Chinese Poppies

Tomorrow is ANZAC Day. You’ve probably never heard of it if you live outside of Australia and New Zealand but it is a national holiday where New Zealanders and Australians are encouraged to think of the people who have served in the armed forces in the past (ANZAC stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps).

The organisation for returned service personnel is known as the RSA (Returned and Services’ Association) and it has an appeal leading up to the 25th where it gives out (paper) poppies for a donation. The poppies represent the poppies which grew in the battle fields of Flanders in Belgium during World War I.

Whatever your opinion of war most people would agree that the majority of people who served in the armed forces were in many ways innocent victims of greater political forces, so they tend to help out by “buying” a poppy from the collectors for the RSA.

In the past the poppies have been made by disabled people here in New Zealand as a way to give them employment, but this year the RSA decided to source most of them cheaply from China instead. That’s why they won’t be getting a donation from me, or many other people, this year.

I’m not against buying from China (or anywhere else) in every case. If I was I would own almost nothing because just almost every piece of technology I own (including all my beloved Apple devices) are made there. I would prefer it if China wasn’t a virtual slave labour source which allowed big multinationals (including Apple) to get rich but that’s the current reality.

But where there is a clear alternative I would prefer to support it. Sure the Chinese poppies were cheaper, but is cheaper always better? Cheaper often has unexpected consequences. I would be happy to donate 10 dollars for a New Zealand made poppy but I won’t give them anything for a Chinese one. Which is really cheaper?

A lot of the problem comes from the example set by corporate leaders. Recently a particularly obnoxious one called Jim Quinn who is the CEO of our national railway KiwiRail (a state owned company) first refused to use a division of his own company to do work it could easily have done, and now wants to sell that same division (the railway workshops in my home town of Dunedin) because they have no work.

Is it any wonder that when horrible people like that set an example that others are tempted to follow? They think it’s OK to abandon morality and ignore the big picture to save a few dollars. Well it isn’t. We pay CEOs lots of money to make the best decision, not the cheapest. Any idiot can just look at a report and choose the smallest number. It’s just not good enough and the CEO of both KiwiRail and the RSA should resign (and preferably leave the country so we don’t have to put up with them just moving on to the next organisation they want to demoralise).

Business leaders really do get it easy. They can justify their vile decisions by saying they are just following best management practice, they often hide the details of their dirty deals behind the lie of “commercial sensitivity”, and they spend a fortune on publicity campaigns, hideous spin-doctors, and professional lobbyists so that they can continue with the loathsome farce which is modern business.

Naturally the current government, being ideologically motivated to encourage this sort of thing, doesn’t help and things will no doubt get worse before they get better.

So the matter of the source of some simple paper poppies has turned into another political rant. No surprises there!

We Don’t Need Efficiency

Unsurprisingly industrial relations in New Zealand seems to be heading into chaos. Various major disputes are currently active and we seem to have more employment related strife than we have for many years. As I said, this isn’t surprising, because the combination neo-liberal/conservative agenda of the current government should be obvious to everyone. And that type of government is always against the workers.

These disputes all seem relatively justified because they involve either resistance to the erosion of existing pay and conditions (the Ports of Auckland workers and the Affco meat workers) or the employers failure to compensate workers adequately in the first place (the Oceania Group rest home staff).

The counter-argument is that in the current global financial position we all have to make sacrifices and it is important for New Zealand companies to be competitive.

I don’t think this is true.

For a start the people asking for sacrifices aren’t making any themselves. Top pay rates continue to climb while the rest of us have to survive on less (effectively). So the morality of management asking staff to accept cuts while they just get more themselves is extremely problematic.

The next question is can we really be significantly more productive and competitive? New Zealand workers are already very productive, according to global surveys, and a recent survey showed the majority of them do work at home for free. What more do employers want?

