Auckland City Council struggles with rail transport funding model

Originally published
November 15, 2014 Andrew Sheldon Civics, Economics, Finance, Governance, Markets, New Zealand, Politics 

It should come as no surprise that any decision by government is destined to be ‘political’. By ‘political’ we mean that decisions are destined to convey extorted influence rather than any commercial or analytical consideration of costs, benefits or impacts, with still less any real or effect accountability. What sustains political debates over city planning is ‘fear of environmental catastrophe’. What suspends or defers any debate on the issue is a ‘fear of exaggerated influence by vested interests’, and what inevitably gives a city constituents reason for cynicism is the realisation of the uncertain costs, or the open-endedness of those costs, which few people understandably don’t want to bare. The reality is that it does make sense for a city to have a rail network – but only in certain cases with conditions dictate that it is a prudent commercial decision. It likewise makes sense for a city to have a plan, to develop a rail system in a cost-effective manner so that costs of living can be contained, and that any such planning conveys ‘integrated interconnection of services in the best interests of all constituents, and not simply the indulgent hopes of vested interests, real or exaggerated.

Until now Auckland has been defined by a ‘city centre’, namely Auckland City CBD. The reality however is that such ‘city centres’ defined by zoning restrictions are very costly. It makes far more sense to have a multitude of city centres connected by efficient transport connections. The best evidence of such efficiency is the costs of pre-existing ‘connectors’, and the corresponding costs of not having them. It does not mean you don’t have central hubs ‘like a city centre’, it means that you expand the city so that it has multiple hubs which are well-integrated.

The appeal of course is that a ‘centralised city’ with a single core tends to compel everyone to live in a small area, which results in a number of problems:

1. Congestion – There is a need for a large portion of the city population to travel a long distance to reach a focal point, whilst a ‘satellite city model’ allows people to live in a broader range of places, and to consider rail transport as a ‘best option’. There is actually considerable opportunity for people to travel across city in previously impossible directions, ensuring a better balance in traffic flow, ensuring that there is less ‘entrenched polarity’ in traffic flows.
2. Uncompetitiveness – When a city is geared towards the pre-eminence of one location then compelling structural barriers arise preserving or embedding the ‘structural’ position of that centre. That allows some people to profit at the expense of others simply because they have political pull others don’t, or because they have been allowed to preserve the pull they historically had. An extortion-based political system is destined to do that, and the costs and burdens arising are the reason to break down not just the rules that permit it, but to radically reform the political system that makes such political patronage or privilege possible.
3. Cost disparities – It is far cheaper to rent city apartments or office space under a ‘distributed urban model’ and to commute to other offices for appointments. A centralised city model would likely require an expensive taxi trip compared to a ‘distributed city model’, which will likely see a commuter walk 5 minutes to a train station, wait 3-5 minutes for a train, and then take a further 5 minutes to reach a location. In contrast, getting a taxi can take 2-20 minutes, and you can wait in traffic queues delaying arrival at a destination for 20-30 minutes. This explains why few Japanese people get taxis, and why they are so expensive. Another way of looking at the problem is to consider comparative rents. Rent can be expected to be 30% cheaper for a satellite CBD (saving say $400 per month, or $12 a day). The differences in parking are less apparent if a city ‘enforces’ strong provisions for underground parking. Auckland has yet to do this I suspect, or perhaps this is merely a legacy of the old system. The cost of travel is relatively comparable under either model. The system captures more customers, but it requires more infrastructure.

This model of a ‘super-city’ is best illustrated by Tokyo City. Tokyo City comprises 23 inner wards. These inner wards are effectively integrated by a single ‘efficient’ rail loop line called the Yaminote Line. Trains on thin line come every 3 minutes, and they will take you to the most substantial satellite CBD’s in Tokyo (all 20 of them) in a matter of 25 minutes. This central line gives great connection to any number of ‘spoke’ lines that run off into the suburbs and outer satellite cities, to the various airports, port districts, inter-city rail connectors and so forth. These ‘spoke lines’ also provide access to the core of the city. There is often 1-2 ways to get to any place in the city, so you need to work out where to change to get there in the most optimal time. The trains are so frequent that you don’t really need to fuss over which is the best way.

