With fuel riots now starting to break out is some European countries, I think we're getting some idea of when fuel price rises will start to bite in New Zealand.
European countries have been having to deal with expensive fuel since the late 1970s, thanks to hefty taxes designed to encourage more efficient fuel use, and subsidise generous welfare spending.
Unlike in Australia, New Zealand and North America, where there's been a ‘we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it’ attitude to peak oil, European governments have long been concerned that rising fuel prices pose a serious threat to economic competitiveness.
Britain’s economy was hammered by rising oil prices in the 1970s, which in combination with intense competition from Germany and Japan, wiped out most of its manufacturing sector.
However, thanks to the timely arrival of cheap oil and gas from the North Sea, it managed to cope by focusing on financial services, oil-based manufacturing industries, and armament sales.
Today though, European countries are dealing with the ‘double whammy’ of high taxes and rising oil prices, and the combination is starting to prove too much for many citizens. Spain’s rioting fisherman are sending out the message that oil prices approaching the two euro mark aren’t going to be tolerated without a fight.
Here in NZ, oil prices have increased from around 90 cents a litre in 2000 to just over $2 a litre today, and despite a few moans, there hasn’t been a serious economic impact.
I guess you need to take into account that technological advantages have provided a bit of a buffer. Since the 1970s, vehicles have become more fuel-efficient, many manufacturing firms have shifted production to low-wage countries (so rising material costs are offset by lower wage costs) and appliances and manufacturing processes now use less electricity.
Hence, oil prices will have to increase to current European levels before there is major economic strife. I'm speculating that most people won’t be changing their driving habits, or protesting outside the beehive, until petrol prices breach $3 per litre.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Immigration and big government
In a new Vdare column "Immigration - is the Viagra of the state," Peter Brimelow tries to appeal to libertarians by suggesting that immigration leads to bigger government.
However this depends on what kind of government you're referring to.
Immigration has certainly increased what some paleoconservatives refer to as the "liberal therapeutic state," but it's arguably been a disaster for the developmental state of which New Zealand was an early pioneer.
In terms of government investment in such things as science and technology, transport and energy infrastructure, public housing, and technical education, the golden age for the English-speaking West was the era between 1925 and 1965, a period when there was little non-western immigration, particularly in the US.
For advocates of affirmative action, global government, mass university education, anti-smoking campaigns and hate-speech laws, the liberal golden age began in the mid 1960s, when non-western immigration took-off in earnest.
Admittedly there was a classical liberal attempt to trim back the excesses of the left-liberal state in the 1980s, led by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, but this movement ran out of steam in the early 1990s.
Brimelow does correctly point out though, that while immigration may discourage support for the state among the majority of native citizens, it has little appeal for the immigrants and their government and big business supporters, who stand to gain more, at least in the short-to-medium term, from a bigger state.
Subsequently there is potential for a paleo-libertarian approach to gain public support where globalist, pro-immigration libertarianism has failed.
However this depends on what kind of government you're referring to.
Immigration has certainly increased what some paleoconservatives refer to as the "liberal therapeutic state," but it's arguably been a disaster for the developmental state of which New Zealand was an early pioneer.
In terms of government investment in such things as science and technology, transport and energy infrastructure, public housing, and technical education, the golden age for the English-speaking West was the era between 1925 and 1965, a period when there was little non-western immigration, particularly in the US.
For advocates of affirmative action, global government, mass university education, anti-smoking campaigns and hate-speech laws, the liberal golden age began in the mid 1960s, when non-western immigration took-off in earnest.
Admittedly there was a classical liberal attempt to trim back the excesses of the left-liberal state in the 1980s, led by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, but this movement ran out of steam in the early 1990s.
Brimelow does correctly point out though, that while immigration may discourage support for the state among the majority of native citizens, it has little appeal for the immigrants and their government and big business supporters, who stand to gain more, at least in the short-to-medium term, from a bigger state.
Subsequently there is potential for a paleo-libertarian approach to gain public support where globalist, pro-immigration libertarianism has failed.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Unfashionable thinking on learning disorders
A feature article in last Saturday's Press alluded to the growing number of learning disorders that the medical-come-educational establishment is defining, and that parents and educators are struggling to keep up with new developments.
This got me thinking about how children with genuine learning disorders are supposed to be identified, given the huge number of students who go through the education system, and such identification be done in a cost-effective way.
The usual way that children are identified as having learning difficulties is for a parent or teacher to spot some problem with their school work or behaviour and then refer them to a specialist. The problem with this ad hoc approach is that not every child has a doting soccer mom to keep track of their academic progress - and it's too subjective - how do know whether a children has a learning difficulty or just isn't very smart.
By contrast, if a psychometric approach was used, and all children were given IQ tests, then we would have a pretty efficient way of sorting out the vast majority of academic underachievers from the genuinely slow learners.
The ADHD kids would be pretty easy to identify since there is likely to be a gap between their academic grades and their IQ score, and or, they are likely to have atypical profiles, with low scores on concentration dependent sub-tests like digit span. Again, kids with specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia, are either going to have a big gap between their IQ score and their school grades, or they are likely to have unusually skewed IQ profiles. For example, it's fairly obvious that someone with a non-verbal learning disorder would likely struggle with the non-verbal part of an IQ test.
No doubt this neo-empiricism will be offensive to many liberal parents who see IQ tests as a return to the dark days of the1950s, but if they don't like this kind of approach, they can always get a second opinion - working class and underclass parents, with less money and knowledge, don't always have that luxury.
Who knows, 21st century-style IQ testing could be the next big learning break-through since depression-era school milk, which ensured poor kids were finally able to get through the school day with a little concentration-inducing protein.
This got me thinking about how children with genuine learning disorders are supposed to be identified, given the huge number of students who go through the education system, and such identification be done in a cost-effective way.
The usual way that children are identified as having learning difficulties is for a parent or teacher to spot some problem with their school work or behaviour and then refer them to a specialist. The problem with this ad hoc approach is that not every child has a doting soccer mom to keep track of their academic progress - and it's too subjective - how do know whether a children has a learning difficulty or just isn't very smart.
By contrast, if a psychometric approach was used, and all children were given IQ tests, then we would have a pretty efficient way of sorting out the vast majority of academic underachievers from the genuinely slow learners.
The ADHD kids would be pretty easy to identify since there is likely to be a gap between their academic grades and their IQ score, and or, they are likely to have atypical profiles, with low scores on concentration dependent sub-tests like digit span. Again, kids with specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia, are either going to have a big gap between their IQ score and their school grades, or they are likely to have unusually skewed IQ profiles. For example, it's fairly obvious that someone with a non-verbal learning disorder would likely struggle with the non-verbal part of an IQ test.
No doubt this neo-empiricism will be offensive to many liberal parents who see IQ tests as a return to the dark days of the1950s, but if they don't like this kind of approach, they can always get a second opinion - working class and underclass parents, with less money and knowledge, don't always have that luxury.
Who knows, 21st century-style IQ testing could be the next big learning break-through since depression-era school milk, which ensured poor kids were finally able to get through the school day with a little concentration-inducing protein.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Quote for the week
From a great David Round commentary attacking managerialism:
"Bureaucracy is safer, quieter, more lucrative and more powerful than politics. It attracts more ambitious people. Politicians have some sense of responsibility to the community. Managers are safely invisible and irresponsible, and every time you turn around, there are more of them."
"Bureaucracy is safer, quieter, more lucrative and more powerful than politics. It attracts more ambitious people. Politicians have some sense of responsibility to the community. Managers are safely invisible and irresponsible, and every time you turn around, there are more of them."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