Finally there is the question of whether we really want to get caught up in a global competition to be “efficient” when this efficiency takes the form of being paid less and having much poorer work conditions. If that is efficiency do we really want it? Why not introduce the ultimate efficiency and make slavery legal? That last point is rhetorical and an example of a “slippery slope” fallacy but I think it demonstrates the point I am trying to make.

If we make the Ports of Aukland (for example) more efficient isn’t that just going to encourage its competitors to also become more efficient, which will then bounce back to Auckland again, and so on? Where will it end? There has to be a point where “efficiency” (and what efficiency is can be debated) is given a lower priority and fairness and long-term stability are considered as well.

I think shipping companies will use Auckland in preference to other ports if they know the workforce is there and happy to work. After all, it costs extra to transport from other ports (Tauranga, Wellington) to Auckland anyway so where is the advantage in going elsewhere even if it is slightly more expensive?

Many people look at these disputes and don’t care. They tend to react based on political lines: the right just see useless workers failing to cooperate with the reasonable innovations introduced by management, and the left see evil managers forcing their once loyal workforce into a desperate situation to save their employment conditions.

As you might have guessed, I tend to favour the second interpretation and I think other people should too. Even if you think port workers are over-paid or if you think they should be more flexible in their work conditions (neither of which I agree with) there is still good reason to support them.

That reason is (assuming you are like the vast majority of people and are paid a wage or salary and are not one of the ruling elite) that once pay and conditions start coming down in one area they are likely to follow in others. First, employers will see that they can get away with the dirty tricks which were blatantly used at the port and will use them in other places. And second, it will seem only fair (sometimes even to the victims) that if one group has sacrificed their conditions then others should too.

I know this sounds like another slippery slope argument but I think it has some merit. Sometimes the slope really is slippery.

Remember what Martin Niemoller famously said: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

I’m not saying the government and employers are like Nazi Germany (that would be a real example of Godwin’s Law) – well, not exactly anyway – but they cannot be trusted and it will be easier to stop them now rather than later. The easiest way to get Ports of Auckland running again would be to fire the immoral and incompetent CEO. But it goes a long way beyond that because this sort of behaviour is encouraged by the type of government we currently have.

We need to vote these despicable scum (see my previous blog entry) out of office as soon as we can but until then we need to support the workers who are standing up to them. The Ports of Auckland, Affco, and Oceania Group workers who are striking are doing the right thing. If you don’t think so then think again when you’re the next victim of this so-called efficiency!

A Geek Hero?

Kim Dotcom is like a new geek hero. I just watched him on Campbell Live (a New Zealand current affairs program) and I was really impressed at how he presented his side of the debate regarding his alleged piracy. He was fairly reasonable and restrained but made it perfectly clear that he views the FBI as politically motivated liars and the New Zealand police as puppets who just follow their unprincipled masters.

It’s difficult to disagree. There’s no doubt that his site was used to swap copyrighted material but so what? Sony’s DVD recorders are used to write commercial material onto DVD, Xerox’s photocopiers are used to copy books and other material, and Dell’s computers are used to duplicate movies on DVD.

Do any of those companies have to put up with a bunch of over-enthusiastic cops jumping out of helicopters with automatic weapons? Do they have all their assets stolen by the state for no good reason? Do their executives get locked up in prison without being found guilty of any crime?

It’s no wonder so many people have lost a lot of their confidence in the New Zealand police. They do a good job a lot of the time, I agree, but increasingly they are just a tool of a repressive regime more interested in maintaining the power and profits of outmoded multi-nationals than genuinely maintaining the fair and reasonable laws of our country.

Is there really nothing more important for the FBI, New Zealand police, and New Zealand legal system to be concentrating on than this? I think it’s obvious that the big music and movie companies are using their influence to push this immoral action through, so not only has Dotcom been victimised but legitimate users of his site have lost their data and the police have wasted their time and money.

Dotcom says he will fight the charges against him and he seems to have the legal support to do that, although he can’t pay for that support now because all of his money has been taken. He also cannot use communications technology, such as smart phones, or the internet.

