Internet Actions have consequences
Actions have consequences and this applies to everything we do. Sadly however, some people need to be protected from themselves. Social network sites are a commercial concern and those of us who sign up are the product. We need to know this. I’m not one for regulation, so for me, the alternative is education. Knowing our privacy will be compromised when we sign up is part of the education. If you swim in crocodile infested waters knowingly, don’t blame the croc. The same goes for other public websites. How many sites have we registered with simply to learn something quite innocuous? I’ve lost count, but I know that’s the reason I receive about 25 emails everyday from people trying to sell me stuff. I unsubscribe, but more keep coming and that doesn’t include my Nigerian friends who tell me I can get rich quick. I don’t blame them for trying. As for rules, it is the same for the Internet as anywhere else. I bank, buy and trade with trusted sites but I know no system is foolproof. The sites I use accept responsibility for my actions if I follow their rules. That is reassuring but not foolproof. “Exercise caution in your business affairs for the world is full of trickery…” as the Desiderata goes, written in 1692, and they didn’t even have the Internet, the poor bastards. If I was to become a trouble maker on the Internet, I should be exposed as such. Perhaps having a compulsory redirection link warning imposed on my URL to give the suckers an even break. I am unaware of any ‘self-regulating citizen’ training guide for dummies, but I think it would be a good idea.
Looking for a new democracy
Democracy is not failing us, it is we who fail democracy when we fail to actively engage with it. Democracy, as we practice it today, has lost its essential direction and has been usurped by divisive, vitriolic, jingoistic spin. Democracy today is no longer government of, by and for the people. It is government of the most influential, the loudest shock jock, the focus group, the public relations consultant and anywhere the lust for power overrides concern for national unity and prosperity. The voice of the special interest group has come to dominate the present model. Debate, divide and conquer is the aim and its tactic is to fragment the collective energy of the nation, split it down the middle, weaken its resolve and make it easier for vested interests to have their way. Unity is strength. Disunity is a recipe for failure.Who holds the immoral high ground?
Trying to strike up compromise deals to discourage boat arrivals only serves to reinforce the increasingly despicable image of both government and opposition political parties as they wallow in the sewer of human relations. Human decency, compassion, truth and morality have been the big losers for Australians following their approval of Tampa, ten years ago. Since then, our politicians have pursued the immoral high ground relentlessly, giving us a smorgasbord of mediocrity, deceitful intentions and a good measure of scepticism about the quality of our national leaders. Not until quite recently, has the safety of those who risk their lives to get to Australia been a major factor in this dirty game played out underneath the noble ideal of bringing a halt to the boats. Last year, the federal coalition campaigned furiously to convince the electorate that they could stop the boats in the lead up to the election, but it was a campaign aimed at winning votes, not stopping people from losing their lives. The labor party is no better. They have sold their soul in an effort to win back lost support.
After winning the 2007 election, Labor quite rightly abandoned off-shore processing because they believed it to be morally repugnant. Not so now. Morality has given way to pragmatism. They need the votes. I suspect their reasoning is to nullify coalition initiative and render the issue politically neutral. They have cleverly forced the coalition to the bargaining table and now it is the coalition who face a slow bake. The issue has now been reduced to which off-shore processing centre is the better. I remember a time when governments were able to rise above the selfish, self-serving practice of pleasing the masses, and do what was right when morality was an issue. That was a long time ago. The right thing is to accept responsibility for those who come here by whatever means and deal with it, without trying to send them somewhere else. Boats have been arriving since the end of the Vietnam war in the early 70′s. There is little anyone can do to stop the boats short of setting up processing points in Indonesia and Malaysia. But if that’s what it takes to thwart the activities of people smugglers, then that’s what we should do. Forget trying to reason with desperate people; give them hope, but do it with a modicum of decency and understanding.
Who sells first, wins.
How is it that when Wall Street has a bad day, the analysts always seem to know why? They put it down to the release of worse than expected employment figures, or some major announcement or because there was an earthquake somewhere or some financial guru choked on his spaghetti. These days the ongoing debt crisis in Europe is supposedly causing every investor to quake in their boots. America’s own problems with unemployment and debt also figures high, even though these problems have been lurking just around the corner for years. Oddly, after a couple of bad days on the markets, investors return to scoop up some bargains and the index goes back up again, at least for a while. So, what changed between the bad day and the next one when the buying resumes?
