"...the idea that the economy exists to serve society was for generations one of the foundational and legitimising pillars of capitalism. Central to this threat is the rising power of vested interests. As President Obama has pointed out, well-funded lobby groups give “an outsized voice to the few” by “selling out our democracy to the highest bidder”. They are not, however, limited to Washington. Australian vested interests too are gathering force."

- Extract from an essay called "The 0.01 Percent: The Rising Influence of Vested Interests in Australia", by Wayne Swan in The Monthly. I haven't posted anything remotely political in a while, but this article is an interesting read which concerns the widening gulf between rich and poor in developed economies like the UK, the USA, and potentially, Australia. Read the whole thing here at themonthly.com.au.

Here's an infographic from The Globe and Mail in Canada displaying the increasing and just about out of control proportions of Europe's debt. It's measured by the debt (the amount a country owes) to GDP (the amount of 'income' a country has in a year - Gross Domestic Product) ratio and puts it in reasonably easy to understand terms. For a bigger and better view of the infographic, click here.

I've been posting a lot of economics stuff recently. Must be a phase I'm going through. It is interesting though. Oh well. I'll put more music and CP news up soon...

For more info on Europe's (and particularly Greece's) debt problems, there's a very good essay here by John Lanchester in the London Review Of Books.

For the last few days I've been resisting weighing in with my opinion on the Australian Carbon Tax. For starters, I try to avoid overly political commentary on my website, which is sometimes difficult as I'm quite an avid follower of politics and and as those that know me personally will attest to, will happily wax lyrical about all manner of political subjects. However, regarding any controversial topics, I do believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so I do keep an open mind when discussing such things, and will always hear and examine different viewpoints before forming my own views on a subject. I should clarify a little more here actually, to emphasise the purpose of this blog/article/whatever the heck these things are: I think everyone is entitled to their own well-formed opinion.

So, getting to the point, I think the Australian Carbon Tax is a good thing. There, I said it. Cards are on the table. However, I came to this conclusion after studying the figures and weighing up the alternative, the ultimate conclusion of which seems to be a fairly grimy, polluted, and distinctly unpleasant atmosphere. The science is in on climate change and there's no point in denying it anymore. I have read both sides of the argument, and the side that states that climate change is not man made is built on extremely shaky and somewhat inconclusive theoretical evidence. I do, of course, encourage everyone to make up their own mind about the issue, but in order to do so I firmly suggest looking into it yourselves, doing your own research and not blindly following what anyone in TV or the media (or me) might suggest.

The amount of political vitriol and scare tactics that has been going on around this carbon tax is simply staggering in the ineptitude of its intelligence and logical vacuum. The Opposition's main argument to this carbon tax seems to actually not be based on the tax itself, but the fact that the Prime Minister lied about establishing one in the first place before the last election. Trust issues of the PM aside, when one actually looks at the tax, it doesn't shape up to be too bad. But that doesn't make it any easier to convince those who disagree otherwise, particularly when most mainstream media seems to have no love for this particular government at all.

In a nutshell, there are really only very few people and families that will be paying more (very slightly more, I might add) under this scheme, after all the compensation through tax cuts that the government is delivering as part of the package. It should also be stated that those who do end up paying a little bit more are those that can more than likely afford it (incomes over $150,000). Essentially, what is going on is that 'big polluters' are the ones actually paying the carbon tax (set initially at $23 per tonne from July 2012), and the government is trying to offset proposed increases in cost to the consumer from these 'big polluters'. Treasury estimates that the average increased cost per week to households will be (in a worst-case scenario) $9.90. The average offsetting benefits (through tax cuts, family payments etc) to the average household will be $10.10. These figures are also based on current average household expenses, and doesn't take into account potential cost saving measures that can be made through using electricity more sparingly, driving the car less and/or driving a more economical car, and buying products that have a lower carbon footprint (thus having no need to increase their price to offset their company's carbon tax bill). It's actually as much of a tax and welfare reform package than any kind of environmental policy, which is maybe why the conservative political spectrum seems to be so riled up about it.

