Australians must not forget!

The Holocaust is the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany between 1941 and 1945. The Germans planned to murder every Jew – irrespective of nationality, age, gender or economic status – they could find. This all-encompassing genocidal objective by an established government gives the Holocaust its distinct character. The Germans continued murdering Jews even when they knew defeat was in the offing. This genocide would have been impossible without the help Germany received from European religious, educational and political institutions. Some were active participants. Most, however, were silent bystanders. Not one institution spoke out on Jews’ behalf. Jewish responses ranged from coping with persecution to various forms of armed or unarmed resistance.

Many countries, beset by both anti-immigrant and antisemitic sentiments, refused to let Jews immigrate. In June 1938, President Roosevelt convened a meeting in Evian to resolve the situation. Virtually none of the 32 participating countries were willing to accept additional imigrants. Roosevelt had hoped that Britain would create a Jewish territory somewhere in its empire. Britain refused because, it said, none of its territories were suitable for European settlement. While other countries presented economic excuses, Australia’s representative was more straightforward. Australia, he said, would admit no Jewish refugees because “we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one.” Only the Dominican Republic agreed to accept a few. Many historians believe that the behaviour of these countries constituted a “green light” for Germany to attack the Jews, which they did in 1938, after a Jewish refugee assassinated a German official in Paris.

For a more detailed essay read the Guardian.

Compulsory voting is not democratic.

Just as voter ID laws are commonplace around the globe, so is non-compulsory voting. Only 10 of the 30 nations in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have compulsory voting, Australia being one of them. The rest recognise that democracy is about choice, including the choice not to vote.

Proponents of compulsory voting argue, among other things, that it prevents disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. While this is a legitimate concern, compulsory voting in a duopoly means that rather than persuade people to vote for them, all the major parties have to do is dissuade people from voting for their opponents.

Compulsory voting offers an easy escape to get away with cheap rhetoric, blame games and mudslinging.

Non-compulsory voting, on the other hand, compels politicians to make a real effort to trigger people’s interest. They have to convince them to come out to vote in the first place.

To read more go to The Conversation.

je suis charlie aussi

REPRINTED FROM ‘The Weekend Conversation’ 10 Jan 2015

Bernard Maris is seldom named as among the 12 victims in English-language reports but he was well-known in France and  he had been an economist, writer, journalist and shareholder in Charlie Hebdo magazine since 1992. He was murdered on 7 January 2015, during the Charlie Hebdo shooting at the headquarters of the magazine in Paris.

[Following is] something written by Maris that was translated into English by Alain Alcouffe as a tribute to Maris’s memory. It is from the last pages of Maris’ 1999 book, Lettre ouverte aux gourous de l’économie qui nous prennent pour des imbéciles

Open letter to the gurus of economics who take us for idiots.

And for that title alone, [we] feel even more deeply the loss to the world of this brave man, who stood by the values of the enlightenment against a darkness that threatens us all.

---

What are economists for?

If economics is the science of the market, they are useless – we have known it for a long time (since Keynes), and we get confirmation now from the most ultra orthodox (Debreu).

If the economy is a science that predicts the future, then the greatest economist is Madame Soleil [a famous French astrologer].

If economics is the science which deals only with “trust”, then the greatest economist is Freud. If economics is the science which deals only with “transparency”, then the greatest economists are accountants, policemen, customs officers or judges.

If economics is a religion, then Camdessus is the high priest of it, but the best economist will remain Pope John Paul II.

If economics is only gossip and chatter, many journalists can aspire to be awarded the Golden Palm.

Every activity has a social utility. Even parasites are useful: they allow us to highlight the so-called “useful” people. Just as there is nothing “harmful” in ecology – except in empty heads of hunters – it is rare to be unable to associate a utility to a part of the social body. The parable of Saint-Simon, which showed that the wealth of France would not decrease if we removed many lazy people, writers and others, is questionable, and the same holds for the uselessness of the ancient Greek and music taught at university. So … what are the casuists of utilitarianism for?

Unquestionably the “experts”, the merchants of economic tales have a function of exorcism of the future. In a world without religion, they have the same function as gurus and cult leaders – and many of them combine the two businesses. They also play the role of bards, shamans or witch doctors of Indian tribes who talk incessantly to prevent the sky from falling on the heads. They are the inexhaustible storytellers of irrational, credulous, illiterate and but not uncultured societies that are no doubt more cheerful than ours.

But what have the children of Smith, Marx and Keynes to do? Are they condemned to play the roles of sorcerer, high priest or guru?

Obviously not. They can denounce the merchants of confusion, promote economics as a science of man, and not as a hard science, they can question history, civilisations, they can think about value and wealth. They can denounce efficiency and productivity – or simply leave it to business managers, they are paid for it! – And they can return to psychology, sociology, history, philosophy. Thinking about labour, time, money. In short, they can go back to Smith, Keynes and Marx.

They can also go for soup and sell their beautiful science for the lentils of expertise, and be content with the role of the fool whose legs are pulled twice a year when growth projections are presented, and every day when the Russian mafia recycles dollars which have been loaned to it in false candour.

But then, they should not speak of “quality assessment” or “technical correction”.

Let them put a pointed cap, a red nose, let them wag with their ears and tickle the armpits.

What were economists for, one will ask a hundred years from now? To make people laugh.

Bernard Maris, 1999

Hunting for the facts