credit? Does he really believe that we don't know that a 90% fat free chicken is 10% fat. Does he really believe that we are not capable of reading labels, asking questions,doing our own research. >>

I agree. Each side in these sorts of debates assumes that it has the cold, hard facts, while those on the other side are simply being dogmatic. The result is an industry of semi-scientific shysters who cherry-pick data to make their argument look more valid. And they exist on both sides.

This stopped being a scientific debate the moment "An Inconvenient Truth" was released, and 99% of people simply turned to their preferred political party and said "tell me what to think".

This is a very old dispute. Much of it stems from the use of the word natural. The production of "natural" substances by "chemical" methods focussed the arguments. Wohler synthesised urea in 1828 and Kolbe synthesised acetic acid some time later. The proponents for a natural force that was different and better in a "natural" substance than in a university made synthetic substance were given a challenge - two samples of urea - one "natural" and one "synthetic" which was which? They could not distinguish them - they are IDENTICAL.

The two forms when pure were generally accepted as identical from about 1850. Challenge the naturalists to the same test today. Same result. Note that in Germany today the natural cause still exists - beer can only be made with ingredients made form natural sources - bacterial etc but not ?

This is a very old dispute. Much of it stems from the use of the word natural. The production of "natural" substances by "chemical" methods focussed the arguments. Wohler synthesised urea in 1828 and Kolbe synthesised acetic acid some time later. The proponents for a natural force that was different and better in a "natural" substance than in a university made synthetic substance were given a challenge - two samples of urea - one "natural" and one "synthetic" which was which? They could not distinguish them - they are IDENTICAL. The two forms when pure, were generally accepted as identical from about 1850. Challenge the naturalists to the same test today. Same result. Note that in Germany today the natural cause still exists - beer can only be made with ingredients made from natural sources - bacterial etc but not synthetic. Perhaps this is why the Greens movement began in Germany?

Another truism is "We get the politicians we deserve."
The author is really admitting that politicians are incapable of putting in place structures to efficiently run businesses such as electricity and water supply systems or community welfare activities.
I would love to know what economic contortions favour letting the banks borrow $US (or generate excessive profits) to underwrite Australian housing loans as opposed to our Federal Government borrowing savings within Australia for a similar purpose or to fund valuable infrastructure.
Banks, with government approval, have been following their dopey policies to expand credit by 12-15% per annum compound for over ten years. Is it any wonder we have priced people out of owning their own home and are suffering from a housing bubble and a surge in defaulting loans. The sooner governments tear up the Basle Agreement and again assume the responsibility of regulating the actual money money supply, rather than through the Reserve Bank pushing and pulling on the interest rate string, the better off ordinary citizens in this country will be.
Adam Smith would roll over in his grave if he knew how the economic rationalists have ignored his book on morals and distorted his economic theories.

"Glass bottles destined for reuse need to be many times the thickness of those that are melted down or disposed of in landfill. We discovered that by the time account was taken of the energy and water costs of collecting, transporting and washing the bottles, reuse of bottles was bad for the environment. We dared not release the results of the study for fear of being howled down as environmental vandals."

Craig Emmerson as DG of EPA ( in the Labor government in Queensland) felt constrained to "release the results of the study for fear of being howled down as environmental vandals."
But now following his conversion on the road to Damascus "It's time for an Australian Enlightenment, where once again reason and facts prevail over mysticism and ignorance".
There will be no constraints from above re the release of studies that may cause embarrassment to the government because "reason and facts will prevail".
Please.

Craig Emerson, what an ill-informed rant. If rational thinking and evidence-based science were in the ascendancy within that reverberating hall of his mind, he would not resort to extremist waffle while gilding the lily of “economic rationalism”.

Maybe I would not have the bejasus scared out of me if he had his own personal “Enlightenment”: One which acknowledged population pressure being at least as important an issue as freeing up trade and application of competition policy.

