Enough is enough.
I'm totally fed up with the aging rock and pop band scene. Every week I get exclusive ticket offers for the latest nostalgia band doing a tour of Aus. This morning it was Spandau Ballet. Bloody hell.
If they weren't so serious it could actually be billed as a part music concert, part comedy night. The photo has these guys pouting like they are 22 all over again, except their not are they!? They're wrinkly and hagged. No amount of botox or photoshop will hide it.
Belinda and I went to ACDC the other week. Now these guys are getting a bit over the hill but they aren't technically a nostalgia band, because they've never disbanded before.
ACDC good. Spandau Ballet bad.
Maybe Midnight Oil might make a comeback... Garrett might be looking for a new job soon.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
"State Owned is Not State Run"
"State Owned is Not State Run". Its the one line I remember the most from the China Ambassador's Speech in mid-2009 at the height of the Chinalco 18pc bid for Rio Tinto. As he said it, his look up and around the room was telling. It reeked of embarrasment, knowing he had to say this but the believability was zero. Such is the life of a Chinese diplomat.
China is on the verge of being the second largest economy in the world. Its a strong possibility it will overtake the USA in the next 20 years. Australia will always be a minnow in comparison. Yet, we have the commodities they need to meet their growth. We are strategically important to them.
Australia is an incredibly stable nation. We invest in, and therefore enjoy, a strong military-based relationship with the USA. Our trade relationships are robust. We are a highly regarded place to do business. We are not going to stop supply to China. Or economic future depends largely upon it. Given this, the argument that China wants to invest in strategically important supply companies as some sort of nation protection policy is spurious.
China wants to control prices. If they can't control the land that contains the commodity then they will try to control the supply company. The Chinaco bid for Rio was designed to drive a wedge into the price negotiations for iron ore. BHP and Rio realised that the very long term interests of shareholders of both companies is better served by not letting the customer own the company, so they merged their iron ore interests and sealed China's fate of having to pay proper price for a scarce commodity.
A China-State-Owned business trying to buy the CSL sugar spin-off is the same thing. They wish to control the price of sugar. State Owned IS the same as State Run. The opposite suggestion is, frankly, ludicrous. Its almost embarassing for the Chinese that their ambassador to Australia was allowed to include the suggestion in his speech. The owners of the business appoint the managers, who are duty bound to fulfill the desires of the owners. So, when the owner is the Chinese government, then it is pretty obvious what the game is.
Australia's long term interests are not served by letting China take control of strategic corporate assets. This is a time of great test for Rudd and Steve Smith and their willingness to take the right stand for Australia's economy. Rudd's comments after the Chinalco bid failed left it well and truly open to China to bid for more. He panders to China.
We can and will get capital flow from other parts of the world as needed. Anyone trying to claim that we need China's capital to buy up our key supply assets should have their motivations carefully looked at.
China is on the verge of being the second largest economy in the world. Its a strong possibility it will overtake the USA in the next 20 years. Australia will always be a minnow in comparison. Yet, we have the commodities they need to meet their growth. We are strategically important to them.
Australia is an incredibly stable nation. We invest in, and therefore enjoy, a strong military-based relationship with the USA. Our trade relationships are robust. We are a highly regarded place to do business. We are not going to stop supply to China. Or economic future depends largely upon it. Given this, the argument that China wants to invest in strategically important supply companies as some sort of nation protection policy is spurious.
China wants to control prices. If they can't control the land that contains the commodity then they will try to control the supply company. The Chinaco bid for Rio was designed to drive a wedge into the price negotiations for iron ore. BHP and Rio realised that the very long term interests of shareholders of both companies is better served by not letting the customer own the company, so they merged their iron ore interests and sealed China's fate of having to pay proper price for a scarce commodity.
A China-State-Owned business trying to buy the CSL sugar spin-off is the same thing. They wish to control the price of sugar. State Owned IS the same as State Run. The opposite suggestion is, frankly, ludicrous. Its almost embarassing for the Chinese that their ambassador to Australia was allowed to include the suggestion in his speech. The owners of the business appoint the managers, who are duty bound to fulfill the desires of the owners. So, when the owner is the Chinese government, then it is pretty obvious what the game is.
Australia's long term interests are not served by letting China take control of strategic corporate assets. This is a time of great test for Rudd and Steve Smith and their willingness to take the right stand for Australia's economy. Rudd's comments after the Chinalco bid failed left it well and truly open to China to bid for more. He panders to China.
We can and will get capital flow from other parts of the world as needed. Anyone trying to claim that we need China's capital to buy up our key supply assets should have their motivations carefully looked at.
