Talking Points - Student "Unionism"

I'm so tired of the constant bullshit that the right comes out with about student unionism at Universities. In an unsurprising move, Labor has moved to reintroduce a "Student Fee" which has unleashed the gates of hell - well in people's eyes.

So, I thought it was time to look at their common arguments against CSU and why they're bollocks:

"It's all about Freedom of Association"

There's this common belief that, somehow, money paid into a Student Union somehow lands into the Labor party. That by some feat of magic, the Union is stacked by with left-wing loonies. What a lot of nonsense.

Firstly, the composition the Union representative comes from a ballot of students. So ultimately, you get who you vote for - which is no differnet from what happens anywhere else in ... a democracy.

"Another fees is more burden"

This was Howard's masterplan. By making HECS incredibly expensive, ANY fee (even the pitiful student association fees) seemed like "the straw that broke the camels back". Remeber, we're talking $250 at at time when students are paying $6000 pa for an education (so what, 4%)!

"So people who don't go to Uni should have their taxes directed towards paying for the education of others who will (usually) ultimately end up on a higher salary than them?

Doesn't sound fair to the average worker to me!"

As the next commenter points out:

"They also pay higher taxes Alan - thus pay it back later"

This the same old argument that was trotted out when HECS was first introduced. It was largely bollocks then and it's certainly bollocks now. Most trade based workers are receiving significantly more for their services than the majority of uni trained workers. Yes, there are exceptions (as there are elsewhere in the community), but that's why we have a sliding tax scale (instead of a fixed tax rate). The more you earn, the more you pay back to society.

"Student fees are a joke. If you don't use them, why should you be forced to pay so others can? It's not like taxes, here!"

"If these "services" being provided are so important, why can't the people that use them pay for them?"

Well, if that's your thinking, you're welcome to disassocate yourself from society and go and live in the hills with the rest of the loonies. Puh-lease. If you live anywhere in Australia you pay some form of rates (even if you're renting - it's included in the rent folks) - which subsidies heaps of services in your community. Yet, where are the calls to refuse payment because you never use the library, or ask for a rebate because you never use the dump.

Why haven't we banned taxation because, if I ride a bike, why should I be subsidising roads?

No, this is a stupid argument and harks back to the looniest shit that came out of Hansonism.

"How can anyone justify forced membership of any organisation in a free and democratic Australia?"

Gads, this makes it sounds like you've been forced to become a signed up member of the Labor party - what nonsense!!! You are a member of a community - and like any community, services are provided, etc. How this is funded is probably another argument (actually, see below).

"Only a small number of students, voted in by a small number of students actually had control of the money, and these students had any experience in handling this kind of money. The student unions could hardly claim to represent the majority of students, only a majority of those who voted."

Aagggghhhh!!!! What is it that these people don't get? YOU GET WHAT YOU VOTE FOR!!! This is no different to what happens with every federal/state/local election. If you want control, participate!!!

As a student of a University, you are a member of a community and like all communities, there are groups with power. You have the Uni Administration, the Faculty Staff and the Government. All of these groups have an interest in the University and, thanks to an income/funding source, have power. Is it not right then to expect that, as a significant component of the university, you too should have a voice? To me, that's part of what we're talking about here - having a voice at the University. At time when fees are so high, who is holding Administration's to account? When I was studying a block subject recently outside of the normal "academic year", there were howls of complaints about lack of services (i.e. no computer labs open, no copier services, etc) - so who do you complain to? This is the role of the Student Association.

Question is - how should it be funded and what control should it have over funds raised? Well, this is obviously the vexing issue. To have a voice, the Student Association MUST have power. To gain power, it argues it needs to have associations OUTSIDE of the Uni (and thus we have the NUS). So, how do we get to a point where:

The Student Association limits its power to the University and
Greater scruitiny is made over where funding allocations are made.

