Introducing the MinimalState

This week I kicked off my latest blogging adventure – MinimalState. As the second person to join Catallaxy, I won’t be completely abandoning my role here. Posts covering politics and economic policy will probably be cross-posted to Catallaxy, whilst I’ll also try and provide a weekly (or thereabouts) wrap of the news from MinimalState.

For Catallaxy readers, please take note of the commenting rules at MinimalState. Also – to help reduce spam, your first  comment will be held in moderation. Once approved, subsequent posts will be automatically posted – unless you end up in the sin bin for ignoring the rules.

So without further ado, here is a wrap of the first week of the MinimalState.

News From The MinimalState
Despite all the talk about rise of new media, traditional media sources are still more popular popular than ‘new media’ as a source of news, both in Australia and the US.

When it comes to entertainment though, new media does appear to be making inroads – even causing something of an internal tussle within the Seven media group.

Could the poacher turn gamekeeper? Former Daily Telegraph editor David Penberthy had some choice words about celebrity PR pimp Max Markson this week. Is it time to start a Penbo for Media Watch campaign?

Meanwhile the Australian Human Rights Commission wants to play gamekeeper for the world, threatening legal action against the US based site ‘Encyclopedia Dramatica’ (ED). ED might be tacky, might be tasteless and it’s entry on Aboriginals might be racist. But sometimes the way to minimise the harm from sites like this is to ignore them, rather than give the global publicity as a free speech martyr.

MinimalState this week also features a couple of reposts of articles lost in the great Catallaxy crash of “09. So if you’d like to revisit the topics of TIO complaints or competitor profiling, pop on over.

Rounding out the week, another former Catallaxy contributor, Kodjo, has a post on prescription insurance.

So that’s the news so far from the MinimalState – hope to see some of you drop by.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Introducing the MinimalState

  1. daddy dave

    Good luck with it. Do you have any specific objectives? It seems like if you wanted a soapbox, you could just stay here.

  2. HeathG


    Despite the name, MinimalState will probably be less overtly political. I’m looking to use it to do more industry analysis & commentary (media/tech/telco) as well as discuss the practice and application of competitive intelligence. I ant to be able to refer people to those types of articles without them getting distracted (or potentially put off) by a whole lot of climate-change posts or discussions on the long and growing problems of the Rudd government. I see the latter (climate and govt critique) as being catallaxy’s niche so those sorts of posts will either be cross-posted or just published here.

    Exception is probably comment on industry policy (TELCO/TECH/MEDIA) by Australian governments, however my ability to comment on these, especially telco, is still a bit limited due to my work.

  3. TerjeP (say tay-a)

    I prefered Catallaxy before the emphasis was on government critique. However I suppose different writers have different interests. One could at times be mistaken for thinking that Catallaxy believes an Abbott government would be wonderful.

  4. Jason Soon

    You probably should’ve called your blog something else to reflect your interest. I’d have called it Liberal Agora or even just Agora (but then I’ve always liked Latin or Greek inspired names). MinimalState does make it sound like another aspiring overtly libertarian political blog.

  5. HeathG

    I liked the name and it also describes what I like in technology.

  6. JC

    Yea, Terje, an Abbott government would be wonder to compared to these trogs.

  7. It’s all relative, Terje… An Abbott government may not be “wonderful” but getting rid od Rudd certainly would be.

  8. Sinclair Davidson

    The problem is that you can’t throw the bastards out without putting another bunch in.

    I’ve added Minimal State to the blogroll.

  9. Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    surely we must be able to find a golden age when economic growth was strong, unemployment low and Government minimal.

    no we can’t. It starts at the end of WW2 and then gets stronger mid 80s. Minimal government isn’t anywhere to be seen.

    Large amplitudes in the business cycle are though

  10. C.L.

    Rudd and Garrett have certainly delivered some “large amplitudes.”

  11. Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    on the contrary Circa they reduced it mightily

  12. C.L.

    Is this in the same league as your McFarlane analysis, Mr Boyer?

  13. Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    yeah circa 1900 is 1960.

  14. C.L.

    If you say so.

    Sounds like one of Possum’s mathematical claims.

    But Australia was wealthier in real terms circa 1900 than it was after the dirigiste Settlement got fully underway. This was Rafe’s point. You claimed McFarlane scotched that idea by saying population was the only factor swinging prosperity our way circa 1900. McFarlane made no such claim in the Boyer lecture. He said the EXACT OPPOSITE about the role of population vis-a-vis prosperity – using the two periods comparatively. You bungled and lied about the whole subject from start to finish.

    There is no recovery possible for you on this. It’s in the same file as your ‘Latham to win’ prediction.

  15. Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    No Circa I said the reason we had a higher income per capita was because of a low population.Supermac himself called us the Kuwait of the 1890s ( now that IS Circa 1900).

    Next time try and read properly and if you do not understand the topic ask some-one then you won’t make a Forrest of yourself again.

  16. JC

    Hey Homer, Japan’s population is falling faster than a lead balloon. I guess they’ll just get wealthier according to your stupendous theory, you numb nut.

    You have no business calling yourself an economist, Simpson you clown.

  17. C.L.

    No, Mr Boyer, you didn’t. You verballed McFarlane to say something he didn’t and you were caught out when I found the transcript. The transcript revealed McFarlane said the exact opposite about the role of population vis-a-vis prosperity – using the two periods comparatively. You bungled and lied about the whole subject from start to finish.

    No recovery is possible.

    You lose.

    It’s that simple.

  18. Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    you are an idiot Circa you have been yourself to death attempting to show black is white

Comments are closed.