Rudd and deregulation
If Kevin Rudd thinks that neo-liberals have pushed the deregulation barrow too far then why does he have a “Minister of Deregulation”? I mean he could have called the position “Minister of Regulation” if it was just about tightening up regulations. Is this more Kevin Rudd double speak? Is he a closet neo-liberal?
http://www.financeminister.gov.au/
Advertisement
6 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Catallaxy Files- Read and weep statists February 4, 2012More government spending will not bring back the days when supposedly triple-A-rated mortgage securities could be fashioned out of dodgy loans to unqualified borrowers. Arnold KlingSinclair Davidson
- Farewell Chris Huhne February 4, 2012Chris Huhne, the UK climate change and energy minister who did more than any other minister to bankrupt his country by pursuing the folly of wind power, has resigned. Huhne is a wealthy member of the elite who did not practice what he preached. In other words, Huhne is a hypocrite.Samuel J
- Julia Gillard’s policy to prop up inefficient firms will be counterproductive February 3, 2012In The Australian today (subscription required): “According to Julia Gillard, things are difficult for Australian manufacturing as the resource boom threatens “to hollow out other sections of the economy”.Henry Ergas
- Read and weep statists February 4, 2012
- inCISe
- Hardly fair to vulnerable children February 3, 2012For the last three years, I have been arguing that Australia’s failing child protection system is being run in the interests of social service providers and not ‘at risk’ children. In the name of ‘family preservation,’ state community service departments are leaving children for far too long with highly dysfunctional families and only remove them as a last r […]Jeremy Sammut
- RIP democracy says Brendan O’Neill February 3, 2012They say Athens was the birthplace of modern democracy. Well now it is the graveyard of democracy. In the name of saving the euro, Brussels bigwigs have proposed a system of external interference into Greece’s economic affairs and national sovereignty that is so far-reaching it would make Victorian colonialists beam with pride. The EU dream that libera […]Brendan ONeil
- Constitution folly February 2, 2012Australia is once again revisiting the core problems of the failed Indigenous policies championed by the Labor Party. The expert panel for constitutional reform to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution gave their recommendations to the federal government on 19 January. The Gillard government has pledged to hold a constit […]Editor
- Hardly fair to vulnerable children February 3, 2012
- IPA news
- Who'll drag us free of our heavy debt burden? February 2, 2012While most Australians were tanning themselves at the beach during their summer breaks, the federal opposition and the...
- Renewable energy rules lose traction January 31, 2012Energy policy in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries is spurred by concerns that gas...
- Danger of new thickets of gas regulation January 30, 2012Peter Roberts' "Globalised gas pricing has local costs" (Talking Point, January 30) applauds the commonwealth's National...
- Who'll drag us free of our heavy debt burden? February 2, 2012
He’s an economically ignorant, disingenuous political manipulator. Nothing unusual though.
Don’t leave anything out, Damian. I’m honestly offended that you take this line with our Prime Minister.
You left out douchebag.
————
They don’t want to deregulate. from the very first days Tanner was in he talked about how they could create better regulation, not less.
This government is worse than Whitlam’s. At least Whitlam’s cut tariffs.
You now have SwanDive talking about how patriotic it is to pay more tax.
“You now have SwanDive talking about how patriotic it is to pay more tax.”
I just caught the first wave of preparatory tax “reform” propaganda this evening (ABC). I hope the policy astute contributers to this blog NAIL THEM GOOD and make a stand on this.
Agorism is looking like a fine option.
You’ll get free market, socially liberal conservatives being willing to pay taxes to defeat an utterly evil enemy (e.g USSR). The taxes we pay and are scheduled to pay are utterly wasteful, paying for pet projects to stroke people’s ego’s.
It’s not even a matter of nationalisation vs the private sector. So much money has been wasted, that a lot of the increase in budget outlays in previous years would have been well received if it was used on real roads, real soldiers, real dams, real power grids etc.
NSW has the biggest budget ever and it cannot afford to build new power stations. Rudd has spent over 600 mln AUD on Aboriginal housing and not one house has been built. The stimulus package for community housing has seen a decrease in houses – they’ve knocked more down than they’ve built. Eight months on, they credit the Q1 and Q2 recovery on this money that has been wasted and has had no real results?
These guys make Hawke and Keating look like statesmen and political legends.
I understand where you are coming from Terje but it is a silly thing to pursue. As you all know there are different schools of thoughts within the libertarian ideals from the anarchists and anarcho-capitalists to the minarchists.
The title Minister for Deregulation is designed to satisfy the broad group of Libertarians and Liberals like those found here. I think you know that.
Also for those that saying its about more regulation, in some cases you are correct, but that is to ease the pain on the larger number of people that will feel it mostly due to no fault of their own. Or it could simply be putting the effective regulation in place before removing the ineffective.
In other cases, it is about deregulation but not NO regulation as it seems this place sometimes suggest but that is probably being misconstrued.
I think the goal of the office is to find the minimal effective regulation, although mistakes are made a long way as in any job, I would think the concept should suit the Minarchist libertarians more so than any other group.
Whilst with any school of thought they might not agree completely, they should have some truck with it. Failing that, it is nothing more than partisan bandwagon jumping.
If anything, I think Libertarians as a group need to be clear whether they mean deregulation (as in some regulation) or no regulation.
“If anything, I think Libertarians as a group need to be clear whether they mean deregulation (as in some regulation) or no regulation.”
Industry and commerce need to be ‘regulated’ in real time through the principles of property, contract, greed and fear.
Non-political institutions (associations, ratings agencies, private arbitration etc.) are able to perform far more competently then their political counterparts due to real time competitive forces and the profit/loss motive.