The answer seems to be: not much. So why is it that when the market slumps to a new low, the buying will resume even if the bad news keeps coming, or, as happens sometimes, the good news comes but the downward spiral continues?
Why does this market volatility continue to occur week in week out?
It seems to me that this volatility is pig heaven for the market savvy traders. This is where they make pots and pots of money at the expense of natural growth. There is no reason why a looming debt crisis in Europe is going to affect ABC Coy one day and send its share price plummeting only to have it return to its normal price a day or two later. The banks are a classic example. The news that China is downgrading its growth forecasts can send the banks’ share price into the red on a Monday, only to see them recover by Friday and then repeat the same cycle the following week without any additional input from China. Did China suddenly re-calculate its forecasts? No!
So, what is it that really drives the market?
My theory is that it has nothing to do with good or bad news. The news coming out every minute, every hour, feverishly monitored by the traders and their support teams is simply the catalyst, or put more succinctly, the code for traders to activate a money machine. Bad news is code for, SELL! Why? Because for every seller there has to be a buyer and the one who recognises the codes and sells first, wins. The one who buys, loses. It’s a game. And these traders play this game every day. They sit at their monitors, staring into the screen looking for opportunities to squash their competitors, who as it happens, sit alongside them hoping that they can return the favour. And, they have huge amounts of money with which to play this game; except, it’s not their money. It’s yours and mine.
They are the institutional traders who use our superannuation to send a share price plummeting simply by placing a sell order for a sufficient number of shares to activate a panic among their rivals. Their rivals are watching their screens and when they see something happening they react too, and the price goes down even further. Has something terrible happened to the economy or the company whose shares they are dumping? No! Those same traders who activated the sell order will buy back that same stock within a few days, or maybe only a few hours or in the most obscene cases, a few minutes later. And, depending on the reaction of their competitors, the result could be a profit of several million dollars. They play with our money to make their money, some of which they return to us just to show how worthwhile it was for us to trust them with our money.
And, in a nutshell, that’s what’s happening at the moment. It’s not new, the same rules apply, only for some reason the game has intensified. It’s gone up a notch. My feeling is that the bear traders are restless. The bear market has been going on too long and some are trying desperately to break the cycle. They want results; they want profits, not the pathetic, below average returns of the past few years. They want to get back to the hey-days of pre-GFC. And, we want them to, as well. We are happy when they make huge gains but in reality anyone can do that in a bull market. The art of the game is to do it consistently in a bear market. And here lies the rub. Very few have done any good since the GFC. And, they’re getting frustrated. So we see these erratic swings from time to time all under the false notion that the world debt crisis is the cause. It isn’t. It’s the excuse. Has the world suddenly changed? Has some monumental catastrophe occurred to devalue holdings, something that wasn’t there one month ago? No. It’s the traders trying to out-trade their rivals.
There are other factors of course that impact on stock markets; unwelcome takeover bids and unexpected election outcomes, but these are the exception. Similarly, governments don’t like to announce bad news. They want their economies to be seen as good news. Unexpected negative announcements don’t happen every minute of every day. But a sudden upward surge or fall on the stock market can. What causes this? Not takeovers, not government announcements. Traders cause this. They make it happen. Not because of some obscure announcement about pork bellies or a failed wheat crop or debt default. They are trying to activate an upward or downward movement that they can then take advantage of to make their day profitable. So at the end of the day’s trading they can look at the results and hopefully pat themselves on the back and say, ‘jeez, I did okay today.’
So, when those who trade occasionally from home, hope to snare a bargain or two and believe that they are in the midst of an exciting profit motivated venture, think twice before you hit that buy or sell button. There are forces out there that can nullify your best research, and suddenly reverse what appear to be obvious trends and turn your expectations of scoring a goal into nothing more than a puff of wind; a puff of wind that has sent your investment into the never-never. Yes, it will probably recover and your money will return, or most of it. But, what have you gained? At the end of a twelve month period, have your investments done better than a term deposit? And if so, by how much and was it worth the anguish you suffered along the way. How is ‘peace of mind’ valued on the stock market?
