The Xavier Post

Has Bitcoin Decoupled The Sovereign From The Fiat?

alexhamiltonaus — Wed, 22 May 2013 22:49:00 +1000

Bitcoin may be redefining the Fiat. No, not the car, but the thing in your wallet: money.

Before I get to Bitcoin being a Fiat, let’s talk about the Sovereign Fiat first.

The filthy lucre in your wallet or purse is actually a lot more complex than you realise. The Gold Standard may be dead, but countries still back the money they print. Just not with anything as directly tangible as Gold. Governments are the new gold.

And this is what money is. Government backed, with no fixed value, tradable and infinite. Want more of it, just print it.

Seems crazy doesn’t it. It’s as if the countries of the world all read The Secret and just decided to pull stuff out of the ether.

Anyway, up until now, money has generally had a country behind it. The Gold Standard is now the Dollar Standard though.

Most international transactions take place in US Dollars. I believe the phrase is “full faith and credit” which is fitting if you think about it.

So we have Fiat Currencies which are actually Sovereign Fiat Currencies. Still with me?

Then Bitcoin comes along.

It too is fictional, but unlike every other Fiat, Bitcoin has no home. It is a sovereign-less Fiat. Probably not the first, but it certainly has some Sovereigns starting to worry.

I have written about Bitcoin before here, and also written about what online money should look like here, but essentially Bitcoin is pretty close to what we think of as money.

Bitcoin is anonymous and easily transferrable and its value is not fixed and for the most part it is not regulated.

As with everything though, context is key.

Sure currency may be fictional, but countries are real. Banks are real. The Tax Office is real. Except when people lose faith in them and look for alternatives.

You might have heard of the GFC? Well, it wasn’t so good for the faith part in money, banks or Western governments.

But let’s recap: Banks were playing with money that wasn’t backed by reality, or should that be realty? Governments bailed them out by borrowing more fake money, then the governments got in trouble. And the bankers got away with it all.

So the banking system loses credibility, as do the governments who bailed them out instead of jailing them.

And to reinforce the lack of faith, we find out later that the global banking system has been fixed. Literally fixed.

Your interest rate? Yeah, it was made up. Not based on any economics or finance or gold standard. Just some guy at a desk on the phone telling his mate across the pond what the rate was.

*Cough*Petrol Prices*Cough*

And so with little alternative, the nerds turn to the only thing they have ever truly loved, the internet. And then the Winklevii started to invest.

I think that the combination of the GFC, the stupidity of the conservative economic orthodoxy and the criminal actions of the elite, have severed the link of the sovereign with the Fiat. With Bitcoin at least.

I am wary of predicting a new paradigm, but I think that Bitcoin or an equivalent will grow stronger over time. And that will make things interesting.

Labor Leaders: Don't Let Them Define You

alexhamiltonaus — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:46:00 +1000

Leaders like to define things, and they really like to define their organisations. This is fine when we are talking Steve Jobs and Apple, but not when we are talking about the Australian Labor Party (ALP).

The ALP is not a corporation that sells the Jesus Phone, it is a living organism made up of tens-of-thousands of people across Australia. It is a movement.

This is not an attack on Julia Gillard. Or Rudd. Just so we’re clear.

The problem we have is a perfectly natural one: leaders like to define things.

The Prime Minister of the day wants to stamp her authority on the office, on history. But what about her followers? What about all of us who don’t like the definition? Or some of it.

How many times have you heard some version of:”…the defining moment of…”

The Misogyny speech comes to mind.

A movement is defined by its values, by what it stands for. Individuals and individual policies come and go, but equality, fairness, civil society remain. Remain in the Labor Party.

And all of this is the problem. The ALP rank and file have been trapped for some time in the definition set out by our leaders. Not empowered by the symbols of what we collectively stand for.

Defined in the negative by the Malaysian Solution, by cuts to single parents and anti-discrimination legislation. Defined by Gonski, the NDIS and all the other great acts of a Labor Government.

All of us in the Labor Party stand for values, not policies. We are progressives, meaning our job is never done. Our job is never defined.

If we let our leaders define us, we lose our passion, we lose our purpose. We lose hope.

But, if our leaders are symbols, powerful driving symbols of all that we stand for, we are lifted up and transformed by their passion and purpose that we all share.

Switching Your Online Identity Is A Pain. And It Shouldn't Be.

alexhamiltonaus — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:29:00 +1100

I live a lot of my life in the Google Eco-system and I recently switched to Google Apps, and some very high-technology companies aren’t ok with it. Including Google.

I had a Google+, Flickr, Xbox and YouTube account all linked to my old email address. Seems fine right? Nope.

Google+ will let you migrate your account. But only your circles. NOT your posts, +1’s or comments. Say Wha? Yeah all that stuff you shared on your account - Gone.

OK maybe you can live with all the comments and interaction going, but what about all that great content you had found over the years? Think about that for a second. Moderate to heavy user writing this article has been busy.

So… I spent three days transferring my posts over to my new account. I left the photos. Why take the time. I still haven’t uploaded the photos again (from their original source).

Google+ which I still love, is less fun for me now, I had built a good interaction and it seemed reciprocated. Now, not so much. Plus, all that time transferring kinda makes it less fun.

I could forgive all this if I weren’t going from one google account to another. Google needs to fix this.

Xbox is weird. I created an account with my Gmail account, but now I can’t change the email. I can change the contact email, but not the account email. Weird.

Flickr and YouTube each have the same problem. Once you pick a unique username you can’t change it. Ever. And you can’t ‘let it go,’ as in delete your account and then pick it with another. Why they do this is beyond me.

So if you used a service like namecheckr to find a unified username across platforms, and then you go and switch to Google Apps (or any other email service) your pretty online identity is messed up.

I was going to praise twitter for their model on all of this, and it is good, but they have their own issues.

Twitter will let you change usernames and email addresses, no biggie. BUT they won’t release dead usernames for individuals. So my name sake has had an inactive account for three years and still I can’t claim it.