Well, like all big problems, the solution is actually remarkably simple - and it's the same solution that we have today in the wider community (how many of us complain about what out governments are doing with "your money"?).

The answer is PARTICIPATION. Yep, it's as simple as that. My suggestion - make voting COMPULSORY for Student Association elections (as we do for all other forms of representation). I suspect the current non-compulsory voting favours the left - so lets give EVERYONE a voice by forcing all to vote. Secondly, give the Student Association real representation on the University Boards - that way we know we have a voice that can be heard. Thirdly, broaden the methods of association - provide a voice within each faculty thus making the student association more accessible. And finally, we need to look at the funding model. I have no easy solutions for this one - you either hand money to the Uni and risk it being swallowed up for non-student activities (like pretty new admin blocks) or relinquish it to the association and risk them blowing it on Lesbian Supporters of Falun Gong. I dunno - maybe a swiss style of referenda on funding needs to happen? Maybe it's a simple as balancing the money between the two?

I suppose the ultimate question comes back to power and how to concentrate that in the interests of ALL students on campus. As consumers, our best voice is to "shop elsewhere" - but is this a viable thing for some students (e.g. Townsville has only 1 University)? So how else do we give students a voice in an area where they're ulimately without one? Well, that's a question for another time...

Prediction - House of Cards

Well, the trigger was wrong but are, as predicted, facing an economic meltdown in Q3/4 of 2008. We're seeing lots of bold predictions about how Australia should rise above this - and to a degree, I have to agree.

What I don't agree on, however, is that we'll be left "untouched". Whether we like it or not, housing prices in OZ are ridiculous. They do not represent "true value" or are sustainable at their current levels. Shit, on "Two in the Top End" last week, in the middle of nowhere we saw 3 bedroom shitboxes selling for $550,000 and higher. In Townsville, we're seeing 4 bedroom houses in the middle of a bog-standard estate asking over $1m.

No, on this count, I have to agree with Marc Faber that we're in a bubble and it WILL burst. Nay, it MUST burst. The downsteam consequence of this is not good - but it needs to happen.

What also worries me is the leveraged leverage that has been sold as a "sound investment" by some in recent years. We've been to a couple of these in recent years and it goes like this:

1. You have equity in your house - you can leverage that to buy shares
2. When your shares go up in value (and they will), you can leverage that equity and buy more shares
3. Repeat, rinse, spin

Of course, this is a fantastic system in a market going upwards. But in a declining system, it's a house of cards. All this debt is layered on asset values that no longer exist and at some point, it all has to come home to roost. My guess, the trigger point will be job losses. When some people start getting laid off or stood down, we'll have another run on shares and, worse, property - and it will all come tumbling down.

So, the next questions are "when" and "by how much"? When is a hard one. I suspect it'll actually come out of the resources sector first as the folks working in this game have leveraged the most (so have more to loose). We've already heard about delays to contracts for steel going into China - so once that comes back, it'll be on for young and old again. There was a report last nite that Woodside have already announced they will begin a freezing on new hiring - so that's not a great start. And, as expected, some of the newer entrants - who rely on inflated commodity prices to survive - are feeling the pinch. There will also be a swayth of mining ventures that are not viable at a more "sustainable" commodity price.

So, all we need now is for China to slow down a big, commodities to fall further and ... well, we'll all be fucked!

What The - Labelling for Outrage

There's been a rash of coverage about the poor gent who, in an attempt to make the Darwin Awards, decided to drag in his crab pots from the banks of a Crocodile infested river in FNQ.

Whilst his decision was a poor one, it irks me more that the media persists with their "labelling" of this, rather ill-informed, gent.

That this recent snap from the Courier Mail (now 2 weeks after the event):

THE remains of Vietnam veteran Arthur Booker, who disappeared in far north Queensland two weeks ago, have been found in a 4.5m crocodile.