If you are determined that you want to stay in the game and ride the bumps, then fine. But know this: You are at the mercy of forces far greater than you can imagine, that don’t play by your rules, or the rules of the countless number of analysts out there who advise on trends, display graphs, chart movements, and come up with reasons for the ups and downs; they don’t know any more than you do about what is going to happen on any given day. Only the traders know what is about to happen, because they make it happen. And even then, they only decide what is going to happen a second or two before it does. Who sells first, wins.
How do I know this? Because with the benefit of hindsight, I can see that there were glorious opportunities that passed me by, as I failed to sell at the right time. But that’s my fault. I didn’t act quickly enough, or I failed to anticipate a particular movement up or down. Mind you I’m getting better at it; practice makes perfect and all that. But the traders of whom I speak don’t miss those opportunities. How could they?
They create them.
This Fear Campaign
There is a lot of hot air blowing around the media at the moment calling for an election to legitimise the carbon tax. Comparisons are being cited with John Howard calling an early election in 1998 to mandate his proposed GST. The perception is that John Howard won that election and therefore had a mandate to introduce a GST.
That is false!
While the Coalition won more seats in the House of Representatives and therefore were returned to government, Labor won more votes on a two party preferred basis (50.98%). Importantly, they won 17 additional seats, falling six short of forming a majority. Furthermore, the Coalition failed to gain a majority in the Senate. The Australian Democrats retained control winning four seats and taking their total seats in the senate to nine. The Democrats campaigned vigorously, promising that they would NOT support the GST in the Senate. Clearly therefore, the 1998 election shows that a majority of people voted AGAINST the introduction of a GST. Subsequently, the Democrats reneged on that election promise and supported the legislation that saw the introduction of the GST in July 2000. Little wonder they are now consigned to history. The appalling fear campaign that has waged over the introduction of a price on carbon would, if an election was called now, result in a crushing defeat for Labor and the end of any meaningful action on climate change. One might argue that this is what the people want. But, what the people want isn’t necessarily what is good for them or right for them. Therefore an election is NOT a legitimate mechanism to decide the future of the health of our planet. It might well suit those who couldn’t care less about the planet and are using the issue as a means to simply get rid of a government they don’t like. But that is not democracy in action. That is fraud. That is dishonest. That is an abuse of power.
These Bizarre Contradictions
Business is in a state of agitation. They are predicting doom and gloom over the carbon tax. Well, of course they would. That is what they do when the government announces a new tax. Coalition members are predicting doom and gloom too. Well, of course they would. That is their job. The government is talking up the long term benefits of pricing carbon by alluding to the opportunities for the development of new clean energy technologies. That is what we would expect them to do. But in all the hurley-burley of political debate the essential message seemed to be lost until a young twelve year old boy on the Q&A program earlier this year, spelled it out. It is not about today. It is not about how much it will cost the average household. Price increases are a way of life. Householders will be no more able to calculate cost increases due specifically to the carbon tax than they could about grocery price increases due to transport costs rising periodically. Most would not even notice which prices have risen compared with the week before. Yet if you asked them, if prices have gone up, they will say, yes. Of course they would. It is there job to complain about prices. They see their hard earned money disappearing quicker than a possum up a tree. So, what’s new?
On Q&A the young boy thanked the prime minister for starting the ball rolling in the right direction thus enabling his generation to have a future.
That is what it is about, isn’t it?
On the same program, another person suggested Julia Gillard debate the issue with Tony Abbott. Julia replied by saying that before a debate could happen both sides would have to respect the scientists. Clearly, at this point in the broader debate one side doesn’t respect the scientists. They just find a scientist who disagrees with the overwhelming majority and run with it. The science on climate change is far more compelling than any theory I have ever heard about the existence of God. Yet, people have no difficulty accepting belief in God. What is it about the human animal that brings about 
these bizarre contradictions?
There is little doubt in my mind that in 30 years time, those of us who are still alive and remember this ridiculous debate about climate change, will look back and wonder how stupid we were to argue with the science. And, those of us who are the most vociferous against pricing carbon will tuck themselves away in a dark corner and hope that nobody remembers what they said.
It’s just common sense
If it is true that we learn through experience, then surely our approach to illicit drugs needs some drastic rethinking.
What value is served, and to whom, if drug addicts are put in jail?
What person today wanting to take illicit drugs, is unable to do so?
How much money do we spend on law enforcement of illicit drugs?