Facebook has similar issues too.

We all have online identities now, but increasingly they are being fragmented and diluted needlessly by the big players for no reason. So much for the digital revolution.

E-Voting Needs To Be More Transparent

alexhamiltonaus — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:16:00 +1100

Many forms of e-voting are not transparent. Not by a long shot. And they should be.

In our rush for all things shiny and new in this technological revolution we are living through, we are abandoning our voting values.

Private companies are very keen on the business of e-voting (including online), as you can literally set your clock to an election. Factor in state, local, union and so on, and the need for shiny new technology is high.

Read this great article from Ars Technica about some of the different forms e-voting is taking on around the world.

I have written previously about how digital money needs to have the same values as offline money. And voting is no different.

Do you understand code?

This is not a trick question, I don’t mean cracking an Enigma cypher, I mean C+, Python and all the other various computer code that actually makes up the software we use. I didn’t think so, most people don’t understand code.

How about a sealed cardboard box with a hole in the top? Even your cat understands a cardboard box.

But it is the quaint cardboard box that has been protecting our democracy for years. Very lo-tech.

Along comes online/digital voting and enter code. Secret code. Code owned by corporations that don’t like sharing with citizens.

I have witnessed the ballot box being opened after polls close (by the electoral officer in charge) and seen the votes pour out on to a table.

Each person from each political party can inspect the cardboard box to make sure that it is empty.

With e-voting we cannot of course pour votes on to a table as in the example above, but there are ways we can make sure our votes are secure, our systems are transparent our democracy safe.

And we all need to make sure it happens online as it does offline.

The Kings Cross Branch Of The ALP

alexhamiltonaus — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:29:00 +1100

I am the Secretary of the Kings Cross Branch of the ALP. If you have been paying attention, you will know that Labor branches are dying.

And they are boring places where no real policy is debated. Just a bunch of old-timers talking endlessly about better days.

Both of these things are untrue. At least for the Kings Cross Branch. My branch is alive and well.

In fact it is growing, with a 19% increase in meeting attendance since I took over as Secretary (humblebrag over).

So let me tell you about my branch…

Policy

Good progressive policy is central to good governing, and central to Labor branches. It is no different in the Kings Cross Branch.

We are most definitely situated in our community, and those issues are important, we also debate the ‘big ideas’ of the day.

The last few meetings have been no exception. We have debated the presumption of innocence, a proposed treaty banning the use of drones in extra-judicial assassinations and also the public safety plans for a dilapidated street.

And of course the alleged corruption by members of our own party.

NSW Council For Civil Liberties

A strong society needs civil liberties, and this branch has many defenders of them.

We have the President, Vice President and a couple of committee members of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties.

Our branch has stood apart from the legislated policy of our own party on occasion, because we believe that sometimes the moral imperative should outweigh the political one. And we have many members in our branch to remind us of that imperative.

NSW Bar Association

There is a running joke in our branch whenever we get a new member, we ask them “are you a barrister?”

We are a diverse branch, but the largest group by occupation are lawyers, and barristers at that.

Everybody knows a good lawyer joke, but the lawyers in the Kings Cross Branch are a decent lot. Some are members of the Council for Civil Liberties, all defend the law as well as their clients.

The Branch has a few criminal barristers too. What I have learnt from them is the importance of justice.

The police, the government, and the laws of the land are powerful instruments of good. But misused they persecute the poor, the marginalised and the unlucky.

And they need people stand against them to demand justice for all.

Former Members

In the 1960s a young lawyer was the Secretary of the Branch. That lawyer went on to be a High Court Justice.

It’s a bit of an extreme example, but given the passion for the law, civil liberties and justice, it is not really a stretch to think that some of the lawyers in the branch may go on to high office.

The other high profile former member of the branch is the current Federal Minister for Health, Tanya Plibersek MP.

Anne Summers, a local, came to one of our meetings recently and wrote this great piece on Tanya and her origins in our branch.

Candidates For Public Office

Having so many passionate, dedicated Labor members in one branch means that we are over-represented in high quality people who want to run for public office.

In the last few years our branch has produced the candidate for the state seat of Sydney, candidates for the community preselection, and the City of Sydney Council election. As well as many internal Labor ballots.

Many of these elections are not about Labor winning per se, but about seizing the opportunity for our values, our people and our purpose to engage with our community.

There is an alternative to an Abbott Government, and we will always stand up to the conservative forces. And thankfully many of my branch members feel the same way.

We Define The Labor Party

Our values define us, not the Newspoll results. It is easy to be fixated on arbitrary numbers, to be fixated by leadership non-campaigns.

But what the Labor Party stands for, what defines it, is not who the leader is at a particular time. It is the rank-and-file members of branches like the Kings Cross Branch that defines the Labor Party.

It is easy to get caught up in power politics, get caught up in faceless men. But it is the branch member talking to their neighbour, talking to their friends about what Labor means to them that is the ‘real’ Labor party.

Join Us

The Kings Cross Branch of the Australian Labor Party knows what it stands for, do you?

Join us, we fight for a better future for all Australians. What have you done to make a difference.

Alex Hamilton - Secretary, Kings Cross Branch, ALP NSW.

Insurance Companies Believe In Climate Change Even If You Don't

alexhamiltonaus — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:32:22 +1100

If you are looking for the canary in the coal mine of climate change, it isn’t sea levels, it is insurance premiums.

Yes, insurance premiums.

What we know about climate change or its old moniker, Global Warming, is that extreme weather events are going to become more intense and more frequent.

This isn’t some conspiracy, it is science. And it is getting more accurate. Better able to predict. And this is where insurance comes in.

Insurance is just gambling really. What are the chances of a certain demographic having X event happen to them.

How much would that cost and how much would a per month premium be if a company was to make a profit whilst still covering that group.