The whole sorry story has become quite ridiculous. New Zealand really is becoming a police state, apparently.

What Were They Thinking?

Imagine you are part of a military power in a foreign country as a result of your country invading it. Now imagine that while you are there your military is responsible for many civilian deaths and many well publicised acts of intolerance and disrespect. And to make matters even worse your country is the world’s greatest bastion of the dominant culture and religion and the country you are invading follows another religion. And the followers of that religion are extremely fanatical about defending it.

OK, if you have imagined all of that what would be the worst thing you could do (assuming you wanted peace and stability, of course)? Would it be to burn piles of the holy book of the culture you had invaded? Maybe there could be even worse things, but in a country which is fanatical about its beliefs that would have to be amongst the worst possible actions, wouldn’t it?

You would have to almost draw the conclusion that a mass burning of a holy book, without even an attempt at hiding the action, was a deliberate act of provocation… or maybe it’s just unbelievable incompetence. Which is worse?

I have little respect for holy books but I have even less respect for people who burn them (or any other book for that matter). I also have little respect for people who think having a few books burned is an excuse for embarking on an extended campaign of violence and murder. So in my opinion no one comes out of this sort of situation looking good.

Book burning has always symbolised repression and intolerance. Even if the reason a book is burned is logical and uncontroversial it still looks bad. And if you need to burn a holy book for practical reasons the least you could do is do it secretly!

If I followed a religion and its books were burned by my opponents I think I could use the situation in a positive way to enhance my own credibility. I would point out that my God is not bothered by the destruction of mere physical objects because he is above that. I would point out that it is the other group doing the burning who are the uncivilised barbarians. And I would say that I am a better person and will not sink to similar levels of uncivilised conduct.

But that’s not what usually happens, is it. On every side of the conflict: what were they thinking?

Think Different

What can I say about Steve Jobs? It has already all been said, both by technology enthusiasts (AKA geeks) and surprisingly by many people with little or no connection to the tech world. Not surprisingly almost every commentary on his life and achievements has been very positive (apart from one by a leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, but more on that later) and why wouldn’t it be? It’s difficult to tell at this early stage but it seems likely he will be remembered as a genuine genius who really did make a difference.

But was he really a genius? What was it about him which meant he was able to make such a difference and to change the world of technology so much? He wasn’t a technical or engineering genius, he wasn’t a traditional management genius, he wasn’t brilliant at investment, or marketing, or anything else for that matter. But he did have a unique combination of skills and he was in the right place at the right time.

Jobs did what other entrepreneurs say they will do but almost universally fail to deliver on. He did do things differently and he did take real risks. Despite what they say, it seems to me that few modern companies really do that. They actually don’t take risks and they never do anything genuinely entrepreneurial.

Every other major company (even including Google to some extent) really just follow along and take the simple and safe route. They copy, they take the easy options, and they follow established business best practice. That might be a good way to keep the board happy and to keep the company safe short term but it’s an obvious formula for failure long term.

During the period when Jobs was away (1985 to 1997) Apple was run in a similar way to most other companies, and it gradually failed because of that. It was not the sort of company which flourished under the leadership of a bunch of “suits”. It probably could have survived but it would have been just another PC maker no different from all the rest.

Looking at the products introduced by Apple with and without Jobs it’s obvious that his guidance was essential. There was just one genuinely brilliant, innovative, and risky product introduced while he was away: that was the Newton. The Newton truly was a superb device. Understanding it from a technical perspective just made how far ahead it was even more obvious. Newton aficionados (of which I was one in case you hadn’t guessed) used to say the Newton came to Apple from a time warp into the future, it was that advanced. Maybe too advanced. Jobs killed the Newton project when he returned, just as it was starting to work really well. I’m not sure why. Maybe he just didn’t like something so great existing which he didn’t create.

