.gif)
Posts
A modern parable or a moral dilemma....maybe neither?
Fancy having a short journey to make on your good horse, it's strong and proud and you ride it hard but find, through nobody's fault, that the journey was to be over a much longer distance than originally thought.
You look after yourself along the way but neglect to feed and water your horse on the journey and instead constantly promise it a rich feed when you reach lush pastures and you protest this promise this often.
As the journey lengthens and the end seems very distant, out of guilt or supposed interest in the welfare of your horse, you frequently offer it the opportunity to run away but your trusty steed never does out of its dumb loyalty and faith in you, its master; it feels it has no choice. That's who and what it is and it is integral to its great heart and stamina, attributes that have got you this far.
You ride your horse, your great friend and loyal companion, until it collapses and dies. You are yourself now stranded in the desert and though you have fed and watered yourself well to-date the way forward looks bleak, you have no friend and no transport. Sure the horse was seduced by the promise of luxurious pastures but mirage-like they came to nothing and now you are both like to perish alongside each other. All a bit grim....wherein lies the lesson?
Should the horse have abandoned it master when it had the chance, giving itself the opportunity to sustain itself, either running free on the prairies or with a new master that understood its worth or should you, the master, have realized that it was in your own best interests to succour the the horse along the way and thereby increasing the chances of you both surviving? Perhaps you feel that you have broken no contract with your horse, you had every intention to let your horse feed richly on the the green pastures at the final destination. Perhaps however being right and justified does not always produce the most sensible decision or indeed the most moral one either.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Here's a little piece I posted on Wangle re Wolf Whisltes
Only idiots wolf whistle and whilst 99.9% are men it’s true it is thankfully very few men after all and on behalf of the vast majority I reject being tarred with the same proverbial brush.
Not only does does this behavior run the risk of offending the woman in question it shows the offender to be an aggressive purveyor of their own neanderthal attitudes and bad manners. Perhaps women should not so much be offended but feel sorry for the sad perpetrator, they’re obviously not too bright and poorly tutored/poor role models. That’s no excuse of course, there’s such a thing as free will and self-control.
Sure most men admire many women as they walk on past, not to do so would be both counter to inherent programming and unappreciative of beauty and grace. Also all human beings like to be liked, liked to be admired so that’s only natural.
Sure many women dress to make themselves look their best and that inevitably means they look attractive but they have every right to do so with out being verbally and so ineffectually hit-on/accosted by a wolf whistle. Above all it lacks good manners and thankfully there are more gentlemen out there than some might suggest.
Not only does does this behavior run the risk of offending the woman in question it shows the offender to be an aggressive purveyor of their own neanderthal attitudes and bad manners. Perhaps women should not so much be offended but feel sorry for the sad perpetrator, they’re obviously not too bright and poorly tutored/poor role models. That’s no excuse of course, there’s such a thing as free will and self-control.
Sure most men admire many women as they walk on past, not to do so would be both counter to inherent programming and unappreciative of beauty and grace. Also all human beings like to be liked, liked to be admired so that’s only natural.
Sure many women dress to make themselves look their best and that inevitably means they look attractive but they have every right to do so with out being verbally and so ineffectually hit-on/accosted by a wolf whistle. Above all it lacks good manners and thankfully there are more gentlemen out there than some might suggest.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Pro-choicers vs Pro-Lifers
This is in response ot a piece on www.wangle.com.au today which had a real go at Peter Abetz MLA, I was moved to respond:
Always a dangerous topic, especially for a man but I think your challenge to “conservative” men is fair enough, in part at least: it is impossible for a man to really know how it is for a woman with the excruciating decision ahead of her in the context of considering abortion or indeed the aftermath.
A couple of things intrigue me though. Many embryos do not implant and thus do not become a foetus. But at what stage does a foetus become a baby? At what stage does a feotus become a human being? I truly don’t know the answer to this question but it always disturbs me when proponents of choice use words euphemistically to divorce that which is being aborted from humanity. Perhaps pro-lifers err in that same way at the other extreme.
Another issue that disturbs me is the question and language of “birth control.” Certainly abortion is birth control in the sense that a live healthy baby is not the result. Without getting into all the highly-argued and mostly-valid arguments re rape and dangers to the physical or mental health of women I think there is a need to limit the use of the term “birth control” and use something more akin to “pregnancy control.” Language is very powerful and a closer attachment of the consequences of unprotected sex at the outset might change some mindsets. Not much hope I know because of the very human aspect of getting carried away in this context.
And therein lies my challenge to the writer. I would hazard a guess that a substantial number of abortions are a function of it just not being the right time, not convenient just now and possibly not the desired father to have a baby just now. Where is the responsibility of one’s own action there?
If I may quote two of the paragraphs of the Wangle contributor:
“It is obviously not concern or compassion for women who experience an unintended pregnancy and it is obviously not personal experience of an unintended pregnancy!
Why can’t they trust women as autonomous, intelligent and competent human beings to make a decision about something as important as whether or not to terminate a pregnancy?”
Sure it obviously take “two to tango” but I don’t think is is a lack of compassion for women by Peter Abetz and those of similar thought but I do think that they also have a very real compassion for the unnecessary loss of life because so-called “autonomous, intelligent and competent human beings” (both men and women) have not been that smart after all as to “tango” without thought or responsibility for their combined actions resulting in “unintended pregnancy.”
Undoubtedly women get the toughest yards here, both physically and emotionally but many a man has also been devastated by the abortion of their child.
Between the “Pro-lifers” and the “Pro-choicers” I am bound to make no friends at all on either side and whilst I do not pretend to have the answers I am sure there is a middle ground in there somewhere.
Cheers, Jonathan.
Always a dangerous topic, especially for a man but I think your challenge to “conservative” men is fair enough, in part at least: it is impossible for a man to really know how it is for a woman with the excruciating decision ahead of her in the context of considering abortion or indeed the aftermath.
A couple of things intrigue me though. Many embryos do not implant and thus do not become a foetus. But at what stage does a foetus become a baby? At what stage does a feotus become a human being? I truly don’t know the answer to this question but it always disturbs me when proponents of choice use words euphemistically to divorce that which is being aborted from humanity. Perhaps pro-lifers err in that same way at the other extreme.