And so, an 18-year-old single man driving a car pays more for insurance than a married 30-year-old woman.

If scientists can better predict extreme weather events, then insurance companies can start pricing accordingly.

And they have.

What is worrying about insurance companies increasing premiums (or refusing coverage) is that eventually everybody pays.

Who remembers the Flood Levy to pay for the Queensland floods?

You paid that levy because insurance companies are increasingly not wanting to pay out for climate change related events.

Which are becoming more intense and more frequent. Just like those pesky scientists said they would.

So the economic impacts of climate change are actually already being felt.

Not wiping out Bangladesh, or flooding lower Manhattan, but in a street by street, community by community lack of insurance against climate change.

It’s not as sexy as Al Gore’s documentary, but it is real and it is happening right now. And you thought the Carbon Tax was bad?

Republicans Are Still Not Interested In Democracy

alexhamiltonaus — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:08:55 +1100

The Republicans are not interested in navel gazing after their crushing defeat at the hands of Obama, they are more interested in cheating their way back into power at the expense of democracy. As it was ever thus.

Conservatives forces have never been truly ‘ok’ with democracy. They talk a big game when it comes to ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’ but there isn’t so much of a iota of democracy in those terms.

Every step of the way to a more democratic America, conservatives have fought hard to stop it.

Women, African Americans, and so on. Why let any of these groups vote at all? It’s against God’s will and so forth.

So it is no great surprise that making it easier for people to vote on election day is not high on the agenda of Republicans.

Sure, six hour voting lines got all the headlines. But the trouble really started years prior with gerrymandering.

And typically who is it that Republicans try their best to obstruct from voting? Or exclude from Congressional district boundaries? You guessed it: minorities. Poor people (no longer a minority). City dwellers.

This contempt for democracy is often couched in terms such as ‘voter fraud’ or other such BS.

Now, we have four more years of a House of Reps controlled by people who essentially cheated to stay in power.

And who tried really hard to prevent or discourage America voting for a black president.

Where do you go from here if you have been living in a Fox induced bubble and you hate poor people and minorities voting?

Don’t act surprised. You know what’s coming. This is.

“The arc of the moral Universe is long, but it bends toward justice”, said Dr King. And he is clearly right.

But justice can be swiftly taken away. Democracy can be taken away. Your vote can be taken away.

Single Parents Are Not Sinners Or Bludgers

alexhamiltonaus — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:28:00 +1100

I was raised by a single mother. So it has not been a great few weeks for me as I have watched my own party treat single parents like they are sinners or bludgers or both.

In the first few weeks of 2013 we have seen the Gillard Government punish single parents to the tune of $100 per week by forcing 84,000 of them on to the Newstart Allowance, hence reducing their benefit.

At the same time, it was announced that new anti-discrimination legislation would exempt religious organisations from certain categories of sinners they wanted to discriminate against.

One such category is “unwed mothers” or “single mothers” in secular speak.

Bludgers?

In 1973 Gough Whitlam introduced the single parent pension. In conjunction with no-fault divorce and putting the pill on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the Labor Party has a pretty spectacular history of helping women.

And then we go and kick them in the guts.

$100 per week doesn’t sound like a lot of money, but it is to a single parent. Raising a kid by yourself, paying rent (especially in Sydney) and bills, and earning a low income because you left the workforce to have kids is hard.

Now try that with $100 less a week.

What makes me angry about this kind of policy, is its mean-ness of spirit. It is not about re-training women who have left the workforce and want back in.

It is not about going after bludgers, as audits and compliance does that.

It is about punishing women. Women who for a variety of reasons are not in a steady relationship.

Did you know that around 95% of the people who come to Australia on leaky boats are Refugees?

I don’t mean ‘boat people’, ‘illegals’ or ‘queue jumpers’, I mean 95% of them are judged by the United Nations as people with a legitimate cause to leave their country and seek refuge elsewhere. Including Australia.

Why bring this up you ask? Well, as with refugee policy, we are now legislating for the 5%. Think about that for a moment.

How many single mothers are actually bludgers? I have no idea, but I bet it’s not 95%, probably closer to the 5% don’t you think?

I am all for saving money from the budget, but how about we go after dead-beat-dads or tax cheats or we raise the capital gains tax threshold. Lots of ways to save/make money.

Maybe this isn’t about money, maybe this is about ‘values’?

Discriminating Against Sinners

The federal anti-discrimination laws are getting a refresh, about time really. But the Christians, more specifically the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) were not so keen to be included.

You see they feel that some people should be able to be discriminated against, sinners specifically. Gays get a mention, as do adulterers (how quaint), but so too do unwed mothers.

There are two issues here, the first is whether being gay or an unwed mother is actually a sin.

Since more Catholics in Australia are for equal marriage than the rest of the population, let’s assume it’s not a sin, but the Pope says different, so who’s to argue?

The second issue is that when we say ‘Christians’ we think churches. That is not the case my friend. Religious organisations represent one of the largest private employers in Australia.

Schools, hospitals and many many other workplaces around Australia are actually ‘religious organisations’.

And who gives these schools and hospitals lots and lots of money? Tax-payers via the federal government.

So, as with blood-diamonds and brutal regimes, you are actually funding discrimination. Nice one.

Churches are going to get the ability to fire single parents from their workplaces for that reason alone.

And on the single parent pension they go! Wait, not if their child is 8 years-old or over. That’s New Start for you sinner.

Election Year Politics

Aside from the odd timing that the federal government is punishing single parents and letting churches do the same, what is going on here?

Gillard is an atheist right? Seems a bit odd that a person who doesn’t believe in sin would be keen to punish sinners who have kids.

It is an election year. What does that really mean anyway?

Well election years are about marginal electorates, not the proud history of a great party that believes in a secular society that has a safety net.

So, there are a lot of marginal electorates in Western Sydney (and else where), there also happens to be a large number of Christians out in Western Sydney.