Still, we can easily forgive him for killing off one great product because he introduced six even greater ones in return. Yes, I think he introduced six products that were so great that anyone else would be venerated for creating even one of them. OK, so here are the six products: the Apple II, the original Mac, the iMac, the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. Also, if you count the software driving these devices (Mac OS X, iOS) as separate products then his contribution is even greater.

None of these products were the first of their kind but they were the first brilliantly executed examples of their kinds. There were earlier home computers, MP3 players, smart phones, and tablets for example. But no one wanted to use them (I don’t mean that literally but they were compromised and not suitable for many users). Apple took a bit longer to create its products but when it did create them it really did the job properly.

I keep talking about Apple’s success as if it could be entirely attributed to Jobs. That’s not what I really mean. Apple has brilliant engineers and product designers. The main reason Apple succeeds is because its products are just so good. And I totally reject those (who really just don’t get it) who say Apple’s success is more to do with marketing and the “reality distortion field”. People can only be fooled that way temporarily.

I said Apple has a lot of brilliant engineers but surely other companies do as well. Of course they do: they probably have people as good as Apple’s. So why don’t other companies also produce brilliant products? Because they are all operating according to the old traditional conservative business model. The one which almost caused Apple to fail in the 90s and is gradually leading to the failure of companies like HP, Nokia, and RIM (and maybe even Microsoft).

Apple under Jobs knew how to create a culture where individual brilliance (such as that of Jonathan Ive) could flourish without being buried in a pile of worthless business nonsense like business plans, financial justifications, and (that ultimate source of all mediocrity) best practice. It was as much what Jobs didn’t do as what he did do that made the difference.

There was one more thing too (I couldn’t resist that). Jobs seemed to know what people wanted before even they did. So many people rubbished the concepts behind the iMac, iPod, and iPad before they were released. It’s actually quite amusing to go back and see what the “experts” said. Well they were all wrong and Jobs was right. He almost always was and he wasn’t scared to abandon traditional business wisdom to follow his ideas. That’s what made him great.

Now I want to share a few of the best comments I have found about Jobs’ life.

A lot of commentary came through Twitter so this is relevant: “Once in a rare while, somebody comes along who doesn’t just raise the bar, they create an entirely new standard of measurement.” (Dick Costolo, Twitter CEO).

Short and to the point: “Steve Jobs was the man.” (Tony Hawk, retired pro skateboarder and actor).

This is good advice (but hard to carry out): “Remember Steve Jobs this way, in his own words: Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life.” (Dan Gillmor, digital-media entrepreneur and author).

And here’s some “intelligent” commentary from our fundamentalist Christian friends: “Westboro will picket his funeral. He had a huge platform; gave God no glory & taught sin.” (Margie Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church on Twitter). And when it was discovered that tweet came from an iPhone: “Rebels mad cuz I used iPhone to tell you Steve Jobs is in hell. God created iPhone for that purpose! :)”. Well if Jobs is in Hell and scum like this go to Heaven all I can say is I know where I want to go!

And finally the best and saddest (from Twitter user @TechZader): “The world lost some of its magic today…”.

Reflections on 9/11

It has been a couple of days since the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the US and we have just been subjected to the expected outpouring of emotion and political rhetoric on the subject. To be honest, on the other side of the world here in New Zealand, it was fairly moderate and could be avoided if you wanted to (especially since the Rugby World Cup was much bigger news), but it was certainly present.

I’m not saying that the attacks weren’t a terrible thing: I’m against the use of violence for political or religious purposes in almost every case, but there are a lot bigger problems in the world and a lot worse atrocities we should be worrying about.

For example, look at the quite understandable grief amongst the friends and families of the 9/11 victims. It’s terrible to watch and clearly shows the consequences of violent political and terrorist acts, but we should apply the same standards to everyone.

If the loss of 3000 people in the US has caused so much grief how much has been caused by the slaughter of many times that number of innocent civilians in the unjust wars the US and its partners have engaged in since?

And who is really the most cowardly: a terrorist who takes his own life to attack who he perceives as his enemy, or a modern jet pilot bombing someone who he has been told is his enemy in a residential area in Baghdad?