In the spirit of this idea, I have roughly sketched out a possible system that outlines a staged rail development that would integrate rail & ferry terminals. The implication is that there could be opportunities for people to commute by ferries to work as well. Of course in future, more ‘ring or loop lines’ could be added, as has been the case with the extensive Sydney network. In comparison, the Japanese system does not function as ‘ring lines’, but rather as ‘spoke’ and ‘branch’ lines extending off the main ring line. The Yaminote ‘ring line’ serving the central core of Tokyo City is functionally the most important line in the system. It is also connected to several low-traffic loop lines servicing Hanada Airport and the port district.

This ‘mock network’ does not attempt to ‘build upon’ the existing Auckland rail network. It matters little how the network is shaped since the network itself will transform the way people live. What is important is:

1. The regulatory regime that shapes people’s decisions
2. The barriers to rail and commercial development which determine the cost structure and commercial returns possible, as well as determining the level of competition.

Political obstructions defer rail developments

In contrast to Japan, where rail development was made by quasi public-private corporations, which were comprehensively integrated with commercial developments from the start; in Auckland, the government decides. This means that there is a lot of ‘vested interests’ who are ‘legally enabled’ or ‘politically enabled’ to jump in and cause legal obstructions, as well as mobilising support bases to extort some concession, so that commercial efficiency is no longer ‘attainable’.

When the rail development model is directed by governments, it is destined to be a quagmire where sub-optimal decisions are made. Any vested interest is able to  elicit ‘self-serving’ standards (as a form of economic rent) upon expensive projects, even though these interest groups have no direct equity interest. Their arrogance arises from the fact that:

1. They have the decadent right to self-expression
2. They have the unreasonable right to impose their ideas on others under our political system

Notwithstanding their influence over others and their lack of direct involvement with the project, they are still able to influence or ‘scare’ others into submission, by using fear or misrepresentations (i.e. misuse of valid data or use of unsubstantiated data) to achieve a disproportionate influence over a state project. They achieve this influence because they are able to forge ‘special privileged relationships’ with political leaders, and because most of the people don’t have that influence, or because they are ambivalent about what their political leaders are doing under a sanction they bestowed upon them by voting for them. Voting is the ultimate threat since it represents the people giving power of attorney to a ‘stranger’ to do as they please. Notwithstanding their influence, these powerful partners also have some influence, and that is to impart their own threats upon decision-makers. The fact that these ‘decision-makers’ are pursuing ‘self-interested’ projects or are intimidated into submitting to powerful interests in the name of some  ‘public spirited’ endeavour really never comes under any scrutiny, because there will be no expectation or monitoring to ensure that these projects are even profitable.

This has proven the case with the Auckland rail system; except the paranoia has been instilled on both sides of the political divide because there are:

1. Liberals who want to build environmental projects
2. Conservatives who don’t want to spend on services they don’t personally use

For this reason, councillors have withdrawn their immediate support for a rail development. Auckland Mayor Len Brown has secured $2.2 billion of funding for rail in the latest 10-year budget. The first priority is a 3.5km underground rail link to commence construction in 2016 for completed in late 2020.[i] It remains to be seen whether he can bring all the councillors onside. The concerns of councillors are:

1. The cost to be borne by the toll payers – some want the national or City government to carry some of the burden
2. Against the possible impact of city government debt on future rates

For this reason it is possible the rail development will be deferred until 2020.

The libertarian perspective

The problem with the prospect of a government-driven rail project is that the project is destined to be poorly executed. The best solution is for the project to be funded by:

1. A private developer which is able to develop a funding model based upon:
   • Commercial development sub-contractor provisioning
   • Fixed price commitments for the rail services provided – at least until such a time that there is competition in the market place
2. A government that sets certain ‘reasonable’ parameters within the ‘rail corridor’ zones as well as development zones, so that prospective private sector developers can investigate the merits of those options. These parameters will include:
   • Provisions for open spaces and car spaces
   • Provisions for noise reduction and limits on route corridors
   • Provisions to facilitate transport system connectivity
3. Any prospective private operator can establish commercial commitments with owners of properties so that they are able to finance the development, whilst undertaking preliminary contingency studies at their own cost for engineering, commercial due diligence, etc.