The Australian Christian Lobby represents the organisations that represent those Christians (as above, not necessarily representing what actual Christians believe, just the leaders/organisations).

And so a little discrimination here and a little punishment there and maybe the ACL won’t come out after the ALP in Western Sydney late in 2013.

One slight problem with this cynical logic, the ‘Mad Monk’ didn’t get his name because he’s an obsessive compulsive detective.

The ACL knows full well who has the purest political soul. And it ain’t Gillard and Labor.

Punishing single parents and letting faith based employers do the same is not what Labor stands for. It is not what Australia stands for.

And thankfully there are a lot of us in the ALP and the broader community who think so.

All Is Not Lost In Queensland: 10 Seats The ALP Can Win Back In 2013 [Updated]

alexhamiltonaus — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:00:00 +1100

I’m no psephologist, but….

The last few months has witnessed a notable tightening in published opinion polls. At my last Branch meeting, a branch member asked Senator Thistlethwaite which seats the ALP could conceivably win, given that Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott are widely expected to lose their seats. (For what it’s worth, I think both independents could surprise).

A few days later, PM Gillard hosted Community Cabinet in Yvette D’Ath’s marginal Queensland seat of Petrie. With almost each question asked, one thing was obvious – namely, more than just a general distaste of Campbell Newman and some of his decisions over the course of the last few months.

As a result, I decided to turn my mind to ten electorates in Queensland that are worthy of some closer attention. With a tightening in opinion polls, I present below ten seats that the government could perhaps have its eye on.

Note: we should also consider that there was a significant swing against the ALP at the 2010 election; which we might call the Rudd factor: Queenslanders were unhappy about their local boy being done over, and they punished the ALP for it. Throw into the equation that then Premier Bligh wasn’t too popular at the time either, and it translated to many Labor voters voting Liberal for the first time; a punishing protest vote.

Now, providing Rudd tows the party line between now and the election, that he campaigns well and importantly as a team player, throw in too the general distaste of Newman in some parts of Queensland, and one could expect many of those votes to come back towards the ALP.

As a result, here’s a list of ten seats that the ALP may very well now have its eye on, and which a year ago, we would’ve been only dreaming about.

1. Bonner: Held by Ross Vasta (LNP), margin 4.53%

This was a seat the ALP lost at the 2010 election, when a 12.73% shift in primary vote away from it cost it dearly. It borders the ALP held seats of Griffith (Rudd) and Lilley (Swan) to the west, and the LNP held seat of Bowman (Andrew Laming) to the east. Vasta held the seat from its creation in 2004 for one term, lost it to the ALP’s Kerry Rea in 2007, then nabbed it back in 2010. [Reach]

2. Bowman: Held by Andrew Laming (LNP)

Held by Andrew Laming, who won in 2007 by literally a handful of votes (the AEC website in fact lists the 2PP at 50/50), but a 10% swing to him in 2010 has made it notionally ‘safe’. Hard to see the ALP winning this, but probably closer than the 10% would suggest. [Tough]

3. Brisbane: Held by Teresa Gambaro (LNP), margin 1.13%

Gambaro beat long time member Arch Bevis, who had held the seat for 20 years, with a 5.7% swing to her. Expect this to slide the other way a touch. One the ALP will definitely have its eye on and should be campaigning strongly in. ALP candidate is Fiona McNamara, who has previously been the candidate for Dickson. [Winnable]

4. Dawson: Held by George Christensen (LNP), margin 2.43%

Dawson is on the Nth Queensland coast, taking in Ayr, Mackay and some south-eastern suburbs of Townsville. Christensen scored this seat on the back of a 5% swing to him (2PP). But for 2007-2010, the last time it was held by the ALP was by Rex Patterson (1966-75). Townsville has been hit hard by Newman’s cuts to services, including 45 nurses at Townsville hospital. [Winnable]

5. Dickson: Held by Peter Dutton (LNP) margin 5.1%

The seat in the north western suburbs of Brisbane was notionally Labor at the 2010 election, but Dutton - who is in my opinion one of the most uninspiring shadow ministers there ever was - managed to score a 6% swing to him. This is of course the seat that Cheryl Kernot once held. Cuts to services by Premier Newman will sting in these outer-suburban electorates. [Reach]

6. Fisher: Held by Peter Slipper (Ind), margin 4.13%

Fair to say that Slipper will probably not recontest in 2013, and if he did, he’d probably lose. The LNP candidate however, ex-Howard minister Mal Brough, hardly comes to the contest with clean hands. The ALP candidate is Bill Gissane, a consultant in workplace safety who settled on the Sunshiine Coast two years ago. A recent online poll in the Sunshine Coast Daily (albeit not the most reliable of polls) had Gissane/Brough on 78/21% respectively. [Interesting]

7. Flynn: Held by Ken O’Dowd (LNP), margin 3.58%

The ALP picked this seat up in 2007, holding it by 2.24%. The Rudd-slide pushed it back to the LNP in 2010, with a 5.82% swing to it. Based around the port city of Gladstone, the city of Gladstone traditionally votes strongly for the ALP, while the outer rural surrounds of the electorate tend to be more conservative. [Reach]

8. Forde: Held by Bert Van Manen (LNP) margin 1.63%

This seat was first created in 2007, and was held by the ALP first, before, like Flynn, it went to the LNP in 2010 with a 5% swing to it. [Winnable]

9. Herbert: Held by Ewen Jones (LNP), margin 2.17%

Was a marginal seat going into the 2010 poll, and Jones secured it with a 2.2% swing to him. Based on AEC figures, 2000 votes need to change for this to go back to the ALP. [Potentially winnable]

10. Longman : Held by Wyatt Roy (LNP), margin 1.92%

Roy surprised everyone (including himself) and won this seat on the back of a 3.79% swing to the LNP. 1500 votes or so in it. Roy seems to have a pseudo-celebrity status attached to him being the youngest federal MP ever. Whether that translates to him being a strong local member, remains to be seen. [Winnable]

Article written by Elliot Giakalis, a long-time ALP member, former political staffer, and current senior communications advisor to a Federal Government Department.