This isn’t really an anti-US rant. The US reacted as any dominant world power would react in a similar situation and it responded in the only way it really could, but who has really caused the greater amount of death, destruction, and misery? I think it’s very clear what the answer to that question is.

I felt sickened listening to Bush and Obama speaking at the ceremony marking the anniversary of 9/11. It was pure, unadulterated propaganda. The sort that any dictator would be proud of. There were constant references to working for the will of God, to fighting for freedom, and other truly ridiculous statements.

If the US leadership really believes that the wars it has started were to fulfill the wishes of their god then I think they had better find another one. I wouldn’t recommend that alternative supernatural tyrant that the other side follows either! Actually, anyone who believes in a superstition like Christianity or Islam has no right to be leading a powerful, modern country in the first place.

Maybe Obama doesn’t really believe that stuff, who really knows. Because the US is so deeply superstitious no one can lead it without at least pretending to believe in Christian mythology and it would be political suicide to admit to not believing in God at all and almost as bad to suggest that God isn’t on the US’s side in the righteous wars it engages in.

So I would have liked to have seen a lot less rhetoric and a lot more moderation in the commemoration of the attacks. They were an act of evil against the US I agree, but there’s been a lot worse done both before and after.

That’s Not Cricket!

There’s an old expression which is probably fairly well known in the parts of the world which still have a connection with the old British Empire. That is “that’s not cricket!” and it means that something is not fair or not being done according to established rules.

Perhaps a more topical variation on the theme would be “that’s not rugby” to describe the situation around the Rugby World Cup which is about to start here in New Zealand.

I like watching a good game of rugby as much as anyone else (well that’s probably not literally true because I’m sure there are real rugby fanatics who enjoy it far more than me) but I’ve got to say I’m already sick of the nonsense which is emerging around the RWC and the actual competition hasn’t even started yet!

So what sort of “nonsense” am I talking about? It’s mostly to do with the blatant commercialism which has steadily crept into sport. Anyone who reads this blog will know that I don’t have a lot of tolerance for corporate greed and I am totally skeptical of the rise of corporations, globalisation, and neo-liberal economics.

But what does this have to do with the RWC? Quite a lot actually. I plan to ignore the whole event as much as possible, just like I ignored that other travesty which passed for news recently: the royal wedding.

OK, so what are my specific objections? There are many but I want to discuss three in particular here which are representative of the overall problem.

First, there is the current issue of the price of All Blacks replica rugby jerseys. These sell in New Zealand for $220, about double he price of the same item in the US. That is bad enough but we know the people who manufacture these items are paid about 60 cents an hour. That is obscene and the silly excuses offered by Adidas just don’t hold up to any real scrutiny.

It’s an example of the worst in global corporate exploitation and the All Blacks should have nothing to do with it. But they rely on corporate sponsorship to pay their excessive salaries so I suppose they don’t have a choice. Well I guess greed and lack of moral values is what business is all about but is it really what we expect from sport?

Second, there is how so many aspects of life in New Zealand have been rearranged for the convenience of this one event. For example the first school term has been extended and the last term reduced. This inconveniences both teachers and students and many think it will lead to inferior learning but apparently that doesn’t matter compared with a few big companies making some extra cash from this so-called sporting event.

Extra building has been undertaken, transport has been re-arranged, and numerous other unnecessary projects have resulted from the RWC being run here. Could this extra expenditure not be used elsewhere? The government keeps telling us how little spare cash they have for health and education but apparently that isn’t a factor when it comes to subsidising big corporations.

Finally there is the sickening marketing associated with the RWC. Private police forces will be employed to make sure there is no sign of any brands competing with the official sponsors anywhere near the venues. The event and the All Blacks seem to have an official product of every type imaginable. Marketing is a sick pursuit at the best of times (I often call marketing executives “profesional liars”) but this has just taken the phenomenon to a whole new level of depravity.