Hurry Back Tiger
Laid back watching the final Round of the Sony Open. It comes to mind, was it Fitzsimons or some other highly paid sports commentator that said Woods was boring to watch? Right now, its Allenby down the straight against Ryan Palmer and Steve Stricker. I'm struck by the mundanity of it. These guys are virtually mirror images of each other...smooth swing, lag putters. Revelation: no one wants to take a risk to win. They are waiting for the others to falter.
Woods would have siezed this round by the neck. His sense of his destiny as the greatest golfer of all time would have ensured he left these other robots in his wake. I reckon that golf is in a kind of limbo while he is away sorting out his personal issues. I hope he gets back soon, because he is just so good to watch playing this game.
And of course, I hope he comes back as a better man, knowing his future purpose as a husband and father and provider of joy to those he loves and who love him.
Woods would have siezed this round by the neck. His sense of his destiny as the greatest golfer of all time would have ensured he left these other robots in his wake. I reckon that golf is in a kind of limbo while he is away sorting out his personal issues. I hope he gets back soon, because he is just so good to watch playing this game.
And of course, I hope he comes back as a better man, knowing his future purpose as a husband and father and provider of joy to those he loves and who love him.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Hasbeens Match Report 30 November 2009
In the tradition of the 2009 Wallabies 'we lost but there were many positives to take away from this game'.
I lost count due to severe oxygen deprevation but I think the score came in somewhere around 7-1. Our only try-scorer was "Twinkle-toes Turnbull", who excelled throughout the match with his diving and general falling over abilities, until one dive to make a touch proved to be one too many.
Diagnosed later with a fracture of the Humeral Tubosity, Turnbull commented that he was "gutted, as I'd finally found the speed I had as a 16 year old. I'd been working a lot with the strength and conditioning boys and we were on track with the goals I'd set. I can't believe I've done me HT, ya know?"
The Patriots were far too young and seemed to have Star Trek-like teleporting abilities. One second the guy with the ball would be in front of you as you reached for the touch, and the next second he'd be 10 metres away. Was X-Men really a documentary?
The Hasbeens produced some good footy in this match. Defence was generally pretty good (for the first 10 minutes at least), and there were (again) several poor decisions that denied us 2 or 3 tries that would have made the scoreboard more respectable. Big Dave wasn't shy in letting BJ the referee know his thoughts on her interpretation of the laws.
Alas, Sammy 'the Bull' Turnbull looks as though he will miss the remainder of the season. More reason for the rest of us to "FIRE UP!".
I lost count due to severe oxygen deprevation but I think the score came in somewhere around 7-1. Our only try-scorer was "Twinkle-toes Turnbull", who excelled throughout the match with his diving and general falling over abilities, until one dive to make a touch proved to be one too many.
Diagnosed later with a fracture of the Humeral Tubosity, Turnbull commented that he was "gutted, as I'd finally found the speed I had as a 16 year old. I'd been working a lot with the strength and conditioning boys and we were on track with the goals I'd set. I can't believe I've done me HT, ya know?"
The Patriots were far too young and seemed to have Star Trek-like teleporting abilities. One second the guy with the ball would be in front of you as you reached for the touch, and the next second he'd be 10 metres away. Was X-Men really a documentary?
The Hasbeens produced some good footy in this match. Defence was generally pretty good (for the first 10 minutes at least), and there were (again) several poor decisions that denied us 2 or 3 tries that would have made the scoreboard more respectable. Big Dave wasn't shy in letting BJ the referee know his thoughts on her interpretation of the laws.
Alas, Sammy 'the Bull' Turnbull looks as though he will miss the remainder of the season. More reason for the rest of us to "FIRE UP!".
Friday, November 27, 2009
Panic at the Breakdown
Having returned from the UK (luckily) before the Wallabies self-imploded against the Scots, I'll take stock of some of the thoughts I gathered in conversations with numerous rugby fans on the trip.
The grand conclusion by all is that rugby has become a boring, kicking-oriented, game. Well, to some extent kicking has always been a part of the game. Territory has always been the main strategy of game planners. But the problem now is that the new ruck breakdown laws have changed the game dramatically.
The laws now favour the defensive team. If a fullback or winger tries to run-return a kicked ball from within his own half, he runs the great risk of being tackled and for there to be more defensive bodies at him before his team-mates can get back in time to clean out. This means even if a player was to run-return his only 'safe'option is to kick it back so as not to be caught and lose possession or give up a full penalty. The kick option has become the only way to play the game under the current laws. Fans scream "run it" but to do so often ends in disaster..
This law change did not contemplate the improvements in defence of the modern rugby teams. If defence was weaker then the law would not have such a detrimental impact. But defence won't get weaker, only stronger. The law must change.