“The $2.4 billion City Rail Link could be deferred until 2020 because of mounting concerns by councillors about its impact on rates, debt and big cuts to community services”.[ii]

There is actually no reason for the government to put in any money. There is no reason for city residents to put money into the project directly unless they are using the project. The best approach to the development of such rail corridors is for:

1. Objective standards of value to be established as fundamental criteria, i.e. noise levels, building heights, minimum public space requirements, tunnel design & safety (i.e. ventilation) requirements, car parking provisioning. These standards can be common law standards or standards established in the same manner.
2. Private rail system developers to determine best route, appropriate commercial terms with commuters and commercial sub-developers who will profit from land developments in the precinct of the rail stations.
3. Private rail system developers to determine quantify whether the project can proceed on the basis of objective standards of compensation. The private operator pays the cost of any ‘excess’ or ‘non-compliant noise’ or safety breaches.

There is a great opportunity for Auckland to have an efficient rail system without anyone paying for a government ‘white elephant’. The problem with government-sponsored projects is that there is no limit to the money that they can throw at them – without account or consequence – to give you the “experience you expect”, at whatever cost you will endure. In contrast, a commercial operator acting under a framework of objective law, is required to meet your “reasonable expectations” at a cost accepted by the ‘discretionary’ user of their services. Those costs would be borne through:

1. Direct payment of train fares
2. Indirect payment by paying for goods, where the merchant has paid for the opportunity to gain access to customers through such a ‘transport hub’. He passes some of his costs on to customers (who are in a competitive market place) so that he can make a profit.

In contrast, the reason why ‘big business’ often likes politicians like Len Brown is because the business community is ‘subsidised’ by allowing them to profit from the establishment of such hubs, and for you the taxpayer, to pay the cost of the hub, whilst they profit from:

1. Their good fortune to have ‘lobbied’ government to have a station established near their land holdings
2. Their ‘good fortune’ to have ‘lobbied’ the government to place the burden of transport systems placed upon the taxpayer, as if they should be the sole beneficiary of those services, because they create jobs (i.e. they lobby).

Working “village city” communities

There will be those people who will object to the development transformations to take place, but in fact ‘small cities’ make very liveable spaces, and again Japan shows the way. On a recent visit to Japan I took some pictures of how Japan has created very liveable communities with ‘modern commercial precincts’, ‘old-fashioned’ entertainment precincts with narrow roadways lined with restaurants, bars and craft shops in places like Hibarigaoka. There are roads with ample provision for bicycles in places like Iruma City. In fact, most Japanese people rely on rail and bicycles to meet their transport needs. Cars tend to be used by parents (with kids) and everyone on weekends. Even then it will be rare that Japanese people will go further than their local sporting grounds, restaurants or bars. Most shopping is done locally at these ‘city villages’. Of course many will use a car to go skiing or hiking. But again, many people will use public transport. It is probable however that most of the councillors in Auckland have not bothered to investigate the approaches that other nations have taken to meet their transport needs.

“[On the 5^th Nov 2014] all 20 councillors and the mayor will debate the budget and make decisions on the rail project for public consultation”. [iii]

Will they be well-informed or will their decisions simply be a reaction to the narrow expectations of mobilised ‘lobbyists’ who don’t really analyse the broader ramifications of public transport.

“The Government has agreed to fund half the project, but will not make a financial commitment until 2020, unless the council meets rail patronage and downtown employment targets”. [iv]

Observe that there is no requirement to meet any commercial criteria. The implication is that the government is not being terrible considerate of customer patronage, and that is evident enough from the fact that the government is prepared to force upon the community ‘another tax’.

