Ross Gittins claims that libertarians haven’t spoken out against the pink batts program.
The government’s critics in the opposition, the media and the industry haven’t attacked its decision to offer the subsidy, but rather its failure to implement adequate training, licensing requirements, codes of conduct and inspection of work done. Their implicit and sometimes explicit assumption has been: any fool could have known the private sector isn’t to be trusted. So the government has been asked to bear all the responsibility for the shoddy work, fires and deaths.
Blame it all on Nanny, who was asleep on the job.
But all this is the opposite of what libertarians believe. They believe the private sector is always to be trusted; that rational firms always do a good job, that competition will soon drive the odd cowboy out of the industry and that government regulation of industries almost always does more harm than good.
The government says one good thing to emerge from the disaster is that the insulation installation industry is now tightly regulated. It reminds us that deaths occurred in the industry before the subsidy was introduced, that employers had the usual duty of care to their workers and that the industry is covered by state occupational health and safety legislation.
But libertarians have never been enthusiastic about occupational safety laws and have long disapproved of licensing arrangements, which they believe are used by the industry to restrict supply.
And whatever happened to individuals accepting responsibility for their own affairs? What happened to caveat emptor and civil remedies? Isn’t any of the blame to be shared by cowboy businessmen?
Then this great line.
Libertarians are great enthusiasts for an economic theory known as ”public choice”, which holds that, whatever the original motivation, government interventions are invariably captured by the people being regulated and turned to their own advantage.
It’s always wise to be on guard when listening to vested interests holding forth on how governments should regulate their industry, but apparently not in this case. Where were the public choice theorists when we needed them?
I’m quite astonished to read that libertarians haven’t spoken out. Did Gittins actually speak to any libertarians before writing his article? He didn’t speak to me, or anyone I know.
The government’s critics in the opposition, the media and the industry haven’t attacked its decision to offer the subsidy, but rather its failure to implement adequate training, licensing requirements, codes of conduct and inspection of work done.
Has Ross been under a medically induced coma or something for the past 12 months?
JC
1 Mar 10 at 1:14 pm
But all this is the opposite of what libertarians believe. They believe the private sector is always to be trusted; that rational firms always do a good job, that competition will soon drive the odd cowboy out of the industry and that government regulation of industries almost always does more harm than good.</i?
.
Since when are the opposition libertarian?
.
The government says one good thing to emerge from the disaster is that the insulation installation industry is now tightly regulated.
.
So various governments have passed a pile of statutes in the last few weeks ‘ey?
Adrien
1 Mar 10 at 1:20 pm
More likely a beer induced coma.
[Rafe do you know that he drinks beer? Sinc]
Rafe
1 Mar 10 at 2:09 pm
I’m quoted in the AFR on 6 Feb 2009 as follows:
“I think there’s a danger in conflating various policy initiatives, and I think the car industry is a good example. You have industry policy being dressed up as a stimulus measure. With the Pink Batts, all you’re doing is diverting resources from one sector of the economy to the other…you’re not actually benefiting unemployed people.”
Is it too much to ask that he do some research?
Stephen Kirchner
1 Mar 10 at 2:23 pm
Gittins (the ‘tins’ is silent) also writes
They have little sympathy for the use of the budget to redistribute income from high to low income earners, which they denigrate as ”churning”.
Umm no, Git, churning actually refers to taxing the middle class and then redistributing the taxes back to them in some specific subsidy form when a better alternative is to tax them less and spend less on them
jtfsoon
1 Mar 10 at 2:43 pm
That Gittins doesn’t realise libertarians have been outspoken might be indicative that libertarians are not declaring themselves to be libertarians when expressing their views.
John H.