I think two things should happen:
1. Return to short arm penalties for breakdown infringements;
2. Allow the tackled player to hold onto the ball longer...perhaps up to several seconds until his teammates arrive. If the opposition is good enough to get the ball off him, then that's good for them, but fans would rather see attacking teams keep more possession, run the ball and string running phases together.
The grand conclusion by all is that rugby has become a boring, kicking-oriented, game. Well, to some extent kicking has always been a part of the game. Territory has always been the main strategy of game planners. But the problem now is that the new ruck breakdown laws have changed the game dramatically.
The laws now favour the defensive team. If a fullback or winger tries to run-return a kicked ball from within his own half, he runs the great risk of being tackled and for there to be more defensive bodies at him before his team-mates can get back in time to clean out. This means even if a player was to run-return his only 'safe'option is to kick it back so as not to be caught and lose possession or give up a full penalty. The kick option has become the only way to play the game under the current laws. Fans scream "run it" but to do so often ends in disaster..
This law change did not contemplate the improvements in defence of the modern rugby teams. If defence was weaker then the law would not have such a detrimental impact. But defence won't get weaker, only stronger. The law must change.
I think two things should happen:
1. Return to short arm penalties for breakdown infringements;
2. Allow the tackled player to hold onto the ball longer...perhaps up to several seconds until his teammates arrive. If the opposition is good enough to get the ball off him, then that's good for them, but fans would rather see attacking teams keep more possession, run the ball and string running phases together.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Socialist Governments: Meddling Mediocrity
Over here in London I had a conversation with a Scottish business colleague yesterday, who was telling me how the British government has started discriminating against children who's parents went to university. The policy works such that a student's university entrance scores are adjusted based upon the education history of the student's parents - upward if they didn't go to uni, and down if they did. So in effect, one could be not particularly bright, work incredibly hard to get a score to go to university, and miss out because your parents had decided that a Uni campus was a cool place to hang out in the 60's.
To rub salt into the wound, this bizarre form of social engineering is made even more perplexing by the fact that back in the 60's the British government actually encouraged, through policy, kids going to university. Those that took up the encouragement have unbeknowingly disadvantaged their children.
Frankly, I hate these sorts of policies. I hate this interventionist 'engineering' of society outcomes. I hate this micro-level policy setting that systemically erodes the ability for citizens themselves, acting in a free market within common-sense regulation where self-regulation fails, to find the natural water level.
Take this case. How can any government justifiably penalise a citizen for working hard towards their goals? How can they plausibly justify this policy which pulls hard-working people, who achieve something, back to the pack. It's classic socialist policy that my father warned me of when I was a child. Trying to make sense of the difference between the Labor and Liberal Parties in Australia, he told me "its simple son. Labor wants to drag everyone back to a common denominator. Liberal wants to encourage every person to rise to the best they can be".
Seeing the British Labour party in action scares the crap out of me, because I see the Rudd Government slowly but surely chipping away in the same vein. Kevin Rudd, running his "I'm just like Costello and not like Howard" con job will have us all think he is a Labor moderniser, bringing his union-spawned party into the modern age of free market economics. But what has he done? He's re-introduced tough means testing, he's spent all of the surplus and a whole lot more (thank God Costello created the Future Fund as this could be gone too); and has cost millions of shareholders a fortune by deciding to break up Telstra and, wait for it...creating another government owned telecom company and telling us we can all by shares in that! It would be a bizarre joke if it wasn't true.
Australian voters are typically apathetic for a period of the political cycle. We will only throw out a well-run government if we get bored of a leader we perceive is getting to used to the power (Howard, Keating). Once we've done that, and things are still cruising along we don't really ask very hard questions of our government. We took for granted the ideology of the Coalition, and how that ideology has driven the market and societal reforms that have translated into great prosperity through massive productivity improvements in almost all sectors of the economy, put Australia on the foreign affairs and capital-markets map, nurtured a climate that allowed people to openly and comfortably discuss their religious beliefs, settled the debate once and for all that average people want to send their kids to private schools, improved the already-best-in-the- world healthcare funding system, and dramatically increased volunteerism. We've come to think that ideology is irrelevant, that our political parties are 'all the same mate'.
They are not the same. The ideology matters.
To rub salt into the wound, this bizarre form of social engineering is made even more perplexing by the fact that back in the 60's the British government actually encouraged, through policy, kids going to university. Those that took up the encouragement have unbeknowingly disadvantaged their children.
Frankly, I hate these sorts of policies. I hate this interventionist 'engineering' of society outcomes. I hate this micro-level policy setting that systemically erodes the ability for citizens themselves, acting in a free market within common-sense regulation where self-regulation fails, to find the natural water level.
