Incoming Feed Items

If 21st-century Republicans have an idol, a graven image we collectively worship, it is Gross Domestic Product. All discussion about the flourishing of our nation is reduced to GDP, and its increase is seen as an ironclad refutation of anyone who questions whether America is, in fact, flourishing. But GDP, as today calculated, is largely fake, disconnected from the actual production of value. Worse, flourishing-as-quantity is a destructive way to view our society. It was once commonplace that the value of very many things, a mother’s love or a scarlet sunset, was immense, but unmeasurable. We have forgotten this, to our detriment. To truly make America great again, a crucial first step is dethroning GDP as a measure of our greatness.

Yes, there is some benefit to having in our quiver of analytical tools an aggregate way to view additions to economic value, the production of new goods and services. Think of 20 men and women who do nothing except eat and drink what is at hand. They produce no value; the GDP of their little society is zero. If, however, they begin to produce anything, goods or services, they produce value. How to measure such production has, however, generated different approaches, and the method we use today, while it serves our desire for simple ways of viewing the world, conceals truth in order to serve political ends.

With organizations like Democracy Forward and Public Citizen winning court-ordered pauses in the various unlawful actions taken by Trump Cabinet officials kowtowing to Elon Musk's unlawful DOGE (which I urge everyone to call FIDO or DOGGY), we are quickly headed toward an unprecedented clash between two branches of the federal government.

For many Americans today, the idea of a government refusing to obey a federal court order or judgment summons up the image of federal troops in Alabama, enforcing the school integration required by Brown v. Board of Education. That clash pitted the state of Alabama against the federal judiciary. President Eisenhower, as chief executive of the federal government sent the U.S. army to Alabama to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling and related federal judicial orders. We now face a different configuration. Trump is not going to order enforcement of federal court orders in cases he or his Cabinet officials have lost.

As I watched the fires in Los Angeles unfold in January this year, my mind of course reflected on the 1999-2000 Black Summer bushfires in Australia. Both these seasons have wrought significant damage to humans and other animals, and to land, infrastructure and property. There has been a huge personal, collective and financial toll involved. Climate change is of course driving these unprecedented events, and there are significant health impacts for people.

During these disasters we are conscious of the direct risk posed to fire fighters, but the air pollution generated presents health and safety challenges for workers and others more broadly. When working hard physically in any role we of course breath more deeply, taking in more smoke and ash from the fires. Ultimately, the 2019–2020 Black Summer fire period in Australia burned 24.3 million hectares, killed or displaced 3 billion animals, and killed 33 people directly — with a further 455 people killed indirectly due to the smoke and ash pollution, which enveloped four-fifths of Australia’s population.

Less than a week out from The Australia Institute’s 2025 Climate Integrity Summit, it’s been revealed that organisations like Telstra, Australia Post, PWC and the NRMA – and more than a hundred others – have walked away from the Federal Government’s Climate Active scheme.

Australians are fed up with polluters buying carbon credits of questionable quality rather than making real investments in real reductions in the amount of fossil fuels they are burning.

The public knows the difference between greenwashing and real action on climate change. Now, corporate Australia is getting the message. Many companies are choosing not to be associated with programs which lack integrity.

“Even PwC doesn’t respect the integrity of the accounting standards behind the Commonwealth Government’s own carbon offsetting scheme. When PwC is telling you to pull your socks up, you know you have an integrity problem,” said Richard Denniss, Executive Director of The Australia Institute.

“A growing number of Australians are sick of the greenwashing and accounting tricks, and simply want their governments to drive a real reduction in fossil fuel use. That’s why climate scientists and business people like Andrew Forrest are calling for real zero targets to replace the vague net zero targets which rely on carbon offsetting.

Australia’s productivity growth has reverted to the same stagnant pattern as before the pandemic, according to the Productivity Commission’s latest quarterly report.

Productivity is complex and often misunderstood in media and policy debates. So before we read too much into this latest data, here are six key things to understand about productivity.

1. It’s about quantities, not costs

Productivity “measures the rate at which output of goods and services are produced per unit of input”. So it’s about how many workers does it take to make how many widgets?

Most Australian workplace managers don’t know how to measure productivity correctly.

If someone says “higher wages mean lower productivity”, they don’t know what they’re talking about. Wages aren’t part of the productivity equation. People often cite “productivity” as a reason for a policy they like because they can’t say “we like higher profits”.

In fact, high wages can encourage firms to introduce new technology that improves productivity. If labour becomes more expensive, it may be more profitable for firms to invest in labour-saving technology.

But lower productivity isn’t always a bad thing. Sometimes higher selling prices can lower productivity. It seems odd, but works like this: if prices for commodities such as iron ore or coal are high, it becomes profitable for mining companies to dig through more rock to get to it.

The Wrap with Amy Remeikis

On September 30, 1938 British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stood outside 10 Downing Street and declared the Munich Agreement had appeased German Chancellor Adolf Hitler’s territorial aims.

“I believe it is peace for our time,” he said.

“…Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.”

Germany violated the agreement almost immediately.  Six months later it had invaded all of Czechoslovakian territory and another six months after that, after German troops marched on Poland, the world was at war.

We know how that ended.

We know how history has judged the appeasement policy of 1930s leaders, which included both major parties in Australia, who held tight to the British empire’s coat tails even as other commonwealth nations pushed for independence.  Australia’s government did not ratify the 1931 Statute of Westminster, a British law which gave formal legislative independence to commonwealth nations, until 1942.  John Curtin was prompted to ratify it after the Fall of Singapore, which put to bed the deep belief Britain would be able to protect Australia in a war.

Australia began turning to America. And we’ve been turning blind eyes, ever since.