[Article updated: Bill Gissane settled in Sunshine Coast, not Gold Coast. And is a consultant in workplace safety]

Mitt Romney: The GOP Symbol Of Having Done Nothing Wrong

alexhamiltonaus — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:00:00 +1100

Barack Obama won the election. No, really, Obama won it. But that’s not to say that the GOP didn’t make mistakes that helped. And one of the biggies is covered in ‘Crisis Management 101’: Admit fault.

I am so sick of using the phrase ‘The Great Recession’, but that ‘historically significant event that happened a few years ago, and whose effects are still being felt’ is a bit of a mouthful.

Anyway, the GR was a test case in why the deregulating free marketeers shouldn’t be allowed to swim in the adult pool.

As it was in the Great Depression.

Deregulating banking for example doesn’t lead to good outcomes.

There has been a resurgence of good sense across the world about regulating entities that can bring down the global economy. And more over, a general mood that the so called ‘1%’ aren’t the smartest guys in the room, just the greediest.

Woo Hoo? Not so fast.

Oddly enough the GOP doesn’t like the cut of this particular jib.

Enter Mitt Romney.

The Primary process in the USA is exhaustive and complex. But eventually a candidate is chosen. And who did the GOP pick?

Mitt. Mitt of the…

“Corporations are people, my friend … of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets. Human beings, my friend.”

And then there’s the 47%.

Mitt Romney was not just a candidate, he was a symbol to Americans and the rest of the world that the GOP thought it had done nothing wrong.

That the policies it had enacted over the Bush years (with a little help from Clinton), were good for the economy, good for America.

And yet, the country had accepted that those things needed to change.

Or as Bill Clinton said “we simply can’t afford to double down on trickle down.”

Not according to Mitt or the GOP.

Mitt Romney was a symbol that all the GOP needed were the keys to the kingdom, again, and all would be well in the world.

Obama out organised and out campaigned, and the demographics have changed, but the GOP gave him a pretty good assist in Mitt - Symbol of all that is holy to the 1%.

Article first published as Mitt Romney: The GOP Symbol Of Having Done Nothing Wrong on Technorati.

Australia Needs To Get Over Surplus Envy

alexhamiltonaus — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:00:00 +1100

Surplus envy has gripped this nation, but what does a surplus really mean, should we want one, and at what cost?

Countries are not corporations. We have citizens not shareholders or customers. We have a social contract not a sales contract.

It is lazy politics and economics to treat the nation’s finances like that of a major corporation, and fixate on a surplus.

What is a ‘surplus’ in the business sense? Profit. And this is where ideology kicks in, should a government aim to ‘profit’ from its existence? I say no.

Businesses can pay dividends, pay off debt or invest. And it is the last one that is the most relevant to governments.

What is the role of government in a country? I think that the role of government is to invest in a nation. Education, infrastructure, health and so on. Not to ‘profit’ from the wealth created by citizens.

Some investments cost more money than you have available. Shouldn’t a government borrow money for things that will create wealth, like roads or education.

The argument that gets trotted out against this is the ‘household’ argument. Households need to balance the books, we can’t be in debt. Debt is bad. If your household is spending more than it earns you are bad. And governments should behave the same way.

What is funny about this argument is I agree partially. Governments are more like households than corporations. Households have families, have a heart. But they also have mortgages.

Whoa, hang on, a mortgage. What is that exactly, that sounds like debt. And debt is bad. Except if it is a mortgage.

Households borrow money to invest in an asset that they pay off over a long period of time that reaps rewards both financially and in so many other ways.

So if a government were to invest in building a fiber optic infrastructure across the nation but do it on borrowed money, isn’t that exactly like a household?

And what about university places or GPs or heavy rail lines, the list goes on.

And so the profit may well be there sometimes, but often times you are technically in debt. But you are still rich.

The Internet Needs Less 'Big Brother' And More 'Concerned Mum'

alexhamiltonaus — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:00:00 +1000

It is long overdue for governments to regulate the Internet. Don’t freak out, I am talking about protecting citizens, not stalking them. Let’s talk about password security.

I am no expert on this topic, but a great primer on the topic can be found here.

When we talk ‘internet regulation’ these days, it is code for either Big Brother or corporations trying restrict their content on different platforms (aka piracy).

Big Brother type regulation is a civil liberties issue as much as it is a law enforcement/counter terrorism issue, and while fertile ground, not the kind of commercial regulation that I want to talk about.

Piracy too has led to many attempts at regulation, but again, not the kind I am talking about.

What I am talking about is how secure your password is with online companies. Try to get past how nerdy this topic is, and focus on how much info you now put on the Internet.

I have written before about how our collective consciousness is being uploaded to the Internet; but so is your mother’s maiden name. And your social security number.

It’s ok, because those lovely smart people at the Internet company of your choice are using the most advanced technology to prevent your information from leaking, right? Oh wait, no they are not. Not even close.

And I am not talking some small business that you wouldn’t expect to spend money on security. No, this is Sony, LinkedIn, Apple, Gawker, the list goes on and on.

Some of these companies are not even taking the most basic of precautions, let alone ‘industry standard’.

Which brings me to regulation…

A legitimate function of government is to protect citizens by regulating things for their safety. Testing drinking water, medicines, seat belts and so on, not argument here.

It is time that governments regulated password security.

If a company has over a certain number of users on their database then a minimum standard of security must be applied to the storage and retrieval (online as well as offline) of the password used to access the account. Nothing too controversial there.

I am sure the same hackles will be raised at this suggestion as all other calls for regulation, but requiring car manufacturers put seat belts in cars is much the same.

A multi-billion dollar company has the resources to do some salting of the hash, set up two-factor and generally get pretty acquainted with ways to stop brute force.