Since his quoted time of 1990, could these sacred cows have produced enough to avoid “plunging an extra 100 million people into poverty”?

In that time, 350 million extra people were added to Africa; 1,200 million to the less-developed world.

Since 1994, Australia has taken minimal action to empower women in regard to their own fertility – the essential step required to lessen the rate of population growth. Action which it signed up to at the United Nations international conference on population and development at Cairo in that year.

Craig Emerson’s diatribe has been economical with the facts. Putative minister for an upcoming portfolio of Mysticism and Superstition, instead of Small Business, might be applicable unless he gets himself up to speed.

It seems to have become the trend in pointless name calling to refer to strong social movements and consensus as 'religion', when in fact our society is more secular than it ever has been before. The difference lies in that society is less trusting of government solve social problem I feel. Probably the same can be said for science - I'm not being anti-science here - far from it - its just that the successes of science do not extend well to solving social problems.

Most of this throwaway article could be replaced with the a statement: 'we need stronger labelling laws so that people can make more informed choices on supposed environmentally friendly products'.

"These deep-green crusaders have declared their opposition to coalmining even if emerging technologies were to reduce its emissions to zero, since coal is regarded as an ugly reminder of an industrial society."

When such technologies actually exist and are proven effective, then perhaps this argument might be valid. But for the moment it remains a fantasy fuelled by the lure of a rich coal economy. Sorry for not trusting in the bland and unscientific assurances that a way, some way, any way, will be found to permanently sequester the emissions, but government track records on assurances of this type are not good. The only proven way to sequester carbon from coal is (so far) leaving it in the ground.

Damn, I said in another post recently that The Australian was a good newspaper. If Emerson's article got a run, I eat my words. This is tendentious pap.

Sounds like it was written by someone in the third year of a BA Politics. I'm a fan of the brilliant Scot, David Hume but it's a big stretch to summon him up in an attack on Green politics.

Yep, there are some dodgy marketing practices going on out there in the name of helping the environment. Ditto ALP policy. I think Emerson's article means well but I don't believe he wrote it.

Kevin Rudd
Prime Minister,
Sir
I’m not saying that I voted for you but who ever I voted for I want my vote back so I can vote against this ideologue escapee from the 80’s. By the way it was an awful decade 3 of my children were born then and I want their birthing fees refunded because they didn’t turn out as well as they should have. Well I mean one is in Rankin and I know he voted for Emerson. Get the rationalists to repossess them that way I won’t to be associated even remotely with his views
Cash please…. Any chance of interest too on their purchase price?

Doesn’t make sense does it? Neither does Mr Emerson’s views. If this is his contribution to Australia as the Minister for Small Business all I can say in conclusion is ………….“NEXT”!

Emerson pens serious arguments against the "Dark green barbarians." And there are certainly "deep green extremists" who wantonly are willing to retard the economic progress of our times. But he forgot to mention their close relatives, the 'shallow' green extremists, like his colleague and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who with his projected policy of green emissions will also impoverish Australia on the altar of his "superstition" of climate change.

http://avant-gardestrategies.typepad.com

Yes, But I've seen Emerson make the same sort of comments before. Yet he doesn't seem to feel that strongly about that otherwise he would leave the ALP. I say he's gipping us.

craig wrote...'Deep green extremists yearn for a return to a pre-industrial society, before the Enlightenment when faith and dogma prevailed over rational thinking and evidence-based science.'

not sure what 'deep green' is...but 'dark green' is expression of 'unbalanced-self-interests in planning or action'...ie if your 'eye of energies' is open and you have brought your spiritual senses into balanced play in each situations of ones daily life...