Another issue that disturbs me is the question and language of “birth control.” Certainly abortion is birth control in the sense that a live healthy baby is not the result. Without getting into all the highly-argued and mostly-valid arguments re rape and dangers to the physical or mental health of women I think there is a need to limit the use of the term “birth control” and use something more akin to “pregnancy control.” Language is very powerful and a closer attachment of the consequences of unprotected sex at the outset might change some mindsets. Not much hope I know because of the very human aspect of getting carried away in this context.
And therein lies my challenge to the writer. I would hazard a guess that a substantial number of abortions are a function of it just not being the right time, not convenient just now and possibly not the desired father to have a baby just now. Where is the responsibility of one’s own action there?
If I may quote two of the paragraphs of the Wangle contributor:
“It is obviously not concern or compassion for women who experience an unintended pregnancy and it is obviously not personal experience of an unintended pregnancy!
Why can’t they trust women as autonomous, intelligent and competent human beings to make a decision about something as important as whether or not to terminate a pregnancy?”
Sure it obviously take “two to tango” but I don’t think is is a lack of compassion for women by Peter Abetz and those of similar thought but I do think that they also have a very real compassion for the unnecessary loss of life because so-called “autonomous, intelligent and competent human beings” (both men and women) have not been that smart after all as to “tango” without thought or responsibility for their combined actions resulting in “unintended pregnancy.”
Undoubtedly women get the toughest yards here, both physically and emotionally but many a man has also been devastated by the abortion of their child.
Between the “Pro-lifers” and the “Pro-choicers” I am bound to make no friends at all on either side and whilst I do not pretend to have the answers I am sure there is a middle ground in there somewhere.
Cheers, Jonathan.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Refugees/asylum seekers
If we are seen to be a soft touch more people will attempt to enter illegally. It is simple as that. It is not a matter of how few have attempted this so far but more about strong borders as borders can and have collapsed elsewhere. Good or bad you only have to look at Europe to know that is true. Soft borders only encourage the people smugglers and they put people's lives at risk, again look at Europe.
Some quote numbers about numbers of boats pre or post a change of policy, others state the numbers of people entering illegally compared to the much greater number of legal immigrants. But what would be the case if we didn't set our own rules?
Australia has a very proud record of general immigration and refugee resettlement and it's one that should be valued and sustained. We need not "beg pardon" to anyone and we need not carry the corporate guilt complex so prevalent in Western society. We need not beat ourselves up or be "shamed" into something we don't want.
Australia has claim to be proud, a claim to be compassionate and is entitled to its sovereignty.
Before the rise of "ethnic" multiculturalism we just had Australians and New Australians and with every new arrival some of the the older New Australians just became Australian and what a great thing that was. Even our indigenous brethren were new arrivals once. We are an immigrant nation and those that want put up the barriers generally are those that are most exercised by illegal arrivals. Perhaps they need to reflect a little more deeply about their own heritage.
However, if you want to join a club you have to obey their rules, if you don't like the rules, don't join. Before any accusations of pedantry or "redneckiness", I am all in favour of high immigration and a diverse one at that. Remembering the root word I am also in favour of giving "refuge" to bona fide refugees or asylum seekers but it has to be on our terms.
Best regards, Jonathan.
Some quote numbers about numbers of boats pre or post a change of policy, others state the numbers of people entering illegally compared to the much greater number of legal immigrants. But what would be the case if we didn't set our own rules?
Australia has a very proud record of general immigration and refugee resettlement and it's one that should be valued and sustained. We need not "beg pardon" to anyone and we need not carry the corporate guilt complex so prevalent in Western society. We need not beat ourselves up or be "shamed" into something we don't want.
Australia has claim to be proud, a claim to be compassionate and is entitled to its sovereignty.
Before the rise of "ethnic" multiculturalism we just had Australians and New Australians and with every new arrival some of the the older New Australians just became Australian and what a great thing that was. Even our indigenous brethren were new arrivals once. We are an immigrant nation and those that want put up the barriers generally are those that are most exercised by illegal arrivals. Perhaps they need to reflect a little more deeply about their own heritage.
However, if you want to join a club you have to obey their rules, if you don't like the rules, don't join. Before any accusations of pedantry or "redneckiness", I am all in favour of high immigration and a diverse one at that. Remembering the root word I am also in favour of giving "refuge" to bona fide refugees or asylum seekers but it has to be on our terms.
Best regards, Jonathan.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Get the "good oil" from Senator Cormann on today's changes from the Government
Today Julia Gillard announced a series of changes to Labor’s deeply flawed super tax on mining. This is after the mismanagement and incompetence of this high spending, high taxing, big debt and deficit Labor administration has already done enormous damage to our economy.
Clearly Julia Gillard was desperate for a political fix. She desperately needed a political fix because the next federal election is getting closer and closer.
The question has to be asked though – would any ‘negotiations’ have happened at all if it wasn’t for the election fast approaching? What will happen after the election?
Given the track record of the Rudd/Gillard Labor government over the past three years – the $2.5 billion tax grab on our North West Shelf gas project in 2008, the failed attempt at a $120 billion great big new (Emissions Tax) in 2009 and the now failed attempt at a $12 billion Super Tax on Mining in 2010 – does anyone really believe that anything will change after the election?
Julia Gillard was part of all the decisions over the past three years – first as part of the so called ‘Gang of Four’ and now as the PM. This Labor government has sought to impose massive tax increases (with a nasty ideological bent to them) every single year they’ve been in power. Once the election is out of the way, what do you think will happen?
LABOR’S ANNOUNCEMENT:
If you’re interested in the detail you can find it here: http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2010/055.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=&DocType=
You will note that the Orwellian reference to ‘super profits’ has gone (even though the profits from which the tax is proposed to apply has been increased by 7%).
In summary:
- the Government has decided to replace the so called Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) with a Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT);
- unlike the RSPT, the MRRT will only apply to iron ore and coal, with the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax to be extended to onshore oil and gas projects (where at present it only applies to offshore oil and gas projects – ie those in Commonwealth waters – incidentally with the exception of the North West Shelf gas project, which will now also be included);
- the MRRT rate is proposed to be 30% and, depending on various conditions it is supposed to apply to profits at 7% above the long term bond rate (so from 12-13%)
The government is asserting that they can do all of this, while revenue will only go down by $1.5 billion (from $12 billion).
THIS NEW TAX ON OUR RESOURCES IS STILL BAD FOR WA!
Colin Barnett has already pointed out that there may be constitutional issues involved, given that this is a federal tax on State owned resources. Value based State Royalties ensure that the people of Western Australia get a fair return for their State owned resources.
