Crowded Lives

Crowded Lives ( 2003 ) by Lindsay Tanner is a book that the author is lucky only reputedly sold less than five hundred copies. I’ll prefix this review by saying that I’m a big fan of Lindsay Tanner and think he should be treasurer. When you hear or see him interviewed he is impressive, measured and well informed. This book, however, is a strange book that is disturbing to people who wonder if the Rudd government is to follow in the footsteps of the impressive Hawke/Keating governments or whether it will fall into the mire of spin, waffle, nonsense and finally disaster that the Blair/Brown government is.

In Crowded Lives Tanner puts forth the idea that government should be about ensuring relationships are central to government policy. It’s a nice sounding idea, however it is deep waffle. Or, to put it better, it is what the philosopher Harry Frankfurt defines as bullshit .It is not even wrong, it’s just fantastically vague.

Tanner writes chapters where he puts forth vague platitudes, for example:

Greed, selfishness and bad behaviour seem almost to have become entrenched as the new community standards. Courtesy, modesty and self-restraint are very definitely out of fashion.

Really? Where does he get this idea? Isn’t the self-restraint of hard work seen as important as it always has been? Courtesy, modesty and self-restraint are often admired in society. Has this changed? Who can say? What evidence is there? None of this sort of data is presented. Merely a vague, silly assertion that ‘in the past it was better’.

There are chapters on how relationships affect everything in society. I was disappointed, however, to see no chapter on relational databases. Underlying much of the book is the disturbing assumption that where there is a problem ‘government can fix it’ and that the government fix will be better than leaving the problem.

Tanner proposes some sort of ‘relationship audit’ or impact statement for every government policy. How they could possibly do this kind of thing is not discussed in detail. If it could even be put forward is questionable.

Tanner slips out of making every chapter relationship titled and writes a chapter on ANZAC day which is better than many of the others. Here he leaves the world of ideas and talks about his own experiences, which are worth hearing about. But as when John Howard would slip into his ridiculous spiel about mateship Tanner can’t help himself but talk about how unique it is to be Australian and how ANZAC day has nothing to do with militarism.

Along the way in the book Tanner does provide some interesting glimpses of himself. We learn that his mother was from Brunswick and that his father was from South of the river, he talks about coming from Gippsland to Melbourne and his divorce and his relationship with his children. We also learn that he was into computer games, which is interesting.

The book comes from a time when Lathams roamed the parliament and the ALP was deciding it needed ‘ideas’ to get back into power. Fortunately no manifesto as catastrophically silly as Fightback was concocted and only Latham’s ad hoc silliness was present in 2004.

Politicians shouldn’t try to be ‘philosopher kings’. They have an extremely important and time consuming job to do, that of running the government and scrutinising those who run the government. They really should be familiar with economic and social research and ideas but they do not need to write books that put forth new ideas. Essays are a good forum for politicians to express themselves. They are something that they can use to get a direct, unmoderated channel to the public that doesn’t require the consent of media gatekeepers. Books are harder and they require too much time. Books of essays can work, but books with a central theme are often poor books as this book by Tanner shows. There is little to take away from this book. Tanner is better in parliament and when he is being interviewed and when he shows his depth of knowledge than he is in this book. The best that can be said is that he is a competent writer and the book is mercifully short.

2.5/5

Australia’s Welfare Habit

Australia’s Welfare Habit (2004) by Peter Saunders is a fascinating book by one of the rarest of things, a sociologist who is not left wing. It’s a fascinating book that is well worth reading. I’d also link to personally thank Wayne Swan for putting me onto to Saunder’s book in his decidedly average book Postcode: The Splintering of a Nation.

Saunders looks at what has happened to Australian welfare, how it compares to welfare in other countries and goes on to make recommendations as to what he thinks should be done. The first two things are done better than the last. Welfare is a really hard issue to discuss. Saunders points out that the welfare lobby, comprised of academics who study the issue and lobby groups are effective at blocking much change that they do not agree with. He also makes the point that welfare lobby is also fairly candid about wanting higher taxes.

In the book Saunders makes the huge point that Australia’s welfare spending and the proportion of people who are dependent has exploded. In 1969 just 2% of the working age population received unemployment, disability and the single parent allowance while in 2002 around 14% do. It’s a serious problem. The growth in unemployment is part of the issue as is the increase in single parents, but to see that disability pensions have more than doubled as a percentage of the workforce is really surprising. People do less physical work and are generally healthier than in 1969. Fewer smoke and we live longer.The increases have also occurred while society has gotten considerably richer, with the economy doubling in the period. Welfare continues to solidly rise. Under the Howard government, which many of the Left attempt to present as a hard right ‘neo-liberal’ regime social spending increasing from 40% to 44% of government spending.