Financing rail transport under government

The huge cost of the rail link would cause a $12 billion transport funding gap over the next 30 years unless alternate funding is secured – namely:

1. Motorway tolls and regional petrol taxes
2. Cut from community projects, parks and local works
3. Increases local government taxation

“The options are for an overall rates rise of 2.5% in 2015 and 3.5% for the next 9 years, or a 3.5% rate rise every year plus a $3000 charge upon new houses”.[v]

This is not the best approach to providing services to the poor, or users, or even achieving some level of ‘commercial discipline’ in our urban areas. Our cities are the most important economic systems in the country. If they are not based upon commercial discipline or ‘realities’ or price constraints, then taxpayers are destined to experience a blow-out in costs, on top of the costs that the mayor and councillors have previously imposed upon rate payers. There is actually no reason why residents of Auckland need to pay more. They should only pay more if they get benefits. The only motivation for government officials to embark on such policies is if:

1. They are so beholden to public pressure that they convey no personal integrity
2. They are positioning themselves for a litany of kickbacks from business who are destined to be subsidised by such developments, and who will be reliant upon government as ‘gatekeepers’ presiding over these developments.
3. They get the opportunity to act like Santa Claus, identified as the crusaders for development, without a corresponding requirement to be accountable for their flagrant spending.

This is an enormous spend for a city. It should not fall upon ill-disciplined councillors who have little experience to handle the affairs of such an immense project, and given a blank cheque to meet any indulgent expectation of lobbyists, who ultimately keep these councillors in power. Many councillors are sensitive to the ‘cost backlash’ of such policies. i.e. Labour councillor Ross Clow has called for the project to be deferred until 2020. These is however no reason to defer. The only necessity is for the project to be carried by those people who can afford the luxury of wanting it to risk investing in it. There will be a ready market of people who should pay, who will want to benefit, whether they are:

1. Residents who want to live in inner-city apartments close to transport and ‘village cities’. Another example is Chatswood in Northern Sydney.
2. Commercial businesses who want to profit, who are prepared to pay more for property and high rents in order to get access to that greater street traffic that arises from ‘denser living’.
3. Finally rail system developers who want to develop a long term ‘cash cow’ by offering prospective residents a ‘village community’ and cheaper and faster access to jobs than is currently offered by cars on tollways. Residents in these places will save on bus fares or car parking fares in the city, as well as securing more options and great accessibility to services in other communities.

Labour councillor Ross Clow argues that the budget was gutting suburban areas such as Avondale, which had been waiting 30 years for a new town centre, in favour of “pet projects” like the City Rail Link. [vi] There is really no reason for people to wait if a road upgrade makes sense, but it ought not to ‘make sense’ because it benefits a councillor to say so. There needs to be objective criteria.

Taking the transport funding burden off cities

There is really no reason why people have to wait for a centralised, inefficient, politicised ‘poorly skilled’ bureaucratic culture to act as ‘gatekeeper’ for the provision of basic services. It is a false economy that has proven not to work. In Tokyo, people on the fringes of Tokyo pay property rates as low as $300 a year because they only buy the land they need for a house. A 1-hour commute to the city centre costs just $4. There is no concession for a return trip like in Sydney. Most commuters going daily to the city will instead decide to rent in an inner city, low-rise 40m2 apartment complex for $700/month. They will pay just Y200 ($US2) each way. In most cases, workers commuting costs are borne by the company (up to a certain amount). The prospect of paying $2500/month in Auckland, a far smaller city, and an additional $200/month for parking because the city transport system is so bad, is simply ridiculous cost impositions arising because of political mismanagement of basic infrastructure. Communities won’t miss out on infrastructure if the government is not the centre for funding and decision-making. Autocratic regimes inevitably collapse. We are witnessing the collapse of Auckland City Council as a ‘decision-making hub’. It needs to become a far smaller centre for setting objective standards for universal & fundamental conduct, whether it be noise limits, or safety measures. They should not have the arbitrary capacity to impose any standard upon people, and they should not be a gatekeeper for decision-making. They are only arresting the development and prosperity of Auckland, and the same folly is being mirrored in other regions around NZ, as well as other countries. The council is responsible for the excesses in property prices. New Zealanders are paying as much for property – in a city with just 1.5 million residents – as they are in Tokyo – a city with 22 million residents. This is because NZ councils are able to restrict land development to artificially raise council rates.

It is precisely the spectre of huge planned budgeted costs like $20 million to widen Whangaparaoa Road, which is why these decisions need to be made in a broader context than the government can handle. There are simply too many long-range decisions to be made, and the risks of waste are enormous; which is why those risks and costs should be carried privately by developers, and not by the taxpayer who is oblivious to the real cost of what they are funding. Why can’t Aucklanders enjoy the same low rates as the Japanese – at least as an option. I’m sure the low-income earners of Auckland would love such consideration and discretion. You therefore have to wonder whether Len Brown and his colleagues are really the ‘liberals’ they profess to be, or whether they are serving their own interests.