Take this case. How can any government justifiably penalise a citizen for working hard towards their goals? How can they plausibly justify this policy which pulls hard-working people, who achieve something, back to the pack. It's classic socialist policy that my father warned me of when I was a child. Trying to make sense of the difference between the Labor and Liberal Parties in Australia, he told me "its simple son. Labor wants to drag everyone back to a common denominator. Liberal wants to encourage every person to rise to the best they can be".
Seeing the British Labour party in action scares the crap out of me, because I see the Rudd Government slowly but surely chipping away in the same vein. Kevin Rudd, running his "I'm just like Costello and not like Howard" con job will have us all think he is a Labor moderniser, bringing his union-spawned party into the modern age of free market economics. But what has he done? He's re-introduced tough means testing, he's spent all of the surplus and a whole lot more (thank God Costello created the Future Fund as this could be gone too); and has cost millions of shareholders a fortune by deciding to break up Telstra and, wait for it...creating another government owned telecom company and telling us we can all by shares in that! It would be a bizarre joke if it wasn't true.
Australian voters are typically apathetic for a period of the political cycle. We will only throw out a well-run government if we get bored of a leader we perceive is getting to used to the power (Howard, Keating). Once we've done that, and things are still cruising along we don't really ask very hard questions of our government. We took for granted the ideology of the Coalition, and how that ideology has driven the market and societal reforms that have translated into great prosperity through massive productivity improvements in almost all sectors of the economy, put Australia on the foreign affairs and capital-markets map, nurtured a climate that allowed people to openly and comfortably discuss their religious beliefs, settled the debate once and for all that average people want to send their kids to private schools, improved the already-best-in-the- world healthcare funding system, and dramatically increased volunteerism. We've come to think that ideology is irrelevant, that our political parties are 'all the same mate'.
They are not the same. The ideology matters.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Howard's Legacy
At a mate's birthday party today, we talked briefly about how far the federal Liberal party ranks have fallen. They've gone from hero to zero in a couple of years. It really is quite astounding.
We talked about how it is such a shame that Costello never became PM, that he would have made a great leader, and perfect on the domestic and world stage during this economic crisis.
It got me thinking that a lot of focus goes into Howard's unwillingness to hand the batten to Costello in an orderly leadership transition, but that perhaps there should be more discussion about how much damage Howard has caused the broader party by not doing so.
In the Howard Year's documentary Howard could hardly hide the personal motivation behind not giving Costello the leadership...nobody ever handed it to him so why should he give it to Pete? That was pretty much the thrust of Howard's thinking.
History now shows that by not planning an orderly transition to Costello, running a lacklustre, boring and uninspiring campaign (he looked asleep half the time as he sent us into trance with his "Who do you trust?" questions) Howard set on course a devastation of the senior ranks of the party, to leave the party reeling and unlikely to be really in the contest for another 2 elections. Howard's argument that the benches wanted him to stay is no excuse. He and the senior echelon of the party should have planned the transition and made it clear when the time had come that this was the best thing for the party. The back benches don't really have a say if a leader decides to leave for the good of the party. Howard had a call and he didn't make it.
Howard's mistake cannot be registered as minor amongst a decade-plus of government achievements. It was a massive error of judgment and made worse by the personal bitterness that underpinned it.
We talked about how it is such a shame that Costello never became PM, that he would have made a great leader, and perfect on the domestic and world stage during this economic crisis.
It got me thinking that a lot of focus goes into Howard's unwillingness to hand the batten to Costello in an orderly leadership transition, but that perhaps there should be more discussion about how much damage Howard has caused the broader party by not doing so.
In the Howard Year's documentary Howard could hardly hide the personal motivation behind not giving Costello the leadership...nobody ever handed it to him so why should he give it to Pete? That was pretty much the thrust of Howard's thinking.
History now shows that by not planning an orderly transition to Costello, running a lacklustre, boring and uninspiring campaign (he looked asleep half the time as he sent us into trance with his "Who do you trust?" questions) Howard set on course a devastation of the senior ranks of the party, to leave the party reeling and unlikely to be really in the contest for another 2 elections. Howard's argument that the benches wanted him to stay is no excuse. He and the senior echelon of the party should have planned the transition and made it clear when the time had come that this was the best thing for the party. The back benches don't really have a say if a leader decides to leave for the good of the party. Howard had a call and he didn't make it.
Howard's mistake cannot be registered as minor amongst a decade-plus of government achievements. It was a massive error of judgment and made worse by the personal bitterness that underpinned it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
