30 May 2008

Twelve month trends... part one

Speaking with my colleague at work, we have constructed a few salient points and thoughts around the next year's outlook. Whilst written with consideration to the Australian market, many of these are relevant to European, American and Asian readers as well.


Petrol


Petrol looks to be heading for AUS$2.00 litre plus. This will place enormous pressure on Rudd's darling "working families" and every other Australian. It will add the same financial strain as an interest rate rise to working Australians.

Food prices will be affected. And there will also be a flow on effect to the cost of building and subsequently housing. So.. with this in mind, we predict a move en-mass to alternative forms of transport when petrol goes above $2.00 a litre. Add to that increases in interest rates and the pinch is on! Therefore, we see pressures on rail, bus and tram infrastructure and an increase in pedal power and smaller vehicle use ie: motorbikes.

Potential solutions:
* Sheltered bike-paths are a good idea - easing reliance on cars during bad weather.
* Improving rail infrastructure - why is there no train running with the Mitcham-Frankston freeway. Someone needs to be jailed for that poor decision. Which brings us to Government and ministerial responsibility....! A bigger topic .. we'll come back to that later.

Fallout:
* Inner-city housing costs will increase - rentals;
* Almost all daily living costs will increase leading to inflationary and wage pressure.


Health

Obesity and lack of physical wellbeing (including fittness) is an enormous strain on the medical system; a system itself that is under pressure. Already surgery is restricted when smokers present to hospitals. A major improvement in fitness (both mental and physical) needs to be made for this country to operate optimally. Estimated to cost AUS$3.7 Billion in 2006 (Lynne Pezzullo - Access Economics), obesity is a major problem in this country. This together with mental disorders such as depression and dementia will place increasing burdens on the Australian community. Taxation will be directly affected but the real impact will be on the well-being of carers and the community spirit.

For the next 12 months I see changes ahead for people still on private health insurance. Hospital waiting times will be features as will health costs such as wages and advancing technologies and treatments. A revisit to the PBS and also the Australian-US Free Trade Agreement.

Potential solutions:
* A national emphasis on health and recognition of the cost to both business and the community will encourage businesses, government and ultimately individuals to take this issue more seriously.
* Making preventitive health not just for naturopath-attending tree huggers but for the wider community.

Fallout:
* The health of the Nation.


Social Reform - Governmental

A new Labour Government will be attempting to prove itself responsible economically. Expect little major media about big policies of consequence. Look out for the small things, eg: union wage negotiations, such as the recent push for teacher wage increases and tactical ways of hiding pay rises, such as with special bonus payments on signing agreements and the like.

Any wage pressures will creep up slowly and so to will other changes in areas such as: equal opportunity; aboriginal land rights with mining and stolen generation compensation; family law; civic access to internet; policing of industry and community and defence, both domestic and abroad.

Fallout:
I don't like what I see when labour govenments step in and start infringing on people's rights. Facebook groups saying, please Rudd don't censor the internet concern me...! Which brings us to...



Social Reform - Social Trends in buying

Gen Y is leading the charge on some areas, however Gen X and the Baby Boomers are just as, if not more so, leading the technology charge. This is possibly because they're more frugal with money and will go where costs are less, while at the same time they have the more established highly paid jobs with which to spend the money. (Of course in this sense, some Gen Y'ers are also doing quite well with the labour market being the way it is!) Hense more Australians are moving to buying more items off the internet.
With increased access to the asian manufacturing market, "middle men" (retail stores) are being cut out of the deal. MP3 players, flash drives, data storage devices, LCD TVs etc etc. are all in high demand. Huge mark ups on items produced on mass (it's been said 5% of the retail price is actually the earning of the factory in China) mean that the more "direct" one buys, the cheaper by far the purchase cost.

Generic brands and expected short-term longevity go hand in hand with the modern technology buyer. With new technological developments being released to the consumer market on a regular basis, obsoletion rates are increasing. The TV you purchased will be percieved to be out of date by the time the cheaper component breaks in a generic branded item. Hense, generic branded items have gained higher acceptance rates. Product quality and after sales support have also been let go by consumers in favour of the cheaper item.

There are interesting ramifications regarding the removal or lessening of 'buyers remorse' when purchasing over the net. The bottom line is, people aren't behaving the same way when purchasing over the net, so there are changes in purchase bahaviour

Fallout:
* Identity theft and on-line fraud will increase this year with an increase in consumer movement to internet purchasing.
* Balance of payments (trade) will be impacted with increased imports.
* People will be more likely to spend money on consumables with increased choice but not out with friends and family so much, more at home at their computer.
* Increased social isolation for those who are inclined to avoid social contact, while those who use technology to communicate will reval in showing the latest gizmos to each other.
* People will expect greater choice overall.
* Less buyer’s remorse and increased familiarity leads to greater consumption and spending over the internet.


Stay tuned in for part two...

23 May 2008

What is a civil liberty?

Infringements on civil liberties...
In Australia we have a unique problem of not being able to identify what rights we as a populate actually have. We lay claim to 'freedoms' however there are few mentions in law or constitution that rights are outlined. Consequently there are ample opportunities for freedoms to be deprived by any legal mechanism at all, be it federal or state legislation, or local council edict.

Here's the latest sign I saw outlining what we are not allowed to do whilst minding our lawful occasions.

Where is the celebrated Ned Kelly individualism that Australia supposedly celebrates. No where to be found. I don't defend criminal behaviour. For the most part graffiti is not art, it's bollocks. However we are not the individualistic, freedom loving country we'd like to be considered. Until, perhaps, we head overseas.