References to quotes

[i] “City Rail Link faces delay until 2020”, Bernard Orsman, NZ Herald, website, 3^rd Nov 2014.

[ii] “City Rail Link faces delay until 2020”, Bernard Orsman, NZ Herald, website, 3^rd Nov 2014.

[iii] “City Rail Link faces delay until 2020”, Bernard Orsman, NZ Herald, website, 3^rd Nov 2014.

[iv] “City Rail Link faces delay until 2020”, Bernard Orsman, NZ Herald, website, 3^rd Nov 2014.

[v] “City Rail Link faces delay until 2020”, Bernard Orsman, NZ Herald, website, 3^rd Nov 2014.

[vi] “City Rail Link faces delay until 2020”, Bernard Orsman, NZ Herald, website, 3^rd Nov 2014.

Are President Trump and Pope Francis partners in prosperity?

President Donald Trump has concluded a roadshow embracing the 3 major global religions. One might have expected that this roadshow wouldn’t entail the usual diplomatic placation of prior presidential meetings. In fact, Pope Francis has been conspicuously outspoken, along with all global leaders, and Trump is no exception with the Muslim leaders. They are cordial, but clearly have points of difference. In the midst of global apathy towards politicians, you can expect more outlandish expression by leaders intent upon distancing themselves from controversial leaders like Trump. Perversely, Presidents Trump and Duterte seem to be associating themselves with openly authoritarian leaders like President Putin, and of course each other. If there is anything to comfort people in times of apathy, it is authoritarianism and practical ‘results’.

There is also an overarching attempt by the media to make sense of the political discourse. The problem is that such coverage has been overtly biased against Trump. The most recent example comes from the NZ Herald and Daily Telegraph’s coverage of the Trump tour of religious centres of conflict.

Donald Trump meets Pope Francis at the Vatican. The leaders “could hardly be more different”.[i]

The media would have people believe that the pontiff and Trump disagree on many issues, including:

1. Climate change and the environment
2. Refugees and migrants
3. Capitalism
4. Engagement

But there is no evidence to suggest this is the case, as we review these issues.

Climate change and the environment

“President Trump has threatened to pull the US out of the 2015 Paris accord on reducing greenhouse global gas emissions, and in March signed an executive order dismantling environmental regulations enacted under Barack Obama”. [ii]

President Trump is not dismantling all environmental regulations. He is merely curtailing the overreach that has suspended too many projects, and diminished their profitability by imposing excessive costs on project sponsors. Trump of course recognises that hindering investment only frustrates efforts to create jobs. This issue has little to do with global warming. So on this issue there is no “stark contrast” implied.

Pope Francis has called for concerted action to halt global warming and a shift away from the use of fossil fuels. [iii]

This is clearly a point of difference for the two world leaders, and yet the science behind these hopes is controversial. It could thus be argued that Trump is reducing global warming ‘by other means’. It is true that reducing fossil fuels is not in Trump’s plans, at least not to the extent of ‘destroying the coal industry’. This much we can garner from Trump’s campaign rhetoric. It could be argued that Trump has no interest in seeing new investment in coal-fired power stations that would increase coal consumption. However, we might still glean from his rhetoric that he does – at least – want to support existing infrastructure. i.e. Ensure that existing fossil fuel plants remain in operation for their 50-year operating lives. After all, isn’t it the role of government to protect people’s property, and not to arbitrarily decimate people’s lives? Coal miners and power plant tycoons.

Monsignor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: “This President has already changed his mind on several things, so perhaps he will on this as well.[iv]

Let’s hope President Trump is more cautious in his policy settings than a religious leader who bears no responsibility for the consequences of their actions. After all, just look at the track record of the Catholic Church with its cover-up of child abuse. Is that a measure of the church’s respect for science? The question is whether the science is supported by the facts, or whether academia has done to science, what the media is doing to facts, or the church is still doing to children in emerging markets, seemingly oblivious to events in Western markets. The issue of sexual abuse by pastors in the Philippines for instance has hardly even surfaced because of the power of the Catholic Church.[v] Just more evidence that the media too has no interest in ‘exposing’ parochial interests, when those interests are very powerful.

