Just in case you were unaware: I hate Apple. I've only ever owned one of their products, an iphone 3GS. For the past six months I've been counting down the days to the end of the contract on that phone. Why? Well I hate Apple's pretentious advertising. I hate itunes - it knows too much about me; what I like and dislike, where I live, my credit card details, and who knows what else!! itunes also has a very long and complicated user agreement that seems to change every 2-3 weeks. I don't trust contracts that change all the time, without my input. Oh and my piece of crap iphone has a tendency to crap out three minutes into most phone calls.
So quite a while ago I decided that my next phone would definitely not be an Apple: it would be either a Samsung or an HTC. HTC lost my vote when they put the Desire HD exclusively on the Vodaphone "network". Thus I have spent the past week or two looking at what sort of deals would be available for the Samsung Galaxy S2 which is their latest and greatest offering.
On the back of this comparative work I have further bad news for those of you with Telstra shares in your bottom drawer. Telstra indisputably has the best mobile network in Australia, but it is not worth a $15 a month premium over the Optus offer. For a base of $59 a month the call and message rates are the same on both networks. Optus offers more data per month, but Telstra has better coverage and the Next G network has data transfer rates that in places far exceed anything Optus even plans to offer.
When you think about what you use the data on your phone for mostly - footy scores, stick a photo on facebook or solve an argument using wikipedia - you just don't need the super network. Certainly not at such a high cost per month. Optus wins this round. Telstra had better find some features to make the next G network worth the extra money or their fixed line business won't be only one receding at a great rate of knots.
Telstra deal:
http://www.telstra.com.au/shop/Consumer/NGTSOMobilePhonesView?catalogId=10101&storeId=10001&productId=109229&langId=-1&categoryId=16103&parent_category_rn=16103&top_category=&ti=TR:TR:July11:samgalaxys2:mobileselect:buynow
Optus deal:
http://www.optus.com.au/store/phone/galaxysii?sid=MobAFeat1:galaxysii:OSC:MPOST:OCA:MPOST:22062011#a_selectaplan
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
The Watermelon Party - probably as dangerous as terrorists
What's the Watermelon Party I can hear you asking? It's the correct name for the Australian Greens. They are all, like a watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside. I'm getting really tired of the watermelons telling me what I can't do and trying to restrict further what liberties I might have left. Restrictions are usually from Stalin or Mao's policy manuals and are often dressed up with a green jacket as an attempt at justification.
Take the Greens policies on human rights and global governance. In a nutshell, the Greens want to cede as much power as possible to the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. An organisation that even the Greens recognize is un-democratic. Both these institutions are heavily Euro-centric and are run by the same sort of guys who run that bastion of transparent decision-making, FIFA. Both these policy documents are keen to remove Australian citizens from the creation of Australian laws, foreign policy and governmental actions overseas. How can anyone ever vote for this? The UN will always be a spineless gravy train for essentially useless bureaucrats as member nations will always act in their own interest and will never allow a restructure that removes the individual power of a nation in the assembly.
How about Industrial Relations? The watermelons want to return to industry-wide pattern bargaining. As part of this they apparently support freedom of association (ie you won't have to join the union) but you will have to pay them for bargaining on your behalf. I hope I don't contradict myself in the space of 250 words. Oh and they want to legislate minimum wages and conditions, but want industry-wide awards to be in excess of the minimum. So not much room for negotiation there (and your spreadsheet will shit itself with the circular reference!). Good luck running a business with more than yourself as an employee - you'll be up to your eyeballs in red-tape, union recruiting days and strikes - right before you go broke! I do like their last point about 5 weeks annual leave though.
When it comes to the economy, you can expect to be taxed. If you earn a lot or are a company you can expect to be taxed even more. All this money is needed to pay for nationalisation of monopolies and essential services, further regulation of fisheries, forestries and mining, and free kindergarten and university for all. My favourite part of this policy is this:
Economic Governance and Industry Development
When it comes to the forestry policy there's this gem:
Lastly a quick excerpt from the Planning and Transport policy:
12. a nationally agreed sustainability charter with targets across all industry sectors.