Saunders provides a good overview of relative versus absolute poverty measures that range from under 5% of the population to over 40% . Saunders points out that no objective measure exists. The relative measures favoured by the lobby have the remarkable and curious effect of causing poverty to rise if only some parts of society get richer while no one gets any poorer at all. Saunders also points out that the welfare lobby itself claims that poverty keeps growing and that poverty spending is ineffective, and thus it demands still more money be spent. He also points out that being on welfare is demeaning and removes people’s self-respect and their ability to be independent.

Saunders look at Australian social spending and does point out that it is amongst the most efficient in the OECD with payments being directed towards those with the least money. This in turn has the effect of creating enormously high Effective Marginal Tax Rates ( EMTR s ) that provide a dis-incentive for people on welfare to find work. He also points out that Australian social security spending is different from most countries social spending because the money comes out of general revenue and that our benefits are paid without end. Saunders looks at how the US 1996 welfare reforms had a considerable effect. The participation rate grew and people were able to find jobs.

The section where Saunders looks disability payments is fascinating. In Australia over 50% of recipients of the Disability Support Pension (DSP) fall into two categories, Psychological/psychiatric and Musculo-skeletal/connective tissue, typically bad backs. Saunders points out that a huge proportion of these people are older men who are essentially taken off the unemployment list by shuffling onto DSP. Saunders also uses the figures to put the Dutch and Swedish unemployment figures into perspective. Using 2003 figures Dutch unemployment was only 4%, but a staggering 9% were on DSP type benefits. In Sweden the figures were 5% and 8% respectively. In Australia the figures are 6% and 5%. The Anglosphere countries average 11% combined unemployed and DSP while the main European economies average 13%. Saunders suggests that the current criterion of being unable to work for 30 hours is too strong. If it were reduced to being unable to work for 15 hours considerably more people would be able to work. He also suggests that activity requirements should also be used for people on DSP benefits.

Saunders discussion of single parent payments is also very good. He talks about how Australia does not require parents to fulfill any activities until the youngest child reaches 16 years of age. This is more generous than Sweden where at 3 years old parents are required to look for work. Saunders suggests that requiring single parents to undertake activities and look for work from the time their children reach school would be wise. He also points to substantial polling on the issues that state that 84% of Australians also believe this is the way things should be.

Saunders also looks at how many middle income people in Australia are part of a substantial tax churn, where they pay tax and then receive benefits which he sees to be crazy. He certainly has a point.

In the sections on what to do Saunders has solid suggestions for activity requirements and punitive measures for those who fail to fulfill them for the unemployed, changes to single parent benefits and to DSP benefits. He also goes further to suggest that lowering the minimum wage would be a good idea and removing government from many areas would improve things. This he provides far less support for. In the book he also makes the point that Australia social spending is, compared to many countries, quite low and very efficient.

The book is really, really interesting. I’d recommend it to anyone who is interested in social policy at all. Saunders solid presentation of clear data is excellent. Even if you disagree with Saunders his views are well worth reading. It’s also hard to imagine that people looking at balancing the Australian budget have not read his book. With much public support for some of the changes shown in polls, a centre left Australian government could easily implement some of his suggestions.

4/5

Tyson

Tyson ( 2009 IMDB ) is a documentary about the boxer Mike Tyson and directed by James Toback. Most of the film is an interview with Tyson. Tyson comes across as a surprisingly interesting figure who came from very harsh circumstances and rose to great heights but then through crime and drugs failed to maintain his position and really failed to live up to his potential.

Tyson the boxer was a phenomenon, certainly one of the greatest fighters of all time. He combined the huge hitting power of a heavyweight with the speed of a much lighter boxer. The documentary shows some of his fights as he was rising and when he was at the height of his powers, his speed and power looks to be something out of a computer game or a film and looks super human. And this is against some of the toughest fighters in the world. Tyson was fairly small for a heavyweight and had considerably less reach than many of his opponents.

Tyson’s life story is interesting. In his childhood his probable father walked out, he was subject to rampant violence and gun threats and wound up in crime himself, he went to detention and then discovered boxing which transformed him and gave him the discipline to use his prodigious gifts. His trainer was Cus D’Amato who would be a father figure to Tyson. D’Amato died in 1985, early on into Tyson’s career.