Refugees and migrants

“The Pope has repeatedly called for compassion to be shown to refugees and migrants and is himself the product of an Italian family that migrated to Argentina”. [vi]

President Trump is unlikely to be indifferent to the plight of refugees, however he is unlikely to see the US as a custodian of the globe in the same fashion as other leaders. He will be looking for an American interest in such global engagement. The problem we have here is that religion doesn’t have a monopoly on ethical conduct, and as we can see from the conduct of the Catholic Church, there is no reason to think it has any moral legitimacy at all. It does however have to extol values that resonate with moral standards. It just doesn’t need to espouse a coherent world view because its congregation are rather morally ambivalent.

“President Trump, in contrast, attempted to ban the entry of Syrian refugees in Jan 2017, deciding to halt the issuing of visas to people from several Muslim countries, and wants to build a wall along the Mexican border”. [vii]

Trump did attempt to ban Muslims because inviting refugees would have invited the same civic threats posed by terrorists in the European Union. It is not as if the United States is the only country capable of offering asylum to Muslims. Moreover, you have to wonder why Arab states have not taken steps to welcome asylum seekers. Why is this singularly a Western concern? Why is there one standard for the United States, and no requirement for the Arab countries to entertain Muslim refugees.[viii] After all, these people have largely compatible values, and yet Saudi Arabia is able to placate the media for its ‘security concerns’.[ix] Of course the reason is that the Arab leaders control their media, and they don’t want any more fundamentalists than the West does. But is this reason for the West to serve as the battlefield for the Arab ‘enlightenment’. Clearly it can’t serve as a foundation for a cultural revolution if Western Arabs are estranged from the homeland of fundamentalism. The only solution is ‘cultural quarantining’ of Arab [indeed all] dogmatism. We should not stop at militancy because militancy can be ‘home grown’ and it raises human rights controversies that the West is not ready to deal with. Dealing ‘internally’ with Arab vs Christian disparities would only turn Western nations into centres of double standards.

Pope Francis was not actually very critical of Trump’s campaign pledge to build an impenetrable wall along the Mexican border, and his declaration that the United States should turn away Muslim immigrants and refugees. At the time, the pontiff argued:

Pope Francis: “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian”.[x]

This was not entirely a negative reproach, if you consider that the pontiff has a great deal of ‘brand goodwill’ invested in criticising Trump and supporting ‘Catholic’ Mexicans. In fact, it highlights the fact that the Pope doesn’t completely disagree with the need for walls. It is apparent that Trump was not spurning the need for engaging Mexico either, yet this was the ‘spin’ of the media. After all, it was also Trump’s policy to get Mexico to pay for the wall. That takes ‘engagement’ or negotiation.

‘The pontiff is a vocal advocate for aiding refugees, particularly those fleeing the violence in Syria, deeming it both a “moral imperative” and “Christian duty” to help’. [xi]

There is no reason to think that Trump has betrayed the Catholic moral code espoused by the pontiff, given that Trump orchestrated a bombing of Syria in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons. Observe the response however of the media:

[Trump has] never been one to let an insult, perceived or real, go by without a response, and he made no exception for the world’s best-known religious leader, calling Pope Francis “disgraceful” for doubting his faith. [xii]

Apparently, Trump is not allowed to criticise world leaders who criticise him, or whom the media depict as criticising him. Accountability is apparently only reserved for the US president.

The pontiff’s inauguration message to President Trump extolled the hope that the United States’ international stature would “continue to be measured above all by its concern for the poor, the outcast and those in need”. [xiii]

Is there any evidence to suggest that President Trump has not conveyed a proclivity to help the needy? On the contrary, global leaders seem to be taking every opportunity to distance themselves from the president for any reason.

