There is an entire branch of sociology concerned with the study of ‘symbols’ called ‘symbolic interactionism’. In fact, similar fields have emerged in various disciplines and are amongst the more interesting areas to teach sociology students at university.
The theory behind symbolic interactionism is that things are never as they appear and we must look behind certain symbols to understand their true meaning.
An example is someone who lives in the city of Sydney yet purchases one of those large, fuck-off, four-wheel drives. This may seem to be just another car, but depending on where you sit it symbolises something deeper.
For the new owner, amongst others, it is a symbolises success and control: the ability take the car off-road whenever they see fit, taking on the great Australian outback. To others – including me – it simply symbolises someone as a total wanker: having no regard for congestion, pollution, global warming or pedestrian safety.
It is from this perspective we need to understand John Howard’s less than graceful slip the other week. I do not like John Howard – never have – but that is not the point. I gain no enjoyment from seeing some ‘silly old bugger’ (thank you Bob Hawke) fall over. I know of no-one who would enjoy such a spectacle.
No, the Prime Minister’s fall represented something more: a man who has stayed too long and is starting to look a little feeble. This is not a rant against older pollies – I mean some of my best friends are older Australians – it is what the fall symbolises.
In politics, symbols are everything Рand this brings me to the issue of weight loss. The theory being that the public would not vote for a fatty Рdismissing a politician who does not look like they are willing to take care of themselves. (Phillip Ruddock is probably the exception the proves the rule Рbut that is a clich̩ I never really understood.)
In NSW, Barry O’Farrell’s political ambitions were linked to his weight. I suspect that Peter Debnam’s ongoing desire to be photographed in his budgie-smugglers had less to do with an attempt to sell an outdoor, masculine image – I mean who is that gullible – and more to do with taunting Barry. A kind of, ‘check me out Barry, no way you can have my job.’
Peter Debnam was never that smart – and never looked that good in the budgie-smugglers – so when Barry hit the treadmill, we all knew what was coming.
We can draw similar comparisons between John Howard’s morning walk in his tasteful and elegant tracksuit as a taunt to Kim (I save my best speeches when I am about to step down) Beasley. Kim was a sitting duck in terms of symbolic interactionism.
This is not a uniquely Australian phenomenon and is just as important in the USA. A friend tells me there are (unconfirmed) rumours that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have staffers who study the most recent photographs of Al Gore for any hints of weight loss. No word yet on Big Al’s political motivations, but like the Oracle of Delphi, we turn to his ample mid-section as a sign of what we should expect.
It is with interest then, that I read that Newt Gingrich has been ordering oatmeal with no milk or sugar around Washington. Yes, big bad Newt may be the dark horse for the Republican nomination. This is the man who was one of the architects of the Iran-Contra affair and a man who, in 1996, closed the USA government down for 27 days because of a personal stand-off with Bill (please pass my cigar) Clinton. There is also Newt’s hypocrisy: that is, his high moral position while having affairs. I mean, go for it Newt, all power to you, but do not preach family values while you are doing it.
Will the American public may be willing to forget and forgive if Newt tones up a little? The lead Republican candidate, Rudolph Gulliani, is in the box seat, both with weight and fund raising, at the moment. From my intelligence – and I am using this term loosely – he is not phased by Newt’s positioning at the moment.
But is anyone taking Newt seriously?
I spoke to some Americans the other day and they seemed to laugh off any suggestions regarding Newt’s nomination: noting that he was past his best, had no fresh ideas, lacked personality, has his independence compromised by his close relationship to Fox News, is basically known for being a complete knob.
But what of his weight loss I inquired: would a skinny-Newt be any different to a cuddly-Newt? Can politicians re-invent themselves by a bit of weight-loss, some hair colouring, bright teeth and a smile?
Their response threw me: ‘Well, anyone can become President of the USA.’
They then asked me, ‘Can anyone be Prime Minister of Australia?’
I reflected on this, thinking of all the Prime Minister’s I knew, settling on the image of John Howard falling over, and responded with a confident, ‘Yes, I suppose anyone can be Prime Minister.’
In generations to come, sociologists will probably look at what Prime Minister John Howard symbolised and draw their own conclusions.
You decide, I am off to the gym with Brendan, Pete and Malcolm.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Practical Economics: Privatisation - do not always believe your textbook
The theory of privatisation is simple: the market will always deliver better, more efficient and cheaper services to consumers than governments can. As an economist, this mantra was repeated to me both while studying at university and working in the finance sector.
Given the NSW government’s discussion to privatise the delivery of electricity, it is time to move beyond the textbook and consider reality. Unfortunately for advocates of privatisation, this reality is significantly different as we can see from international examples, including New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
Do not get me wrong, I am neither against privatisation per se nor believe that it is always a bad idea. Rather, my position is one that argues that each industry must be looked at on its own merits and informed, long-term decisions need to be made rather than blindly following an ideology that does not always work.
In other words, there is a need to consider which industries have a natural propensity for privatisation, and which should be considered as belonging to our community and, therefore, being outside the market. To do this, we can begin by splitting government assets into three groups.
The first group is what can be called commodities. These commodities can be defined as those assets that fit neatly into a market logic: that is, they can be delivered for profit and the goals of the private sector align with those of broader society. Here, the private shareholders can demand profits while competition ensures that service delivery remains a priority.
The gaming industry is one example. The privatisation of TAB Corp. can be considered a success as the market is large enough to encourage competition and service delivery can be achieved through many channels. Certain dimensions of insurance industry – such as car insurance – can also be considered to be ripe for privatisation as there are enough competitors that ensure the price remains competitive. Privatisation of GIO, for example, while it has its critics, also removed the burden of risk from the government and has allowed the private sector to carry it.