Tyson rose to become the undisputed world champion, but in the late 1980s he would get married and divorced and as he says he began to consume drugs and become very promiscuous. The money that Tyson was earning attracted sharks like Don King. He went on to lose the World Championship and then his life went off the rails. He was convicted of rape. He spent 3 years in jail until 1995. The rape is discussed, Tyson maintains his innocence and believes he was set up.

When he returned to fighting in 1995 he would go on to earn a considerable amount of money, but he had slipped. He fought Evander Holyfield in 1996 and lost which was big surprise. Tyson accused Hollyfield of head butting him to gain an advantage. The two had a rematch in which Tyson bit Hollyfield’s ear twice. Tyson was then disqualified.

Tyson continued to fight, but was in decline. He retired in 2005. He quit in the seventh round against a journeyman fighter. The doco has a really honest interview that Tyson gave at the time.

The documentary is interesting but ultimately doesn’t really grab the viewer. It’s similar to the documentary on Maradona . Both films are worth watching if you have some interest in the subjects but are not particularly good. Tyson is no When We Were Kings which is gripping even for those with no interest in sport.

3.5/5

A Farewell to Alms

A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World by Gregory Clark (2007) is a very solid look at the economics of the Middle Ages and the transition to the Industrial Revolution and a short look at why the divergence in wealth between nations has grown during the twentieth century.

What’s great about the book is how data driven it is. Clark has systematically gone through a wealth of sources and presents the data they contain clearly and with ample reference. Even if the book’s conclusions are wrong, the book furthers the quest to understand why growth took off during the Industrial Revolution and why world growth is so uneven.

Clark first characterizes growth before the Industrial Revolution as Malthusian Growth that Clark defines as low growth while the per capita income of each person changes little. The term is curious because Malthusianism in common use tends toward saying that there is a hard limit on population size that populations reach. Clark describes the era from 100 000 BC to 1700 AD as showing very little or almost no growth in wealth per person. He does point out that during this time the world’s population increased from approximately 100 000 people to 770 million, so the total amount of wealth grew enormously. But there are indicators in terms of the amount of rich energy source food consumed and life expectancy that make the point very reasonable. However it is interesting to assert that a citizen of Britain in 1700 was only as wealthy as a cave man. Surely the possessions of the average Briton of the time would have been more than that of the cave man.

Some economists have put forth the idea that the Industrial Revolution occurred in Britain because of British institutions. Clark makes a very good point to suggest this is not the case as he points out that the institutions that fostered the industrial revolution had remained the same for centuries in Britiain with low growth before the Industrial Revolution.

Clark’s thesis is that the Industrial Revolution occurred in Britain because of higher fertility of wealthy people had bred work of the kind that makes modern economies work well. He backs this argument up with data from the long history of British inheritance and number of descendants. He also makes the point that the values that make economies work are not values that are presumably successful for hunter gatherers, hard work, rationality and education.

He goes on to suggest that cultural reasons are the reason for the divergence between the developed world and the less developed world in the 20th Century. He again goes to the data looking at the productivity of works on automated weaving machines. Even if the argument is wrong it is extremely thoroughly and transparently supported.

An alternative thesis for the Industrial Revolution are abundant as described in wikipedia in the entry on The Industrial Revolution. New theories combining elements of previous theories continue to be created. The question is one that will probably never be resolved. The technological argument that coking to produce cheap cast iron lead to coal being more cheaply extractable to produce still cheaper coal and then to the invention of the steam engine that enabled, for the first time in history, the use of the massive amounts of energy in fossil fuels to be used on a huge scale is still strong. Indeed, the book describes the price and amount of coal being mined from 1600 to 1860 which indicates that this was at least occurring even if it was not driving the Industrial Revolution itself.

The divergence in growth between developed and less developed countries over the twentieth century is not, however, explainable by cheap energy which should, if it’s effective were the same regardless of culture and institutions, have reduced the divergence. Only in the developed world where per capita incomes have remained fairly similar to each other is this the case.

The book is, regardless of whether the conclusions are agreed with, a great book. Ross Gittins, reviewing it in the SMH also makes this point. The reviews in most places, including the NYT, have been glowing. The wealth of data, thoroughness and clearness of the explanations contained and the quality of the writing really shine.

4.5/5

Bigger Stronger Faster

Bigger Stronger Faster ( 2008 IMDB ) is a fun, informative and insightful documentary about steroid use in the USA. The story is narated by Chris Bell, a body builder and power lifter who has used steroids and has two brothers that use steroids.