The Internet has been described as the Wild West, untamed and unregulated. Lawless. Often the people making such statements are politicians as they try to pass things like this.

But requiring common standards for password security would be a good, mature step in protecting people like this guy from having to rebuild his life.

Article first published as The Internet Needs Less Big Brother And More Concerned Mom on Technorati.

We Don't Mention The War (On Carbon) In Government Advertising

alexhamiltonaus — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:00:00 +1000

The Gillard Government is afraid of one of it’s defining policies, the Carbon Price. All mention of it has been scrubbed from the advertising campaign selling the government benefits needed to compensate people for price rises, the Household Assistance Package.

The Household Assistance Package compensates people for the price rises caused by the introduction of the Carbon Price, not that you would know it watching the television ads.

People are getting “…help with their everyday expenses…” says the advertising campaign, oh that’s nice, the government is giving us money. Money for nothing if you go by the ad. No apparent reason, just because. Well not actually.

Politically aware people know why the tax-free-threshold has been raised. And why pensioners are getting a raise, and why families are getting more help and a whole host of other benefits. But the general populace? I think not.

There was a poll done a few years back in the USA; people were asked if they liked government handouts, to which the majority said no. The same poll asked people if they liked Social Security to which the majority said yes. Cognitive dissonance on a grand scale or a disengaged population spoon fed rubbish about the big bad government?

Progressives are as guilty of this as anyone. Progressives are no longer as ‘progressive’ as they once used to be. Rather than proudly espousing the values and virtues of representative democracy and the social contract, progressives have been playing on the rhetorical field of their conservative opponents for a while now.

And so we have seen so called progressive governments around the world trying ‘austerity’ whilst not wanting to cut social services. Or worse, cutting social services.

This is all well and good, but what has it got to do with the price of Carbon in Australia?

When the government of the day decouples the reason for benefits rising we get into the same territory as the example above. People will like their extra cash, but not the reason it is necessary.

My favourite villain, John W Howard was the master of exploiting the public purse to sell his abhorrent policies, and I do not want a return to that.

However, simply stating in a government advertising campaign about significant tax changes, the reason for them is Carbon, is not proselytising. It is factual information that is important for keeping the people of Australia well informed about what their government is doing. And why they are doing it.

“The Australian Government put a price on Carbon, to compensate you for minor price rises, the Household Assistance Package will come into affect from July 1”. I am not a copy writer, but how hard was that?

Hiding the Carbon Price and favouring the way people will be “assisted” is not the kind of politics this progressive government should engaging in. Stand up for what you did, and why.

iOS6 Feature Request: A Fire Hose Symbol Please

alexhamiltonaus — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:00:00 +1000

Smartphones are great, you can surf the internet, tweet, work remotely, control NORAD, whatever really. But only if you have speedy access to the internet. This is not the same as ‘having reception’.

Take a look at the photo above, has that ever happened to you? A smartphone that can’t access the internet is a dumb phone I’m afraid, except without changing the sticker price. And the real kicker is that smartphones aren’t that great at making calls, but that is a whole other blog post.

Times have changed. Thank Steve Jobs, he ruined it all. In a bygone era, you know, like the year 2002, if you had a bars on your dumb phone, you could make a call. Wow, that’s pretty simple.

The only hiccup would be major events like New Years Eve, a football match and so on. Too many people in one place and the cell towers could not handle it.

Now the exact same thing is happening, just with a lot less people. Same concept though.

And so we come to the ‘fire hose versus garden hose’ concept.

Imagine a fire hose and a garden hose. Now imagine that they can reach the same distance. Which would fill up a bucket more quickly? Now let’s say the ‘bucket’ is actually a YouTube clip. See what I did there.

Currently all smartphones will show you the same info, how much ‘reception’ you have, and whether it is ‘3G’ or not. This is still useless; yes your garden hose reaches the ‘bucket’ but you will go crazy waiting for that video of kittens riding a bicycle to load.

So, Tim Cook or whoever makes such decisions, I have a very expensive, very well designed and beautiful smartphone, but every time I have five bars of ‘reception’ and I can’t load Facebook, I want to throw your beautiful creation across the room.

Please show me some visual indication of download speed as well as ‘reception’ when you next update my iPhone software. Ta thanks.

Article first published as iOS 6 Feature Request: A Fire Hose Symbol Please on Technorati.

An Idea For Bus Stops: RFID Tags

alexhamiltonaus — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:00:00 +1000

RFID tags are very cheap and provide an opportunity to make timetables for buses better in several ways.

Bus stops are a funny beast, they are varied and dispersed and they sometimes move without notice. Sometimes they are just a little sign on a tree, or maybe a giant interchange. Either way, they are seriously lacking in a connection to the digital world that could make peoples lives easier.

In Sydney every bus stop has a unique number, if you log on to the internet with your smartphone and fumble your way through a website not optimised for mobile, you can eventually find the next bus coming. Or you can call a special number and type in the bus stop number and be told the next few buses.

Neither option is fun.

But I think if each bus stop had a RFID tag attached that had an embedded URL or phone number things would be ‘fun’.

Apparently there are 1 million Android phones shipping a week with NFC (A form of RFID) scanning ability. Factor in the third party options available, and the impending iPhone version and that is a lot of people with the capability to scan RFID tags.

So back to bus stops. RFID tags are small, they can be passive (not powered), they are very cheap (less than $1) and they can be programmed with large amounts of information. Say for example the the exact web address (optimised for mobile naturally) of the bus stop and all the upcoming buses.

Wouldn’t that be nice? You are new to town, you are in the back streets of some suburb and you miraculously find a bus stop and you just tap your phone on the sticker on the bus stop and then your phone lets you see all the buses coming in whatever app you choose. And the route. And whatever else info might be useful.

And if you wanted to take this idea a bit further, you could put active tags on the buses.

When the bus passed the passive tag it would register with a central database and then that info could be fed into apps. You could have real time location of your bus. Useful for customers and very useful for those planning routes, schedules, rosters, traffic management and so on.