Erm, what difference does it make that this guy was a Veteran? He's still an idiot for doing what he's done. If it was a silly European backpacker, we'd have all sorts of stories about how they shouldn't be so silly - but the respectability given to this guy has been over the top.

And that, I suspect, is the intention. This isn't about Mr Booker - this is about Croc Culling. By presenting Mr Booker as a decent, upstanding citizen - we turn the Croc into a criminal and, as a result (like all minorities), we need to fear and punish them.

No, this ISN'T a campaign to ensure Mr Booker is given the respect he deserves - this is about currying favour for a massive Croc Cull.

Thoughts: Local News Content

There was some media today concerning Win News' decision to cut back on local news staff in the Qld Regions. This decision isn't a huge problem (the real disaster occurred years ago when we lost local production) but it coincidentially ties in with another "major news" story that I think highlights the problem.

Like Katrina before it, Hurricane Ike (like all major systems that hit populated areas) MUST have immense learnings for communities all along the northern Queensland coastline. Yet, where is all the analysis in our local press? What lessons can WE learn? What mistakes are being made there that we MUSTN'T repeat here? Yes, there is coverage in the national media, but as these events are never likely to hit anywhere south of Rocky, there's no detailed analysis.

You can be sure that, if this was something that Sydney could endure, we'd have media all over the place running comparisons, etc. But not for us. And there's very little coverage (other than what they take off the news wires) about how these events might affect us.

Would local news production make any difference? Possibly not - the Townsville Bulletin IS locally produced yet still has feable coverage - but surely it would create enough content for a local production to at least be viable.

It also staggers me that in a city of over 180K people and in a region of over 600K people - that somehow we do not qualify for "local content"! Oh, the joys of capitalism eh?

Prediction - Anti-Plastic Bag Campaign ... By Retailers

With the price of oil set to stay high and keep going up in coming years, expect to see increasing interest from retailers in campaigns to "ban the plastic bag". It'll be dressed up as environmental concerns but has more to do with their bottom lines than anything.

Plastic, which is a derivative of oil, will becoming increasingly expensive in years to come. Shit, in the last 5-6 years alone, the price of their bags MUST have doubled (at least), so you could imagine their impact in coming years.

This may also explain why, in recent weeks, each time I've visited Woolies in their "express checkouts", that I've been asked "do you want to buy a green bag today sir?".

Oh well, I can't complain - any reason is a good reason I suppose...

Prediction - Global Collapse Q3/4 2008

Yesterday we had a prediction that, of all things, property prices would INCREASE (yes, go up) over the next three years. This despite the credit crunch, etc, etc, etc.

The only logical conclusion for this is that "the world demand will continue to grow" (okay, that's my thinking anyhow) - which I think is bollocks. My prediction is that China is about to turn off the tap. It won't be completely shut off, but compared to now, it will be a trickle.

It seems obvious to me that the resurgence of China is largely off the back of the Olympics and the desire of the regime to "look good" before a worldwide audience. But what happens after August of this year? Once the spotlight has moved, why would they keep this up? We already know that they're facing a problem with inflation and they've mooted trying to curtail their rampant growth (back to 7-8% down from it's current level of 13-15%). That's a halving of current growth.

On the flipside, there's only so much of an increase in resource costs that China can stomach. It has no choice at present because they've got a deadline to meet - but once August 2008 has been and done, there will be nothing stopping them.

So, my (rather bold) prediction, is that China WILL start ramping back in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2008 and that pull back will put the fear of god into the resources sector (which will already had started suffering thanks to global restraint thanks to the oil price) and prices will start to tumble. My guess is that we'll even see Oil come back to "sane" levels - but by then the rot will have set in. Confidence will spiral out of control, the resource sector will start shutting down "inviable" operations and places like Mackay, Perth, nay even Townsville will feel the effect.

Thousands will loose their homes and the damage to the economy will be unrelenting. So by the time resource prices are "affordable", the rest of the economy will be so scarred that it'll lie dormant for many years.

