Yeh, I know. Strange times. It Abbott that led us off a few weeks ago with sensible observations:
It’s not freer trade that’s the problem, but freer trade with people who don’t really believe in it: its one-sided implementation by countries that see trade as a strategic weapon and the somewhat naive way most democracies have let our strategic rivals exploit it. So if good is to come from this crisis, it must focus countries’ minds on the need to be self-reliant as well as rich.
This has been the real “China virus”: not the contagion sweeping out of the wet market of Wuhan, but our over-dependence on just one country, not just for inexpensive finished goods, but for vast swathes of our supply chain. This has been our deepest complacency, trading off long-term national security for short term economic gain; giving up deep things for shallow ones.
Not too late, I hope, we can now ponder whether a self-respecting country can afford not-to-have some serious capacity for manufacturing, when it comes to essential drugs and vital health equipment, as well as sophisticated electronics, and the wherewithal of national defence. Can we ever afford not-to-have adequate stockpiles of essential commodities (such as fuel, let alone lifesaving drugs) on hand here at home? I doubt it very much.
It’s shocking coming from the guy that killed the car industry but that does not make it true.
Now, today, we get this very unThatcherite missive:
…the part-holiday from standard party politics won’t last. Once battle resumes, for the centre right there should be less dogma about the size of government and more of an appeal to the strength of our country and the quality of its citizens. While subsidies to business can be readily enough withdrawn, personal benefits such as the double-dole will be harder, especially when recipients will be able to say it was government policy that threw them out of work.
Instead of just withdrawing the payment — on the grounds the immediate crisis has passed and it’s no longer affordable — I’d be inclined to turn it into a wage subsidy for older people and a part-time environmental job with local government for younger people.
I’d make it about improving society rather than about improving the budget. Eventually, the budget will improve because people will earn their pay (and won’t need subsidies) and people will choose their job (and won’t just stay where they were allocated).
But the successful political leaders will be those who make it less about economics and more about ensuring people have purpose in their lives.
Cop that you blood-sucking trickle-downers. Society? What’s that!
I’m not sure why young people are forced to work while the older get to bludge but the notion that we’ll need sustained public support is much more constructive than SocMo’s private sector recovery drivel. Not because there’s no merit in the latter, there’s plenty, but because it flies in the face of reality.
The private sector will deleverage post-crisis and without public support the economy will whither. Tax cuts won’t help, especially those directed at the rich and corporations, that will just save it. Simple as that.
Let’s not forget as well that it was Tony Abbot that fingered the destructive influences of mass immigration several years ago, arguing for less to boost wages and lower house prices. Unfortunately ruined by his climate change skepticism.
Political economy times are tough indeed when Tony Abbott becomes a better option for a Coalition government.