There are lots of things that can be done to improve information flow and ease of use for customers, but adding RFID tags to bus stops would be very cheap to implement and be flexible enough to accommodate vast changes in phone technology and movement of bus stops.

Article first published as An Idea For Bus Stops: RFID Tags on Technorati.

The Greek Election: Finally Some Democratised Economics

alexhamiltonaus — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:00:00 +1000

There is an election this Sunday in Greece, and after years of government bailouts of risk-taking banks, shifting the debt to tax payers, the people have said ‘enough’.

The bankers, bond holders and even political elite are no longer in charge. At least not in Greece.

The people are.

It may be messy, and Greece may indeed leave the Euro with all the ensuing consequences, but no longer will the economic will of far flung countries and bankers have a say in the social policy of Greece.

Austerity only hurts people, it doesn’t put them back to work, which is what is needed in Greece (and else where).

I am not saying defaulting on debt is a good idea, but what is easily lost when summits are called, and loan terms agreed on, is the real pain that “austerity” causes.

As with so many economic terms, “Austerity” sounds benign (“downsizing” anyone?), but it represents job loss, hunger and real world suffering to millions of people.

Suicides, HIV, depression are all on the increase in Greece. And those are the horrible short term consequences, what about the long-term societal ones?

Faced with these realities, the Greek people recently were not exactly clear in their will of what to do, but I suspect come Sunday there will be some ‘clarity’, among other things.

Yes, democracy doesn’t necessarily lead to good outcomes, and an exit will hurt the Greek people. But austerity already is, and will continue to.

The Greeks will take control of their destiny on Sunday and the bankers can sit back and watch from the sidelines.

Article first published as The Greek Election: Finally Some Democratized Economics on Technorati.

The Holy Trinity of Political Leadership: Being Liked, Trusted and Respected

alexhamiltonaus — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:00:00 +1000

For a politician to be elected they need the holy trinity of political leadership - to be liked, respected and trusted. But you don’t need all three in equal measure, and that’s where it gets tricky.

Superficially getting elected is a popularity contest. Or who is ‘liked’ the most. We are all familiar with these votes from a relatively early age. Your school captain was probably the most popular kid (boy and girl), kids liked them, kids wanted to be them. Hot-button issues like cafeteria food were just a pleasant distraction to their pretty face or sporting prowess.

Fast forward a few decades and ‘populist’ politicians still get a lot of votes, and often it is still based on looks as much as it is policy. Voters will forgive a politician who is liked, their many transgressions.

In Australia we have the ‘beer test’, as in “would you want to have a beer with the politician?” I will leave aside the gendered aspect of that question, but believe me when I say it is noted.

One of our former leaders, Bob Hawke, held the world record for drinking a yard glass of beer. Question answered for Bob.

What makes the likeability test for politicians so powerful is that it is difficult to quantify. Why do you like politician A? We can like a variety of people even if we don’t trust them or respect them. We ‘like’ celebrities, but we wouldn’t let them babysit our kids.

Bill Clinton by all reports was well liked. He had a charisma to him that was magnetic, and still is apparently. Trust and respect became issues for him though.

And this is where the inherent weakness of likeability alone comes in. You need the other two in the trinity, trust and respect. A well-liked politician against a trusted one will lose.

So you need trust as well as being liked. And not necessarily in the same amount. How many politicians have we known and voted for that we don’t like, but we trust them to do what they say, or at least try?

It is the reason that almost all campaign material contains the line “who do you trust?” And it works.

Trust is a lot more powerful than likeability. The problem with trust is that it is ephemeral; it can be easily lost and hard to regain.

At least with likability it takes longer for people to stop liking you. Where as all you need to do is be a little flexible with your facts and trust can evaporate.

You will often grow to like someone you trust; the same cannot be said of trusting someone you like.

So likeability is shallow, trust can evaporate, what else will people vote for?

Hello Respect!

Respect is often mistaken or conflated with trust, but it is vastly different. Respect is built; you actually have to have done something to be respected. And it is much harder for you to throw away people’s respect. Which is nice.

We can respect a strong leader and still not trust them. Think about it for a moment.

The three most prominent Western leaders, George W Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard all had varying degrees of likeability, and then they threw away trust with their WMD folly, but all three I would argue are respected for their strength of resolve in the aftermath of September 11. Not liked, not trusted, but respected.

We can respect strength, but we most associate respect with previous achievement. Mitt Romney has made a political career out of people respecting his ability to make money. Even when that meant he liked to fire people. In the Great Recession no less!

How to get people to vote for a political leader is a complex process, but the three most used tools are likeability, trust and respect.

They all interact with each other, and feed off of each other, but you don’t need all three, not all at the same time.

The holy trinity of political leadership comes with pitfalls, as it is easy to spend too much time trying to get people to like you or trust you, when you should just be getting their respect, and their votes.

Article first published as The Holy Trinity Of Political Leadership on Technorati.

Gillard Needs To Focus On Gaining Respect

alexhamiltonaus — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:00:00 +1000

Julia Gillard is unpopular and not trusted, but what she could have from the electorate is respect. This could easily be enough to get her across the line at the next election.

In an opinion piece last month, Peter Hartcher wrote a lot about likeability and trust. Of which Gillard has a deficit with the public.

The ‘insiders’ in the ALP are going to try to frame the next 18 months on trust - not of Gillard per se, but her Government. Which is fine, but it still doesn’t fix the problem, Gillard will still be the leader who isn’t liked or trusted.

Enter “respect”.

In his article Hartcher talks about popularity and trust, as do his sources. But no one talks about respect, not directly anyway. This is the key to building up Gillard in the eyes of the electorate.

The holy trinity of leadership is: likeability, trust and respect. It is clear by now that likeability is off the table for Gillard. Trust when framed on the personal not on the Government, is problematic for Gillard, mostly due to her own mistakes. Respect on the other hand is there for the taking.