How much money could we devote to rehabilitation if drugs were decriminalised?
If in prohibiting drugs, we think we are saving our children from harm, then we have to admit it has been a monumental failure.
The present laws follow the “you are bad and you must be punished” mentality. Yet, the ones who are being punished are not just the drug addicts, but also their families, the community and our health and education system.
Perhaps the most crushing insult is that prohibition of drugs has created an industry of immense power, wealth and corruption forcing governments around the world to commit enormous resources to police, while the expenditure on the more fundamental issues of health and education go begging.
World governments need a global drug law reform policy that has to start somewhere. Politicians are too frightened to commit themselves to the obvious. It has to start at the grass roots level.
You can be a part of that movement.
Join Leap Australia
Go to: http://leapaustralia.org
The Art of the Impossible
Contemporary journalism has changed greatly since the introduction of the MEAA Code of Ethics in 1995, giving rise to a strange illogicality. Reporters are required to report the news in an accurate, fair and balanced way and above all, be objective. But, if what they report, or the way in which it is written, doesn’t conform to the particular style or editorial expectation of their employer, it can be discarded swiftly, or, just like a piece of plasticine, moulded, manipulated and re-figured to suit. Does such action by editors promote a positive impression of objectivity?
Perhaps we should first ask the question: Does objectivity exist in journalism? Objectivity is one of those words that when used in different circumstances, brings forth all manner of self-righteous aims and beliefs. Trying to present balanced arguments with accuracy, fairness and independence characteristic of contemporary journalism, requires some discernment. What I consider objective might well be seen as subjective by someone who senses a note of cynicism in my voice or in my words. Can any journalist faithfully claim objectivity when, for example, they report on the matter of asylum seekers? Surely any combination of words would betray some degree of emotion be it pity, disgust, anger, racism or even indifference. Any inflection of the voice would do likewise. So, is objectivity a positive in all circumstances?
Discussing objectivity as a professional norm in journalism is rather like discussing the prospects of surviving as one wades across a crocodile infested river. One has all the right intentions of reporting and interpreting honestly, of not suppressing relevant facts, avoiding conflicts of interest, and so on. But just like the poor soul wading across the river who notices two man-eaters approach him for their dinner, the reporter has to cope with similar commercial chaos; the editor hounding him for text, an uncooperative interviewee, a proprietor’s political leaning, a laptop crashing, a mobile phone dropping out and a story seemingly destined for the toilet. At such a juncture, it’s hard to remember that truth, objectivity, accuracy and originality are virtues. At this crucial point, both mental and subjective aspects loom large and tend to render unintelligible all textbook training and ethical behaviour.
No journalist wants to suggest that compromising the code of ethics is justified but human nature being what it is, this is generally what happens. And, this is where it is difficult to find anything positive in the frantic mayhem that abounds when reporters are trying to scoop the competition. It begs bias, inaccuracy, plagiarism and sub-standard delivery. It begs violation of the MEAA Code of Ethics not for sinister reasons but simply to meet deadlines. On this basis, one can therefore argue that objectivity is a hindrance to in-depth news reporting; it is a negative aspect and should be addressed as such. As an example, the current issue of climate change seems to defy any level of objectivity. Even on the scientific front where one might expect some degree of unanimity, distrust and hidden agendas often reduce arguments to the quite pathetic level of, “my scientist knows better than your scientist.” We, as a community and as consumers, are being manipulated, cajoled and persuaded, to adopt the position of either sceptic or believer through highly subjective reporting. But, embedded within that process objective truths do emerge. Here, it can be argued that subjectivity can produce a positive balance.
So, where does that leave the positive elements of objectivity in journalism, or, is political reporting an MEAA Code of Ethics accident, waiting to happen? Political reporting is subject to micro analysis by a variety of lobby groups all too eager to cry foul when their position is misrepresented. The door-stop interview that appears on the nightly news often appears biased in favour of entertainment. All too often matters unrelated to policy, such as attire, hairdo, their manner of walking, the way they speak, are highlighted in preference to detailed policy debate or cleverly presented as a metaphor designed to entertain rather than to inform consumers. These stunts by media outlets bring the profession into disrepute as does the studio interview that concentrates on trying to catch a politician out and have she/he say something controversial; something that their news division can later milk and serialise for all its dubious worth. These are highly negative characteristics of contemporary journalism. We, the consumers, are being asked by print and broadcast media to make judgements about our politicians on how they look rather than what they do. It may be objective but it is not positive in the political sense.
