The real enemies of the World...

[Rorschach]

The Progressive Left...

OECD, IMF and World Bank drivel condemns them to obsolescence
Judith Sloan
Contributing Economics Editor
October 6, 2018


I read a wide range of material in my job — from newspaper columns to academic journal articles, from blogs to government ­reports. Don’t get me wrong; I absolutely love it.

But my life has been made slightly easier in recent years because there is a molehill of tendentious, pointless material I can now ignore. That is, apart from having to read up for this column.

I am referring to the slanted puff pieces masquerading as ­serious analysis issued by inter­national agencies, including the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Let’s talk about the OECD, ­located in a beautiful part of Paris. It has a workforce of more than 2500. The very well-paid employees pay no tax and enjoy the ­mother of all pension schemes.

The secretary-general is the politically correct, deeply green-tinged Mexican, Angel Gurria. He has held the position since 2006, having briefly been the Mexican ­finance minister. He has been ­reappointed three times, an ­unheard of arrangement but one that Australia has supported.

A recently appointed deputy secretary-general — there are two — is from Japan. He has been a lifelong international bureaucrat.

You may not have caught up with the fact our own Greg Medcraft is now the director of the OECD Directorate for ­Financial and Enterprise Affairs. Recall that Medcraft was previously chairman of the Australian Securities & Investments Commission, which has come in for heavy criticism from the banking royal commission. Medcraft was shrewd to build up various international connections while at ASIC, which enabled him to leapfrog into this Paris-based position.

Note all these three senior positions are held by men. But when it comes to gender matters, the OECD could not possibly be more politically correct in its messaging. There is even something called the Equal Pay International Coalition of which the OECD is a member.

There was a pledging event held during the recent UN General Assembly in New York. Evidently, global leaders from government, private sector companies, trade unions and civil ­society — whatever that means — pledged to “take concrete action towards closing the gender pay gap by 2030”.

And here’s what our poster-boy, Gurria from the OECD, had to say: “Gender pay gaps are not only unfair for those who suffer them but are detrimental to our economies. If you do not have equal pay, productivity suffers, competitiveness suffers and the economy at large suffers. It is in our power to make an immediate improvement in the quality of life of hundreds of millions of women and their families if we succeed in delivering equal pay for men and women.”

Where do you start? Gurria claims to be an economist, but none of these sentences is defens­ible. Economists know the gender pay gap is overwhelmingly ­explained by objective job and worker characteristics. The small residual that remains is largely about the wage premium attached to jobs that demand long and ­unpredictable hours that, in turn, are overwhelmingly held by men.

Workers’ preferences are a large part of what drives the gender pay gap. The idea that simply lifting the pay of women will ­improve productivity and economic competitiveness is not just fanciful; it is downright dangerous.

The good thing is that the nagging of the Equal Pay International ­Coalition will be largely ignored by most countries.

Another area in which the OECD has completely lost the plot is in relation to climate change.

Take this tosh introducing one of its reports: “Climate change is the result of our fossil fuel-­entangled global economy. Yet powerful interests continue to ­resist the transition towards a low-carbon economy, even as the old economic model is dying. Now is the time to accelerate our efforts. Our response today will define our collective future for generations to come.” The only surprise is this purple prose was not set to music.

Not even scientists believe that human-induced CO2 accounts for very much of all CO2 emissions. And since when did the staff at the OECD adopt a writing style that would be more in keeping for the blurb to promote Michael Moore’s latest leftie documentary?

For serious economists, the OECD has become a complete joke. Even its statistical tables are not completely reliable.

Economic growth is now shunned unless it is inclusive economic growth. And according to the good folk at the OECD, this must be “economic growth that is distributed fairly across society and creates opportunities for all”.

What these zealots don’t seem to understand is that sequencing is the key. Only with strong and consistent economic growth will the benefits be enjoyed across the workforce and society. By attempting to distort the pattern of economic growth, the beneficiaries of these distortions will win at the ­expense of overall per capita economic growth. The OECD simply refuses to acknowledge that the causation runs the other way: open and competitive markets underpinned by lean and efficient governments are the best way for people to make their way out of poverty. Constraining policies to those that are “inclusive” is almost always perverse in its impact.

Mind you, it’s not just the OECD producing this left-leaning sludge. Take this recent piece from the IMF about the Vietnamese economy and climate change. The summary states “higher global temperatures, rising sea levels and more frequent and more intense extreme wea­ther events are taking their toll on the Vietnamese economy and its people. How the country develops innovative solutions to mitigate the impact of climate change will be the key.”

And here’s the bit I really love: “By 2100, climate change could impact more than 12 per cent of the Vietnamese population and ­reduce growth by 10 per cent. The country — which has relied heavily on fossil fuels and overexploitation of natural resources — needs to further adapt its economy ­towards a more sustainable and eco-friendly growth model.”

Oh please. Someone clearly just dreamt up these figures 80 years down the track to scare someone — just not me. This sort of nonsense really gives economists a very bad name.