In recent talks, both Pope Francis and President Trump agree on a need for Muslim leaders to do more against extremists in their own communities. But there are few other areas where their views align. [xiv]

In actual fact, the leaders agree on a great many things. The media has simply chosen to depict the pontiff’s apprehensions as ‘criticism’ when he is far more measured in his statements. Consider the following statement from the media:

“The president’s prior anti-Muslim rhetoric – including his musing that Islam “hates” the West – is the antithesis of what the pope has been preaching about a need for dialogue with Muslims”.[xv]

Saying Muslims ‘hate the West’ is not an incorrect statement, and both leaders agree on the need to engage Muslim leaders. So where is the disagreement. The pontiff is far more likely to be diplomatic because he has no interest in criticising a competing religion.

It would be incorrect to argue that local leaders in the Arab world are united in their disdain for Trump. On the contrary, the US and Trump are likely to preserve friends within the Saudi government, as well as in Jordan, UAE and Bahrain, if not other Arab countries. That is after all why Trump was able to negotiate am arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

“In Saudi Arabia, he addressed dozens of Arab leaders and urged them to fight extremists at home and isolate Iran, which he depicted as menace to the region”. [xvi]

Iran is indeed unpopular in the Arab world.

Helping the poor

Francis also differs sharply with Trump on the need to combat climate change and economic inequality. [xvii]

This is a point of disagreement, but then it’s an understandable one, and hardly exceptional given that:

1. It is highly ‘abstract science’ that does warrant skepticism. The science community is not as supportive of the ‘global warming’ hypothesis as the media would suggest.
2. Neither leaders are scientists
3. The president might be aware of intelligence that the pontiff is not.

On the issue of ‘inequality’, the pontiff is similarly ‘not an economist’. Is he unlikely to appreciate that capitalism or wealth creation actually requires ‘inequality’. It is the ‘unequal needs of people’ that culminates in a trade relationship and the prospect of mutual economic surpluses. Does the pontiff imagine that said surpluses can be achieved without inequality? No. Clearly, he is ignorant of economics.

The media then speculates that the pontiff might criticise the “Trump’s budget…[that he] would dramatically cut funding to programmes that help the poor, [as well as] the president’s agreement to sell military equipment to Saudi Arabia”. [xviii]

The media of course have little understanding of capitalism either. The media doesn’t realise that:

1. The best way to help people is not to give them unattained ‘needs’, but to create unfettered markets so that they can achieve a sense of self-worth through ‘conditional engagement’. It is the only foundation for personal self-respect.
2. The president has been active in stimulating jobs in the USA, securing trade deals, and reforming the US economy. This is the best way to help the poor. Just look at what it has done for Asia.

That said, there is a need on the part of President Trump to acknowledge that markets are not ‘unfettered’, and that there is a historic legacy of market distortion. Yet, aside from these errors of judgement and ‘speculations’, the NZ Herald, then muses that ‘experts believe it unlikely the outspoken pontiff will do anything but be welcoming during his first meeting with Trump’.[xix] In which case, the latter thesis seems to be self-refuting. The NZ Herald has posited that Trump would upset the pontiff, but then concluded that he wouldn’t do anything about it. It is such a perverse logic, given that it extols a thesis, then posits that there will be no evidence to disprove it, because the pontiff is destined to be nice to the president.

The pontiff said last week he would “never make a judgment about a person without hearing him out” and some Vatican observers suspect he will hold his tongue, at least for now”. [xx]

This is after all what reasonable people do. But the media is not reasonable. In the name of ‘accountability’ and ‘objectivity’, it asserts conspiracies that spare it the burden of responsibility for posing evidence or even coherency. This is a religion of another type – it’s called mysticism. Of course, the media isn’t immune from getting a story right. They ‘do good’ along with bad. They will happily report on ‘neutral stories’ to sell newspapers when it doesn’t hurt their interests, such as Al Jazeera reporting on abusive Catholics in the Philippines, but make no mistake – when their interests are threatened by a US president, they are scathing in their contempt.

Capitalism

The media want to posit Trump as the embodiment of capitalist tyranny, as if there is something unsavoury about Trump, whilst the Catholic Church, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Palestine are able to retain a clear conscience. This is the measure of the media, that in covering Trump, these ‘counterparts’ get legitimacy. There is an absence of perspective here, but if you consider that the media has its own agenda and interests, then you can understand the need to critique anything the media extols.