The documentary starts with the story of Chris and his brothers who grew up in the 1980s and watched WWE style wrestling. This led to body building that gave  the brothers something to do. When they progressed further on they all began to take steroids. Chris, the narrator, quit using them.

Bell goes on to present a number of doctors who have different views on the dangers of steroids. A number of the doctors point out that there is no solid evidence that links steroid use to many of the health problems ascribed to it. The alarmists who propagandize against the use of steroids are also given time to present their case which is great to see. They are also solidly undermined by the doctors who don’t believe steroids to be a great health threat.

Bell looks at steroids in other sports and how their use is common in the NHL and Major League Baseball. It’s hard not to think that they are also common in most sports. The critical point is made that No amount of steroids will make someone who doesn’t have the skill into a pro-footballer or a pro-baseballer.

The attitude toward steroids in politics is targeted and shown to be gross hypocrisy and political grandstanding. It’s pointed out that the US congress had longer hearings on steroids in baseball than on the Iraq war. Some of the politicians who led this sad witch hunt, Joe Biden and Henry Waxman, are shown to be either hypocrites or ignorant. Henry Waxman is interviewed and also give a fair chance to present his case. One of the players the Texas Rangers,  the team owned by George W Bush, states that he was sure the owners knew of the practice. The remarkable career of Arnold Schwarzenegger also comes in for critique.

Bell talks to people in the bodybuilding industry and the interviews are interesting and amusing. He branches out to look at the supplements industry and makes his own supplement and sets up a fake campaign to sell it. He talks to some muscle models who sell their own stuff and they talk about steroids. He also talks to a muscle photographer who comments that he can do the ‘before’ and ‘after’ shots in one day with some makeup and photoshop. He then promptly does this. It’s very impressive.

The documentary is really fine. It’s fun, informative and Bell is charismatic as the presenter. Steroid use is a fascinating subject and Bell handles it with knowledge, insight and a good sense of humour

4/5

Battlelines

Battlelines ( 2009 ) by Tony Abbott is an interesting, well written book that is rare in Australian political books in that it is also a book that is of interest for the future, not just the past. It’s no Audacity of Hope but it is a book that also makes the writer more sympathetic.

The book is a collection of related essays rather than a book with one theme. The chapters are: The Making of a Liberal Politician, A Tale of Two Governments, What’s Right, Unfinished Business, Australia’s Biggest Political Problem and How to fix it, Making the States do better, If the 2020 Summit had been fair dinkum and Postscript: Days from Hell.

In the Making of a Liberal Abbott goes over his upbringing and early life. Abbott is absolutely frank in saying he was very privileged. He also writes about how he was reasonably wild as young man. He goes on to talk briefly about his girlfriend who thought that Abbot fathered her child and his foray into the seminary and his time as a Rhodes Scholar. He doesn’t emphasize his intellectual credentials, probably because he doesn’t have to. He doesn’t have to pretend to be a wonk. He also talks about being invited to join the ALP which is unsurprising.

In A Tale of Two Governments Abbot talks about his time in office and the Howard government. He clearly greatly admires Howard for his skill in running things. He liked the way that Howard respected his ministers but would on occasion make overriding decisions. He is clearly annoyed that Howard’s legacy has not been better treated. In doing so at this point he is also helping the Liberals avoid what the ALP suffered after their loss in 1996 where the ALP unwisely disowned the Hawke / Keating legacy. In the book it also clear that Abbott does not loathe the ALP and respects them. It’s good to see this lack of vicious partisanship.

In What’s Right Abbott discusses the Liberal Party’s ideology and the way that it is an interesting combination of liberal and conservative views. He dismisses critics of Howard who regarded Howard as a Free Market fundamentalist. And correctly too. Howard raised social spending, introduced harsher gun laws and other measures that don’t fit into the US Republican style of conservatism. Australia is very lucky to have two major parties that are pragmatic.

In Unfinished Business Abbott goes over social policy and payments under Howard. Interestingly, he wants a reduction in means testing and increased family payments. I.e. he wants more government. He is absolutely upfront about this. This again shows that the Libs are certainly not purely a small government free market party.

In Australia’s Biggest Political Problem Abbott goes over the relationship and responsibilities of the State and Federal Governments. He clearly sees the States as poorly run and failing. He thinks they have little value and should have their powers reduced. It’s a big change. He doesn’t believe that some of Australia’s regions and cities would suffer by the Federal Government picking and choosing issues for electoral reasons. Amusingly, he cites the Mersey Hospital in Tasmania as an example of why the Federal Government should run things. This would appear highly unwise. It did look like the Federal Government was playing politics on that occasion, it was like the Sports Rorts whiteboard affair during the decline of the ALP.