Australia benefits because increased revenue from royalties for Western Australia means a reduction in our share of GST revenue allocated through the Commonwealth Grants Commission and consequently and increase in the share of GST revenue going to other States.
The suggestion in the Henry Review that State royalties should be replaced by a profits based resource rent tax would mean those mining ventures not making a profit would get access to our resources for free. Where is the fair return for the community in that?
The Commonwealth has said in the past that they will refund State royalties – though the detail of all the in’s and out’s of that under this new announcement are still a bit unclear.
I wonder how much of that $10.5 billion will be coming from Western Australia? And how much of it will come back to WA after it has made its way to Canberra?
THE REALITY IS THAT Labor’s proposal for a great big new tax on mining has caused great damage to our economy. Their mismanagement and incompetence has created two months of uncertainty, which has cost investment and jobs and has trashed our international reputation. It was this bad Rudd/Gillard Labor government which created this problem in the first place. Julia Gillard was centrally involved in the original mining tax decision. As Treasurer, Wayne Swan was a key architect of the tax.
This was a mess of a policy and Labor now wants to claim credit for abandoning its own destructive, unwarranted tax. This is no way to run a country.
OUR POSITION
-
- The Coalition opposes this new tax on mining. It is still a great big new tax. It is still a bad tax.
The Government wants a new tax. We don’t.
- In any form, this is a bad tax. It damages our economy and destroys our global reputation as an investment destination, costing projects and jobs.
- The fact remains that a $12 billion tax grab has turned into a $10.5 billion tax grab – a $10.5 billion slug on industry and jobs.
- This new tax proposal will still have significant additional impacts on the small and medium mining sector.
-
- Julia Gillard is proposing to give Australia one of the most complicated resource taxing regimes in the world.
There is a serious question mark about what this will do to the budget bottom line. Labor should release the Treasury modeling immediately so it can be properly scrutinized. They should also disclose the impact these changes will have on different types of businesses across the mining sector, such as on smaller miners and different minerals, and the broader economy.
Let me know your thoughts.
Best wishes
Mathias Cormann
Senator for Western Australia
Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training
Level 38 Exchange Plaza, 2 The Esplanade PERTH WA 6000 | GPO Box B58 Perth WA 6838 |
PER 08 9325 4227 | CBR 02 6277 3457 | senator.cormann@aph.gov.au|www.youtube.com/mathiascormann|
www.mathiascormann.com.au/www.twitter.com/mathiascormann
Clearly Julia Gillard was desperate for a political fix. She desperately needed a political fix because the next federal election is getting closer and closer.
The question has to be asked though – would any ‘negotiations’ have happened at all if it wasn’t for the election fast approaching? What will happen after the election?
Given the track record of the Rudd/Gillard Labor government over the past three years – the $2.5 billion tax grab on our North West Shelf gas project in 2008, the failed attempt at a $120 billion great big new (Emissions Tax) in 2009 and the now failed attempt at a $12 billion Super Tax on Mining in 2010 – does anyone really believe that anything will change after the election?
Julia Gillard was part of all the decisions over the past three years – first as part of the so called ‘Gang of Four’ and now as the PM. This Labor government has sought to impose massive tax increases (with a nasty ideological bent to them) every single year they’ve been in power. Once the election is out of the way, what do you think will happen?
LABOR’S ANNOUNCEMENT:
If you’re interested in the detail you can find it here: http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2010/055.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=&DocType=
You will note that the Orwellian reference to ‘super profits’ has gone (even though the profits from which the tax is proposed to apply has been increased by 7%).
In summary:
- the Government has decided to replace the so called Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) with a Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT);
- unlike the RSPT, the MRRT will only apply to iron ore and coal, with the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax to be extended to onshore oil and gas projects (where at present it only applies to offshore oil and gas projects – ie those in Commonwealth waters – incidentally with the exception of the North West Shelf gas project, which will now also be included);
- the MRRT rate is proposed to be 30% and, depending on various conditions it is supposed to apply to profits at 7% above the long term bond rate (so from 12-13%)
The government is asserting that they can do all of this, while revenue will only go down by $1.5 billion (from $12 billion).
THIS NEW TAX ON OUR RESOURCES IS STILL BAD FOR WA!
Colin Barnett has already pointed out that there may be constitutional issues involved, given that this is a federal tax on State owned resources. Value based State Royalties ensure that the people of Western Australia get a fair return for their State owned resources.
Australia benefits because increased revenue from royalties for Western Australia means a reduction in our share of GST revenue allocated through the Commonwealth Grants Commission and consequently and increase in the share of GST revenue going to other States.
The suggestion in the Henry Review that State royalties should be replaced by a profits based resource rent tax would mean those mining ventures not making a profit would get access to our resources for free. Where is the fair return for the community in that?
The Commonwealth has said in the past that they will refund State royalties – though the detail of all the in’s and out’s of that under this new announcement are still a bit unclear.
I wonder how much of that $10.5 billion will be coming from Western Australia? And how much of it will come back to WA after it has made its way to Canberra?
THE REALITY IS THAT Labor’s proposal for a great big new tax on mining has caused great damage to our economy. Their mismanagement and incompetence has created two months of uncertainty, which has cost investment and jobs and has trashed our international reputation. It was this bad Rudd/Gillard Labor government which created this problem in the first place. Julia Gillard was centrally involved in the original mining tax decision. As Treasurer, Wayne Swan was a key architect of the tax.
This was a mess of a policy and Labor now wants to claim credit for abandoning its own destructive, unwarranted tax. This is no way to run a country.
OUR POSITION
-
- The Coalition opposes this new tax on mining. It is still a great big new tax. It is still a bad tax.
The Government wants a new tax. We don’t.
- In any form, this is a bad tax. It damages our economy and destroys our global reputation as an investment destination, costing projects and jobs.
- The fact remains that a $12 billion tax grab has turned into a $10.5 billion tax grab – a $10.5 billion slug on industry and jobs.
- This new tax proposal will still have significant additional impacts on the small and medium mining sector.
-
- Julia Gillard is proposing to give Australia one of the most complicated resource taxing regimes in the world.
There is a serious question mark about what this will do to the budget bottom line. Labor should release the Treasury modeling immediately so it can be properly scrutinized. They should also disclose the impact these changes will have on different types of businesses across the mining sector, such as on smaller miners and different minerals, and the broader economy.