I think 'environmentalist' are the force that causes 'producers' to consider full life cycle of their products in a sustainable manner...and which is good for all...so in general hard to see any imbalance(deep-green) in this...

take for example small business...thanks to idi amin of Uganda showing the world what happens when small businesses removed from economy...by deporting all Indians...whom happened to run majority of small businesses...by crashing Ugandan economy...and thereforth called 'idiot amin' by British press...

now primary small businesses goods/services are life-essentials(eg corner delis/clothes etc), services(accountants,tradies), transport(taxi) etc...really not much 'directly' linked to 'producers' but more 'use of products'...'producers' where more directly linked to environment...most producer needs some form of natural resources...

applying 'rational thinking and evidence-based science'...government policies that encourage small business to source/use environmentally sustainable products while government acting to ensure there is not too much price disparity with competing 'unsustainable-production-industry' is right in the middle of your powers...so what measures has this department done to achieve this?...now that is information Im sure lot of people would like to know...

Sam
Ps~I think your biggest 'obstructor' will be 'the crown'...whom it seems owns most of the large 'producers'...

Craig, you know very well what the Greens want! They just want the POWER to say NO! Then they can enjoy the fruits of that power without ever having to endure the problems of that responsibility.
I am still waiting for a journalist to do a hatchet job on the Greens of any hue and especially their leader Bob Brown.
Those journalist who do this sort of work are far too busy attacking the current opposition.

Craig Emerson is a leading example of why so many people have deserted the ALP and either joined the Greens, or at least support them over the ALP at elections. If JBowyer wants to see a tabloid media "hatchet job" on the Greens, s/he just needs to purchase any Murdoch rag in the lead-up to a State or Federal election.

They do it every time.

How very refreshing to hear from a leading Government figure someone who has the guts to speak a little common sense.

Craig writes 'The message is clear: irrationality sells and any questioning of spurious environmental claims is an act of heresy.'

Wow, how we have seen this with the high priests of global cooling a few years ago and global warming now. The response by most of the contributors just illustrate how right Mr Emerson is. Keep up the good work Craig. You make a lot more sense (or maybe just a lot more honest) than Mr Turnbull. And that is from someone who has and probably will never vote Labour in my life.

runner wrote: "The response by most of the contributors just illustrate how right Mr Emerson is"

Isn't that the whole point of having the forum?

The fact that runner support him illustrates just how 'right' he is :-)

CJ,

What absolute rubbish. We have basically wall to wall labour gov'ts in this country. So much for your preposterous suggestion that people are leaving the party in droves.

What has actually happened is that the far left has lost its once prime position in the party. We should all be thankful for this. Rudd is, to an extent, attempting to go down Blairs New Labour's Third way. Having recognised the benefits of the market in bringing prosperity to the country, new labour can no longer hide its head in the sand and pretend that good economic policy and socialism have ANYTHING in common.

Emmerson is right to point out that portion of the green movement which is more interested in ending capitalism than in saving the planet. They exist and they do great harm to real green causes. Clearly anyone who opposes zero emission (ie geo sequestration) coal power has another agenda entirely.

But what is even more problematic is that any discussion of environmental issues like AGW is met not with reasoned argument but with howls of anger and claims of denialism (as if the world needed another "ism" that the left could throw around). It is this "Faith" in computer modelling that Emmerson is suggesting should be open to reasoned argument. Looking at the responses to his article it is clear he is totally correct.

What a strange article!? After riding into Government on the back of an environmental disaster movie style fear campaign (which Mr Rudd still ascribes to) here is Mr Emerson trying to introduce the concept that maybe some Green ideas aren't all that helpful after all.

Didn't you call the Liberals "deniers" when they expressed similar doubts ?

Guess the economic implications of your own party's adherence to extremist nonsense is hitting home and now you're seeking a more moderate approach to avoid the obvious economic downside. Well, no point in blaming it on the "Deep Green Extremists" its your own free range chickens coming home to roost. You're stuck with community expectations about a clean green world and you've just realised to live like that we have to live like The Flinstones. Good Luck Craig!

Could I just add....Thanks for telling us you sat on a report which told the truth because you were afraid of voter backlash. Anything else you want to tell us?