So under the banner of sustainability, they want to control all industry sectors in some way. Doesn't remind me of Lenin at all! What the hell is a sustainability charter? How can you legislate for how a business operates. How many patents and other intellectual property could you possibly ruin? How can you employ enough bureaucrats to oversee such a program. Plus what counts as sustainable? You get told to use timber to build your house as it is a "carbon sink", but then you get told that you're contributing to deforestation or salinity or loss of habitat for some for of pigeon-toed rat. Makes no sense at all.
Watch out for the Greens. They're just watermelons wanting to control your life. I'll admit, much of their policy documents contain reasonable ideas like don't waste stuff and we need better public transport, but as always the devil is in the detail. In this case, if you enjoy liberty, then the devil is the detail.
All Greens policy is from their website (which is easy to use and informative):
http://greens.org.au/
Take the Greens policies on human rights and global governance. In a nutshell, the Greens want to cede as much power as possible to the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. An organisation that even the Greens recognize is un-democratic. Both these institutions are heavily Euro-centric and are run by the same sort of guys who run that bastion of transparent decision-making, FIFA. Both these policy documents are keen to remove Australian citizens from the creation of Australian laws, foreign policy and governmental actions overseas. How can anyone ever vote for this? The UN will always be a spineless gravy train for essentially useless bureaucrats as member nations will always act in their own interest and will never allow a restructure that removes the individual power of a nation in the assembly.
How about Industrial Relations? The watermelons want to return to industry-wide pattern bargaining. As part of this they apparently support freedom of association (ie you won't have to join the union) but you will have to pay them for bargaining on your behalf. I hope I don't contradict myself in the space of 250 words. Oh and they want to legislate minimum wages and conditions, but want industry-wide awards to be in excess of the minimum. So not much room for negotiation there (and your spreadsheet will shit itself with the circular reference!). Good luck running a business with more than yourself as an employee - you'll be up to your eyeballs in red-tape, union recruiting days and strikes - right before you go broke! I do like their last point about 5 weeks annual leave though.
When it comes to the economy, you can expect to be taxed. If you earn a lot or are a company you can expect to be taxed even more. All this money is needed to pay for nationalisation of monopolies and essential services, further regulation of fisheries, forestries and mining, and free kindergarten and university for all. My favourite part of this policy is this:
Economic Governance and Industry Development
- implement triple bottom line accounting measures at all levels of government to incorporate social, environmental and financial impacts into policy development and assessment.
- introduce broad measures of genuine national progress to supplement the current measures of GDP, including the production of a comprehensive national balance sheet that reflects this.
- require all listed companies to report on standardised social and environmental indicators in their annual reports.
When it comes to the forestry policy there's this gem:
- implement a national wood products industry plan that will complete the transition from native forests to existing plantations, including retraining and other assistance for workers and the development of sustainable alternative fibre industries.
Lastly a quick excerpt from the Planning and Transport policy:
12. a nationally agreed sustainability charter with targets across all industry sectors.
So under the banner of sustainability, they want to control all industry sectors in some way. Doesn't remind me of Lenin at all! What the hell is a sustainability charter? How can you legislate for how a business operates. How many patents and other intellectual property could you possibly ruin? How can you employ enough bureaucrats to oversee such a program. Plus what counts as sustainable? You get told to use timber to build your house as it is a "carbon sink", but then you get told that you're contributing to deforestation or salinity or loss of habitat for some for of pigeon-toed rat. Makes no sense at all.
Watch out for the Greens. They're just watermelons wanting to control your life. I'll admit, much of their policy documents contain reasonable ideas like don't waste stuff and we need better public transport, but as always the devil is in the detail. In this case, if you enjoy liberty, then the devil is the detail.
All Greens policy is from their website (which is easy to use and informative):
http://greens.org.au/
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
Sports stars are greedy and too many agents and administrators encourage it
Two of the three biggest sports in North America are in industrial dispute. The NFL lockout has been in effect since March 11. The NBA lockout began at the start of July. In Australia, the AFL are at loggerheads with the players association over a new collective bargaining agreement. Looking at European soccer we see players who are pampered beyond belief and move clubs at thes suggestion of more money.
