HN Nicholls & ALS Friedman dinner: labour market reform
Come and join the Hon Peter Reith and Professor Judith Sloan for dinner as they discuss labour market reform at the Kookaburra Cafe on Wednesday the 15th of February.
This ALS Friedman dinner will be co-hosted by the newly formed Queensland branch of the HR Nicholls Society, chaired by Graeme Haycroft.
When? 7pm, Wednesday 15th of February
Where? Kookaburra Cafe: 280 Given Terrace, Brisbane
What? Pizza, ribs, salad, chocolate cake & good debate
Who? Hon Peter Reith, Prof Judith Sloan & others
Topic? Labour market reform
Price? $30 ($25 for ALS students)
You can RSVP by e-mailing john.humphreys99@gmail.com or by joining the facebook event. This is an open event, so please feel free to invite friends, but you must RSVP to ensure a place at the dinner.
=======================
About the speakers:
Peter Reith has degrees in law and economics and worked as a solicitor before entering politics. He served as shadow Treasurer for the Liberal Party under John Hewson and was involved with the “fightback” policy document. In government, Peter served as the Minister for Workplace Relations and then Minister for Defence, until retiring in 2001.
Judith Sloan has 1st class honours in economics, and two masters degrees (from Melbourne & LSE). She has worked previously as the Director of the National Institute of Labour Studies, Professor of Labour Studies at Flinders, and a Commissioner at the Productivity Commission & the Australian Fair Pay Commission. Judith is currently an Honorary Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne and a contributing economics editor at The Australian.
Defending death threats
I believe in free speech. I mean — I really believe in free speech.
That doesn’t just mean that I support Andrew Bolt’s right to say whatever he likes about aboriginals, irrespective of who gets offended. And it doesn’t just mean that I oppose all censorship, such as the banning of Mein Kampf in some European countries. It also means I oppose defamation laws, and I believe you should be allowed to say anything about anybody, whether true or false, for whatever reason. It even means I believe that tobacco companies should be free to advertise.
I believe attempts to limit speech “for the public good” will mostly do more harm than good, and that messy and imperfect freedom is better than neat and tidy (but even more imperfect) government control.
Today I was discussing another of the controversial areas of free speech. Yesterday, that crazy old kook of the blogosphere grumpy-Graeme Bird wrote an eloquent rant aimed at me, where he said:
“He must die. John Humphreys must die so that this country can live. He has betrayed this country too many times and he must no longer live … This is too important a subject to let John Humphreys live. Where does the lying end. I’m convinced that it only ends when John Humphreys is cold and stiff … HE MUST DIE, FOR THE LYING TO END. AND THIS IS A LIFE OR DEATH MATTER … I am accusing Humphreys of being a knowing traitor … SO MY NEW CLAIM IS THAT HUMPHREYS WILL NEVER STOP LYING. THAT HE WILL NEVER BE A SAFE PAIR OF HANDS. THAT HE WILL ALWAYS BE A TRAITOR. WHILE HE YET LIVES.”
My first death threat. Now I know that I’m important. A few friends have suggested I take it seriously, and one kindly offered to call his federal police friend who would call Graeme… but I nixed that idea. For his part, Graeme says that it is not a death threat because he doesn’t plan on doing any killing himself. That’s good to hear. But another friend pointed out that the above sentiments might still be considered incitement to violence… which got me thinking about free speech.
Ron Paul & foreign policy
A lot of people like the free-market message of Ron Paul, but worry about his non-interventionist foreign policy. If you are one of these people, then this video is for you…
The unforgivable stupidity of the anti-banking “libertarians”
At the recent Mises Seminar in Sydney there was a speech by Chris Leithner that explicitly called for the banning of fractional reserve (FR) banking. Leithner and other Australian libertarians (including Michael Conaghan & Benjamin Marks from Liberty Australia) follow the lead of some American libertarians (Walter Block, HH Hoppe, JG Hulsmann — BHH) and argue that FR-banking is fraud and should be banned, and further that it is economically damaging and causes inflation.
These two issues need to be addressed separately. The first is a deontological issue about whether FR-banking is consistent with a free world. The second is a consequentialist issue about whether FR-banking leads to bad outcomes. It is possible that FR-banking is consistent with freedom and yet leads to bad outcomes, and then those libertarians who accept the “non-aggression principle” would have to tolerate FR-banking even if they don’t like those outcomes. But before delving into that debate, it is worthwhile quickly explaining what we are actually talking about with FR-banking.
Vaults, loans & banks
Anything can be money. In jail (and POW camps) cigarettes have been used as money. In the early years of Australian settlement, rum was used as money. In some small island nations, shells have been used as money. Through much of history, precious metals (especially gold and silver) have been used as money. And today, the most common sort of money is “fiat” paper money that is created by government but is intrinsically worthless (ie it has no value except as money). This is not the place to go into a debate about what should be money or who should decide, but the important point is simply that there is some original supply of money that then becomes the standard “unit of account” and “store of value” and “medium of exchange” in an economy. For the sake of this discussion, this original supply will be called “base money” and in Australia it is created by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA).