1 Mar 10 at 2:45 pm
JohnH
Git is explicitly identifying libertarians with the CIS and IPA. It is therefore relevant that Stephen Kirchner, who has been employed by the CIS for ages now notes his evidence to the contrary for Git’s claims.
jtfsoon
1 Mar 10 at 2:48 pm
Strange. Gittins is often (perhaps usually) good but when he misses he is way off. I suspect he has his own prejudices that swamp his analytical ability and common sense. A pity.
ken n
1 Mar 10 at 2:54 pm
another article by a prominent libertarian sympathiser missed by our uber-researcher Git
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/energy-efficientbenefit-deficient/story-e6frg6zo-1225834522960
jtfsoon
1 Mar 10 at 2:54 pm
Does Git know Homer, as he seems to be making the same sort of glaring mistakes and omissions?
JC
1 Mar 10 at 3:07 pm
@JC – Has anyone ever seen them in the same room together?
Gittins seems to get more retarded every year – I gave up on him long ago.
Fleeced
1 Mar 10 at 3:09 pm
Gittins echos some of the comments made by semi-regular commenter JM.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Mar 10 at 3:12 pm
I of course raised the same issue here yesterday and was howled down by the mob
Island View
1 Mar 10 at 3:14 pm
Dunno, Fleeced. Ominously Homer often speaks very highly of the Git which lends support to the idea that not only have they been in the same room together but could actually be exchanging “ideas”.
The dead giveaway will be if the Git starts writing about some of the “virtues” of Nazi economics which would mean Homer may have transmitted the Stupid virus to the Git. We need to watch the Git very carefully here and call the medics on presentation of a few more clues of symptoms.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 3:18 pm
No, Island – you were ignored, not howled down. John Howard and Tony Abbott are not libertarians. Never were, never will be. As it is we’ve been having a long debate (quite rude at times) whereby otherwise sensible people have very different views of the relative merits and especially the demerits of Howard and Abbott.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Mar 10 at 3:18 pm
Howled down, IV? Weren’t you in fact complaining that you were being ignored?
Fleeced
1 Mar 10 at 3:19 pm
Island:
I can’t recall you were ever “howled down”. All I can remember was that you were basically ignored as a potential spam bot and the various thread moved on.
Don’t flatter yourself.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 3:20 pm
Jason,
A better (and more timely) one from Henry:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/beware-bold-economists/story-e6frg7ef-1111118269122
Andrew Reynolds
1 Mar 10 at 3:26 pm
Island, I’ll give you a little undeserved attention. I clicked onto your website and you have the following story:
“The Bulletin’s owner on Climate Change”, with a photo of Rupert Murdoch in a pirate costume.
Murdoch never owned the Bulletin, you nimrod. Kerry Packer did.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 3:27 pm
Roskam on Q&A ducked and weaved on the issue
I dont think anybody believed him
rog
1 Mar 10 at 3:33 pm
He’s talking about the Townsville Bulletin.
Scapa
1 Mar 10 at 3:36 pm
Wrong thread, Rog, you genius.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 3:37 pm
Roskam = IPA = ‘libertaians’
Try and stay with the argument JC, the nicotine is addling your brain
rog
1 Mar 10 at 3:40 pm
..and in case it escaped you JC, its all about batts
rog
1 Mar 10 at 3:41 pm
Rog:
Island is looking for company in his sand box. Go and help by going over to his site and informing the doofus that Rupert Murdoch never owned the Bulletin.
If both of you find it hard to communicate in the same language Townsvillian vs Eastwoodlish I suggest you use hand signals.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 3:45 pm
I think that you just demonstrated why so called ‘libertarians’ are not taken seriously
rog
1 Mar 10 at 3:52 pm
rog – of course nobody believed him. It wasn’t Garrett who should take responsibility, it was Rudd and yesterday he did.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Mar 10 at 3:56 pm
God, what a snarky article. A string of sarcastic jabs, one after another.
Hey, Mr Gittins, here’s a thought.
Why not write an article that carefully and fairly explains the libertarian position (on something), acknowledge its merits, and then say why you disagree?
Hold off on phrases like the following, designed a a nudge and a wink to your readership as to who not to believe:
“taxpayer subsidided” (oh the hypocrites!)
“unacknowledged assumptions” (the sneaky bastards)
“But they haven’t been too fussy about the company they keep” (dogs, fleas and all that)
.
