Barnaby gets a bad rap because he has views that are unpopular and doesn’t try very hard to hide them (for example, his so called ‘populist’ opposition to the ETS began when polls showed that only 7% of the community shared his skepticism).
Today, he went into bat for Gov Stevens’s seven figure salary…
Barnaby made the sensible economic argument – opportunity cost. He might have also made an argument about capture – income disparities between regulators and the regulated make it more likely that the regulator will do a bad job, as it is more likely the regulated industry can offer something back at a latter date.
Here is what Bloomberg reported:
Barnaby Joyce, Senate leader for the junior opposition coalition partner The Nationals that mainly represents rural areas, defended Stevens’s salary. While such income “would seem incredible to many Australians, the reality is that it’s probably not compared to what he could get somewhere else — at commercial banks.”
Ironic that all the reasons for high salaries come down to pattern bargaining.
A nice read, but where is your rss? I might be blind but can’t see it. lol.
It’s not a question if temperatures are going up or down / and what it’s the cause. It’s a question on putting a price on polluting. It’s water free? Why not? Resources are limited, human population is growing fast and our earth is small. Everything has a price why should polluting the air with CO2 be free?
Ops, wrong post above… sorry
Comments are closed.