Surveys show a distinct rejection of the RWC by many New Zealanders. Only 37% were looking forward to the games according to one recent survey. In a country where rugby is supposedly so well supported this does show how public acceptance of the modern treatment of sport has dropped.

But when the games start I’m guessing most people will watch at least some of them and it will be hard to avoid them as a topic of conversation. But I still say it’s just not cricket!

Period Problems

I’m quite enthusiastic about reasoned debate, even when (or especially when) it is controversial and involves subjects not normally discussed. Examples of topics which should be open to reasoned discussion but which are often off limits include: the possible merits of regimes considered to be the enemy (such as al Qaeda), real differences between groups of people (such as different races), and differences between men and women.

In most cases it is considered appropriate to demonstrate bias in one direction but not another. For example, using the word “freedom” in conjunction with western military forces is fine but call a “terrorist” a freedom fighter and you are branded a criminal. Or admire the achievements of a racial minority as much as you want but never suggest the dominant race (yes, I know races don’t technically exist) has any advantages. And saying a woman has done a great job because she’s a female is admired but what about the opposite?

So in some ways I was quite surprised with Alasdair Thompson’s courage in stating his beliefs regarding why pay inequity between men and women exists. But in other ways I was rather disgusted at his performance.

His argument seemed to be that women are paid less because they are less productive, and the major reason they are less productive because they take more sick leave, and a large factor in the increased sick leave is period problems.

There are several issues here: first, are women less productive; second, do they take more sick leave; third, is that because of problems relating to periods; fourth, if all that is true should they be penalised because of it; and finally, is this a discussion we should be even allowing instead of just getting on with improving pay inequity.

OK, so those are the issues (actually there is one more but I’ll leave that to the end of this entry) so let’s look at them…

Are women less productive? I have never been able to find a reputable and consistent source of information on this, although there are studies indicating differences they are hard to use to reach an overall conclusion. Not only that but I think productivity is a difficult thing to measure and is often largely a matter of perception and personal bias more than anything else.

So saying women are less productive than men isn’t necessarily wrong but it is highly debatable. Thompson himself mentioned several anecdotes but couldn’t provide any real data even when challenged on the topic.

But let’s just accept the highly doubtful claim about productivity and move on to point two: do women take more sick leave? Numerous studies seem to indicate that this is actually true. The figure seems to be that women take about one and a half times as much short term sick leave as men, but about the same long term leave. Studies over several years and in multiple countries seem to be consistent on this.

Again Thompson had only anecdotes on this point which seems to indicate that if he was right it was more through luck than real fact finding. But I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt at this point and move on.

Is the extra leave women take due to menstrual related problems? It’s difficult to tell because of the lack of many good studies but there seems to be some interest – from governments, companies, unions, and employees – in leave specifically to cater for this problem. So again there is no good data supporting the idea (and yet again Thompson just presented personal anecdotes) so the best I could say is that the idea isn’t impossible.

What about point 4? Even if all of the preceding points are true and women really are less productive because of what Thompson calls “monthly sickness” is it fair to penalise them because of it? Maybe in the sick business focussed world he lives in that would be justifiable but I think the majority of people are backing away from that purely money based view of what is right and wrong.

I also can’t help but think that a lot of the perception of productivity is just that. It’s an assumption reinforced by supporting incidents and where negating evidence is conveniently forgotten. Thompson says his organisation fully supports equal pay and all of the other reforms which have been introduced, but these are legal requirements so I would have to wonder whether he would be quite as supportive if they weren’t law.

And I would also be interested to hear his views on youth rates. The government wants to allow young workers to be paid less than the minimum wage. This is a view which I am sure I have heard most employers (including Thompson’s organisation) support. What happened to equal pay for equal productivity there? If minimum rates of pay irrespective of age was no longer a legal requirement would employers still support it just because it’s the right thing to do? Of course not!