Plus, try to describe actual people’s opinions rather than the stereotypical libertarian of your imagination. The fact that you name no names tells us that you’re shadow-boxing.
daddy dave
1 Mar 10 at 4:10 pm
Libertarians invite sarcasm DD.
Howabout describing ‘libertarianism’ and the role that it plays in modern society?
I thought the insulation scheme was a perfect example of engaging with the private sector yet the libertarians (like Roskam) avoided supporting it. We now have the prospect of greater regulation in the insulation sector which would no doubt add to the cost, without any guarantee that house fires or electrocutions would decrease.
Libertarians were against supporting the banks, which would have meant that all commerce would have stopped and panic would have broken out.
rog
1 Mar 10 at 5:01 pm
Sinclair – the reason that nobody believed Roskam is because he wasnt supporting free enterprise, he was after Garrett’s scalp for political gain.
rog
1 Mar 10 at 5:02 pm
Rog….an Edward De bono study in lateral thinker.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 5:07 pm
rog – if you say so. As a minor point, the IPA doesn’t claim to be ‘libertarian’.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Mar 10 at 5:23 pm
“I believe in government deregulation and private property title. Those that believe that strong govts are better keepers of the public should consider the Chinese/Russian proposal for floating nuclear power stations and remember the Cold War, Gulags, Cultural Revolution, the Lada and the Zil.”
- Rog, April 7, 2006.
So you’re now driving a Lada, Rog?
C.L.
1 Mar 10 at 5:27 pm
Yes CL, we will now have greater regulation for less benefit.
And further loss of personal responsibility and reliance on the state.
rog
1 Mar 10 at 5:37 pm
Not sure what the IPA claims to be Sinclair – not for free enterprise it would appear
rog
1 Mar 10 at 5:38 pm
should be ‘increased reliance on the state’
rog
1 Mar 10 at 5:39 pm
Are you really this fucking stupid, Rog?
So the state fucks up a policy initiative and you blame libertarians why the government is now imposing more regulations. You blame libertarians for not being supportive in the first instance.
The vast, vast bulk of the criticisms have come from no-libertarians you numb nut.
How about this argument then, you intellectual cripple? How about not introducing these stupid fucking policies in the first place that have little objective support in terms of being evidence based in meeting objectives and have lots of unintended consequences.
Now go and put on the clown uniform, as you look far better in that get-up than trying to pretend you have anything worthwhile to add, you moron.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 5:47 pm
True to form, JC plays the schoolyard bully
rog
1 Mar 10 at 5:49 pm
The unintended consequences were a direct result of the private sector failing to self regulate.
JC, you seem to think that your own brain explosions are impressive.
They are degrading
rog
1 Mar 10 at 5:52 pm
JC the libertarian
Ha!
rog
1 Mar 10 at 5:53 pm
Rog:
You continue infesting threads with intellectual junk and you continue to be taunted for being a mental light weight.
You fucking moron…. The libertarian position is and always will be “DON’t DO IT” at the inception of any similar policy. So bagging libertarians/free market types because they come down hard on junk policy like this is more than redundant you pea brained, faux outraged doctors wife goose.
Bagging John because he’s both critical of the policy and critical of Lurch for introducing it and then the manner he handled it is a perfectly logical, legitimate and coherent position (John’s) to hold, you retard.
As for bullying, the only thing you ever do istry and bully people here about their views because they don’t somehow conform you this abysmal deformed thing yours have morphed into.
Go the fuck away, you miserable creature.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 5:59 pm
rog,
If you threw a billion dollars at a group of people would you, or anyone else, expect self-regulation to work in apportioning the funds? If not, who then is at fault – the people who failed to self-regulate or the idiot that threw in the billion dollars?
If, OTOH, you handed the billion dollars out amongst (say) 20 million people and said to them “Go and spend it on something useful” do you think that would produce a more orderly effect?
Andrew Reynolds
1 Mar 10 at 6:01 pm
rog – the IPA claims to be free market.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Mar 10 at 6:01 pm
The unintended consequences were a direct result of the private sector failing to self regulate.