None of this should be new information to any student of history.

What may be new is the role of the British press during the appeasement policy.

UPDATE 4:21 PM: MARKO ELEZ HAS RESIGNED. WALL STREET JOURNAL CLAIMS IT WAS OVER "RACIST POSTS". OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE- WIRED, TALKING POINTS MEMO AND I GOT HIM. NEED TO REST, MORE TOMORROW

Notes on the Crises pivoted over the weekend into around the clock coverage of the Trump-Musk Treasury Payments Crisis of 2025

The Trump Administration’s decision to contest the dominant interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment is a sign that we might be living in an era of regime politics.

Near the beginning of his Crisis of the Two Constitutions, Charles Kesler distinguishes “normal politics” from “regime politics”:

Normal politics takes place within an accepted political and constitutional order, and concerns means, not ends. That is, the purposes and limits of politics are agreed; the debate is over how to achieve those purposes while observing those limits. By contrast, regime politics is about who rules and for the sake of what ends or principles. It unsettles any existing political order, as well as its limits. It raises anew the basic questions of who counts as a citizen, what are the goals of the political community, and what do we honor or revere together as a people.

Notes on the Crises pivoted over the weekend into around the clock coverage of the Trump-Musk Treasury Payments Crisis of 2025

Read Part 0, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 & Part 4

On this episode of Dollars & Sense, Australia Institute Senior Economist and Elinor Johnston-Leek discuss how our housing and superannuation policies are fuelling wealth inequality.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 6 February 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Host: Matt Grudnoff, Senior Economist, the Australia Institute and Centre for Future Work // @mattgrudnoff

Host: Elinor Johnston-Leek, Senior Content Producer, the Australia Institute // @elinorjohnstonleek

Show notes:

Superannuation tax concessions are making inequality worse by Greg Jericho, the Australia Institute (July 2024)

Income and wealth inequality in Australia by David Richardson and Frank Stilwell, the Australia Institute (July 2024)

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

Belt and DOGE | The Roundtable Ep. 253

“Defeats will be defeats and lassitude will be lassitude. But we can improve our propaganda.” (Carl Rowan, Director of the US Information Agency, June 1964, FRUS #189 I: 429).

This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.

Farah El-Sharif, writer, academic and Visiting Scholar at Stanford, is uncompromisingly blunt in her assessment of the Middle East. The decades of repression faced by an entire people have produced a fragmented society—culturally and through colonially imposed borders. To help understand why the Muslim world is so broken, corrupt and full of contradictions, El Sherif joins host Chris Hedges on this episode of The Chris Hedges Report.

Introduction

In our work as organisers and campaigners, there is often an element of debate or conflict in our work, especially when it comes to shifting power and lobbying external decision-makers. But what about conflict within our spaces? How we approach it, hold each other accountable, and move through it requires practice.

This article reflects on key learnings from a workshop facilitated by Noura Mansour, a Palestinian activist, and Anisha Senaratne, a Naarm based facilitator, at the FWD+Organise Conference in Naarm/Melbourne in December 2024.

The workshop explored the intersections of personal and political conflict, applying a decolonial lens and lived experiences to examine how conflict transformation can be a powerful tool in both our personal and political lives.

Leaning into conflict is political. – Anisha Senaratne

Decolonial Theory 

Noura and Anisha began the workshop with a grounding in decolonial theory.

From a decolonial perspective, conflict is not just something to resolve or manage – it is an opportunity to transform systems and cultures that perpetuate harm and inequality.

Frederick Douglass once denounced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford as constituting “an open, glaring, and scandalous tissue of lies.” For the massive violence it did to both the Constitution and to the principles upon which that charter is based, that opprobrium is richly deserved.

Forty-one years later, the Court issued a decision that deserves, but has largely avoided, the same kind of vituperation. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court maintained that the Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment, incorporated the British common law doctrine of birthright citizenship, and that America’s Founding Fathers intended that this doctrine should prevail in America.

For quality of constitutional and historical reasoning, Wong Kim Ark is every bit as defective as Dred Scott. Yet while Dred Scott is universally condemned, Wong Kim Ark’s conclusions are generally accepted, even if few today are familiar with the case. The pernicious shadow of Wong Kim Ark continues to poison our law and policy regarding immigration.

If you are a current or former career Bureau of the Fiscal Service Employee, especially if you’re a legacy IT programmer with years of experience and especially if you are a COBOL programmer currently working on the PAM, SPS or any other adjacent team, contact me over email or over signal — linked here. My Signal username is “NathanTankus.01”. Legal counsel sources and payments level sources at the Federal Reserve are also helpful. I am also looking for sources at FINCEN

If you are a current or former career Bureau of the Fiscal Service Employee, especially if you’re a legacy IT programmer with years of experience and especially if you are a COBOL programmer currently working on the PAM, SPS or any other adjacent team, contact me over email or over signal — linked here. My Signal username is “NathanTankus.01”. Legal counsel sources and payments level sources at the Federal Reserve are also helpful. I am also looking for sources at FINCEN

Australia’s higher education system is broken. University Vice-Chancellors – the CEOs of today’s corporatised higher education system – are among the highest paid in the world. Meanwhile, students suffer from expensive degrees, expanding debts and meagre income support, and staff are subjected to job insecurity, casualisation, hours of unpaid work and even outright employment law contraventions.

None of this is inevitable. Government choices matter, Australia created the current system, and Australia can create a better system that prioritises students and workers. Other countries have shown that this can work. In the words of Australia Institute Executive Director Richard Denniss

“…just consider the fact that in Norway, they tax the fossil fuel industry and give kids free university education, in Australia we subsidise the fossil fuel industry and charge kids a fortune to go to university.”