we’re still very much in the realm of what Simons, picking up on an anthropological motif, calls “the gift economy�

Yes, but doesn’t this imply that we get something in return??

(2) The essay from Glyn Davis lamenting free information on the bottom line of his company/market sector university was particularly enlightening. He didn’t mention the role of university facilities (except libraries wanted by dusty historians) that are necessary for science. I think he actually gave many good reasons for abolishing all university courses (and government subsidies) that are not science-based, or lead to research (including history and economics), with this role being taken up by post-secondary business courses. An added benefit of this is that maybe the lack of the kudos of a university course would encourage more people into courses that we not in the interest of the individual or the companies (often overseas) that employ/sponsor them.

(I note Davis mentioned MIT’s publication of all course materials at [link], but he didn’t give the URL: heh heh).

I’d like to know where this ‘investment surge’ of foreign borrowings is going? Who will be left holding the papers if the ‘markets’ call more and more of debts in?

The answer is that most of our $500+ billion in net foreign debt comes from Mr and Mrs Average borrowing to “invest” in property. The banks have been happy to make money in recent years borrowing at much lower rates in the US and Japanese wholesale markets and onlending it to Aussie mums and dads at much higher rates. That appetite among householders has in turn been inflamed by the overly generous capital gains tax concessions on investment property that have turned hundreds of thousands of Australians into property speculators.

That in turn frees up their columnists to separate themselves from the irrelevant noise that consumes most of their bretheren in the press gallery and say something interesting.

While we’re on the subject of the increasing succumbment of the MSM to Stockholm Syndrome in politics, has anyone noticed how hostage the ABC has become to the daily spin? Echoing the beat-up from The Australian, the national broadcaster led their bulletin the other night with Garrett’s “gaffe” on Kyoto.
In my day, that story would have been spiked by a sub-editor on the basis of the WGAFF (Who Gives a Flying F**k) principle.

This is where the media is really failing to serve its audience. It is forgetting one of the first rules of journalism: Write about what concerns your readers and viewers, not what concerns the people you are reporting on.

I read Colebatch’s columns often and this focus on the dangers of a ballooning foreign debt is a consistent theme. While the ALP during the 1980s was fixated on the Current Account (sparking Keating’s 1985 Banana republic storm warning)rather than inflation, the current fixation on inflation might have been at the expense of the dangers in an accelerating foreign debt.

In the spirit of Mark’s post about the hyper-dramatised 24 hour spin-cycle of the election’s media reporting and comment, I’d like to know where this ‘investment surge’ of foreign borrowings is going? Who will be left holding the papers if the ‘markets’ call more and more of debts in?

[link]

But Middleton just does the usual “who’s winning”, “backflip”, bleh in her spot on SBS news. I should perhaps have mentioned that the Fin Review has by far the best coverage of politics - particularly in columns from Tingle and Lenore Taylor. It’s worth the $2.70!

….There are some moves in this direction from online media such as New Matilda, Crikey, YouDecide2007, this blog and others….

… Followed by five extensive paragraphs full of anti-Liberal Party propaganda.

One of my friends at uni kept talking about how disappointed he was that Costello and Swan didn’t ask the big questions about services rather than tax cuts

Karen Middleton (I think) asked a question about this in regard to polling in Eden Monaro and elsewhere that indicated people would prefer investment in services to tax cuts. Neither Swan or Costello could be persuaded to engage with that question. It really was thoroughly disappointing.

Meaningful analysis of climate change could help inform the punter to no end, but has been an unfortunate victim of the culture wars.

Just quietly, do you think it might be time to drop the ‘-tariat’ tags?

Labor have pledged to commit to the “education revolution� *hand gesture*.

Heh!

All we heard from Rudd and Howard were the same old talking points, each candidate delivering a speech from notes and dodging questions from journalists. Put someone like Bob Brown or Andrew Bartlett up there and you’re going to get some serious questions asked that will make the questionees look weak when they refuse to answer it. Everyone knows politicians dodge journo questions, we expect it of them. A politician dodging another politician’s question on national television? Well, we know who just lost a few votes to who.

The two debates so far have been a perfect opportunity to include the minor parties in the debate. All parties have a vision for the future and their leaders are there to elucidate on it. Costello vs Swan, what about Bob Brown as Treasury spokesperson for the Greens? Get Brown to ask Costello about services and the inflationary effect of tax cuts and he’ll either attempt to verbally abuse Brown or dodge the question with a smirk. Swan’s probably in a better position because Labor have pledged to commit to the “education revolution” *hand gesture*.

Imagine the Democrats and Greens at the Downer-McClelland debate. These two parties have a stellar record on human rights and sane foreign policy whereas the Liberals want wars and death sentences for terrorists and the ALP are more than happy to go along with the Liberals on issues like Haneef. It’d be a perfect way to hold the big parties’ feet to the fire and for this reason it won’t happen.