Reasons not to live in Australia

Josh Gans says that experiencing American integrated TV-internet services makes him reluctant to go home to Oz.

Compared to this reason not to go back to Australia, crappy tv and internet are second order small.

Forget sharks and crocodiles: the real menace at this time of year, at least for surburban Sydneysiders, is a backyard spider whose bite can kill you in the space of two hours.

Insect experts have warned that the city is being invaded by funnel-webs, considered one of the world's most aggressive and poisonous spiders.

A reptile park north of Sydney where people can drop off captured specimens, and where they are milked of their venom to make antidote, has received more than 40 males in recent weeks. Males are deadlier than females.
...
Unlike most spiders, which scuttle away when disturbed, funnel-webs - which can grow to up to two inches long - may rear up and bare their fangs. They make burrows in moist, dark places, such as garden sheds, outdoor laundries and shrubberies.
...
One species, the paperbark funnel-web, has a bite so lethal that one victim required 17 ampoules of anti-venom.
...
Found mainly in eastern Australia, they are said to be able to leap 18 inches, and their fangs can penetrate soft shoes and fingernails.

Young Ira loves poking around in exactly the kinds of places that these evil critters would live. Fortunately, poisonous spiders are pretty rare in NZ. A few Redbacks in central Otago who've migrated in from Oz, and very rare and timid Katipos that hide in driftwood. Nobody's died of funnel-web bites in Oz for some time, but I've not seen the numbers on how many folks have had to get antivenom.

Shudders....

Caught in the stone age - Australia too

I'd wept a couple months ago seeing the gap between the US and NZ widening.

Josh Gans is on sabbatical at Harvard and is having the same experience:

In Australia, TV is dictated at the behest of four networks and one cable provider. There is nothing reliable on the internet and paid for services like iTunes are crippled. In contrast, in the US, I subscribe to a single provider, Comcast, for all television, internet and phone requirements at the home. The television comes over a DVR that runs Tivo and so can be programmed from anywhere. But who cares about programming? They actually have an ‘On demand’ service that has all of the main programs you may have missed. And, of course, all of this is in real 1080i HD. And you can use the same service to watch and pay for new release movies so we don’t even own a DVD (that technology lasted less than a decade in our household).

But wait, there’s more. Not satisfied with that and you can watch much of the stuff online anyway. Hulu is a well designed service that really works. Of course, you can’t skip through ads but who cares. There is just one per break and they tell you how long it will last! And add to that that I face no download caps and you have all you want. (Oh yes, if you think I am stuck with US programming and that is a minus — not from my perspective but others might think so — then think again. I got to see Doctor Who the day it aired in the UK.)

Finally, the phone on top of this costs pretty much nothing. I can call anywhere in the US and Canada for the cost of a local call — which turns out to be $0 per minute. The voice mail is accessible online so I don’t have to be at home to pick up. In any case, I use Google Voice which calls all my phones and so I don’t really have to be worried about receiving calls at home. In any case, if I’m watching TV and there is a call it will tell me who is calling on the TV. Now that is a benefit of an integrated communications service.

Australia puts up with continual crap on this front. None of the technology here is monopolised and non-transferable to Australia. I fear we will get a shiny new NBN with none of this and wonder why consumers don’t want to pay much to use it. It is like strapping a jet engine on to a horse buggy. Our persistent lagging on this suggests that we need government review to understand what is holding Australia back. At the moment, I don’t want to come home.

I still say it's mostly a problem of fixed costs. Getting the rights to air each separate item in the Hulu library outside of the US? Fixed cost. Getting the rights to distribute movies outside the US (for Netflix)? Fixed cost. Population in NZ isn't high enough to justify it; apparently it isn't for Australia either.

And a win for individual responsibility

Luke Malpass points me to a very nice ruling out of Australia. The High Court there ruled that, if you get drunk and then crash your vehicle, it's your fault and not the bar's. Said the Court:

The Proprietor and the Licensee must succeed for each of three independent reasons. First, even if there was a duty of care, and even if it was breached, it has not been shown that the breach caused the death. Secondly, even if there was a duty of care, it was not breached. Thirdly, there was no duty of care.

In other words, they can't show it was the drinking that caused the crash, they can't show that the bar failed in its duty of care if it had one (the customer refused multiple attempts by the bartender to dissuade him from driving), and the bar didn't have a duty of care to shield him from the consequences of his drinking anyway:

outside exceptional cases, which this case is not, persons in the position of the Proprietor and the Licensee, while bound by important statutory duties in relation to the service of alcohol and the conduct of the premises in which it is served, owe no general duty of care at common law to customers which requires them to monitor and minimise the service of alcohol or to protect customers from the consequences of the alcohol they choose to consume. That conclusion is correct because the opposite view would create enormous difficulties, apart from those discussed above[57], relating to customer autonomy and coherence with legal norms.