Let me know your thoughts.
Best wishes
Mathias Cormann
Senator for Western Australia
Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training
Level 38 Exchange Plaza, 2 The Esplanade PERTH WA 6000 | GPO Box B58 Perth WA 6838 |
PER 08 9325 4227 | CBR 02 6277 3457 | senator.cormann@aph.gov.au|www.youtube.com/mathiascormann|
www.mathiascormann.com.au/www.twitter.com/mathiascormann
Monday, June 28, 2010
Crusaders for Western Australia take corporeal form
Crusaders for Western Australia take corporeal form
Many thanks to all those involved with the inaugural event of "Crusaders...." last Wednesday evening, we have come out of the ether and taken corporeal form!
We were 60 strong and I am very grateful to those who attended and delighted with the warm and enthusiastic response to the concept. Our four speakers communicated their message with real clarity and measured passion and our support for the Global Good Foundation, though modest, was very real.
As a platform for showcasing innovators to other entrepreneurs it now "has legs" and the the coming 12 months will see another five opportunities. We have dropped some pebbles in a few ponds and '"you never know'" what may come of it.
Many thanks and kindest regards, Jonathan.
Many thanks to all those involved with the inaugural event of "Crusaders...." last Wednesday evening, we have come out of the ether and taken corporeal form!
We were 60 strong and I am very grateful to those who attended and delighted with the warm and enthusiastic response to the concept. Our four speakers communicated their message with real clarity and measured passion and our support for the Global Good Foundation, though modest, was very real.
As a platform for showcasing innovators to other entrepreneurs it now "has legs" and the the coming 12 months will see another five opportunities. We have dropped some pebbles in a few ponds and '"you never know'" what may come of it.
Many thanks and kindest regards, Jonathan.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Beware honeyed words that cloak a darker meaning/worrying mindset.
"I believe in a Government that rewards those who work the hardest, not those who complain the loudest.I believe in a Government that rewards those who, day in and day out, work in our factories and on our farms, in our mines and in our mills, in our classrooms and in our hospitals, that rewards that hard work, decency and effort." Julia Gillard, 24/6/10
On first hearing/reading those words might sound like good honest and perfectly acceptable sentiments BUT and it's a big BUT because it is illuminating in the extreme as it clearly displays the socialist mindset.
I ask you, why should the Government be rewarding anybody? Shouldn't it just be serving us....it works for us after all, not us for it! In my view Government should just in the business of facilitating business and getting out of the way of free enterprise, ensuring level playing fields, providing safety nets and other services we the people determine it should supply. We should not be supplicants and servants awaiting our Master's rewards. Beware honeyed words!
On first hearing/reading those words might sound like good honest and perfectly acceptable sentiments BUT and it's a big BUT because it is illuminating in the extreme as it clearly displays the socialist mindset.
I ask you, why should the Government be rewarding anybody? Shouldn't it just be serving us....it works for us after all, not us for it! In my view Government should just in the business of facilitating business and getting out of the way of free enterprise, ensuring level playing fields, providing safety nets and other services we the people determine it should supply. We should not be supplicants and servants awaiting our Master's rewards. Beware honeyed words!
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Don’t bother sending it on to any grasshoppers because they wouldn’t understand it, anyway.
This came to me via the email today, I can't ascribe it to an author, i don't know who the genius is but I'd sure like to.
ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER
This one is a little different.... Two Different Versions.... Two Different Morals
OLD VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away..
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.
Channels 7, 9 and 10,the ABC and SBS show up to provide pictures of the shivering
grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
Australia is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of
such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.' Acorn stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Cardinal George Pell then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
Prime Minister Rudd condemns the ant and blames John Howard, Robert Menzies, Capt
James Cook, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight. Bob Brown exclaims in an interview on Today Tonight that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, Labor in conjunction with the Greens draft the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retrospective to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and having nothing left to pay his retrospective taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government
and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY:
Be careful how you vote in 2011.
I’ve published this to you because I believe that you are an ant – not a grasshopper! Make sure that you pass this on to other ants. Don’t bother sending it on to ny grasshoppers because they wouldn’t understand it, anyway.
ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER
This one is a little different.... Two Different Versions.... Two Different Morals
OLD VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away..
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.
Channels 7, 9 and 10,the ABC and SBS show up to provide pictures of the shivering
grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
Australia is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of
such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.' Acorn stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Cardinal George Pell then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
Prime Minister Rudd condemns the ant and blames John Howard, Robert Menzies, Capt
James Cook, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight. Bob Brown exclaims in an interview on Today Tonight that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, Labor in conjunction with the Greens draft the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retrospective to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and having nothing left to pay his retrospective taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government
and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY:
Be careful how you vote in 2011.
I’ve published this to you because I believe that you are an ant – not a grasshopper! Make sure that you pass this on to other ants. Don’t bother sending it on to ny grasshoppers because they wouldn’t understand it, anyway.
Corporate Inertia , Fiefdoms and Status Quo
Corporate inertia, fiefdoms and the status quo - words to strike fear into the very heart of any innovator.
When bureaucracies become so large, despite being peopled by highly intelligent and committed employees, the structures themselves work against the best interests of the organization. Despite corporate commitment at the top end to constant improvements and the refining of processes the actuality can be very different when "choke points" are controlled by those for whom it is in their best interests to sustain current practice. Lip-service is paid to the corporate philosophy but real adherence is declined, deferred and ultimately denied.
Companies frequently seek to "treat the symptoms" of a problem without even acknowledging the fact of the "disease" and thus fail to make the leap of thought as to why they actually do the things they do. They can become highly efficient in ameliorating a problem without fixing the underlying cause.
Sound familiar? I am sure it is, especially when we just stop and think about it. I am personally involved in a number of situations where the innovations clearly changes the game, reduces costs, improves productivity, is easier to use than not and produce highly impressive triple bottom-lines. Can we get these products into the Western Australian market? I wish! What's not to like?
Change of course, upsetting the status quo, reducing areas of influence, altering thought processes and actually, Heaven Forbid, taking a valid decision; often not even requiring anything like a courageous decision. I had thought of 2009 as the year of the "great non-decision" where executives through all the difficulties of the GFC thought it better not to take any decisions at all. I must admit I thought this would unwind considerably in 2010 but now I'm not so sure...though I hope I am very wrong in that reassessment.