So after all of the above I come to the final point: is this a discussion we should even be having? I think so because everything is worth discussing. But I think the way it has been handled in this case is so poor that it is not only going to make Thompson’s view look ridiculous (presumably the opposite to what he intended) but it is also going to make it harder for anyone to start a more useful, fact-based, discussion on the subject.

But what was the extra point I mentioned at the start? Just this: people like Thompson really don’t give employers good positive public relations. He comes across as an ignorant, arrogant, nasty, self-centered, rude, inflexible fool. The way he bullied his way through the interview on TV last night was quite shocking. I have never seen anyone handle a situation like that so poorly before. So another word to be added to the already extensive list of criticisms is incompetent!

It’s worrying that employers would think it’s OK to have someone like this representing them (even if they are considering firing him now because of public pressure), but I have seen examples of that sort of stupidity and ignorance in employers too. They have grown to have a very inflated idea of their own value, and when their authority is challenged – even when it is through asking reasonable questions that they don’t like (like those in the interview) – they resort to bullying, intimidating, or just refusing to cooperate.

And I must comment on his paranoid conspiracy ideas regarding who is criticising him. Apparently he thinks his critics are political opponents (mainly from the Labour Party), or socialists or communists. That’s another example of unsubstantiated mindless drivel which just makes him look like an even bigger buffoon than had already been apparent. Maybe he should just take the advice some commentators offered tonight: “just shut up”.

The best thing about this incident is perhaps that we now see the way that many employers really do think when their usual disguise of civility is removed. I hope it makes people think about what sort of society we want: one which gives this sort of person even more power or one which is more interested in the best outcome for the majority. If this represents the way a lot of our “esteemed” business leaders really think then I think we should be worried… even if you’re not a woman!

Vaccination Strategies

A news story which ran recently here in New Zealand reported on reactions to a school which refused to allow unimmunised children to attend during an outbreak of measles. A lot of discussion was shown but at no time were the parents asked why they didn’t have the free and well publicised immunisations done, although one mother said she made a “well informed” decision not to do it.

I suspect it wasn’t well informed of course, because anyone who is well informed will have the treatment done. Being extensively informed is not the same as being well informed. A person who can quote a few facts about immunisation, such as it offers good but not total protection, that side effects are real but rare, and that an immunisation rate of about 90 to 95% gives benefit to those who cannot be immunised is better informed than someone who can quote 100 incorrect, outdated, or misleading bits of propaganda, such as immunisation causes autism!

The health professionals said they didn’t want to make immunisation compulsory because people had the right to refuse it, but I think there is a case to say that they don’t actually have that right. If a parent refuses medical treatment for their child which could save the child’s life the state can step in and override the parent’s wishes. Since measles can lead to serious consequences and occasionally death is there not a case to say that the freedom to refuse treatment could be overridden here too?

In some ways the case should be stronger in fact because unless the magic 90% or more of the population are immunised herd immunity won’t occur and there will be no protection for those who can’t be immunised for genuine reasons or for the small number where immunisation fails.

On the other hand I listened to a podcast today where an historian talked about the history of the understanding and treatment of infectious diseases, especially cholera. He mentioned cases going back over 100 years and as recently as during the Haiti disasters. In that case genuine attempts to help were rejected by many people because they suspected conspiracies to cause harm by the authorities who wanted to treat them with modern medical techniques.

So it seems that forcing treatment on people will often be counter-productive even though the increasing silliness of the vaccine denial crowd is endangering everyone. Maybe a better approach would be to have an expert available to show people the real facts so that they are genuinely better informed. A GP could normally do this but they are often too busy so it might be worthwhile to hire a new type of health professional with this specific task. Sure it would cost money but think what it might save in the long run through reduced healthcare costs.

I think a lot of people would respond to this if the real statistics, the evidence of lies and ignorance from the anti-vaccination groups, and the possible negative effects of failure to vaccinate were pointed out. There would be some so tied up with the imagined conspiracy that they would never believe the truth no matter how it was presented but they would be in the minority. It should at least be enough to allow the herd immunity effect to work again.

