Representative democracy certainly does deliver humanity a kaleidoscope of public policy. Remember the one where governments have to boost demand to stay in government, and to keep the economy growing. In most countries its combined with an 'easy immigration policy' to match an 'easy monetary policy. This is certainly the case in most Western nations:
1. Japan - the latest convert
2. United States
3. Canada
4. New Zealand - bearing growing due to emigration
5. Australia
6. Britain
Its difficult however to reconcile these policies with climate change. Frankly I think all these policies are silly. Basically its a huge diseconomy to take people trained to work in one country to give then work in another. Why would you want poorly trained doctors from third world countries? If not medicine, why would you want a former student with 2 degrees from an Indonesian university to work in an Australia Post office as a mail sorter. These are the types of economies that Western countries are generating through their immigration policy in order to keep demand strong. Its not all bad. Asian students coming to Western countries for a better education is a positive development...that is if they end up going back.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against immigration; I'm for it. But it just doesn't reconcile with government climate change policy, nor with efforts to encourage political reform in third world countries. It seems we are intent on sponsoring immigration of those candidates who are most likely to make a difference to third world countries. We are creating a brain drain. We are decreasing the standards of competency in the third world, whilst also diminishing them in the West.
I regard climate change policy as a hoax, and have even produced a book to prove as much; but publicity aside, how does shifting an Afghan from Aghanistan to Australia improve the global balance? Well in Afghanistan he would probably be a farmer. In Australia, we would be a taxi driver, consuming 15x more energy than in Afghanistan. This expansion of his carbon footprint according to climate change advocates will have dire consequences.
If you are hoping for integrity in government policy you will have a long time to wait. So what is my solution. Discard the climate change hypothesis and acknowledge it for what it is - an excuse to adopt a comprehensive energy tax policy to replace a rather limited petroleum tax policy. The solution is simply to:
1. Stop artificially stimulating economic activity. This will encourage companies to cut costs in order to drive productivity and sales. Currently CEOs can simply rely on government stimulus to increase their incomes. They have stock options remember which are more than indexed to inflation. They do even better than the government.
2. Stop providing subsidies to energy alternatives: The providers of these services are simply raising their prices to take a greater profit, whilst offering a dubious benefit. Small governments like Australia and NZ cannot match the generous incentives offered by the Germans, so why try, they are only increasing the pricing of the service.
3. Sell state-owned railways so that rail can compete with cars. Government owned railways are often a burden because of the politically-powered concessions that unions can win. Governments are less likely to compensate when they are both the owner and regulator.
4. More research on climate change: There is a need for more research on climate change, though the arguments appear compelling against the prospects of primarily an anthropogenic source of carbon emissions. A carbon tax could be used, but it should only be a user-pays tax to fund policy which can be objectively demonstrated in a court; and not for general revenue raising.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
1. Japan - the latest convert
2. United States
3. Canada
4. New Zealand - bearing growing due to emigration
5. Australia
6. Britain
Its difficult however to reconcile these policies with climate change. Frankly I think all these policies are silly. Basically its a huge diseconomy to take people trained to work in one country to give then work in another. Why would you want poorly trained doctors from third world countries? If not medicine, why would you want a former student with 2 degrees from an Indonesian university to work in an Australia Post office as a mail sorter. These are the types of economies that Western countries are generating through their immigration policy in order to keep demand strong. Its not all bad. Asian students coming to Western countries for a better education is a positive development...that is if they end up going back.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against immigration; I'm for it. But it just doesn't reconcile with government climate change policy, nor with efforts to encourage political reform in third world countries. It seems we are intent on sponsoring immigration of those candidates who are most likely to make a difference to third world countries. We are creating a brain drain. We are decreasing the standards of competency in the third world, whilst also diminishing them in the West.
I regard climate change policy as a hoax, and have even produced a book to prove as much; but publicity aside, how does shifting an Afghan from Aghanistan to Australia improve the global balance? Well in Afghanistan he would probably be a farmer. In Australia, we would be a taxi driver, consuming 15x more energy than in Afghanistan. This expansion of his carbon footprint according to climate change advocates will have dire consequences.
If you are hoping for integrity in government policy you will have a long time to wait. So what is my solution. Discard the climate change hypothesis and acknowledge it for what it is - an excuse to adopt a comprehensive energy tax policy to replace a rather limited petroleum tax policy. The solution is simply to:
1. Stop artificially stimulating economic activity. This will encourage companies to cut costs in order to drive productivity and sales. Currently CEOs can simply rely on government stimulus to increase their incomes. They have stock options remember which are more than indexed to inflation. They do even better than the government.
2. Stop providing subsidies to energy alternatives: The providers of these services are simply raising their prices to take a greater profit, whilst offering a dubious benefit. Small governments like Australia and NZ cannot match the generous incentives offered by the Germans, so why try, they are only increasing the pricing of the service.
3. Sell state-owned railways so that rail can compete with cars. Government owned railways are often a burden because of the politically-powered concessions that unions can win. Governments are less likely to compensate when they are both the owner and regulator.
4. More research on climate change: There is a need for more research on climate change, though the arguments appear compelling against the prospects of primarily an anthropogenic source of carbon emissions. A carbon tax could be used, but it should only be a user-pays tax to fund policy which can be objectively demonstrated in a court; and not for general revenue raising.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
No comments:
Post a Comment