This is not just another rant born of frustration as many of you will know I am trying to do something positive about it with "Crusaders for Western Australia." Taking it back to basics, encouraging innovators to do business with other innovators and you would be mighty welcome to join me on this crusade!
Cheers, Jonathan.
When bureaucracies become so large, despite being peopled by highly intelligent and committed employees, the structures themselves work against the best interests of the organization. Despite corporate commitment at the top end to constant improvements and the refining of processes the actuality can be very different when "choke points" are controlled by those for whom it is in their best interests to sustain current practice. Lip-service is paid to the corporate philosophy but real adherence is declined, deferred and ultimately denied.
Companies frequently seek to "treat the symptoms" of a problem without even acknowledging the fact of the "disease" and thus fail to make the leap of thought as to why they actually do the things they do. They can become highly efficient in ameliorating a problem without fixing the underlying cause.
Sound familiar? I am sure it is, especially when we just stop and think about it. I am personally involved in a number of situations where the innovations clearly changes the game, reduces costs, improves productivity, is easier to use than not and produce highly impressive triple bottom-lines. Can we get these products into the Western Australian market? I wish! What's not to like?
Change of course, upsetting the status quo, reducing areas of influence, altering thought processes and actually, Heaven Forbid, taking a valid decision; often not even requiring anything like a courageous decision. I had thought of 2009 as the year of the "great non-decision" where executives through all the difficulties of the GFC thought it better not to take any decisions at all. I must admit I thought this would unwind considerably in 2010 but now I'm not so sure...though I hope I am very wrong in that reassessment.
This is not just another rant born of frustration as many of you will know I am trying to do something positive about it with "Crusaders for Western Australia." Taking it back to basics, encouraging innovators to do business with other innovators and you would be mighty welcome to join me on this crusade!
Cheers, Jonathan.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Ps She came second in the U10's
I mentioned a singing eisteddfod yesterday, well it was the Fremantle Eisteddfod and my nine year old gained a Second in the U10's and was just a couple of marks off the winners (and still with 2 x 80%)in two U13 contests. Even better without cajoling, using Skype last night, she shared one of her songs with her Nanna and Aunty in Belfast.
Those profits wouldn't even exist is there wasn't the possibility of an adequate return
Watching Q&A tonight I was struck by the fervour for the argument being somewhat disingenuously put out by the Rudd Govt that the Mining Super profits tax will ensure all Australians get a fair return for non-replaceable assets.
There is little recognition in the debate about mining companies and so-called super profits that those profits wouldn't even exist is there wasn't the possibility of an adequate return to compensate for the huge risks involved in exploration and production let alone participating in world markets. Sure the profits are large at present in raw terms but has anyone suggested looking at profits in terms of returns on the investment involved? I'd love to see some of our politicians argue over appropriates levels of ROI instead of rates of taxation or returns over the long term bond rate.
And another thing, perhaps a touch esoteric for some, but whilst there are those prepared to talk about rebating for royalties there seems to be little understanding of the factual realities of our federation. The six sovereign states that joined together to voluntarily form the Commonwealth of Australia never ceded their ownership of natural resources to the Federal Government. Our resources do not "belong" to the people of Australia as represented by the Federal Government, they belong to the people of our respective States and that's why State Government can, do and will continue to exact royalties.
Someone might kindly inform me if I'm wrong but I'd also suggest the PRRT argument is also a furphy as it pertains to profits on oil and gas from Federal waters not on State land.
Whatever the arguments for and against Mr Rudd's "great big new tax" (and there you have a clear statement of my position; some would call it bias but being biased does not necessarily mean one is wrong) on economic and even social grounds it must, in my view, be seen off as it is a direct attack on the sovereignty of our States. Many would say "who cares" but like with all freedoms hard won, they can easily lost but so very hard to regain. Let's not lose our freedoms in part from an ignorance of our history and country's foundation.
Best wishes, Jonathan.
There is little recognition in the debate about mining companies and so-called super profits that those profits wouldn't even exist is there wasn't the possibility of an adequate return to compensate for the huge risks involved in exploration and production let alone participating in world markets. Sure the profits are large at present in raw terms but has anyone suggested looking at profits in terms of returns on the investment involved? I'd love to see some of our politicians argue over appropriates levels of ROI instead of rates of taxation or returns over the long term bond rate.
And another thing, perhaps a touch esoteric for some, but whilst there are those prepared to talk about rebating for royalties there seems to be little understanding of the factual realities of our federation. The six sovereign states that joined together to voluntarily form the Commonwealth of Australia never ceded their ownership of natural resources to the Federal Government. Our resources do not "belong" to the people of Australia as represented by the Federal Government, they belong to the people of our respective States and that's why State Government can, do and will continue to exact royalties.
Someone might kindly inform me if I'm wrong but I'd also suggest the PRRT argument is also a furphy as it pertains to profits on oil and gas from Federal waters not on State land.
Whatever the arguments for and against Mr Rudd's "great big new tax" (and there you have a clear statement of my position; some would call it bias but being biased does not necessarily mean one is wrong) on economic and even social grounds it must, in my view, be seen off as it is a direct attack on the sovereignty of our States. Many would say "who cares" but like with all freedoms hard won, they can easily lost but so very hard to regain. Let's not lose our freedoms in part from an ignorance of our history and country's foundation.
Best wishes, Jonathan.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Proud Dad and comfort zones.
My youngest daughter is performing in the Fremantle Eisteddfod today, singing in three categories and my eldest daughter is competing in the State final of Rotary's Four Way Test Speakers Challenge on Wednesday evening. Win or lose I am very proud of them and most particularly because of their involvement and participation.
The risks these young people take and the effort they put into their activities is both instructive and inspiring. They remind me of Tom Haupt's words which run along these lines: "to always retreat back to or simply stay within one's comfort zone will ultimately see it shrink in size. To take risks and leap beyond and keep doing so is to ever expand our comfort zone." We will achieve more and believe we can achieve more the more we take the risks and push out from it.
Those of us with children know this wisdom well as we live it daily encouraging them to strive and achieve more and more of their potential but most of us adults participate in "do what I say, not do what I do." That is to say we should listen to our own advice, we should learn from own wisdom and we should ever seek to move beyond what is comfortable. What am I doing that right now? Certainly I am comfortable in writing my thoughts, certainly I am even comfortable enough to take the risk of derision and censure but am I prepared to expand the circle? We shall see.
Cheers, Jonathan.