What makes it worse and relieves the players of some blame, is that owners and administrators are prepared to offer stupid and unsustainable wages to attract 'talent'. This is the cause of most of the NBA teams being over the notional 'salary cap' and 17 making losses last year. Many European football clubs have similar problems, but have a sugar-daddy to cover the loss. In Australia, as in many parts of the world, the governemnt is heavily complicit in all this. Governements here provide stadiums, training facilities and various other ridiculous grants to professional sports teams. As a taxpayer I find this unconscionable. If they can get a multi-billion dollar media rights deal, then they can build their own stadiums. The public utility is bugger all. This has started to happen in North America and is part of the current NFL dispute. Team owners have to pay a bit more than rent for their stadiums and it's cutting profitablity.
The pampered children that are known in sports talk as the 'playing group' always want more. I think they forget that all the sports science, hotel rooms, buffets and gyms cost money too. The continual argument is that a sportman doesn't have a long career and needs a lifetime's worth of money is crap. Most people change jobs and industry during their life. The top graduate at a law firm doesn't get upwards of $200K on potential like a professional athlete. Never mind if you're hopeless at being a footballer, you'll still see all the money from the contract. No accounting grad has that luxury in their first two or three years.
I don't ususally stick up for the default Aussie (the tradesman), but they run a risk of injury every day at work, the are involved in physical activity every day, but they don't have a nutritionost telling them what to eat. They don't ask the Master builders Association for a pension fund. Amazingly their unions understand that there is superannuation and the government pension already in existence. Maybe the difference is that tradies don't have a greedy manager taking 5-10% and encouraging risky investments in businesses they don't understand.
Many in North America can't believe that there are millionaire versus billionaire lockouts in two sports at a time when the economy is so bad. The guy selling hot dogs at stadiums is in for a tough time.
So suck it up pro-sports people. I defend your right to put your hand out for more, but sometimes you need to be aware of the bigger picture. Wages can't always go up, especially when you are asking for other lurks and perks. Owners and managers - try running your business properly. I don't know why company directors don't ever get jail time when they bankrupt a sports team by paying negligent wages. Lastly, governments should spend money on sports participation, not spectators and pampered professionals.
What makes it worse and relieves the players of some blame, is that owners and administrators are prepared to offer stupid and unsustainable wages to attract 'talent'. This is the cause of most of the NBA teams being over the notional 'salary cap' and 17 making losses last year. Many European football clubs have similar problems, but have a sugar-daddy to cover the loss. In Australia, as in many parts of the world, the governemnt is heavily complicit in all this. Governements here provide stadiums, training facilities and various other ridiculous grants to professional sports teams. As a taxpayer I find this unconscionable. If they can get a multi-billion dollar media rights deal, then they can build their own stadiums. The public utility is bugger all. This has started to happen in North America and is part of the current NFL dispute. Team owners have to pay a bit more than rent for their stadiums and it's cutting profitablity.
The pampered children that are known in sports talk as the 'playing group' always want more. I think they forget that all the sports science, hotel rooms, buffets and gyms cost money too. The continual argument is that a sportman doesn't have a long career and needs a lifetime's worth of money is crap. Most people change jobs and industry during their life. The top graduate at a law firm doesn't get upwards of $200K on potential like a professional athlete. Never mind if you're hopeless at being a footballer, you'll still see all the money from the contract. No accounting grad has that luxury in their first two or three years.
I don't ususally stick up for the default Aussie (the tradesman), but they run a risk of injury every day at work, the are involved in physical activity every day, but they don't have a nutritionost telling them what to eat. They don't ask the Master builders Association for a pension fund. Amazingly their unions understand that there is superannuation and the government pension already in existence. Maybe the difference is that tradies don't have a greedy manager taking 5-10% and encouraging risky investments in businesses they don't understand.
Many in North America can't believe that there are millionaire versus billionaire lockouts in two sports at a time when the economy is so bad. The guy selling hot dogs at stadiums is in for a tough time.
