David Llewellyn-Smith writes as Houses and Holes at MacroBusiness. David is the founding publisher and former editor-in-chief of The Diplomat magazine, now the Asia Pacific’s leading geo-politics website. He is a regular contributor at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Drum and is a former commentator atBusiness Spectator. He is also the co-author of The Great Crash of 2008 with Ross Garnaut. He edits MacroBusiness. A full list of his posts is available here.
2 comments:
Hey, you really do look like the avatar!
Anyway, clearly there is an issue of censorship developing. My request to Prince after a number of post deletions, none to my mind offensive.
Prince, you have deleted a number of my comments of late. Of particular interest to me is my 'transgression' here: Special interests are the economy, not limited to corporates, private, charitable, institutional etc. Three times now this has been deleted.
This is meant in the context of the ever-increasing demand on government (taxpayer) largesse from ALL of the above (and others). This governmental/special interest nexus has now become so embedded in economic activity that removal or modification at any level will be difficult. This must be acknowledged before open dialogue can take place. As comments on the thread today showed (Goldilocks, very thoughtful) the reliance on this 'largesse' is almost total, be it a welfare dependent, a mid-income recipient, a high income trust holder/negative gearer, a small enterprise all the way up to the largest corporations. Special interests (vested interests) ARE the economy.
This is in no way a moral/ethical judgement on the worthiness or otherwise, simply a statement of fact. I was to point out to Mav, yes welfare dependent may be 'weak and needy', however there is a powerful lobby group on their behalf, there is also their vote. This again, transcends and extends up the demographic chain. It is this chain by which we are ALL bound. I intended to suggest to Mav, some may argue that provision of 'largesse' to business is justified if it results in profitable enterprises employing a range of individuals with a range of skills, thus, hopefully enabling some to move from welfare to employment and all the benefits that brings.
If it is not possible to discuss this openly, I do think we, at some point, will not be able to sustain the forces of globalisation which encourage constant assessment, refinement and in particular a move to the most economic.
There's more, but it's late. I look forward to your response. Cheers.
Thanks for providing the list. He's really a smart guy. :)
Post a Comment