Club Troppo

Club 1:Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka.
Club 2:Bolivia, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Japan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Peru, Republic of Korea, Uruguay, Zambia
Club 3:Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

(Continued)

Here’s a piece of blatant and unashamed recycling.  I run a discussion board for my Intro to Public Law students where they’re welcome to post and discuss news items with a public law angle.  Over the weekend one of them posted a link to the current stoush between Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon and his Department.

The student’s comment was that ”Its nice to see what we study actually unfold before our eyes.  Will the Defence Minister retain the confidence of parliament?”   Of course, the immediate answer to that question is yes given that Labor has the numbers in the House of Reps.  However, I responded with some more general observations and it occurred to me that they might be worth posting here at Troppo what with Nicholas being away overseas and all:

Actually it’s relatively common for MPs on all sides to occasionally forget to declare assets, gifts etc.  They are events that both sides of politics do their best to portray as improper when they occur, and it’s certainly true that disclosure rules are an important part of accountability and transparency and therefore ultimately responsible government.  Moreover, personal gifts (especially of a free overseas trip) might conceivably confer influence on the giver and a sense of obligation in the recipient so the obligation of disclosure must be taken seriously.  Nevertheless, Fitzgibbon was in opposition at the time, and even now it isn’t obvious how a Chinese-Australian businesswoman could exercise influence over anything relevant to the Defence portfolio (which is Fitzgibbon’s current role).

(Continued)

"The hallmark of economics," writes Geoffrey Luck, "is not its ability to forecast the future but to explain things." So when economists or others offer advice about the future of the housing market, is it best to ignore them?

In 1995 economists Steven Bourassa and Patric Hendershott created a model to explain changes in Australian capital city housing prices. And the model seems to have done a pretty good job. But then, in their conclusion, they remarked that "it seems unlikely that the large increases of the late 1980s will be repeated in the foreseeable future."

So perhaps the foreseeable future wasn’t foreseeable after all. In 1997 the Reserve Bank observed that strong demand was putting upward pressure on house prices. It was the first sign of a boom that would dwarf anything seen during the 1980s. But in 1997, the Reserve Bank wasn’t overly concerned. Over time, they argued, "the stronger demand can be met by increased building activity."

By 1999 prices were still rising and some economic commentators warned that Sydney house prices relative to disposable income were approaching those in the UK and Japan before both nations experienced housing slumps. By May 2000, property guru Michael Matusik was warning that property prices might fall sharply.

But later that year the ABC reported that house prices had surged unexpectedly. They continued to increase and in 2002 the Reserve Bank noted a large rise in housing construction. The bank regarded this process as self limiting because oversupply was "bound at some point to limit the scope for further price increases."

(Continued)

I’ve always thought that autism is the doozy of mental illnesses. Many others come in ‘episodes’, and disabilities don’t get in the way of human bonding.  But autism, being related precisely to human bonding, does.  And parents of autistic children (so it seems to me) must desparately will themselves into their relationship of care with their child.  Actually I expect that’s quite wrong, they naturally fall into it.  But they must doubt it endlessly, and yet their sense of duty and more primeval senses keeps their shoulder to wheel. But in most lives, though they may not do it for the reward in any direct sense, parents get a reward, of reciprocation from their child.  And yet, this – as far as I understand it – is what is so attennuated in a relationship with an autistic person.   

In any event, you may wish to read the incredible story that appears below the fold – courtesy of Slate and HT Three Quarks (HT, Ingolf for telling me about it).

(Continued)

Andrew Norton has asked me to post a link to a survey he’s running on the policy views of those willing to identify with political labels such as classical liberal, conservative, social democrat. Looks interesting.

Brad Delong’s (re)post provides a nice example of how capriciously the media create by analysing the ‘spin’ they keep telling us it’s their job to cut through.  In this no-man’s land primeval biases can run wild.  One such bias is that the right are ‘sound’, that it would be somehow unworthy and frivolous to report too heavily on the style of a the right, a distraction no less from the ‘real issues’. But progressives are more fair game. Likewise a progressive that breaks rules, well that’s a much scarier proposition than a conservative that does it.  Or as Oscar Wilde put it at the beginning of the Importance of Being Earnest, “What on earth is the use of the lower classes if they’re not prepared to set us an example”. 