--> "We dared not release the results of the study for fear of being howled down as environmental vandals."

Emerson's straw man argument and clear thinking are mutually exclusive.
He seems to have forgotten that his government were elected to find another way one that empowers the individual…. ALL the individuals not a pale reincarnation of an inhuman elitist Justification

Even the term dark green acknowledges that ‘green’ as an ideal ranges from the sublime to the ridiculous.
There are extremists in any grouping and it serves no real purpose to focus on the extremes and extrapolate that they are representative of all people with green intentions! Bob Brown is representative of All greens….come on ….that’s like saying Brendan Nelson is representative of ALL Liberals. To then engage in such tendentious reasoning to address perhaps 2% of the ‘green inclined’ is high handed arrogance and intellectual dishonesty at their extreme.

As for the tripe about greens wanting to go back to pre-industrial conditions what errant nonsense! From a more rational point (one that is shared by most people) the problem is not the destruction of Economy but the changing of it to one that is less destructive of our environment. Dare I say one that is more sustainable?
Of course business is unimpressed it simply means that their much milked much exploited Buttercup (“Cash Cow”) has turned into one that NEEDS mandated veterinarian care. They simple don’t want to pay for it. Given they are

Climate Sceptics can obfuscate and bluster all they want but in the final analysis
THEY have polluted and over exploited OUR world for THEIR profits. Let’s call a spade a spade not a manual implement for terrestrial excavation, they don’t give a flying periwinkle about the big picture (us), their profit is more important.

Profit makes our capitalist world turn but without responsibility it is just another nail in our collective coffin.
Any wonder why I say… NEXT!

"Deep green extremists yearn for a return to a pre-industrial society, before the Enlightenment when faith and dogma prevailed over rational thinking and evidence-based science. In this gentle agrarian society (absent environmentally destructive hard-hoofed farm animals), human beings are tolerated, as long as they leave no carbon footprint. These deep-green crusaders have declared their opposition to coalmining even if emerging technologies were to reduce its emissions to zero, since coal is regarded as an ugly reminder of an industrial society".

Wonderful stuff! Here was I thinking that it was about ordinary, concerned people were worried about the climate going pear shaped, and the Government investing huge amounts of tax payers money in unproven and dubious technology instead of reliable renewables. Really though, it was just some fanatics lying awake at night in a cold sweat about the dark satanic mills of yore.

I wonder if the concerns of the people over the damage that coal mining is doing to our rivers and potentially our water quality is also just a paranoid fear springing from a race memory of the times before we knew about the importance of clean water. I'm really looking forward to Emerson's next article on it.

Paul.L: << What absolute rubbish. We have basically wall to wall labour gov'ts in this country. So much for your preposterous suggestion that people are leaving the party in droves. >>

The reason we have 'wall to wall' Labor governments in this country is that the ALP has transformed itself to become the occupier of the centre-right political ground that used to be unquestionably the territory of the Coalition. That transformation of the ALP has led directly to many former members like myself leaving the once-great people's party and joining the Greens, whose policies and ideologies more closely represent our humanitarian and conservationist values, and aspirations for creating a society and world based on social justice, participatory democracy, ecological sustainability and peaceful resolution of conflicts.

I base that analysis on personal experience and inside knowledge of both the ALP and the Greens. Paul.L's typically belligerent comment can only be the product of his wingnut worldview, rather than any actual knowledge of the ALP's tortuous relations with the Greens.

But it wouldn't be the first time that Paul has rejected reality in favour of his ultra-right political views, would it?

I have to agree with CJ. For a dose of reality, take a look at the last few Newspoll polls of state voting intention:

http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl?mode=trend&page=select_category

The Greens have made significant advances, with those gains apparently stolen from Labor. All states are now in double figures - better than 1 in 10. Some are seeing as much as much as approx. 1 in 6 in some polls. Perhaps still not not enough to win lower house seats yet, but the senate should be very interesting next time around.

