Drugonomics

Apparently police feel they are winning the drug war in Canberra (http://the-riotact.com/?p=11633).

Drugonomics 101: reduce supply and price goes up. Price goes up, and
a) users have to find extra money (e.g. buy less food, more burglaries, etc)
b) buyers are more willing to purchase alternatives (legal and not so legal). Sales volumes and prices for those then go up.
c) with high prices, there are better margins for dealers and other nefarious characters much worse than the druggies themselves. So we get more dealers attracted to the market.

I suspect drug enforcement and supply reduction will therefore increase the impact on us all (i.e. a larger ‘externality’). I’m sure studies have been done on it, but for them I have not searched.
Prohibition and vigorous drug law enforcement are a waste of tax payers money. There are better ways to change druggies’ behaviour that would cost us all less $ and harm in the end.

A possible solution is have some discretion in drug law enforcement. Police do currently exercise discretion with many laws, so I’m sure laws could be designed to give the right sort of discretion (I’m no expert of course). Wikipedia has a stub on the concept - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement

Political reality is that (now at least) the people wouldn’t accept ’soft’ solutions to drug use, so a pragmatic approach may be better than hard enforcement. This probably goes on a fair bit in reality anyway.

(this is an edited version of my comments on RiotACT)

"Government created the recession"

Alan Kohler has found the bad guys:

In other words, and to sum up: the December quarter recession was, in fact, the
government’s fault and was all a statistical discrepancy anyway.

Essentially he is saying that the numbers are so close that you can't actually know whether the economy contracted or not, and in any case it was spending by the public sector that reduced (whereas household and private sector spending was up).

I would be interested to know which level of government was most responsible...

Press freedom, and Australia's Right to Know

The argument for press freedom in a functional democracy is well put here.

These quotes from the article capture the argument reasonably well:

"The media remains our primary source of information about decisions that
politicians make on our behalf, how governments spend our taxes and how courts
operate and deliver us justice."

"Without journalists, there would be plenty of information, as there is
now. Governments, big business and political organisations would continue to
churn out their press releases, putting most of it on the web for all to see,
but there's the rub. When organisations self-publish, they release only what
they want you to see. A democracy requires that someone independent can
challenge that information to test that it's right, find the missing bits,
unearth the things they're hiding, tell everyone what's really going on. If the
media doesn't shine a bright light on those dark corners where corruption and
wrongdoing might otherwise fester, who will?"

It rightly points out some of the challenges for public servants, but doesn't examine the rationale for government secrecy in any detail. This would be illuminating as there are good reasons for it, and perhaps valid criticisms of shortcomings that could be improved.

Package passes, with tables turned

The stimulus package has passed the Senate. Listening to the live broadcast of the Senate debate yesterday, I was transported back to a previous Government and WorkChoices debate. Yesterday the then Government, now opposition (and 'cross-benchers') were protesting, claiming contempt for the parliamentary process and suggesting a Government filibuster over the stimulus package.

The tables have turned - back then then Government, now opposition, used their Senate control to have their way with WorkChoices. Ahhh politics.

Evidence based policy?

The Productivity Commission Chairman comments on Evidence based policy, and the lack thereof in some cases. The link gives you a summary by Australian Policy Online.

Rural Australia a failed state?

A recent report by "remoteFOCUS" concludes there is "clear evidence that there is a 'failed state' at the heart of our nation". Harsh words, and perhaps they are true.

The reports suggestion of government policy failure raises a fraught question of what we, the nation, should do about such situations. Is the public role limited to just helping communities access the inherent economic value of a region? Perhaps the public should support communities or culture fundamental to the national character (regardless of economic value)?

We need some such principle for our government to act on, as we can't fix every problem with a limited public purse. Either of these principles above, not to mention other possible options, would have major implications for public policy that need public debate.

Rising Cost of Childcare

Childcare has been near the top of the consumer price index in Australia for many years. A study out this week examines the link between childcare costs, government subsidies and female labour supply.

With price rising so dramatically, one has to ask why and what our government can do about it. The study notes that "the real cost of child care is likely to continue to grow...mostly due to increases in salaries in the child-care industry", and "the current strategy of increasing government subsidies while failing to investigate the factors generating the need for increased subsidies is an imprudent use of public funds."

Childcare has become a necessity for our modern economy, and most would warmly welcome increased salaries for those who look after their children daily. But someone has to pay for it. If we don't pay from our taxes, those who could afford it would pay at the daycare centre. Those who couldn't would miss out. Is that what we want?