lev.lafayette's blog

On June 17, The Guardian reported that senior members of the Liberal Party were in "damage control" after the Liberal Party's peak council votes to privitise the ABC. They have, of course, already slashed funding to the public broadcaster and have made no secret of their continuing opposition to the independent public broadcaster which provides of news and information across remote corners of the country.

Sometime ago I encountered a Swedish propertarian, who was horrified at the level of his country's national debt, and citing the number exclaimed:

Haha this is swedens national debt. But you are probably a "an"com that doesn't understand economics XD

Well I might only have a modicum of knowledge of economics, but I know the difference between gross public debt and net public debt. Here's how the rest of the conversation went.

On May 9 the NTEU called a short strike as part of renegotiations on an enterprise bargaining agreement with the University of Melbourne. The union wants to ensure that everyone is covered by one agreement, that everyone receives the same rate of superannuation, and that academic freedom is part of the agreement.

As I sometimes do, I engaged in some correspondence on a matter of politics and war recently. Specifically it involved an individual who was promoting the idea that the United States has "admitted" that it has no evidence that the Syrian government used Sarin against civilians in 2013 and 2017 [1]. I pointed out that this was a misrepresentation, and U.S. Secretary of Defense Mattis, that this was in reference to the most recent claim, as the U.S.

A significant problem in AnCap thinking I believe is what they believe is a strength - their deontological moral principles. It leads them to accepting positions which most normal people would consider monstrous because they don't have a grounding in reality and indeed, they explicitly reject it.

If a person had a skin bacteria that could wipe out HIV/AIDS many AnCaps would complete object to the person being "forced" to have a small scraping from their finger - despite the fact that it would save over 1.5 million people per annum.

The multinational Unilever, which owns Streets icecream, has announced its intention with the Fair Work Commission to terminate the current enterprise agreement. This will lead to a paycut of up to 46% to some workers, and naturally enough, workers are less than happy with the proposal. We will keep in mind that icecream workers are not exactly known for their excessive incomes and lavish lifestyles. As a result, unions have called for a public boycott.

I posted this on a discussion on energy sources in a Greens politics discussion group.

It was deleted by the moderator because they didn't agree with some of the sources. Oh, and the author is an engineer for an oil company.

Hardly sufficient justification in my opinion, but it's their group and they can moderate as they see fit. If they want to have a dumb echo chamber, that will be their problem.

In any case, their actions have meant that I have left the group, and will promote the article as a contribution to discussion in other forums.

It's a common theme among AnCaps that their system is economically superior, indeed, many do without question.

However, around 1990ish there were a large number of countries which were socialistic and became capitalistic. All of those countries, without exception, suffered a massive economic downtown in GDP per capita which lasted in most cases over decade before they returned to their level prior to the change in system.

Proportional representation is usually expressed in a manner as being a "fair" electoral system, where if your group received 40% of the vote your group will also receive 40% of the representation. Opponents typically decry it as meaning that it can lead to a situation where a minority group, controlling the balance of power, can have undue influence. Drunkenly familiar with power, it is little surprise to discover domineering political parties reject calls for proportional representation.

I've been saying this for years, and commented on various 'blogs etc with this argument. It is well about time that I stated it in a single post.

Value is objective in supply.
Value is subjective in demand.
Value is intersubjective in price.

That's the Lafayette Law of Value. Thank you.