So suck it up pro-sports people. I defend your right to put your hand out for more, but sometimes you need to be aware of the bigger picture. Wages can't always go up, especially when you are asking for other lurks and perks. Owners and managers - try running your business properly. I don't know why company directors don't ever get jail time when they bankrupt a sports team by paying negligent wages. Lastly, governments should spend money on sports participation, not spectators and pampered professionals.
Federalism in Australia: Time for a rethink?
Federalism in Australia does not work. Some obvious reasons are large land mass, small population, strong party allegiances of elected "representatives" and the ever-growing vertical fiscal imbalance between levels of government. Then there's the structure of the Senate and abuse of constitutional powers by Federal governments. Add to that the unscrutinised decision and deal making that occurs under the COAG banner. It adds up to elected but barely representative government. This problem is of course compounded at each opportunity by the media and the major federal political parties.
After 110 years since the constitution was enacted, the structure of the Senate no longer serves the electorate. Each state has 12 senators who each sit a six year term. Six are elected every three years. Each territory has two senators whose term mirrors that of the House of Representatives. So 40 senate seats are on the line at each federal election. The problem is that to be elected in Tasmania a candidate needs a sixth of the vote which equates roughly to 60,000 votes. A candidate in NSW needs over 770,000 votes. Not a particularly representative system with today's population.
This vast discrepancy would be fine if Senators actually represented their states when exercising their powers and duties. In practice Senators vote along party lines and Independent Senators tend to come form the less populous states (fewer votes) and run their own agenda for the whole nation. However, I'm yet to hear of a Senator crossing the floor for their state rather than ideology or more importantly when there is a chance their vote may determine the outcome of the division. There's no chance of the WA Labor Senators voting against the proposed mining tax (should there ever be legislation for this thing we've been hearing about for 14 months) because it would be better for WA to not have the federal tax imposed.
The continued existence of the states is in increasing jeopardy as the continued expansion of Federal powers continues un-abated regardless of which political party is in government. Since the passage of Income Tax Act 1942 and the States Grants (Income Tax Reimbursement) Act by the Commonwealth in 1942, the states have not been able to raise sufficient funds to meet their spending commitments. They are instead reliant on handouts pursuant to section 96 of the constitution:
96. During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.
This is what enables the Commonwealth to encroach on state responsibilities like healthcare, education, emergency services and transport. It is coupled with the high court's generous interpretation of the corporations powers under section 51 of the constitution.
Further erosion of the states is caused by the states themselves as the cede powers to Canberra and through COAG negotiate uniform legislation across the country. Every time this happens the Commonwealth passes a bill which through the clauses of the constitution over-rides any concurrent state legislation.
With the continued centralisation of government and the unending love for socialist style handouts and government by the electorate, the question arises as to whether we need to keep paying for state governments at all?
The solution would need to involve the merger of many local councils and far better mechanisms for keeping councils operating within their necessary realm. Recently Sydney city council decided to revise history and refer to the British colonisation of Australia as an "invasion" in their official documents. Completely unnecessary waste of local government time and effort. It clearly reflects the skewed personal agendas of the seven councilors who voted for the motion. Revising national history is not an issue for a government with only 180,000 residents. Councils operate libraries and collect rubbish. Copying elements of the county system used in the USA for rural areas and creating large councils covering the metropolitan areas of the big cities would probably work.
The logical path for Senate reform would have to be towards true proportional representation. Based on 2010 election results, a candidate would then need about 335,000 votes to get elected. Having this method would also bring the double dissolution back into play as a means to force legislation through a hostile Senate. The double dissolution gets talked about a lot, but will never happen in practice. Too few votes would be needed by minor party and independent candidates to gain a Senate seat: this is very unattractive to the major parties.
Never thought I'd support the death of the states, but it seems practical, cost effective and would allow for far better representative government.
