Adam Smith's Dinner

The Future of Financial Regulation is an edited collection of papers presented at a major conference at the University of Glasgow in Spring 2009. It draws together a variety of different perspectives on the international financial crisis which began in August 2007 and later turned into a more widespread economic crisis following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the Autumn of 2008. Spring 2009 was in many respects the nadir since valuations in financial markets had reached their low point and crisis management rather than regulatory reform was the main focus of attention. The conference and book were deliberately framed as an attempt to re-focus attention from the former to the latter. The first part of the book focuses on the context of the crisis, discussing the general characteristics of financial crises and the specific influences that were at work during this time. The second part focuses more specifically on regulatory techniques and practices implicated in the crisis, noting in particular an over-reliance on the capacity of regulators and financial institutions to manage risk and on the capacity of markets to self-correct. The third part focuses on the role of governance and ethics in the crisis and in particular the need for a common ethical framework to underpin governance practices and to provide greater clarity in the design of accountability mechanisms. The final part focuses on the trajectory of regulatory reform, noting the considerable potential for change as a result of the role of the state in the rescue and recuperation of the financial system and stressing the need for fundamental re-appraisal of business and regulatory models. This informative book will be of interest to financial regulators and theorists, commercial and financial law practitioners, and academics involved in the law and economics of regulation.

Adam Smith's dinner

In 1961, the East German government erected what they claimed was an anti-capitalist barricade. In 1989, this barricade was dismantled by those whom it was supposed to keep apart: the forces it was intended to contain had overwhelmed it. In the aftermath, the victims of Stalinist oppression and the planned economy opted for radical change. Some might have hoped that they would intellectually march resolutely westwards towards the forms of social democracy that had proven so successful in their nearest neighbours – Scandinavia, Germany and Austria – and stop when they had reached a point on the political spectrum with which they felt comfortable, and which worked for them. Unfortunately, they went to the opposite end of political economy. That choice was celebrated by those theorists who wanted our own countries to move in the same direction. Eastern Europe suffered a decline of 50% in its GDP. Much earlier in 1653, Peter Stuyvesant had erected an earth and wooden wall to protect the westernmost settlement of a great commercial nation from those they imagined to be barbarians. In 1699 Stuyvesant’s barrier was dismantled by the British, who replaced it with a street named after the wall. So it came to be that one of the most inconsequential walls in history became one of history’s most famous streets. I am not sure if the Dutch had left some tulip bulbs on either side of the wall, perhaps as a reminder of capitalism’s first bubble, and an inspiration to later bubbles. However, many of the victims of the latest burst bubble are pretty keen to tear down that Wall.1 As in 1989, they want to take action against the guardians of the system that failed them. And the more they suffer, the more likely it is that they will demand radical change, and the more likely that the resulting change will go too far – as seems to have been the case in Eastern Europe after the terminal crisis of communism, and in the majority of democracies that fell in the dozen years following the Great Crash. The current reaction is so strong that some are even wondering what role there will be for markets. I was invited to address a conference in the EU Parliament last November on the topic ‘Capitalism: Quo Vadis?’, where I apologized to the international audience that the topic was posed in a dead European language because the answer to this question is not going to be determined by the west alone. The problems we have been addressing emerged in the west and have affected the rest. However, the answers will not come, solely from the west, and may even come primarily from the south and the east.

Classroom management : developing your own approach to managing the classroom

A recent Australian survey of beginning teachers indicates that issue of classroom management continues to be a key concern for early career educators (Australian Education Union, 2007). This finding is supported by the wider literature that identifies managing the classroom, particularly managing behaviour within the classroom, as critical issues for early career teachers (Arends, 2006; Charles, 2004; Groundwater-Smith, Ewing & Le Cornu, 2007). In fact, struggling to manage student behaviour and maintain positive relationships with students are among the top reasons for teachers leaving the teaching profession (Charles, 2004). So, how does a teacher effectively organise and manage up to thirty students learning and behaviour at any one time? The issue of classroom management is a persistent one for all teachers, but is particularly daunting for new teachers. Historically, classrooms were established on strong hierarchical structures that relied heavily on teacher control and authority. However, more recent approaches to managing the classroom are proactive and more collaborative. That is not to say that there exists a single management recipe, far from it. Beginning teachers must view possible approaches to managing the classroom in light of their own beliefs about teaching and learning, their current classroom practice and variables from the context in which they are teaching.