The second category is those government assets that can be considered outside the market. These are those assets whose service delivery allows our community to operate: these include water, health care, education and yes, energy.
In such industries, the market logic and the needs of society come into conflict. To explain this, I will return to my first year economics textbook and the basic rules of supply and demand. What makes a commodity valuable is its scarcity. This is why diamonds are more valuable than water – though most of us can comfortably live without diamonds. The market then, gains from scarcity as it drives up prices and profits. In contrast, our society is better off if we experience abundance.
Further, the service delivery of these goods and services, if provided with only the profit motive in mind, leads to exclusion. While global warming means that we need to reconsider the use of electricity, we still need to ensure that all sections of society can access such assets. In other words, as a member of a community, I am happy to pay a little extra for electricity knowing that the farmers and others living in remote parts of our state also have access to energy.
The market does not reflect this logic and as a result, it is difficult to imagine the private sector being interested in delivering services to remote communities without substantial price rises: just ask the executives at Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
So, how are we to understand such assets? We should think of them as ‘commons.’ While the word commons has a history in Middle Ages’ England and its use has all but disappeared from the English language, it has relevance today. The term commons is being applied to all those assets, both provided by nature (such as air, water and the oceans) as well as government services that we all use but no-one owns. That is, assets common to us all.
In fact, such commons have been passed on to us from previous generations and in truth, we are only holding them in trust for future ones. The concept of the commons allows us to draw a line in the sand and say that some dimensions of our society are much too valuable to trust to the whims of the market.
The third category is those assets that fit somewhere between the market and the commons. We can think of Telstra in this way: if the federal government had its way over again, it would probably privatise service delivery and keep the infrastructure in public hands. This way the competition between service providers could ensure new technologies and cheaper prices, while remote parts of the nation are assured access.
The answer then, is not to sell off assets but to invest in the infrastructure to ensure that we achieve that twin goals of efficiency and sustainability. In situations like energy delivery, massive amounts of investment are needed to achieve these goals, and in reality, only the government is in the position to undertake this. Anything less leaves many in our society vulnerable, and betrays the legacy left to us as well as the duty we owe to future generations.
Given the NSW government’s discussion to privatise the delivery of electricity, it is time to move beyond the textbook and consider reality. Unfortunately for advocates of privatisation, this reality is significantly different as we can see from international examples, including New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
Do not get me wrong, I am neither against privatisation per se nor believe that it is always a bad idea. Rather, my position is one that argues that each industry must be looked at on its own merits and informed, long-term decisions need to be made rather than blindly following an ideology that does not always work.
In other words, there is a need to consider which industries have a natural propensity for privatisation, and which should be considered as belonging to our community and, therefore, being outside the market. To do this, we can begin by splitting government assets into three groups.
The first group is what can be called commodities. These commodities can be defined as those assets that fit neatly into a market logic: that is, they can be delivered for profit and the goals of the private sector align with those of broader society. Here, the private shareholders can demand profits while competition ensures that service delivery remains a priority.
The gaming industry is one example. The privatisation of TAB Corp. can be considered a success as the market is large enough to encourage competition and service delivery can be achieved through many channels. Certain dimensions of insurance industry – such as car insurance – can also be considered to be ripe for privatisation as there are enough competitors that ensure the price remains competitive. Privatisation of GIO, for example, while it has its critics, also removed the burden of risk from the government and has allowed the private sector to carry it.
The second category is those government assets that can be considered outside the market. These are those assets whose service delivery allows our community to operate: these include water, health care, education and yes, energy.
In such industries, the market logic and the needs of society come into conflict. To explain this, I will return to my first year economics textbook and the basic rules of supply and demand. What makes a commodity valuable is its scarcity. This is why diamonds are more valuable than water – though most of us can comfortably live without diamonds. The market then, gains from scarcity as it drives up prices and profits. In contrast, our society is better off if we experience abundance.
Further, the service delivery of these goods and services, if provided with only the profit motive in mind, leads to exclusion. While global warming means that we need to reconsider the use of electricity, we still need to ensure that all sections of society can access such assets. In other words, as a member of a community, I am happy to pay a little extra for electricity knowing that the farmers and others living in remote parts of our state also have access to energy.
The market does not reflect this logic and as a result, it is difficult to imagine the private sector being interested in delivering services to remote communities without substantial price rises: just ask the executives at Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
So, how are we to understand such assets? We should think of them as ‘commons.’ While the word commons has a history in Middle Ages’ England and its use has all but disappeared from the English language, it has relevance today. The term commons is being applied to all those assets, both provided by nature (such as air, water and the oceans) as well as government services that we all use but no-one owns. That is, assets common to us all.
In fact, such commons have been passed on to us from previous generations and in truth, we are only holding them in trust for future ones. The concept of the commons allows us to draw a line in the sand and say that some dimensions of our society are much too valuable to trust to the whims of the market.
The third category is those assets that fit somewhere between the market and the commons. We can think of Telstra in this way: if the federal government had its way over again, it would probably privatise service delivery and keep the infrastructure in public hands. This way the competition between service providers could ensure new technologies and cheaper prices, while remote parts of the nation are assured access.
The answer then, is not to sell off assets but to invest in the infrastructure to ensure that we achieve that twin goals of efficiency and sustainability. In situations like energy delivery, massive amounts of investment are needed to achieve these goals, and in reality, only the government is in the position to undertake this. Anything less leaves many in our society vulnerable, and betrays the legacy left to us as well as the duty we owe to future generations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)