After 110 years since the constitution was enacted, the structure of the Senate no longer serves the electorate. Each state has 12 senators who each sit a six year term. Six are elected every three years. Each territory has two senators whose term mirrors that of the House of Representatives. So 40 senate seats are on the line at each federal election. The problem is that to be elected in Tasmania a candidate needs a sixth of the vote which equates roughly to 60,000 votes. A candidate in NSW needs over 770,000 votes. Not a particularly representative system with today's population.
This vast discrepancy would be fine if Senators actually represented their states when exercising their powers and duties. In practice Senators vote along party lines and Independent Senators tend to come form the less populous states (fewer votes) and run their own agenda for the whole nation. However, I'm yet to hear of a Senator crossing the floor for their state rather than ideology or more importantly when there is a chance their vote may determine the outcome of the division. There's no chance of the WA Labor Senators voting against the proposed mining tax (should there ever be legislation for this thing we've been hearing about for 14 months) because it would be better for WA to not have the federal tax imposed.
The continued existence of the states is in increasing jeopardy as the continued expansion of Federal powers continues un-abated regardless of which political party is in government. Since the passage of Income Tax Act 1942 and the States Grants (Income Tax Reimbursement) Act by the Commonwealth in 1942, the states have not been able to raise sufficient funds to meet their spending commitments. They are instead reliant on handouts pursuant to section 96 of the constitution:
96. During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.
This is what enables the Commonwealth to encroach on state responsibilities like healthcare, education, emergency services and transport. It is coupled with the high court's generous interpretation of the corporations powers under section 51 of the constitution.
Further erosion of the states is caused by the states themselves as the cede powers to Canberra and through COAG negotiate uniform legislation across the country. Every time this happens the Commonwealth passes a bill which through the clauses of the constitution over-rides any concurrent state legislation.
With the continued centralisation of government and the unending love for socialist style handouts and government by the electorate, the question arises as to whether we need to keep paying for state governments at all?
The solution would need to involve the merger of many local councils and far better mechanisms for keeping councils operating within their necessary realm. Recently Sydney city council decided to revise history and refer to the British colonisation of Australia as an "invasion" in their official documents. Completely unnecessary waste of local government time and effort. It clearly reflects the skewed personal agendas of the seven councilors who voted for the motion. Revising national history is not an issue for a government with only 180,000 residents. Councils operate libraries and collect rubbish. Copying elements of the county system used in the USA for rural areas and creating large councils covering the metropolitan areas of the big cities would probably work.
The logical path for Senate reform would have to be towards true proportional representation. Based on 2010 election results, a candidate would then need about 335,000 votes to get elected. Having this method would also bring the double dissolution back into play as a means to force legislation through a hostile Senate. The double dissolution gets talked about a lot, but will never happen in practice. Too few votes would be needed by minor party and independent candidates to gain a Senate seat: this is very unattractive to the major parties.
Never thought I'd support the death of the states, but it seems practical, cost effective and would allow for far better representative government.
Thursday, 14 July 2011
Unfortunately, you can't blame Gillard for the Carbon Tax
Before Kevin07, John Howard (with Malcolm Turnbull as Environment Minister) announced that Australia would be having an emissions trading scheme.
After 30 years in parliament, Howard did not make announcements like this without having had the bureaucrats do the homework on at least the basics. Unlike Kevin07, Howard liked to have his ducks in order before calling a press conference.
Malcolm Turnbull was able to introduce the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 which passed the parliament in September 2007. This act's purpose is 'to introduce a single national reporting framework for the reporting and dissemination of information related to greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gas projects, energy consumption and energy production of corporations'. It's no wonder Turnbull the opposition leader supported Rudd's thrice defeated CPRS legislation - he laid the foundation for it. The CPRS was defeated as it was unpalatable to the opposition as a big new tax and not harsh enough on polluters for the Greens. Had Combet's speech in 2009 (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/Files/minister/combet/2009/Speeches/May/cprs_bill.pdf) included more than a passing reference to compensation and welfare system change, the CPRS may not have been so easy for the opposition to attack.