But I don’t think that sort of initiative would ever happen because political and business activities are almost always short term. Maybe a propaganda (oops, I mean information) campaign on TV would be more appropriate. One emphasising the social consequences of not immunising would be best: consequences like having your child kept out of school and possibly endangering other people.

That would work for some of the deniers but not the die-hard conspiracy theory believers. They are beyond all hope.

Nothing Is Free!

What’s so great about the “free market”? The phrase sounds great because it has the word “free” in it and everyone knows that’s good. Plus there’s “market” and we all know that markets are a natural and efficient way to get things done, don’t we? As I said, it sounds great in principal but there is one small matter to consider: is the free market real, and even if it is real is it the best solution?

The reason I have chosen this subject is because of a free trade deal our government is currently considering with the US and it looks as if one of the casualties of this miracle of modern economics might be New Zealand’s drug buying agency, Pharmac.

Pharmac was set up to coordinate the purchase of drugs for the country’s hospitals and other medical institutions, to find the best price for required drugs, and to decide which drugs should be subsidised by the state. It has saved the New Zealand taxpayer one billion dollars per year but the drug companies don’t like it of course, because it interferes with their corrupt and immoral profit taking at the expense of everyone else.

So they are dredging up the old nonsense of “free markets” saying that Pharmac interferes with this process. Maybe it does and in that case many free market zealots would say it should be removed to preserve the purity of the free process. But as I have said many times before: the free market doesn’t work now, it never will work, and anyone who bothers to look will see it hasn’t worked in the past either.

Sure, it sounds like a great idea in principle. After all, who doesn’t want “freedom”? The problem with the type of freedom pushed by libertarian fanatics is that it isn’t real. By transferring control to the market all we have done is hand control of our fate from politicians and bureaucrats to corporations and CEOs.

For example, in the case of Pharmac we have a bureaucratic organisation ultimately controlled by the government which decides how the country’s drug purchasing should be organised. That doesn’t sound that attractive but consider the alternative: pricing and availability being controlled by big foreign corporates and their CEOs.

I know which I would prefer. At least the local bureaucrats and politicians are under some sort of control by the voting public. Large, mostly American, corporations are totally beyond our control. And what is the prime motivation of these differing systems? The corporations are clearly after profit and very little else while Pharmac has no real profit motive and while it may be a bureaucracy at least it is one with the best interests of the country as it’s central reason for existing. When Australia stopped using their similar agency (after pressure from America) they paid billions per year extra in drug costs.

The libertarian dogmatists will answer this with the assertion that the free market will sort it all out. If a drug is deficient in some way (including price) when sourced from one company then people will just buy it from a competitor. Yes, in principle that might be true, but in practice it rarely is. Corporations are expert at using political pressure, collusion with their supposed competitors, and questionable marketing techniques to maximise their own profits and this bypasses the markets some people have so much faith in.

It’s no surprise that the libertarian movement is anti-science in many ways (for example libertarians often reject the reality of global warming) because their ridiculous beliefs would never hold up to examination by the scientific method. It’s easy to claim that markets always create efficient systems where the consumer wins but I don’t see a lot of empirical evidence supporting that idea.

I will agree that sometimes the market does work fairly well. In areas where there are many alternatives, no monopolistic control, and minimal influence from companies on politics the “free” markets can work adequately. But I would never trust them for something that really matters.

We can survive in the situation where consumer goods come from a market-driven system with all of it’s inefficiencies and problems but there are things which are too important to leave to the market and health would probably be at the top of the list. I would also include other important infrastructural items such as education, electricity, water, and communications. I would also prefer to see these controlled by a government bureaucracy rather than giving big corporations control.

We have a drug purchasing system in New Zealand which works quite well (unlike a lot of other aspects of our health system) and it would be unfortunate if this government threw that away purely for ideological reasons. Unfortunately, that is probably exactly what they are going to do.