Dear Aussie government
Mar. 27th, 2009 09:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trixtahIf you were truly devoted to making the Freedom of Information laws truly about freedom of information, you wouldn't charge one red cent for processing an FOI request. Yes, I know they can be vexatious and time-wasting. So what? You build that cost into what it takes to run open and transparent government (although getting the higher-ups to fork out extra budget for those kinds of things could be challenging). That's nice that journalists and non-profits get to have 5 hours free time, while normal punters (and businesses) have to fork out after the first hour. At least querying information held about yourself will be free. But 20-30 years for releasing non-classified Cabinet documents and notebooks? Give me a break. I think that's disgusting, actually (although nearly half the current ridiculous span).
Still, they're appointing an Information Commissioner, and FOI commissioner, who will be aligned with the Privacy Commissioner in a new department. That makes sense. And the new rules will be much better than the current set, including the concept that disclosure should be assumed unless there are sufficient grounds for information to not be disclosed (which would not include such "grounds" as potentially causing embarrassment to the government).
In sum, B-minus, could do better. But it's a start.
ETA: I was also intending to mention a really good economics blog series by John Quiggan, which is about debunking various doctrines:
Here's a bit discussing the "efficient markets hypothesis":
More important than asset markets themselves is their role in the allocation of investment. As Keynes said in his General Theory of Employment Interest and Money, this job is unlikely to be well done when it is a by-product of the activities of a casino. So, if the superficial resemblance of asset markets to gigantic casinos reflects reality, we would expect to see distortions in patterns of savings and investment. ...
The dotcom bubble was just one component of a massive asset price bubble that began in the early 1990s and is only now coming to an end. Throughout this period, patterns of savings and investment made little sense. Household savings plunged to zero and below in a number of developed countries (including nearly all English-speaking countries) and the resulting current account deficits were met by borrowing from rapidly growing poor countries like China (standard economics would suggest that capital flows should go in the other direction). The massive growth of the financial sector itself, which accounted for nearly half of all corporate profits by the end of the bubble, diverted physical and particularly human capital from the production of goods and services.
Still, they're appointing an Information Commissioner, and FOI commissioner, who will be aligned with the Privacy Commissioner in a new department. That makes sense. And the new rules will be much better than the current set, including the concept that disclosure should be assumed unless there are sufficient grounds for information to not be disclosed (which would not include such "grounds" as potentially causing embarrassment to the government).
In sum, B-minus, could do better. But it's a start.
ETA: I was also intending to mention a really good economics blog series by John Quiggan, which is about debunking various doctrines:
#1 The efficient markets hypothesis
#4 Individual retirement accounts
#5 Trickle down
Here's a bit discussing the "efficient markets hypothesis":
More important than asset markets themselves is their role in the allocation of investment. As Keynes said in his General Theory of Employment Interest and Money, this job is unlikely to be well done when it is a by-product of the activities of a casino. So, if the superficial resemblance of asset markets to gigantic casinos reflects reality, we would expect to see distortions in patterns of savings and investment. ...
The dotcom bubble was just one component of a massive asset price bubble that began in the early 1990s and is only now coming to an end. Throughout this period, patterns of savings and investment made little sense. Household savings plunged to zero and below in a number of developed countries (including nearly all English-speaking countries) and the resulting current account deficits were met by borrowing from rapidly growing poor countries like China (standard economics would suggest that capital flows should go in the other direction). The massive growth of the financial sector itself, which accounted for nearly half of all corporate profits by the end of the bubble, diverted physical and particularly human capital from the production of goods and services.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-27 10:58 pm (UTC)IOW, thanks for drawing my attention to a *fascinating* discussion. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-27 11:08 pm (UTC)