The risks these young people take and the effort they put into their activities is both instructive and inspiring. They remind me of Tom Haupt's words which run along these lines: "to always retreat back to or simply stay within one's comfort zone will ultimately see it shrink in size. To take risks and leap beyond and keep doing so is to ever expand our comfort zone." We will achieve more and believe we can achieve more the more we take the risks and push out from it.
Those of us with children know this wisdom well as we live it daily encouraging them to strive and achieve more and more of their potential but most of us adults participate in "do what I say, not do what I do." That is to say we should listen to our own advice, we should learn from own wisdom and we should ever seek to move beyond what is comfortable. What am I doing that right now? Certainly I am comfortable in writing my thoughts, certainly I am even comfortable enough to take the risk of derision and censure but am I prepared to expand the circle? We shall see.
Cheers, Jonathan.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Getting stroppy in my old age!
I wrote this following note on the Linkedin Gorgon Group discussion page and the it is especially relevant and pertinet to those members of that group. As such the challenge below is to members of that Group and NOT to followers of this blog.
**********************************************************************************
Keeping Barrow Island really really clean, enhancing Gorgon production and maximizing the triple bottom line for the benefit of the JV partners, the environment and the country. .
Wouldn't you think a product that takes 100% of moisture in emulsion out of lubricant oil and diesel fuel, breaks the acid cycle, has engines running on clean and dry oil ALL the time with all the commensurate and positive impacts on cleaner outcomes, longer asset life, reduced service and breakdowns, lower emissions and the reduction of waste oil by a factor of 20 would be of interest to participants in the Gorgon Project? Me too! See www.engineoilfiltration.com
Wouldn't you think that a product that can remove hydrocarbons and heavy metals out of water would be of interest? Me too! And wouldn't you think that a range of products that prevents hard waste from entering water courses and water tables in the first place would work well in conjunction with the absorption product. You'd be right and some! Please see www.templug.com and www.mycelx.com.au
Now here's the rub, we live in exciting times here in WA with some of the biggest projects in the world going on, all a function of entrepreneurial activity and risk taking. Billions are committed. But try and be innovative and little happens.
Now here's the challenge to those relevant members of this group. Who has the courage and the authority together with the open mind to look at some relatively new products (though tried and test) and who is prepared to contact me and find out more about one or more of these products?
Good luck! Jonathan.
**********************************************************************************
Keeping Barrow Island really really clean, enhancing Gorgon production and maximizing the triple bottom line for the benefit of the JV partners, the environment and the country. .
Wouldn't you think a product that takes 100% of moisture in emulsion out of lubricant oil and diesel fuel, breaks the acid cycle, has engines running on clean and dry oil ALL the time with all the commensurate and positive impacts on cleaner outcomes, longer asset life, reduced service and breakdowns, lower emissions and the reduction of waste oil by a factor of 20 would be of interest to participants in the Gorgon Project? Me too! See www.engineoilfiltration.com
Wouldn't you think that a product that can remove hydrocarbons and heavy metals out of water would be of interest? Me too! And wouldn't you think that a range of products that prevents hard waste from entering water courses and water tables in the first place would work well in conjunction with the absorption product. You'd be right and some! Please see www.templug.com and www.mycelx.com.au
Now here's the rub, we live in exciting times here in WA with some of the biggest projects in the world going on, all a function of entrepreneurial activity and risk taking. Billions are committed. But try and be innovative and little happens.
Now here's the challenge to those relevant members of this group. Who has the courage and the authority together with the open mind to look at some relatively new products (though tried and test) and who is prepared to contact me and find out more about one or more of these products?
Good luck! Jonathan.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Is there a magic figure?
Numbers are certainly intriguing but often not as relevant as we think. At networking functions I attend or facilitate I sometimes feel disappointed by the numbers that actually turn up despite making the public pronouncement that numbers really don't do it for me. Funny enough it is often the smaller events that turn out to be the most effective, constructive and enjoyable. No doubt there is a middle ground in there somewhere but targeting an unknown figure is not much fun. I have certainly not set out to acquire vast numbers of friends on Linkedin per se as some people do, particularly using Twitter or Facebook. As I have written before I feel these online social networking systems only truly come into their own when facilitating meeting in person, not what is recorded on screen. However, in the last year from a standing start I have acquired over 500 Linkedin contacts. Have I met them all? No, not yet but the intent is there and the mindset on these issue is not only very meaningful and ultimately self-fulfilling but also introspectively instructive. But here's the horrible rub, I feel quite proud of my 500 plus friends. Does self-awareness obviate hypocrisy? I think not and I'll have to muse on that some more. Even so from a practical point of view it is fantastic. Given, amongst others, I make two bold claims in reference to my business, those being "there's not a door in this town I can't open" and "if I can't help you myself I'll know someone who can" then the greater number of people, not that I know but who know and trust me, the better. As these numbers grow my business becomes easier and importantly more creative. Now "creativity" - there's topic for this town! Cheers, Jonathan.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Etymology and enthusiasm
My daughters had College Sunday today, a service of celebration and thanksgiving in the company of their teachers, family and "House" at School. It was a happy and inspiring occasion, a lovely combination of drama, music, singing and worship. During the homily the Chaplain spoke of enthusiasm for life and mentioned the Greek based etymology of the word enthusiasm, being "en theo" and meaning "in God." It was one of those moments of great clarity when meaning meets understanding.
I am a great believer in foundations, especially in respect to education, whether it being the study of Greek and Latin, Chaucer and Shakespeare to understand the depth and beauty of our language, the proper study of history to contextualize the understanding of our present or the understanding of religion that underpins our Judeo-Christian society; whether we wrap ourselves in atheistic or agnostic secularism or in quiet belief or overt evangelism matters not. I find myself sadly lacking in many of these areas but hopefully that recognition is leading me to seek to fill in some of the gaps.
Recent reading has begun to open the doors of my understanding on the great depth of wisdom of the likes of John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith and many many others. These great thinkers have done so much to shape our understanding of freedom and democracy, the right to property and the right to freedom of association and speech but few of us know it. And most of us don't even know where our views, beliefs and personal ethos come from or perhaps like myself have only the scantest knowledge and briefest of learning in this area. The challenge is now to do something about it.
Best regards, Jonathan.