Having some involvement with the property industry I’m aware of the report, "Assessing the Value of Being Green" by Merrill Lynch stating, “It is very clear that the property industry will not sacrifice profit for the environment it is not forced to do so by the planning bodies or its end users. It is equally clear that Greening of Sustainable property is moving up the agenda and that the Listed Property Trusts need to have focus on the Environmental impact of their developments and investments”

Only the most entrenched die-hard will fail to see the pattern of evidence indicating climate change and the general warming of the planet. The degree to which we are speeding this change is perhaps a mute point. Issues of sustainability however, are not arguable, the reality is, our current consumption of ‘product’ simply cannot continue at its current rate.

The underlying cause of greenhouse pollution points to, if nothing else, a gross over-consumption. In the West we suffer a general obesity, we also waste our surplus food, have a disdain for second-hand clothing, strive to build mega-mansions (cancelling out any vain attempt at their eco-friendliness with design), seek the latest unneccessary appliances and 'gizmos', and are generally Nimbyists (Not in My Back Yard) – whether it be a wind-tower or nuclear facility. Neither do we wish to recycle our sewerage, because in our minds, it all just a little too distasteful, so too speak. I think our feelings on the environment, generally, become just a little too mystical where the reality has yet to sink in.

This article is simply substandard.
"We dared not release the results of the study for fear of being howled down as environmental vandals."
In the same article, by the same author:
"It(his 'new Australian enlightenment') would find no place for hired guns: any business consultancies that are willing to distort the facts to suit the requirements of their commercial clients..." or this:
"Self-serving consultants who change their assumptions to suit their clients do a great disservice to any endeavour to raise evidence-based policy over policy based on faith and superstition."
Is this fool genuinely oblivious to his own contradictions?
And don't get me started on his 'economic rationalism'.
Is it economically rational that a banker, whose only 'product' is innovative ways of creating debt, should be paid $35 million a year, while farmers -whose only product is food, for those poor dumb humans who still need to eat- are battling to make a living?
Is it economically rational to take my shares in airlines, banks and telcos, without recompense, then magnanamously offer to sell them back to me -assuming I am one of the lucky few who can afford such investments?
(okay, that's a bad example. It probably is economically rational, just totally unethical and immoral.)
I'm with CJ Morgan. Actually, I might prefer the liberals to the laborals; at least you can see them coming.
wikipedia has this to say about the ALP:
"Labor has at various times supported high tariffs and low tariffs, conscription and pacifism, White Australia and multiculturalism, nationalisation and privatisation, isolationism and internationalism, as has the conservative side of Australian politics." -and at all times spouting "traditional labour values".
Bullsh!t.
We now have a labor PM who is a millionaire, and who has problems with unionism, and union influence.
Forget about Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. All the major gains in standards of living have been gained by fighting for them,through unionism.
Since Hawke and Keating castrated the unions with their damned accord, the gap between rich and poor has accelerated and is continuing to do so.
Where do I sign up for the Greens?

Anyone who has not read this article should because it demonstrates the superhuman suspension of disbelief and self-deception government representatives have about themselves. Wow. Just, Wow.

A member of the Rudd government is talking about an "Australian Enlightenment". If that doesn't make you scoff with disgust, i don't know what will.

Look at his profile. A minister of the Rudd government, using language like "dark green barbarians". He no doubt thinks his Rudd government is part of "an Australian Enlightenment"...

That is @!#$ing unbelievable..., coming from a government which is implementing a Chinese internet censorship scheme and is against gay marriage, is extremely populist and has cynical, pinchy-faced policies that are pouring from every orifice of government......Amazing. What a disgrace to history.

"These new growth theorists point out that if the history of the human race were represented by the length of a football field, then living standards were basically unchanged for the entire length of the field other than the last 5cm before the far goal line."