In the chapter on 2020 Summit we get a plethora of policy outlines. Abbott sees the ALP as practicing magic pudding economics. He clearly things they will run into trouble with an inability to balance the Federal Budget. On the environment Abbot is sharp. He has read and knows who Bjorn Lomborg is. It is great to see a politician who has done this. He also quotes Ian Plimer. He is aware that the historical record shows considerably colder temperatures in Europe during the 1500s to 1800s. But he is prepared to go along with popular feeling on the issue and points out that the ALP’s ETS is similar to Howard’s proposed ideas.

In the final chapter Abbot calmly and humbly describes his terrible few days during the 2007 election. He talks about having to tough things out. He then writes about how there is hope for the Libs in future with some voters quite likely to ditch Rudd when things worsen. He also talks about how politics is a vocation that you should take through both the thick and the thin. This is clearly to contrast with Liberals who have decided that the party won’t win the next election and probably the one after that and those who have been parachuted in to leadership. Abbott makes his position clear. He is going to stick around. He is also making clear that he wants to lead the party. He will. This books is a statement of what the Libs will look like when Abbott becomes leader. For this reason alone it is worth reading. It’s also pleasantly short, crisp and is well written. A Rhodes Scholarship and time as a journalist make for a good writer.

3.5 /5

Astrospies

Astrospies ( nova 2008  imdb ) is an interesting but overcooked documentary about the US manned program to have astronauts man spy satellites. It was written by James Bamford, the author of the excellent The Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets books about the NSA. The spy satellite programs during the Cold War are a neglected part of Cold War history. The ability to check on the military movements of the other side coupled with better launch detection enabled the two combatants to be able to trust each other. The US Keyhole satellites and the agency that ran them, the National Reconnaissance Organisation (NRO) were absolutely critical. Their history is sadly hardly documented.

In Astrospies Bamford documents the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program and the Soviet equivalent. Some space suits were found in Cape Canaveral in December 2004 that had names on them that were not the names of known Astronauts and that were different from NASA space suits. Bamford read an article about the suits. He looked up the names and found some more references to it. The MOL program also included a man who would have been the first African American in space had he not died in an accident. Many of the astronauts would go on to very senior positions in the US military.

The MOL program astronaut selection began in 1964. What the documentary doesn’t say is that the already very successful Keyhole satellite program has been running for 5 years at that stage. The unmanned spy satellites would go on to remove the need for the aims of the MOL and similar Soviet program. The story is however, very interesting, the degree of secrecy and the way that the Soviet spacecraft at least had weapons aboard that were designed to destroy other orbital objects. The interviews with the astronauts are also interesting, hearing them say how they felt as the NASA astronauts went to the moon while their own program didn’t prosper.

No doubt the US and Soviets learned lessons that would later be applied to other manned missions, but as it stands the manned surveliance program didn’t succeed but was no done just in case it panned out.

Overall the documentary is interesting but the lack of discussion of the success of the keyhole program removes the context of the program which is a pity. Nonetheless, worth a look.

3.5/5

Amreeka

Amreeka ( 2009 imdb ) is a reasonable film about an emmigrant mother and son who leave the Bethlehem to go and live in the US. The two move to Illinois at the start of the Gulf War. There reaction to and integration into US society is looked at. It’s an admirable film but it doesn’t have a strong enough narrative to drive it or that much difference from other films and tv shows about being an immigrant. The film might have been better as a tv show. It would have given the characters more time to develop and would have allowed a longer look at the issues that confront immigrant. None the less, it’s not a bad film.

3/5

The Chaser

The Chaser ( 2008 imdb wikipedia ) is an impressive hard boiled crime drama. Eom Joong-hu is an ex-police officer who has become a pimp. A number of his girls go missing. He at first assumes they have run away or been ’sold’ to someone else. He quickly learns that this isn’t the case and that the girls have been killed. One of his girls goes to a customer that he works out is the killer. The police become involved. The characters are all flawed and seem very believable. The police are not the boring, bland, magically able police of CSI. One moment it is fast and funny, the next horrid. The mix is interesting. Overall The Chaser is quite engrossing. A fine film.

4/5

Silent Wedding

Silent Wedding (2008 IMDB) is a fine Romanian film about a wedding that happens as the Soviet Communists are taking over Romania in the 1940s. A small village where the locals spend their time drinking and amusing themselves is the scene for a love story that ends in horror. The film is well thought out, well directed and has a fine story. It’s funny, touching, moving and is about an important subject. 4.5/5