I am a great believer in foundations, especially in respect to education, whether it being the study of Greek and Latin, Chaucer and Shakespeare to understand the depth and beauty of our language, the proper study of history to contextualize the understanding of our present or the understanding of religion that underpins our Judeo-Christian society; whether we wrap ourselves in atheistic or agnostic secularism or in quiet belief or overt evangelism matters not. I find myself sadly lacking in many of these areas but hopefully that recognition is leading me to seek to fill in some of the gaps.
Recent reading has begun to open the doors of my understanding on the great depth of wisdom of the likes of John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith and many many others. These great thinkers have done so much to shape our understanding of freedom and democracy, the right to property and the right to freedom of association and speech but few of us know it. And most of us don't even know where our views, beliefs and personal ethos come from or perhaps like myself have only the scantest knowledge and briefest of learning in this area. The challenge is now to do something about it.
Best regards, Jonathan.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Elephant in the room
I was fortunate enough to attend a CEDA breakfast today (and even picked up the door prize!)with the key topic being Infrastructure and mainly concerning ports around Western Australia. There is a huge amount going on in many places with plenty of decent cooperation, investment and leadership from both the Feds and the State Government along with the likes of OPR in reference to the new $4bn port of Oakajee and associated rail. In reference to this project the port is vital to provide access to the markets for the new iron province. Being magnetite this ore will need plenty of processing and that needs power. The port itself needs only around 25mw but there is no power, as yet, for the miners and one suggestion today was that they'd need gas but wait, there's a shortage of domestic gas. Throw the grave uncertainty re the Coolimba Power Project and the elephant in the room is certainly the lack of power for the region and the frightening thing is that the equation of mines, processed ore, port facilities and shipped product is all resting on there being the power to make it happen;it seems it must not speak its name. Something of a concern with approximately A$700m of taxpayers money and A$3.3bn of investors money to be invested. Cheers, Jonathan.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Reform or simply change
As we all know, language is very powerful and one example is the use or misuse of the word "reform."
One of the definitions of the word and the pertinent one for this argument is "Reform: to improve, as by alteration, correction of error, abolition of abuses and malpractices." All of these worthy aims are a matter of opinion, a subjective matter; all change is not necessarily for the better and given the unintended consequences of most government policy they must surely be challenged at every opportunity.
Governments of course always use the word "reform" when recommending their policies/proposals to the people/Parliament and why wouldn't they? They presumably believe (rightly or wrongly) that their actions are set to make things better. Why is it then that Oppositions use the same word when arguing against these proposed changes and why is it that the Press in their scrutiny of the proposals always speak of them as the Government's reforms even when they have just spent column inches pulling them apart? I contend that both Oppositions and the Press end up colluding with the Government by using this word. Improvement is the principal connotation of the word and using it when arguing against the proposals, in the minds of the listeners, weakens the contrary argument.
In the same vein I would like to see Government, Oppositions and the Press refrain ( voluntarily of course) from using the word "resources" unless they are talking about stuff in the ground or the skills of people and not as a euphemistic disguise of the phrase, "tax payers' money." Governments only have capacity to spend money that they either raise by tax or by borrowing and that borrowing both in terms of interest and capital is again paid for by taxpayers. I think if Governments particularly (and others)always substituted "tax payers' money" when they are tempted to use the word "resources" they would start to alter what they actually do say( and maybe what they actually do) and we might start, just start, to see an improvement of candour and honesty.
One of the definitions of the word and the pertinent one for this argument is "Reform: to improve, as by alteration, correction of error, abolition of abuses and malpractices." All of these worthy aims are a matter of opinion, a subjective matter; all change is not necessarily for the better and given the unintended consequences of most government policy they must surely be challenged at every opportunity.
Governments of course always use the word "reform" when recommending their policies/proposals to the people/Parliament and why wouldn't they? They presumably believe (rightly or wrongly) that their actions are set to make things better. Why is it then that Oppositions use the same word when arguing against these proposed changes and why is it that the Press in their scrutiny of the proposals always speak of them as the Government's reforms even when they have just spent column inches pulling them apart? I contend that both Oppositions and the Press end up colluding with the Government by using this word. Improvement is the principal connotation of the word and using it when arguing against the proposals, in the minds of the listeners, weakens the contrary argument.
In the same vein I would like to see Government, Oppositions and the Press refrain ( voluntarily of course) from using the word "resources" unless they are talking about stuff in the ground or the skills of people and not as a euphemistic disguise of the phrase, "tax payers' money." Governments only have capacity to spend money that they either raise by tax or by borrowing and that borrowing both in terms of interest and capital is again paid for by taxpayers. I think if Governments particularly (and others)always substituted "tax payers' money" when they are tempted to use the word "resources" they would start to alter what they actually do say( and maybe what they actually do) and we might start, just start, to see an improvement of candour and honesty.
Friday, April 16, 2010
The Run of Liberté by Anna-Rose Shack, 2010
The Run of Liberté by Anna-Rose Shack, 2010
My Liberté, we ran side by side;
Her heaving bosom, hips strong and wide
As she pounded on with shaking skin,
She knew that only truth would win.
Her coarse, hardened feet stamped the ground,
Her billowing dress loosely wound
Was slipping down off her chest
Revealing beneath her ripe round breast.
Through the city of despair and dirt,
In alleys and courtyards always alert.
And as we fought through the palace garden
I felt my heart and my mind harden
With rage against every power holder,
Their brutal murders made me bolder.
The boom and club club of cannon fire,
But on we ran, we did not tire.
Beads of sweat glowed on her brow
And with white innocence, I know not how
She trampled those beneath her feet
Striking more on each and every street.
With each vanquish she grew twice as strong
And what we did I never thought as wrong.
Liberté was the truth that did not fall;
She was the strength that broke down every wall
With, from gently parted lips a sweet sigh,
That rippled through our veins to defy
All opposed to our freedom fight.
Liberté with all her wonderful might
Thrust the tricolour above head
And kept on running though her tears were shed.
She cried, I think, for the ignorant fools
Whose blood now seeped in crimson pools;
A hideous stain on the cobbled street
But a veritas victory and a deserved defeat.
Death to twisted lies, hate and greed,
We led the people so they were freed.
Death and end to those cruel gentlemen
Who lust for power time and time again.
Lying battered and trodden, stripped of glory
Those pathetic figures told a sorry story.
But emerging on top where all could see
We ran, we fought, for Liberté.
My Liberté, we ran side by side;
Her heaving bosom, hips strong and wide
As she pounded on with shaking skin,
She knew that only truth would win.