But I'm not writing this to convince you about how the carbon tax is a good thing, and why I think so. There are plenty of other articles out there to do that. This one by Ben Eltham in New Matilda is particularly fair, ethical and gives a good account of the pros and cons of the scheme. There are other good ones here from the ABC's analysis, The Age, and Dennis Atkins in The Courier Mail. My aim is to point out what I see as an alarming amount of misinformation that only seems to be breeding more ignorance on this particular subject, but also any subject. I might risk sounding like a screaming lefty, but the rise of ignorance in our society is of great concern to me. You can argue that it all boils down to wider education and literacy, amongst other things, but the fact that so many are willing to base their very own opinion on what a single and possibly not so credible source informs them is downright scary. There is no doubt that there now seems to be very few completely unbiased journalism, news publications or channels out there, so it's becoming increasingly harder to form a reasonable and fair opinion on something, especially when every article one reads leans one political way or the other. Political commentary and editorial is absolutely a good thing, but when it starts to pass itself off as factual, or the actual 'news', then the amount of misinformation that is distributed to an increasingly less widely-read general public, and ultimately influences public opinion, is of great concern.

What I guess I'm urging the individual to do is to actually take the time to look into any particular political or socio-political and ethical arguments or viewpoints before arriving at a conclusion, or even worse, voicing that conclusion publicly and aggressively. Even more so, should someone not share your opinion, respect that, be willing to hear them out, and have an informed debate on the subject. Then maybe we wouldn't have all this hot air flying around about this particular tax that is, ironically, kind of a tax on hot air.

Pyramiden was a Soviet Mining settlement in Svalbard, Norway, 79 degrees north of the Equator. That's high, high up in the artic circle. Norway has absolute soveriegnty over the group of islands, but other signatory countries to the Svalbard Treaty of 1920 are allowed to use them for commerical activities. Sweden began mining operations at Pyramiden (named for the Pyramid shaped mountain that dominates the skyline) in 1910 and then sold them to mining companies from the Soviet Union in 1927. In the late 1940s it was developed into a full scale mining settlement by Trust Arktikugol, a giant Russian Mining company. From the 1950s to the 1980s, Pyramiden was a grand embodiment of Soviet social ambitions, with a family-centric population of over 1,000, a library with over 50,00 books, and a large sports and cultural centre, including a cinema/theatre that showed movies every night of the week. It was also self-reliant and from 1958, food was free of charge and in abundance, thanks to regular shipments from the mainland and its own production of milk, meat, eggs and vegetables (grown in a greenhouse). In addition to this, between 1955 and 1998 Pyramiden shipped over 9 million tonnes of coal. In 1998, the mining operations were deemed economically unsustainable and the settlement was abandoned, with the inhabitants being told to pack their things and prepare to leave within a few hours. Everything that wasn't absolutely necessary to take was left behind.

Now, Polar Bears, Reindeer and thousands of Seagulls are the only residents, along with a transient population of 5 or so humans (that must carry a gun at all times due to the Polar Bears), who are slowly upgrading facilities at Pyramiden to accomodate tourists. The entire library of 50,000 books remains untouched, and what is probably the northernmost grand piano in the world (a Red Oktober) sits in the cultural centre, decaying and unplayed.

You can read more about Pyramiden at the Norwegian Polar Institute homepage here.

 

San Miguel Cuevas is a town in the impoversished, mountainous Mixteca region of Mexico that has lost 80% of it's population to emigration to the United States.

See more of these great images here at The Big Picture (via boston.com), or you might like to go here to find out more, and maybe help photographer Matt Black with his kickstarter campaign to document both the village and its way of life before it possibly disappears.

Via curiousitycounts.com

Via nytimes.com

The Irish nouveau riche may have created a Ponzi scheme, but it was a Ponzi scheme in which they themselves believed. So too for that matter did some large number of ordinary Irish citizens, who bought houses for fantastic sums. Ireland’s 87 percent rate of home-ownership is among the highest in the world. There’s no such thing as a non-recourse home mortgage in Ireland. The guy who pays too much for his house is not allowed to simply hand the keys to the bank and walk away. He’s on the hook, personally, for whatever he borrowed. Across Ireland, people are unable to extract themselves from their houses or their bank loans. Irish people will tell you that, because of their sad history of dispossession, owning a home is not just a way to avoid paying rent but a mark of freedom. In their rush to freedom, the Irish built their own prisons. And their leaders helped them to do it.

- Michael Lewis, from When Irish Eyes Are Crying, article in Vanity Fair Magazine, March 2011.

Via vanityfair.com