Politicians’ promises: either Peter pays Paul, or productivity pays all

The Coalition promises discrimination for older people seeking jobs. Will this improve total labour market participation? Could it work against young people wanting a few hours part time work?

Will younger Mary pay older Peter?

The product market

Do the “green car”, and, more recently, the “cash for clunkers” policies stack up? The second might neuter the first. Small imported cars might benefit most, delivering some green benefits. If the policy is financed from other “green” programs, what’s the net “green” effect? Both schemes are grossly inefficient, not productivity-enhancing.

Service, mining and agriculture Peter and Mary pay manufacturing Paul.

The environmental market

On climate policy, putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions is the most efficient option if action is needed. Both major parties support much more inefficient options. Some are unfair, too.

Australian “feed-in tariffs” are an incentive to install solar panels on houses to generate electricity. Rich households can afford this. (Even with poor economics, it might make them feel good.) The poor that don’t follow suit pay higher electricity charges to subsidise the wealthy. This is neither fair nor efficient.

On climate policy, poorer Peter, Paul and Mary pay their richer namesakes.

The education market

The BER policy has little effect on education outcomes. Good teachers, well rewarded, with sanctions against poor performance, are central. Good education isn’t about “things”, still less about “things” poorly provided at excessive cost. (If it were, the BER scheme has given independent schools a “leg-up” against their public school counterparts prevented from managing their own school investment projects.)

Good education is about inspiring an eagerness to learn and leading by example.

Under the BER, student/taxpayer Peter and taxpayer/parent Mary pay construction union Paul.

The health market

I don’t understand recent health reforms. Maybe, somehow, they’ll be conducive to the spread of “best practice” service delivery and costs across Australia, rather than being buried by bureaucracy. Victoria seems to be the exemplar.

Taxpayer Peter might still pay more. Paul and Mary are still waiting for an appointment.