And let’s not forget the IMF (and OECD) completely missed the coming global financial crisis. And when the worst was over, the IMF continued to over-estimate the pace of the recovery. Note that this is core business for the IMF.

Don’t get me on to the drivel that comes out of the World Bank, which, until recently, refused to ­assist developing countries to provide electricity to their citizens using reliable fossil-fuel generation. The bank had preferred “a climate smart transformation”.

So you can see where I’m coming from and how ignoring the highly questionable and one-sided output from these international agencies, which is surprisingly thin given their enormous resources, is a definite plus for me.

Sadly, the march through the institutions is well and truly on show in these international agencies. This should be the trigger for their abolition or defunding, given that the rationales for their existence are, by and large, no longer relevant. This particularly applies to the OECD.

[brian ross]

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Judith Sloane? Interesting lady. Used to have an office just down the corridor from her. Not terribly sociable though, rarely saw her in the Common Room having coffee. Funny that.

I'd have thought we'd have seen you slamming her for her narrow-minded reading habits but oh, no, she gets a freebie from you. Why? Is it 'cause you agree with her views on issues? I do as well but I've arrived at them via a different route. Funny that, hey? Seems to me you have favourites in the media, academia, politics. Exactly what you accuse everybody else of doing, you do as well. Oh, tut, tut. Such a silly sausage.

[Neferti]

Do you wear socks with your sandals, Brian? I'm curious.

[Rorschach]

Labor are now trying to con Conservatives and get back the Labor Conservative vote...

Kimberley Kitching caters for Labor’s conservative core
Greg Brown
Journalist
October 7, 2018

Labor senator Kimberley Kitching — a close ally and friend of Bill Shorten — is moving to create a bipartisan parliamentary group that will defend “Judeo-Christian” and “Western-liberal democratic” values as she launches her credentials as a new style of social conservative within the Labor Party.

The Victorian, who was controversially hand-picked by the Opposition Leader to replace Stephen Conroy in the Senate, said she considered it part of her job to fight “smug elitism” and would seek to ensure the views of “inner-city elites” did not prevail over the “quiet wisdom of working people”.

“I think that sometimes Labor insiders tend to be more small-l liberal in their views than the ­people who vote for us,” Senator Kitching told The Australian.

She said the rise of the Greens had been good for the party as it helped create a “Corbyn-proof fence” that had protected Labor from the “more extreme and out of touch” parts of the Left. She also spoke against identity politics and virtue-signalling, saying it was intellectually “lazy” and had a negative impact on public debate.

Despite being a practising Catholic, Senator Kitching’s pitch as a Labor conservative is more cultural than religious and represents a shift from the traditional grouping of “LabCons” who have been guided by their faith in ­opposing same-sex marriage, abortion and euthanasia.

In interviews with The Australian, four LabCons — Don Farrell, Jacinta Collins, Helen Polley and Chris Ketter — denied claims their socially conservative views were maligned in the party as it became increasingly progressive.

The MPs — who voted No last year to same-sex marriage — said Labor needed to be a broad church to ensure it appealed to conser­vative working-class voters.

Senator Kitching — who voted Yes to same-sex marriage but is opposed to euthanasia — said “Judeo-Christian, Western-liberal democracy” was the “very best way” for people to “organise themselves” and its principles should be more staunchly defended.

She will attempt to launch a Defence of Democratic Institutions Parliamentary Friendship Group, inviting MPs from across the aisle as well as business leaders and academics.

Avoiding the politically loaded term “Western values”, Senator Kitching said the group would champion “liberal-democratic ­values”, discuss policy ideas and help shape the political agenda.

“The fact is we must remain vigilant in order to protect and safeguard our Judeo-Christian, Western-liberal democracy from both external and internal threats,” she said.

Senator Kitching — who has defended her record at the Health Services Union despite being ­accused of misconduct by the trade union royal commission — said she preferred the term “moderate” to social conservative, a sentiment shared by Senator Collins and Senator Ketter.

Senator Farrell, Labor’s Senate deputy leader and a leading figure in the conservative shoppies faction, said many working-class Labor voters had traditional values.

He said his Catholic views drove him towards the Labor Party because of the church’s teachings on social justice.

“On the one hand you can be a social conservative but also support the concept of social justice,” he said, adding that he did not believe the party would eventually junk its conservative links.

Senator Collins said her views were accepted by her parliamentary colleagues, despite a Labor MP telling The Australian the LabCons were a “dying” force within the party and their views were increasingly marginalised.

“I have never felt lonely,” Senator Collins said.

“I’m a collectivist. I don’t relate at all to the Liberal (Party) traditions of individualism, so I have found Labor fits much more neatly with my approach to achieving the common good.”

I think this is a huge Con.
The party already silenced and ditched it's conservative values and voices within the party. Gillard renamed the party the Progressive Party. Labor and The Greens work together and Labor accepts Green preferences...