Judging from these events I think we can assume that an ETS of some form has been in the bureaucratic pipeline since 2006. This concept has therefore survived a change of government, another election, a change in the balance of power in the Senate and is on it's third Prime Minister and god knows what the count is for Climate Change/Environment Ministers. Which really begs the question: Can the bureaucracy make policy a fait accompli?
I think it can. It appears they have just had to wait for a decent sales pitch for an ETS to get through. The elected representatives spend so much time berating each other and pseudo-campaigning that they probably don't have time to actually drive much in the way of policy. They just tinker at the edges. The short electoral cycle makes this problem worse as the stable and incumbent bureaucracy can be the only ones with a long term outlook. It took the Hewson/Howard Liberal party three elections and seven years to get a consumption tax past the electorate, but treasury and business had been crying out change before Hewson lost the 'unloseable election' in 1993.
The GST and the Carbon tax are big ticket, major reforms. How many minor pieces of legislation are driven through because the wheels of bureaucracy push it? We hear very little about it in the sensationalist press. Is this where plain tobacco packaging has come from? It's a nothing act whose biggest effect will be for do-gooders to pat themselves on the back when it passes. I'm sure this is how Victoria got a charter of human rights. No one campaigned on the issue. It just got introduced.
So it appears that faceless, unelected bureaucrats are the real drivers of some policies. The politicians just have to mould the package to sell it to an ignorant electorate. It appears that Howard's ETS became Rudd's CPRS which has become Gillard's Carbon Tax. It should be noted that the Carbon Tax is VERY similar to the CPRS.
Still just because it's got fancy paper and a ribbon wrapped around it, you're still pretty disappointed when someone gives you a turd.
After 30 years in parliament, Howard did not make announcements like this without having had the bureaucrats do the homework on at least the basics. Unlike Kevin07, Howard liked to have his ducks in order before calling a press conference.
Malcolm Turnbull was able to introduce the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 which passed the parliament in September 2007. This act's purpose is 'to introduce a single national reporting framework for the reporting and dissemination of information related to greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gas projects, energy consumption and energy production of corporations'. It's no wonder Turnbull the opposition leader supported Rudd's thrice defeated CPRS legislation - he laid the foundation for it. The CPRS was defeated as it was unpalatable to the opposition as a big new tax and not harsh enough on polluters for the Greens. Had Combet's speech in 2009 (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/Files/minister/combet/2009/Speeches/May/cprs_bill.pdf) included more than a passing reference to compensation and welfare system change, the CPRS may not have been so easy for the opposition to attack.
Judging from these events I think we can assume that an ETS of some form has been in the bureaucratic pipeline since 2006. This concept has therefore survived a change of government, another election, a change in the balance of power in the Senate and is on it's third Prime Minister and god knows what the count is for Climate Change/Environment Ministers. Which really begs the question: Can the bureaucracy make policy a fait accompli?
I think it can. It appears they have just had to wait for a decent sales pitch for an ETS to get through. The elected representatives spend so much time berating each other and pseudo-campaigning that they probably don't have time to actually drive much in the way of policy. They just tinker at the edges. The short electoral cycle makes this problem worse as the stable and incumbent bureaucracy can be the only ones with a long term outlook. It took the Hewson/Howard Liberal party three elections and seven years to get a consumption tax past the electorate, but treasury and business had been crying out change before Hewson lost the 'unloseable election' in 1993.
The GST and the Carbon tax are big ticket, major reforms. How many minor pieces of legislation are driven through because the wheels of bureaucracy push it? We hear very little about it in the sensationalist press. Is this where plain tobacco packaging has come from? It's a nothing act whose biggest effect will be for do-gooders to pat themselves on the back when it passes. I'm sure this is how Victoria got a charter of human rights. No one campaigned on the issue. It just got introduced.
So it appears that faceless, unelected bureaucrats are the real drivers of some policies. The politicians just have to mould the package to sell it to an ignorant electorate. It appears that Howard's ETS became Rudd's CPRS which has become Gillard's Carbon Tax. It should be noted that the Carbon Tax is VERY similar to the CPRS.
Still just because it's got fancy paper and a ribbon wrapped around it, you're still pretty disappointed when someone gives you a turd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)