Charles and Camilla Chair

The seat is an externally fixed seat for the public located at the entrance to the Prince Charles Hospital. The form of the seat is designed specifically for two, to celebrate the marriage of Charles and Camilla. The design of bench structure represents the Southern Cross which is predominant in our night sky, distinguishing us in location from Charles and Camilla, the night of their wedding. The design also incorporates references to undulating forms of the Queensland Landscape.

Gemma Smith and the intuitive abstract

This article examines the work of Brisbane artist Gemma Smith. It investigates the artist's career and her developmental abstract paintings and sculptures. It argues that the artist is fundamentally intuitive in her approach to the genre and also employs mimicry of certain abstract styles as a means through which to develop her own creative outcomes.

Fiduciary Duty and the Atmospheric Trust

This book explores the application of concepts of fiduciary duty or public trust in responding to the policy and governance challenges posed by policy problems that extend over multiple terms of government or even, as in the case of climate change, human generations. The volume brings together a range of perspectives including leading international thinkers on questions of fiduciary duty and public trust, Australia's most prominent judicial advocate for the application of fiduciary duty, top law scholars from several major universities, expert commentary from an influential climate policy think-tank and the views of long-serving highly respected past and present parliamentarians. The book presents a detailed examination of the nature and extent of fiduciary duty, looking at the example of Australia and having regard to developments in comparable jurisdictions. It identifies principles that could improve the accountability of political actors for their responses to major problems that may extend over multiple electoral cycles.

Intention, foresight and ending life : a response to "The Double Effect effect" by Charles Foster, Jonathan Herring, Karen Melham and Tony Hope, (CQ 20(1))

In this paper I examine the recent arguments by Charles Foster, Jonathan Herring, Karen Melham and Tony Hope against the utility of the doctrine of double effect. One basis on which they reject the utility of the doctrine is their claim that it is notoriously difficult to apply what they identify as its 'core' component, namely, the distinction between intention and foresight. It is this contention that is the primarily focus of my article. I argue against this claim that the intention/foresight distinction remains a fundamental part of the law in those jurisdictions where intention remains an element of the offence of murder and that, accordingly, it is essential ro resolve the putative difficulties of applying the intention/foresight distinction so as to ensure the integrity of the law of murder. I argue that the main reasons advanced for the claim that the intention/foresight distinction is difficult to apply are ultimately unsustainable, and that the distinction is not as difficult to apply as the authors suggest.

Review ["Telling the Evolutionary Time : Molecular Clocks and the Fossil Record" edited by Philip C. J. Donoghue and M. Paul Smith]

Determining the temporal scale of biological evolution has traditionally been the preserve of paleontology, with the timing of species originations and major diversifications all being read from the fossil record. However, the ages of the earliest (correctly identified) records will underestimate actual origins due to the incomplete nature of the fossil record and the necessity for lineages to have evolved sufficiently divergent morphologies in order to be distinguished. The possibility of inferring divergence times more accurately has been promoted by the idea that the accumulation of genetic change between modern lineages can be used as a molecular clock (Zuckerkandl and Pauling, 1965). In practice, though, molecular dates have often been so old as to be incongruent even with liberal readings of the fossil record. Prominent examples include inferred diversifications of metazoan phyla hundreds of millions of years before their Cambrian fossil record appearances (e.g., Nei et al., 2001) and a basal split between modern birds (Neoaves) that is almost double the age of their earliest recognizable fossils (e.g., Cooper and Penny, 1997).