Very sensible. One of the cited difficulties:

Then there are issues connected with individual autonomy and responsibility. Virtually all adults know that progressive drinking increasingly impairs one's judgment and capacity to care for oneself[59]. Assessment of impairment is much easier for the drinker than it is for the outsider[60]. It is not against the law to drink, and to some degree it is thought in most societies – certainly our society – that on balance and subject to legislative controls public drinking, at least for those with a taste for that pastime, is beneficial. As Holmes J, writing amidst the evils of the Prohibition era, said: "Wine has been thought good for man from the time of the Apostles until recent years."[61] Almost all societies reveal a propensity to resort to alcohol or some other disinhibiting substance for purposes of relaxation. Now some drinkers are afflicted by the disease of alcoholism, some have other health problems which alcohol caused or exacerbates, and some behave badly after drinking. But it is a matter of personal decision and individual responsibility how each particular drinker deals with these difficulties and dangers. Balancing the pleasures of drinking with the importance of minimising the harm that may flow to a drinker is also a matter of personal decision and individual responsibility. It is a matter more fairly to be placed on the drinker than the seller of drink. To encourage interference by publicans, nervous about liability, with the individual freedom of drinkers to choose how much to drink and at what pace is to take a very large step. It is a step for legislatures, not courts, and it is a step which legislatures have taken only after mature consideration. It would be paradoxical if members of the public who "may deliberately wish to become intoxicated and to lose the inhibitions and self-awareness of sobriety"[62], and for that reason are attracted to attend hotels and restaurants, were to have that desire thwarted because the tort of negligence encouraged an interfering paternalism on the part of those who run the hotels and restaurants. [emphasis mine]

Of course, the usual healthists are outraged.

Public health experts said the decision was "immensely worrying" and could undermine responsible service of alcohol.

Measuring media bias in Oz

Andrew Leigh and Josh Gans versus Andrew Norton on measuring media slant in Australia.

Leigh and Gans bring Groseclose and Milyo's method to Oz, but use public intellectuals rather than think tanks due to the paucity of the latter. Recall that the original Groseclose and Milyo method didn't benchmark to partisanship but rather to ideology: the US has ADA scores for representatives, so each representative is rank-ordered from liberal to conservative and an imputed ideological score is then given to each think tank. Robustness checks in Leigh and Gans include expert coding of front-page newspaper articles, both political and overall, and coding of newspaper editorials.

Norton says the ranking of intellectuals lacks face validity: that their left-right positions don't correspond to casual observation; moreover, public intellectuals tend to be ideological rather than party partisan so the method may not work.

I certainly don't know enough about Australian public intellectuals to know whether there's a lack of face validity in Leigh and Gans's ordering, nor do I know whether the public intellectuals tend to be party hacks or ideological hacks. But I'm pretty sure that Groseclose and Milyo were able to drop negative or reverse mentions from their analysis (things like a National MP saying, "Even Brian Easton agrees with X", for example) while Leigh and Gans weren't able to given their initial dataset. On first thought, so long as both sides tend to do this with equal frequency, it might just add noise to their estimates rather than much bias. On the other hand, I can imagine those reverse mentions happening a lot more for the tails of the distribution, which would greatly narrow the measured range of public intellectuals' opinions and could lead to a centrist-bias in the results. Leigh and Gans say that folks don't much cite public intellectuals for the purpose of bashing them (a truly negative mention), but I can imagine a fair number of the "Even prominent Labour supporter X agrees..." mentions. In the end, their robustness checks mostly give them the same answers: most papers are largely centrist in Australia - so I'm less worried.

One thing that they can't control for over their period is whether slight evidence of slant in favour of the Coalition government reflected incumbency bias or pro-Coalition sentiment. Presumably they'll be able to test for that in a replication after the next election.

Cool that Leigh and Gans have taken this on. I've told my classes that a New Zealand replication of Groseclose and Milyo is likely impossible given:

1. Party line voting makes ADA scores impossible, so we can't benchmark against median voter ideology.
2. A paucity of think tanks makes the mapping impossible.

Folks could argue that media concentration in New Zealand makes it tougher, but even if Fairfax owns a lot of outlets, partisan or ideological market segmentation could well be profit-maximizing, so I tended not to worry so much about that one.

Measuring partisan slant rather than ideological slant seems possible using Gans and Leigh's method. Congrats guys.