Sometimes, you have a desire to sleep with the enemy.

In terms of ideology, Ross Gitten’s and I couldn’t be further apart. More than anything, he’s an economic moderate, always working through ideas that involve compromise and keeping those in power honest. While I have high respect for this, I disagree with his overall premise. Its not often someone challenges your beliefs, especially in economics. In our life time, we may have one or two ephimies regarding belief in resources allocation, but rarely would we change our underlying views from week to week. Mine came when I was 15, and I first started paying taxes. I decided I needed to inform myself of this complex mine field we call the tax system, so my solution was to buy a complicated, overly wordy and very intimidating hard cover book, “Social Issues: The Economics of Taxes and Public programs“. Without going into too much detail and causing you to click the little red X in the right hand corner, the book went over the basic premise of taxation, and how it attempts to solve current problems. It was conservative, talking about maximise allocation while minimising overheads. Even a 9th grader who’s discovered infomercials could understand how much savings there are to be made when the middle man becomes cut out!
Ever since, my path has stayed the same. I’ve noticed that this conservative bias appears everywhere, even in the simple economics courses I studied during my university days. My loathing for hippies and anyone who couldn’t prove something with numbers didn’t help in giving me a well rounded education, either. Fast forward to now, simplicity of numbers has begun to take a back seat. Although I’m still conservative, there’s more ideas I’m opening up too. I’m now starting to see, that somewhere, there’s a line. It might be fine. It might move from year to year. But to deny it exists is to deny the pursuit for perfection; a system which satisfies all who partake in it. Without getting too idealistic, to not pursue a goal like that is to not pursue anything worth while.

So, how does this tie into Ross Gittin’s? Every article I read, even if I disagree with his ideology, I find myself nodding my head, sipping my tea, and thinking, “you know, the man has a really good point.” Sometimes, like a chess game, someone makes a move that puts you into a check. You don’t lose the game - your strategy can go on - but sometimes the check causes you to have a rethink of your position. A change, of course, might be necessary. Perhaps you’re making the same large error, and it needs correction, because otherwise for the rest of the chess match you may be on the back foot. Intellectually, that’s kind of what Ross Gittin’s position does for me. It’s highly unlikely he’ll ever read this, but in that off-chance, I’d like to thank him, because I like to nod; it loosens my stiff neck early in the morning.

Oh, and before I forget, the article this week was about the WorkChoice reforms. Although he’s extreme in his views against it, one can’t argue with the facts he presents. I see both sides of the issue, but so does Ross, and unfortunately for Australia, I fear the Liberal party might be losing sight. That doesn’t mean they have an evil, pro-corporation heart, but it may mean their losing that touch that keeps their policies sane, and credible. Right before I left the Commonwealth bank, the banker’s union warned us that AWA contracts were on the way. I didn’t jump ship, for that reason, but part of the idea behind AWA’s is that you could if the contract wasn’t ‘fair’ enough. Then I think about the people I work with, and it’s then I realise that sometimes, the one economical safe guard in place; freedom of choice; isn’t really much of a safe guard after all.