[Rorschach]

State codifies ‘white privilege’ slur for bureaucrats
Michael Owen
October 7, 2018

Government departments in South Australia have been criticised for seemingly forcing ­bureaucrats to acknowledge “white privilege” in Aboriginal cultural awareness training.

Conservative crossbench senator Cory Bernardi told The Australian that public servants had contacted his office in fear of losing their jobs after refusing to participate in the training, which required them to acknowledge their “white privilege”.

“I’ve had public servants contacting my office, fearful for their jobs because in good conscience they cannot undergo this man­datory indoctrination,” Senator Bernardi said yesterday.

“They are being discriminated against because political correctness and bureaucracy have run out of control under the noses of the major parties.”

National debate over the use of the term “white privilege” erupted in January when it was revealed that new codes of conduct for nurses and midwives referenced “a decolonising model of ­practice based on dialogue, communication, power sharing and negotiation, and the acknowledgment of white privilege”.

The codes do not require ­nurses or midwives to declare or apologise for white privilege.

Two SA Health documents for “cultural” and “workplace” learning advise staff “there is an un­deniable relationship between the continuing impact of colonisation and racism on the current health status of Aboriginal people”.

“Aboriginal people have been negatively impacted by inequitable government policies and the consequential ongoing racism and discrimination,” the documents say, noting that the ­material will “improve the ­cultural competence of the SA Health workforce through a ­better understanding of the impact of colonisation on Aboriginal health outcomes”.

A “learning outcomes” section requires staff to define white ­privilege and the effect of white privilege on Aboriginal health.

Staff are required to “challenge and respond to ‘racist’ behaviour and racial stereotypes” and “recognise the impact of white privilege on access to ­services”.

The “learning frameworks” also require staff to explain cultural self-awareness and identify their own cultural values and practices, identify examples of “white privilege” and analyse how “white privilege” impacts on Aboriginal people’s experience of health care services.

Premier Steven Marshall, who formed the first Liberal government in South Australia in 16 years in March, also has responsibility for the state’s Aboriginal ­Affairs portfolio.

Mr Marshall’s own department “actively encourages public sector employees to participate in Aboriginal cultural awareness training”, according to its website.

The South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources has an online “reconciliation action plan” that states: “We seek to be able to better recognise the influence colonisation and white privilege has on the department’s internal and external interactions with Aboriginal people, their nations and communities.”

Mr Marshall insisted that cultural awareness training was not compulsory.

“Cultural awareness training is an option made available to public sector employees,” he said.

“The use of the term ‘white privilege’ … (is) not a term that I would personally use.”

Senator Bernardi said: “This politically correct nonsense is offensive, if not racist, towards many Australians.”

People like bwian would obviously be for all this racist nonsense.

[sprintcyclist]

It sounds like thought control.

We should all read '1984' and 'Animal Farm'.

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?
In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

[Black Orchid]

I am not sure why the traditional left are not giving the progressive left the heave ho. Most traditional lefties do not agree with these progressive/regressive morons either.

"Regressive left" (also formulated as "regressive liberals" and "regressive leftists") is a neologism and political epithet, used as a pejorative to describe a section of left-wing politics who are accused of holding paradoxical, reactionary views by their tolerance of illiberal principles and ideologies, particularly identity politics (emphasis on group identities like race and gender, rather than on the individual)[1], and opposition to free speech[2] for the sake of multiculturalism and cultural relativism.

I don't believe in the word "progressive" when regressive is more appropriate to their ideology.

[Neferti]

I do believe that Brian considers himself an ACADEMIC. The Academics that I have known wear beards, shorts and sandals (with socks) and PONTIFICATE. Here is what the Urban Dictionary says about Academics.

Screenshot_2018-10-08 Urban Dictionary academic.png

[sprintcyclist]

I do believe that Brian considers himself an ACADEMIC. The Academics that I have known wear beards, shorts and sandals (with socks) and PONTIFICATE. Here is what the Urban Dictionary says about Academics.

Screenshot_2018-10-08 Urban Dictionary academic.png

.............. beards, shorts and sandals (with socks) .................

that is an awful image.

how come us men dress so badly ?

[Rorschach]

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Judith Sloane? Interesting lady. Used to have an office just down the corridor from her. Not terribly sociable though, rarely saw her in the Common Room having coffee. Funny that.

I'd have thought we'd have seen you slamming her for her narrow-minded reading habits but oh, no, she gets a freebie from you. Why? Is it 'cause you agree with her views on issues? I do as well but I've arrived at them via a different route. Funny that, hey? Seems to me you have favourites in the media, academia, politics. Exactly what you accuse everybody else of doing, you do as well. Oh, tut, tut. Such a silly sausage.

Gee thanks bwian I just won a bet, that you'd start by attacking the messenger and ignoring reality, then making crap up directed at me.. Well done and oh so predictable. Dinner this Friday is on you....

Anytime you feel like actually saying something about something I've actually said instead of lying like the TROLL you are feel free... I always like proving you wrong... as usual.