Shorter Adam Nagourney and Peter Baker:

We lied about George W. Bush for eight years–pretended he was a competent president running a rational administration when we were dining out on stories of his and his administration’s fecklessness all across Washington–and now that we have a competent president running a rational administration, we’re going to lie in the other direction for the next eight years.

Todd Gitlin:

“Enervating”: The president was “not…fiery and inspirational,” write Peter Baker and Adam Nagourney in the morning NYT. “Placid and unsmiling, he was the professor in chief, offering familiar arguments in long paragraphs — often introduced with the phrase, ‘as I said before’ — sounding like the teacher speaking in the stillness of a classroom where students are restlessly waiting for the ring of the bell.

“This was Mr. Obama as more enervating than energizing.”

In one Baker-Nagourney sentence, even a compliment is only a prologue to a dig that, come to think of it, might help explain why they’re so petulant:

He showed his usual comfort with a wide array of subjects, even as he excluded the nation’s big newspapers from the questioning in favor of a more eclectic mix.

My italics but their pique. (Continued)

“Geoengineering” is a catch-all term for approaching climate change from the other side of the too-much-gas-too-much-heat side of the equation. One of the early promising schemes was iron fertilisation, where mixing iron with waters in oceanic ‘deserts’ would cause algal blooms. The theory was that such blooms would come and go so fast that when they died, they’d sink to the bottom of the ocean and take their carbon with them.

It doesn’t seem to work that way. But at least iron fertilisation could show a way to improve fisheries without destroying fish stocks.

Here is a blog post devoted to what you Londonophiles have always wanted to do – share with Troppodillians your deep knowledge of London. Ill be in London from the 31st of March to the 2nd or 3rd of April and wondered if any Troppodillians can suggest a place to stay. Im trying to find the best combination of these things as possible, though I realise I probably cant have them all.

• Cheapness would be nice but not essential
• Closeness to the centre which I define as Trafalgar Square so within half a kilometre of Trafalgar Square
• It would be nice if it had an informal atmosphere in which people mingled a little so that one can meet the odd fellow tourist
• A youth hostel usually fits all these criteria. . . .
• And one would be OK for me, but it would have to have half way decent rooms warm, clean, quiet sheets and bedclothes provided. Small, private, single rooms, are fine. I’m afraid I don’t do dorms any more! 

Any thoughts?

Who knows how many London readers we have – perhaps none since Tim Watts reentered Australia’s atmosphere, but if any want to organise a get together, I’ll come along if I can. 

Also, I’m open to suggestions as to what to do.  I’ve got some appointments, so in total perhaps a couple of days to myself.  I always make a bee line to the Art Gallery at Trafalgar Square and the Tate, and I wander around a lot.  What other things shouldn’t I miss – or since that’s a silly thing to say – there are so many things to miss in London if you only have two days – what other things wouldn’t you miss if you only had a couple of days.

Are there any great plays or exhibitions on?  Oh – and recommendations of great restaurants – cheap is best, expensive is not out of the question – always appreciated.

The above is the title of an op-ed piece by Roger Cohen in today’s New York Times. In it, he examines a bipartisan statement containing recommendations for settling the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. It’s been presented to President Obama and the signatories are not only well-known, but hail from both sides of politics. Amongst them are Paul Volcker, Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski and James Wolfensohn.

Reading through their proposals, one can almost feel the tectonic plates of US politics around this issue trembling. Towards the end of his piece, Cohen summarises the core principles as follows:

The first is clear U.S. endorsement of a two-state solution based on the lines of June 4, 1967, with minor, reciprocal, agreed land swaps where necessary. That means removing all West Bank settlements except in some heavily populated areas abutting Jerusalem – and, of course, halting the unacceptable ongoing construction of new ones. (Continued)