In fact the majority of people who pass this sign at Melbourne's Southern Cross railway station will simply accept that, yet again, they can't do something that for the most part they won't need to actually do. However, get in a car accident and catch a train to grab a can of touch up paint, or need to get a pressure pack to colour that model car, how are you going to get home - without being fined. Who's allowed to check your bag on a train, or at a railway station anyway??? Doesn't that need a search warrant or something? No, as it turns out suspicion of carrying something for purposes of creating graffiti is one of the reasons the Police can search you without a warrant in Victoria.

For more useful information about your rights and search:
http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/xfw/1881.htm
http://www.libertyvictoria.org.au/Home
http://www.liv.asn.au/

How about the right to silence as discussed in this article from the Age newspaper? We'll look at rights in the state of Victoria as compared with other states in an upcoming post.

16 May 2008

Calmer Police

These last few days further pressure has been applied to Christine Nixon, our Chief of Police, by the Police union to arm members of our force with semi-automatic weapons. Ms. Nixon speaks a lot of sense when advising caution in the delivery of such weapons to the police.
More police get killed or injured with their own weapons (often taken from them by unfriendlys) than other firearms.

For myself I have two views on the subject. One is based on my first impression of seeing a traffic policeman in Melbourne carrying a holstered gun. It was shock and a big question as to why? It appears to me to be completely unneccesary for police to carry fire-arms at all, as a matter of course. I can't carry one. Why should they.
It is about time that the police union realised they are not above the law, or the people they protect. They servce them, hopefully using intelligence, good faith, wisdom and bravery. All things that some police demonstrate every day, however qualities seldom seen in the union representing such officers.

The recent shooting in Melbourne in which a policeman was injured was said to have resulted in the policeman emptying his 6 rounds before diving for cover. A difference would have occured should he have had a semi-automatic weapon, we are told. Indeed I agree, it goes without question that more rounds would have been fired in the same amount of time, prior to the policeman diving for cover. A semi-automatic weapon does not improve firing accuracy, or public safety.

More to follow on this subject I'm sure....

01 May 2008

A Sic Country for Old Men: AWB Officers get it eventually

Largely left for investigators to follow-up, the torrid affair of the Australian Govenment run Australian Wheet Board's funding of Saddam Hussein's regime is back in the news.
(The Age. May 1, Business Day pp1 & 4)

YEAY!

It looks like Trevor Flugge and Andrew Lindberg will get their day in court after all. With any luck the Australian Federal Police will eventually work their way through the documents that lead to Alexander Downer and other Liberal Party former heavy-weights.

I always took a dim view of a government funding a dictator and then saying, "He's no good." It turned out that the only weapons Saddam had, were the ones we funded to the tune of $300 million, that wound up being aimed at our own troups.

Sadly though, I must point out that this is only coming out now because of ASIC's coercive powers - as stipulated under the ASIC act, section 19. Due to Australia's lack of civil rights, or a bill of rights, the individual can be coerced to give evidence. Not to the police, or federal police but to ASIC. I'm wondering how this can be justified.

I'd rather say this happened because the Attorney General had a gut full of corrupt behaviour within his own party and laid charges of either incompetance, or under the then new terrorism laws, funding a terrorist organisation (Saddam's party) but this was not to be. I'd like to say the Federal Police were on the ball with this.. and maybe with ASIC they have a way through the political mess to bring some people to account. It should have happened years ago.

The larger question is... will Trevor and Andrew follow up on their promise of dobbing in their old political masters and bringing them all down?
Some would say that the Liberal Party couldn't get much lower right now, however I feel that some old polies have yet to reach the rock-bottom that matched they're ethical standards of the day.

Lastly I see the old prosecutor of Guantanamo has fessed up that ol' Hicks wasn't the big fry that Howard and company said he was. No kidding!

Waddaya know, two of the Howard Governments most shameful actions highlighted in newspapers this week. Their must be a Labor man in the house.

What's In a Bulb?


Hello Mr Turnbull and fellow Australians.

I'm a conservationist. I believe in saving water and rainwater tanks (even back when my local council deemed them to be illegal - Whitehorse Council!); recycling - especially composting; growing your own veggies and alternative energy sources. So... why do I have a problem with the proposed laws against the incandescent light bulb?

There are some reasonably under-reported (in the commercial media) but well known problems with the mercury content of energy saving light bulbs (see http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind1.htm for details) and links.

My concerns are two fold:
  1. The government again appears to be making laws to restrict my freedom to chose a type of product. They are proposing to do this for the good of the environment but frankly I trust my own ability to make a decision on this above that of a beurocrat or another environmentalist.It's interfering with my freedoms.
  2. This appears to be another example of poor homework leading to less than adequate decision making. I'd like to know a few things about the new compact fluorescent bulbs:

Do they really save energy?

Sure, at the user end they have the deal reasonably well proven. a) they last longer and b) they consume less electricity. However how much energy does it take to make one? It's the build end of the equation that I can't seem to find some facts upon. I believe this is because of where they are made.In China power costs (especially coal costs) and labour costs are not the same as they are in Australia. So to find out how much energy is required to build 10,000 incandescentlight bulbs, as compared with 10,000 compact fluorescent bulbs is hard to tell in ideal conditions however economies of energy are different (and changing) in China as compared to most capitalist countries, so problems arise in calculating the costs applied to:

  • electricty to shape and make the product,
  • man hours, and
  • materials to build the bulbs.

Are they energy (or environmentally) efficient at the disposal end? Or to put it in simple terms
Are they safe, or more safe than incandescentlight bulbs?
As I mentioned at the start, it is known that there is some mercury content in the new compact fluorescent bulbs.

In sum, before shooting from the hip and applying laws to a populace: know the facts, check the fine print, let the public know and then let us decide. If it's in our best interests (saves the environment, saves energy and money) we'll switch of our own accord. After all isn't that what a market economy is all about?