Those three qualities in unison will win you an election every time. But you can scrape by with just respect. Respect also anchors trust. And we know this because of my favourite Australian villain, John Howard.

Hartcher makes the point that John Howard focused on trust; and he may well have used those words, but he was not trusted. Not by a long shot. Howard was very respected however.

Howard was a strong leader, and he was perceived to be doing what he believed was right for Australia. And he won elections based on that, not on his policies, not on whether people ‘trusted’ him personally, but on respect.

Julia Gillard like Howard is a strong leader, one who is doing what she believes is good for the nation. But her focus on not being liked, and not being trusted is a liability. Gillard is playing on the field of her opponents and losing badly. Time to shift to where she has clear wins and clear strengths.

As Deputy Prime Minister Gillard had a super ministry - Education and Industrial Relations if memory serves. Wow, that is impressive. Those two portfolios pretty much define what labor is about. And Gillard led them both. And led them well mind you.

Now we learn that under Rudd, Gillard was effectively running the country in his absence. The question of talent should not be up for debate. And the question of achievement has been answered.

Fast-forward to an election non-win, and the skill and patience of Gillard delivered a Labor Government back to power. It was an impressive display of “getting things done” by a relatively new leader of the Labor Party.

The Carbon Price, the NBN, superannuation reform (thanks for the extra $100K I get when I retire Julia) and on and on. Julia Gillard does indeed get things done.

And despite some real issues with some of the policies of my own party (refugees for one), I have respect for Gillard.

Gillard can stand by her achievements with pride. And from the respect for her achievements that I have, I trust that Gillard will continue to deliver.

By focusing on respect for her achievements rather than trust in her competence of governance, Gillard could shift the negative focus of her past statements and build trust in her future policies.

I trust the Labor Party, but I respect its leader. And you should too.

Inference For Profit: How Corporations Are Using Big Data To Become Psychic

alexhamiltonaus — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:00:00 +1100

Who have you told you are pregnant? Who have you told you are having marriage problems? Well you should add to that list your credit card company, Target and many others. These companies have gone beyond just using your data for basic trend-lines of sales, to a point where they can predict your future.

That’s right, predict the future. No your credit card company is not psychic, scary as that thought would be; with enough data a company can predict what is going on in your life. From the Huffington Post: ”According to Marissa Meyer at Google, some credit card companies can now use your purchasing decisions to predict whether you’re going to get a divorce with 95% accuracy — two years out.”

You read that right, two years out. Why a credit card company would want that information is for them to know and us to ponder (increased risk of credit issues?), but what it shows is that we spend so much of our lives filling vast warehouses with data about ourselves, and big companies have finally started connecting the dots. Quite literally it seems. Purchase A + Purchase B = Divorce in two years time. No longer just ‘dumb’ data it seems.

This opens up all sorts of ethical issues that we as a society have yet to deal with. For example, we generally have a right to privacy, but do we have a right to the privacy of the inferences that could be made about us? How about those little lines in privacy documents where we let a big company sell our data to another company, do they sell inferences too?

Pregnancy is a very personal thing to a woman, but not personal enough for Target in the USA to stay away from trying to predict it. With great success mind you. Great New York Times article about it here.

Essentially having a baby means that a woman throughout her pregnancy will purchase certain items at certain times in her pregnancy. Targeted marketing coming in your direction little lady. And hopefully a long-term customer for Target in the sweet spot for any company: someone who is buying necessities not accessories.

In the article it also talks about not creeping out the recipient by hiding that they were targeted (ok I’ll stop the punning), this is a whole other kettle of fish; making people think their decisions are a ‘choice’. Not what I am here to talk about though.

So with enough data, inferences can be made about you. Not just about purchasing decisions, but about some very personal parts of your life. Yes the goal (at least in Target’s case) is to make money and long-term money at that. The phrase that comes to mind is “mission creep”.

A large data company has not just data about you, but has started making inferences about you too, now that is valuable. My guess is that this practice is very large in the personal data world, but we only hear little snippets of it from time to time.

The other obvious area of the power of inference is national security and law enforcement, and I am sure it is being used widely, but the ethics of catching bad guys are less murky than trying to turn a profit.

Is all this so bad? Not necessarily, but mission creep often pops up in unexpected ways. Does your credit score change before you get divorced but after the credit card company infers that it is on the cards?

Article first published as Inference For Profit: How Credit Card Companies Can Predict the Future on Technorati.

Equal Marriage Is For Grandma Too

alexhamiltonaus — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:00:00 +1100

Equal marriage is for your Grandma as much as it is for gay people. I was reminded of this recently when a friend recounted a story of a woman who was having a baby and the hospital put down that she was a ‘single parent’, nope not really even close to what she is, married to a woman is a bit closer. Just not in this country.

It is easy to get caught up in the campaign for equality, and who wouldn’t want to be on the right side of that campaign? But what often gets overlooked is the rest of society and how it will affect them, positively that is.

The social contract is a very powerful device; we all self police to varying degrees, whether it is someone talking in a movie, a frown at a parent with a misbehaving child and so on. These cues are learnt from many sources, but the laws of the land reflect much of it.

And so it is with equal marriage, social mores get enforced regardless of how gay people define their relationship, or how other countries define their relationships. The campaign for equality means not just recognition of existing relationships between same sex people, it also means that the social contract gets updated too.

It means that your grandma knows that the government approves. And now she wants her little cherub to get married, whether she wants to or not. Welcome to acceptance.

This all sounds glib, but it is very important, much like the formalized version in the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell campaign, people follow orders, even if they don’t (yet) agree with them.

And so it will be with equal marriage, the laws will reflect the changing attitude towards same sex relationships, but it will also enforce a new social order, it will no longer be acceptable to call a married lesbian having her second child a ‘single parent’.

Article first published as Equal Marriage is for Grandma Too on Technorati.