The markets:

Niall Clugston writes: Re. “The lesson from S&P: politics DOES matter” (yesterday, item 1). Glenn Dyer and Bernard Keane argue that:

“GFC Mark 1 was a crisis induced by ideology — that of unfettered free markets — and it was delivered by banks given free rein. If there’s a GFC Mark 2, however, it will have been induced by politics, and delivered by politicians.”

The problem with this is that it effectively heaps the blame onto governments. It is governments that should have fettered the markets and reined in the banks; even though the markets and banks consist of people, they are absolved of responsibility.

As to the “GFC Mark 2”, although America’s moronic politics and 18th-century system of government have exacerbated the crisis, at bottom it is based on a dire dilemma: whether to cut spending in a recession, or to go deeper into debt. And the chosen solution? A bit of both!

Let’s be clear: the crisis is economic, and all that’s happened between “Mark 1” and “Mark 2” is that the private sector has dumped its problems onto the public sector. Let’s give blame where blame is due, and not much credit to the likes of Standard & Poor’s.

Martin Gordon writes: The fact that the narrative of international agencies such as the IMF and the like tends to reflect the government line generally is not that surprising, given the primary source of information is the country’s government!

The Crikey aside attack on the Coalition over deficits, debt and carbon pricing was a bit too pointless, particularly in view of the above. I have supported carbon pricing (but not the massive churn the government is pursuing), resource taxes, and stimulus packages, just that I have argued for effective taxes, not waste and for effective stimulus during the GFC.

Dealing with debt is not unreasonable, Australia is a debtor country dependent on capital inflows, foreign debt and so on, and a conservative disposition on financial management makes sense when comparing with other nations. Curiously figures even in the writing of leftish economists in Australia and they argue for relatively conservative financial management positions and regulation. The Crikey analysis seemed to be a bit out of step.

Our low debt reflects prudent decision of some Keating budgets and the Howard era. I don’t seem to recollect there being great support for surpluses from the Australian Democrats, Greens and often the ALP opposition. In the US The Democrats are as committed to some silly expenditures just as some Republicans are to not expanding taxes. Obama’s shortcomings as the least experienced President of the US (in executive experience) at the time of his election are also becoming apparent too.

Lorraine MacIntosh writes: Re. “So much for austerity as Italy drops further in the mire” (yesterday, item 10). Jo McKenna wrote:

“Investors are very nervous as last Friday’s US debt downgrade added to the eurozone’s sovereign debt crisis and there are continuing fears that Italy may be the next domino to fall from overwhelming debt burdens as we have seen in Greece, Spain and Ireland.”

I feel the inclusion of Spain as a country “fallen from overwhelming debt” is erroneous and careless. It seems to me that there are media and people in NZ and Australia that are careless about including Spain in with the “PIGS” and such discourse. Also suggesting Spain’s public debt situation is similar to Italy’s is misleading. I suggest you check this Financial Times article:

“For both Spain and Italy, those fundamentals need not scare markets into panic. Spain has low debt and a sharply falling deficit. Italy, although it debt level is the eurozone’s second highest, runs a primary surplus, and its debt matures slowly. Both countries can, if they must, afford to pay yields well in excess of 7 per cent for an extended period.”

I’m currently living in Spain and doing political, economic research here. Also I recently abandoned The Australian online headlines and added Crikey for Australian news and comment — which I think was a very good move — but please, more care with comments such as that above.

As is written in the FT article, it will be the traders who decide things and they may not like Spain’s slow progress on dealing with its cajas (local banks), private debt and slow progress on structural changes needed to improve the employment situation, but don’t get ahead of yourselves with the news.

Andrew Haughton writes: With the state of the world economy at the moment, Karl Marx must be weeping with laughter.

Free speech:

Arglebargle IV (aka Joe Boswell) writes: Re. “Free speech at risk as Google embroiled in nym wars” (yesterday, item 14). Jason Wilson argues that “free speech” is at risk because some social media web sites might require those who post public messages to attach their real names.

It is complete tosh to say that only the anonymous speak freely. Before the internet, newspapers typically required those who wrote letters to the editor to provide their name and address for publication. I do not recall anyone at the time saying that there was in consequence no free speech.

Even so, I’ll accept it is true that some number of people who have something significant to say on the internet would suffer if their identity was revealed. On the other hand, people use their anonymity to troll, disrupt, abuse and pollute a great number of websites with impunity. Some of this looks like the work of individual hooligans. In other cases it looks organised, and Crikey has occasionally reported evidence pointing towards such attacks planned on behalf of governments and others.

Others spread views on such sites that should bring them into disrepute, but anonymity protects and encourages them. The normal and valuable social action of shame is prevented. Is this included in the “free flow of information” that Wilson thinks is dependent on anonymity? Does his notion of “information” include misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, lies, personal abuse, threats, bullying and all the other abuses abetted by anonymity?

Ending anonymity on internet social media in general so that people will usually have to accept personal responsibility for their public statements would, I think, be a good thing for free speech overall.

Quality would be improved; anonymous speech is usually not so much free as worthless.

There will still be many ways to make anonymous statements. If somebody does not like the rules on a social media website they do not have to use it. If enough people don’t like it, they can set up a site they do like. What’s wrong with competition?

Israel:

Cliff Karp writes: Re. “The vexed Palestine question facing Rudd and Gillard“(yesterday, item 11). With regards to the article on Palestine , if the Arabs cannot accept Israel as a Jewish state , what do you think will happen to Israel ? On what basis do you say that the Israeli government has no genuine interest in peace? All articles are written with a certain bias, I understand that , but your articles are generally more balanced.