Her coarse, hardened feet stamped the ground,
Her billowing dress loosely wound
Was slipping down off her chest
Revealing beneath her ripe round breast.
Through the city of despair and dirt,
In alleys and courtyards always alert.
And as we fought through the palace garden
I felt my heart and my mind harden
With rage against every power holder,
Their brutal murders made me bolder.
The boom and club club of cannon fire,
But on we ran, we did not tire.
Beads of sweat glowed on her brow
And with white innocence, I know not how
She trampled those beneath her feet
Striking more on each and every street.
With each vanquish she grew twice as strong
And what we did I never thought as wrong.
Liberté was the truth that did not fall;
She was the strength that broke down every wall
With, from gently parted lips a sweet sigh,
That rippled through our veins to defy
All opposed to our freedom fight.
Liberté with all her wonderful might
Thrust the tricolour above head
And kept on running though her tears were shed.
She cried, I think, for the ignorant fools
Whose blood now seeped in crimson pools;
A hideous stain on the cobbled street
But a veritas victory and a deserved defeat.
Death to twisted lies, hate and greed,
We led the people so they were freed.
Death and end to those cruel gentlemen
Who lust for power time and time again.
Lying battered and trodden, stripped of glory
Those pathetic figures told a sorry story.
But emerging on top where all could see
We ran, we fought, for Liberté.
All successful institutions have a rational basis, not
“The great achievement of the Enlightenment had one enormous and unfortunate side-effect. We gained a false sense of the power of reason. It made us think that all successful institutions have a rational basis and that there are no limits to what we can achieve by rational action” (Suri Ratnapala in 100 Books of Liberty. )
I think this is a fantastic quote and one that is quite instructive. Many of us that are endeavouring to being new products to prospective clients and who are absolutely convinced that these products will significantly enhance bottom lines and often materially impact positively on the environment are staggered not to receive a ready hearing and enthusiastic take-up. Only tenacity can win the day.
Why is this so? Many reasons certainly; perhaps the product is not as good as we think it is, perhaps it will upset the status quo and challenge fiefdoms or perhaps we're just not good enough salespeople. I could go on but the reality is that rational thought is often overwhelmed by fear, that the adventurous spirit claimed by many people and companies is just that, a claim but with no substance and more prosaically people want to buy but they do not want to be sold to, a difficult conundrum if they don't know what the product or or can do in the first place.
The solution, just work harder but also smarter. Use the network to find the right people to help you. Make it in their best interests to do and be prepared to share the profits with them. Talking my own book? You betcha but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
I think this is a fantastic quote and one that is quite instructive. Many of us that are endeavouring to being new products to prospective clients and who are absolutely convinced that these products will significantly enhance bottom lines and often materially impact positively on the environment are staggered not to receive a ready hearing and enthusiastic take-up. Only tenacity can win the day.
Why is this so? Many reasons certainly; perhaps the product is not as good as we think it is, perhaps it will upset the status quo and challenge fiefdoms or perhaps we're just not good enough salespeople. I could go on but the reality is that rational thought is often overwhelmed by fear, that the adventurous spirit claimed by many people and companies is just that, a claim but with no substance and more prosaically people want to buy but they do not want to be sold to, a difficult conundrum if they don't know what the product or or can do in the first place.
The solution, just work harder but also smarter. Use the network to find the right people to help you. Make it in their best interests to do and be prepared to share the profits with them. Talking my own book? You betcha but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Tax incentives for the so-called rich
Watching Q&A last night was interesting and instructive, not least because Nicola Roxon was allowed to dominate. Still I won't wax lyrical about the bias of the ABC, well not tonight anyway.
What did intrigue me was a question from the audience that obviously wanted support for the view that tax incentives for the so-called rich should not be allowed. There was of a defense put up by Greg Hunt, not surprisingly and and an allusion to public monies for private education as well. Basically the argument runs that public support for private health and education nurtures a mixed system, reduces the burden on state health and education and promotes choice. With people availing themselves of private services (whether they are deemed to be rich or not) there is more money to be spent on those who must use or those that choose the state provided services.
Tim Wilson of the Institute of Public Policy, to his credit, argued a more philosophically pure view that all subsidies are bad, are likely to produce a skewing of resources, distort the system and thus produce poorer outcomes.
However Tim also skated across another key point. Whether it be private health or private education the relative rich have a claim on some proportion of the tax spend as they themselves pay more tax. Thus these people not only contribute more they can frequently also consume less of what the state provides to the obvious benefit of those who pay less tax but consume more of the state provided services. Thus some minimal subsidy can be justified if it promotes a lessening of demand on government and is thus a discouragement to avoid tax.
There was no time and probably even less appetite but these arguments logically lead onto the justification or otherwise of so-called "progressive" taxation, the system where the more you earn not only does one pay more in actual dollars but also a higher percentage of gross income. This is a sacred cow of our polity and hardly ever argued these days. I flag this issue tonight and will address it in my next posting. Any of your comments or thoughts will be readily received.
Best regards, Jonathan.
What did intrigue me was a question from the audience that obviously wanted support for the view that tax incentives for the so-called rich should not be allowed. There was of a defense put up by Greg Hunt, not surprisingly and and an allusion to public monies for private education as well. Basically the argument runs that public support for private health and education nurtures a mixed system, reduces the burden on state health and education and promotes choice. With people availing themselves of private services (whether they are deemed to be rich or not) there is more money to be spent on those who must use or those that choose the state provided services.
Tim Wilson of the Institute of Public Policy, to his credit, argued a more philosophically pure view that all subsidies are bad, are likely to produce a skewing of resources, distort the system and thus produce poorer outcomes.
However Tim also skated across another key point. Whether it be private health or private education the relative rich have a claim on some proportion of the tax spend as they themselves pay more tax. Thus these people not only contribute more they can frequently also consume less of what the state provides to the obvious benefit of those who pay less tax but consume more of the state provided services. Thus some minimal subsidy can be justified if it promotes a lessening of demand on government and is thus a discouragement to avoid tax.
There was no time and probably even less appetite but these arguments logically lead onto the justification or otherwise of so-called "progressive" taxation, the system where the more you earn not only does one pay more in actual dollars but also a higher percentage of gross income. This is a sacred cow of our polity and hardly ever argued these days. I flag this issue tonight and will address it in my next posting. Any of your comments or thoughts will be readily received.
Best regards, Jonathan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