I still don't understand why EVERYONE seems so convinced that China will continue to act like a capitalist economy. How ANYONE can predict what they will do is beyond me - let alone speak with confidence that "they'll grow forever". I'm sorry, but it just doesn't happen like that. China MUST take a breather or they'll hurt their own economy and at 7% it's still "booming" - but when everyone expects growth to keep going up and up, well, we all know how well markets take that sort of news.

So, lets bring it on. Time has come to burst this bubble so we can all get back to normality (well, once we've all experienced the pain that is)...

Thoughts: Commodification of ... Everything

A recent blog on Larvatus Prodeo got me stirred up about a long held whinge RE: how the move to "franching" everything led to team names I had no association with.

Rugby Union lost me as “growing market” when the Super-12’s went “franchise” mode and they became SO obsessed with “branding” that I could never work out who was playing who.

Gone are the days of Queensland vs NSW - we now have “the Blues vs the Crusaders”. I keep expecting to see NSW playing against … well, actually I still have no idea who the Crusaders are. I used to think the Highlanders were from South Africa (instead of NZ) because I kept picturing Tabletop Mountain in Jo-burg (etc, etc, etc).

The same was true of the “Sheffield Shield” (sorry, Pura Cup - geez, what a crappy name for a competition) and the use of idiot names for the State Teams. I still hardly know who’s playing who in these matches as well.

Unless you’re a rabid supporter, these names mean nothing to Joe Public and rather than drag me in, they tend to frustrate me and turn me off them…

Prediction - Solution to Housing Affordability is ...

... a forced crash of the market.

Yes, I hate to say it, but the only real solution to housing affordability is that ALL housing becomes cheaper and the only way that will happen if we have a massive crash in prices.

Hey, we all know it to be true. Affordability needs to be $100-200K cheaper than it currently is. How do you get there? Well, almost ALL options have the same affect - they force down prices EVERYWHERE.

If you flood the market with cheap land, what happens? Everyone goes and buys the cheap stuff, forcing it higher but in doing so, they desert the current market, forcing it lower. So, we all KNOW that govts WON'T provide cheap land because they'll be accused of causing the crash.

So, all I can assume is that they're simply waiting for it to implode - which is true of any market (govt doesn't go in and buy shares to keep the stock market happy) - no, the market will correct on its own, and I suspect that's what we're seeing know - encouraged by govt. We'll soon hit a tipping point, we'll have our own sub-prime, the economy will slow, China will stop spending, the US will collapse. Whatever the cause, it will trigger a huge problem in housing and the market will collapse.

Actually, that creates an interesting problem. If people start baling out of mortgages, they still need a roof over their heads - so they rent. But the rental market is already saturated and some probably can't afford the rents. So that will either force some investment properties to become fragile or banks will be forced into the property management market to recoup SOME income on their failed investments. Each event will spiral down on the other.

Fun, fun, fun...

Gender Bias

On RN's "Australia Talks" yesterday, the discussion was on domestic violence but what seemed to bubble to the surface was gender bias. The same is true for raising children and things like maternity leave - i.e. this is an issue for females.

Bollocks. If anything's clear from the discussion, its that there we shouldn't stereotype these issues and every case is different. Let me give an example. Say a mother wants to actively pursue her career and has a supporting husband who would be happy to play caregiver. Why aren't we arguing equally for his right to be paid to stay at home? Similarly, women are just as good at domestic violence - not so much physically, but mental abuse.

The point is, there are problems and they need to be addressed. By giving them a gender bias, you tend to alienate the other side (particularly those with a conservative bias - poor bastards) which then turns the issue into a hot potato. The resultant affect of that - nothing gets done.

So please, take out the emotive gender language and focus on the problem. Violence against partners be they male, female, same sex, etc. Providing care for our children be it home care from a parent or family member, a home care "mum", child care, etc. We should value the decision of others and ensure their interests are looked after.