How, exactly, are we measuring 'living standards' here?
The salient question surely is "are people happy?" And the evidence here suggests that people in the "affluent" west are no happier than manyof our "third world" cousins.

"But now mysticism and superstition are making a comeback. Their revival began in the '80s with attacks on economic rationalism."

Seriously? You actually believe this bollocks? So called "economic rationalism" IS superstition, the assumptions it is built on make mysticism appear empirical! Economic Rationalism is the new dogma.

"These deep-green crusaders have declared their opposition to coalmining even if emerging technologies were to reduce its emissions to zero..."

Ok Mr Faith based economics... exactly where is an operational carbon capture AND sequestration power plant operating? Where? Nowehere thats where... it is not even emerging. It is barely past conception. Whether this technology will actually be economically viable let alone practicable is a MATTER OF FAITH at this point.

"As director-general of the Queensland environment department in the early '90s I inquired into the life-cycle benefits of container deposit legislation."

Gosh, I guess the South Australians must look like fools for the past 30 years of successful effort. I suspect you dared not release your findings because you would be shown to be the fool you evidently are... but call it "shouted down" if you like. There is absolutely no way that merely collecting and melting the glass can use more energy than the original manufacture of glass from its raw materials. None. It's called thermodynamics.

Your incessant reference to the Enlightenment period reminds me that climate change deniers do the same thing!

You are enlightened. We are ignorant. You know the truth. We live in the dark.

You could well be the Brendan Nelson of the labour party... have you ever voted Liberal?

How unfortunate - there is nothing quite as sad as the myopic selection of facts, thrown together and then used to make a perverse point. It’s unfortunate that such sloppy research gets paraded as insightful comment. This would however be a side note except for the fact the writer is a minister of the Government of Australia and presumably making decisions based on these ill-informed beliefs.

Some examples:

• It’s implied that questioning economic rationalism is attacking enlightenment. What nonsense – there are numerous enlightened social democratic countries with a healthy balance of free market activity and government regulation. For example Sweden and Finland both recognise and actively promote the role of the state in addressing market inequities. Or take the example of the whole of the European Union is addressing what Nicholas Stern called the greatest ever market failure –climate change – by regulating for a price on unfettered use of a previously free resource (the atmosphere). Or Germany which has recently brought in a law to ensure critical business is not acquired by a foreign power, without some checks a balances. And then there’s Australia ourselves. We rejected Work Choices – voting in this current government and Mr Emerson – precisely because it was unfettered unhealthy economic rationalism that was not in our interest.

• Its claimed that deep green bio-fuels result in a 70% increase in food prices. Clearly the bio fuel market is having an impact as is, demand for food (especially meat) in China and India, climate change impacts reducing yield, speculation and drought. But Mr Emerson does not give us the full picture – presumably it would not have suited his argument or he is ignorant of the facts. Neither are reassuring possibilities.

Now I'm scared pt 2 (cont. from below as the word limit cut the post) ...

• And we have the ‘free range’ examples. Some lovely examples are given by Mr Emerson of ‘green washing’ – the making of false claims about products to unfairly market the goods. This sort of free market abuse is precisely why we have government institutions such as the ACCC. It’s a shame that Mr Emerson did not see fit to acknowledge the ACCC’s current work on ‘green’ washing. But as ACCC working on this is at odds with the idea that an unfettered free market is under attack by deep green barbarians (rather than green credibility is under attack from would be unfettered free marketeers) clearly the truth needed to be left out.

What’s truly scary is that the writer, as a Minister, is making decisions for us all . If these decision are based on the half baked logic publicly paraded in this article then we’re all in trouble. Very sad .....

Geez people the article is hardly remarkable. Is that why almost every post here attacks the messenger?

Bluff and bluster seems the order of the day. I disagree with the widespread faith placed in economic rationalism but for chrissakes can't the argument be taken at face value? OLO has morphed into On Line Emote.