|
August 13, 2008
It comes as no great surprise to find Janet Albrechtsen getting stuck into Clive Hamilton. Clive is a lefty, so it logically follows that he hates private property and anybody who has any. It's your standard Janet Albrechtsen Experience (apologies to the Hendrix estate). Except it's not anymore.
Stephen Mayne's piece in yesterday's Crikey describing Janet's familial connections with the world of banking came as news to me. Mayne points out that Janet neglected to inform her readers of her conflict of interest in an article criticising the Rudd government's attitude towards banks: "The onus here should be on disclosure, although the News Ltd press doesn't seem to believe in it."
Janet might argue that her husband's recent move to Credit Suisse makes such a disclosure redundant, but it all swings on whether the family has retained its large investment in Australia's banking cartel because she is clearly articulating a policy of shafting consumers to maximise profits.
True, her views on the banking sector wouldn't be nearly as convincing with disclosure, whether the shares have been sold or not, but neither would her views on Clive.
Clive Hamilton's made his name partly by arguing that our endless accumulations of stuff don't make us happy, that instead we should be concentrating more on our personal relationships. That's all very well and good Clive, but how is anybody supposed to rake in massive profits on the back of the personal debt of others if people don't buy stuff they don't need, using credit they can't afford? If you'd argued that our debt levels are making us unhappy it might have been different.
And if someone had pointed out where Janet's personal interest in the topic lie her article on Clive might have been different, or not written at all.
Janet:
His books have a repetitive theme, bemoaning the empty consumerism of modern society where people are depicted as drones, buying larger houses “filled with furnishings, appliances, carpets and curtains”, a big car in the driveway and a “super barbecue” on the lawn as a symbol of our vacuous lives.
We who aspire to bigger houses, a barbecue that can “roast, smoke, bake and grill” and other nice stuff are the victims of what he calls the “new form of coercion”. We are settling for a “life of consumer conformity”, unable to make free choices, buying possessions under the evil influence of corporations and spivvy advertisers.
Not to mention credit card junk mail.
At the heart of the happiness philosophy is a disdain for, and distrust of, people. Old-fashioned paternalism lies at the core of Hamilton’s obsession with the “hedonic treadmill”. He fails to imagine that people can simultaneously enjoy material possessions and pursue ambitious careers - living what he derides as “the pleasant life” - while also pursuing loving and caring relationships that give our lives meaning.
At the heart of the mortgage holder's philosophy is what? A belief that banks have their customers' best interests at heart? What are the stats on family and relationship breakdown citing financial problems as a major contributing factor?
Segue:
That Hamilton is deeply unhappy living in Australia should come as no great surprise. Research confirms that those on the Left side of politics are far less happy than those who have conservative political beliefs. And I’m willing to wager my electronic multi-spark, six-burner barbecue on this: the further left one travels, the more unhappiness you find.
Following this logic, Howard's conservative aspirational battlers in the suburbs owe their current state of uncertainty and unhappiness to a newfound leftish misery, rather than their phenomenal levels of indebtedness. Good grief.
|
I started reading Albrechtson early this morning but gave up when I came across this pretence of an argument:
That doesn't even begin to address the work/family imbalance; or the stress of working long hours; or the need for quality time with family and friends; or the need to find space for our creativity.
It's more of The Australian's 'bash the left' by a conservative hack, rather than an attempt to debate a public issue that is of deep concern to many Australian citizens. So I gave up reading the recycled junk.