In alluding to the importance of objectivity, journalists also have the responsibility of deciding what is newsworthy. In this instance objectivity becomes subjective. Given deadlines and air-time constraints, one story can be overlooked in favour of another for a variety of reasons thus depriving the consumer of their right to know. For some consumers, the story that was overlooked may well have been vitally important or at least of greater value and interest than the one chosen. On what criteria does one decide what the public will not be told? The very act of selectivity is itself, subjective.
Journalism has been described as “history in a hurry.” It is this hurry that causes the compromise between complying with the MEAA Code of Ethics and operating within a commercially viable institution. Truly objective reporting is the great pillar of a democratic free press, but in a world where media ownership is so heavily concentrated in the hands of so few, and where political interference threatens the livelihood of media barons, we are entitled to ask: does it ever happen?
It’s the economy, stupid!
Those opposing a carbon tax just don’t get it.
I was advised recently by a fellow student that in Australia, “We emit 1% of the world’s greenhouse gas.” And he went further. “ Is a 5% cut to that, resulting in 99.95% of the world’s emissions remaining, really worth a 75% hike in power prices?” There’s no argument about the detail but is this really the issue? The quality of responsible leadership does not derive from what we need to do, but from what we should do! There are many instances where leaders of small nations kick-started the process of changing the world for the better. True, we do not KNOW if man is the cause of climate change. Nor do we KNOW if there is a God. But, being the weird, psychological ‘whackos’ that we are, we act largely on what we believe, not on what we know. Science (bless her heart), is slowly converting this ‘belief’ based system to a ‘knowledge’ based system and perhaps in 50-100 years from now, we will KNOW if we are causing climate change. So, as I see it, the real question for today is: Do we follow the majority scientific view which, even if it proves incorrect, will still lead us to more efficient and cleaner lifestyles, and new industries, or do we continue to create “Methane, Hydrogen Sulphate and Sulphur Dioxide” that, as my fellow student so rightly says, “kill plants as well as man” when we KNOW there is a better way?
On the political side of the question, I think we should all hang our heads in shame. How, in the name of common sense, did this matter become a political issue? All that does is reflect on the poor quality of leadership on both sides of the political spectrum. At a time in human history when we are at the crossroads of decision making that COULD define what humans will be in 100-200 years time, we are farting around on the trivial, the petty, and the mediocre. Did Julia Gillard lie, or was she forced into compromise? Who f…..g cares??? The real question is: Can she kick-start a process that will lead to a better life for our grandchildren and for generations beyond? The opportunities for new industries to emerge and extinguish our need for coal are incredibly exciting and this should be what the discussion is about. We may emit only 1% of the world’s greenhouse gases, but we are the world’s largest coal exporter. Surely that must count when assessing our global responsibility.
What is it that you fear?
I don’t expect too many of you to understand what I write here, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t try. Fear of boat people has a foundation…but the foundation is false. The underbelly of the fear isn’t real; it has no authenticity. Minorities are only seen as such when they are perceived to be a threat; either real or imagined. And that’s where fear comes into play. When minorities are seen to be threatening, that creates fear. And when they are highly visible, then the fear is exponential. That is why boat people are always under attack; because people fear them; it’s irrational fear without foundation but it’s a feeling that is hard to explain. Fear is being used to manipulate society. Politicians use fear to win our vote. The fear of being attacked, the fear that terrorists are planning to repeat another 9/11, the fear of a nuclear war; the fear that some middle-eastern country objects to the way we live our lives and represents some threat to us, or that some environmentally conscious political party will destroy our way of life, is fermenting a generation of irrational fear mongers. Fear of boat people is utterly irrational and we know it. So we hide behind the veneer of queue jumping or population swell. When we face our fears, challenge them to prove their validity, they fail; they evaporate. More of us should try it. So, the boats keep coming. Well, so what? In what way has that affected your life? How has it harmed you? What damage has it done to you? And please, do not kid me that you are concerned about the cost, or that others will have to wait longer, or that they are illegal (actually they are not). Such superficial concerns would flatter us both and make the argument look more pathetic than it does now.