“The embodiment of bullish, free-wheeling capitalism, Donald Trump made his fortune from investing in property and other ventures around the world and wants to slash taxes for the rich”. [xxi]

Trump is keen to reduce taxes on the wealthy and to subsidise investment in the US to draw jobs back to the United States, which ultimately helps the poor in a sustainable fashion. So what might we make of the pontiff’s comments?

Pope Francis has repeatedly warned that the excesses of the global capitalist system are leaving millions of people behind, fuelling social tensions and harming the planet”.[xxii]

Again, we must remember that the pontiff is not an economist. Capitalism has ‘excesses’, but note that it is relatively rare and contextually appropriate. One such ‘excess’ is the extraordinary prices of stocks in the Dotcom bubble. Despite the crash, these prices would ultimately prove feasible, albeit premature given the similarly extraordinary valuation placed on Google and Facebook. If he is alluding to ‘corruption’ or ‘excessive profits’, he needs to know that:

1. High profits stimulate investment where jobs are being created; and that’s where the world’s poor are the most vulnerable. Yes, the ‘small trickle down’ in the West is offset by a ‘flood in Asia’.
2. It is actually misinformed liberals who are ‘inciting social tensions’ in the West, with their misplaced criticism of capitalism.
3. The planet is not in a state of crisis. The Western World remains a relatively positive and optimistic place to live despite labour market distortions.

Pope keeping an ‘open mind’

Pope Francis: “Even if one thinks differently we have to be very sincere about what each one thinks”. [xxiii]

So it appears that there are only minor points of conflict between the Pope and Trump. On the contrary, the relationship looks very positive. Perhaps the Pope could display more empathy for Trump by signalling to the media that twisting his words as a ‘criticism of Trump’ is not respectful. This is really the least that the pontiff could do to preserve good government. Where is his condemnation of the media bias, or ‘fake news’? After all, if we are to have good governance, we need Trump’s focus to be on policy; not defending himself from ‘fake news’. Now, I’ll be willing to guarantee that the pontiff is not about to criticise the media given that the ‘vindictive media’ would respond by investigating more cases of paedophilia in places like the Philippines and Russia.

Pope Francis: “I will say what I think and he will say what he thinks. There are always doors that are not closed. We need to find the doors that are at least partly open, go in, and talk about things we have in common and go forward, step by step”. [xxiv]

I see no evidence that this is not true of Trump. After all, it was Trump that took the opportunity early on in his presidency to visit the religious leaders of the world. But let’s compare the pontiff’s rhetoric with the actions of a Catholic Church. The Vatican has given ‘effective asylum’ to a high-profile archbishop in Australia who bears responsibility for paedophilia.[xxv]

References

[i], [ii], [iii], [iv] “Not Christian’: The key issues Donald Trump and Pope Francis disagree on, as they meet in Rome”, Daily Telegraph UK, website, 24^th May 2017.

[v] “Philippine Catholic church abusers rarely prosecuted”, Al Jazeera, website, 16^th Feb 2017.

[vi], [vii] “Not Christian’: The key issues Donald Trump and Pope Francis disagree on, as they meet in Rome”, Daily Telegraph UK, website, 24^th May 2017.

[viii] “No, Arab Gulf Countries Are Not Taking in Refugees” by Chaker Khazaal, Huffington Post, website, 2016.

[ix] ‘Arab monarchies turn down Syrian refugees over security threat’, DW.com, website, 2016.

[x], [xi], [xii], [xiii], [xiv], [xv], [xvi], [xvii], [xviii], [xix], [xx] “An unsmiling Pope Francis meets Donald Trump” by Julie Pace, Jonathan Lemire, NZ Herald, website, 24^th May 2017.

[xxi], [xxii], [xxiii], [xxiv] “Not Christian’: The key issues Donald Trump and Pope Francis disagree on, as they meet in Rome”, Daily Telegraph UK, website, 24^th May 2017.

[xxv] ‘Cardinal Pell testimony brings sex abuse to Vatican’s doorstep’ by Stephanie Kirchgaessner, The Guardian, website, 29^th Feb 2016; “George Pell must front child abuse inquiry again, says Bill Shorten” by Tessa Akerman, The Australia, website, 8^th Feb 2017.