Self regulate what, you fucking pea brain?
The government literally chucked money at the the policy without much regard to the consequences despite being warned by numerous government bodies that what they were doing was dangerous….
despite the fact that the market behaved in exactly the way it did which was to attract new players into the game due the money being thrown at the policy,
despite the fact that the government had several hurdles to jump for any new entrants
and now you’re suggesting the players didn’t self regulate.
You pathetic, deplorable meathead. You intellectual coward.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 6:05 pm
oops non-government bodies….
JC
1 Mar 10 at 6:06 pm
Rog: JC the libertarian
Ha!
“Rog the dickhead.”
This free association thing is fun!
Abu Chowdah
1 Mar 10 at 6:11 pm
Sinc, my comment on the beer-induced coma was a (possibly unfair) reflection on journalists at large:)
I should have said that I know nothing about the Git’s drinking habits.
Rafe
1 Mar 10 at 6:12 pm
Chowdah:
The meathead is measuring everyone to his doctors wife standards and then thinks they can’t possibly think any different to her.
He has the IQ of a faux-outraged gnat.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 6:18 pm
Abu Chowdah
1 Mar 10 at 6:20 pm
Howled down, IV? Weren’t you in fact complaining that you were being ignored?
Spot on.
He posted a lame observation and no one had the energy to even acknowledge it. Then he came back in and asked to be responded to. He got one, very mild, response and now he thinks he was howled down.
I fear that it’s this very same inability to accurately interpret reality that explains why people like Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama get voted into office.
Abu Chowdah
1 Mar 10 at 6:24 pm
People hate what they fear. Gittens is virtually irrelevant. He doesn’t even write about economics anymore. His bad policy masquerading as bad economics has become unmasked. Peter Spencer, Kelo, DC concealed carry, Tea Parties, Hayek’s Nobel – libertarians are uncomfortably influential and although we know that we are a minority, we can get agreement with a majority of people on a majority of issues. He closed his own comments thread when challenged.
Take some succour from the facts.
Semi Regular Libertarian
1 Mar 10 at 6:34 pm
In JC’s yippy hippy world where the govt shrinks to a dot..no police, no public education, no public health, no public transport..
..sounds like afghanistan
Which is about JCs speed; no work and lots of dope
rog
1 Mar 10 at 6:46 pm
Make up your mind, Rog, you intellectual gnat.
JC the libertarian
Ha!
or
<iIn JC’s yippy hippy world where the govt shrinks to a dot..no police, no public education, no public health, no public transport..
Those two comments all in the space of 1/2 hour.
You total intellectual embarrassment to the doctors wives movement, rog.
You really have no business ever talking about anything on this site, you total moron.
JC
1 Mar 10 at 6:51 pm
“The unintended consequences were a direct result of the private sector failing to self regulate.”
Rog, who thinks that the private sector will self-regulate as some sort of spontaneous thing? True self-regulation by the private sector is when competition leads to improvements in quality or service or whatever over time. A truck-load of money on offer to whoever sets up an insulation business is not the way to investigates the merits on any sector.
Pedro
1 Mar 10 at 6:56 pm
“merits of any sector”
PS, gittens is … words fail me.
Pedro
1 Mar 10 at 6:58 pm
Actually an “ignore” functionality would be good for this site. I think rog will be popular first choice amongst many of the sites regulars.
Abu Chowdah
1 Mar 10 at 7:24 pm
“In JC’s yippy hippy world where the govt shrinks to a dot..no police, no public education, no public health, no public transport..”
No one has said they want to get rid of the Police, rather shrink their mission. Public education isn’t a big deal, equity and access is – ditto for public health.
As for transport, that would be a relief, in NSW at least.
Semi Regular Libertarian
1 Mar 10 at 7:31 pm
JC wrote “Has Ross been under a medically induced coma or something for the past 12 months?”
I doubt that there has been any detected brain activity for a decade or so.
Rob W
1 Mar 10 at 11:35 pm