Reading A. Pavelic's letter (Letters,   November 17) calling for our borders to be closed in the wake of the Paris atrocities is like listening to a Raiders supporter screaming at the referee. Both are one-eyed and have short memories.
Australia might have a case for turning its back on Middle Eastern refugees if it had clean hands - but it doesn't.
For most of this century, Australia, along with its American and British allies have sought to intervene in the Middle East most notably when they invaded Iraq in 2003. Iraq has been a smoking ruin ever since. Hundreds of thousands of its citizens have died from suicide bombers and other atrocities. Even Tony Blair acknowledges that this ill-conceived adventure (with no exit strategy) has led to Middle Eastern turmoil and played a major role in the rise of Islamic State. In other words, Australia helped create the terror from which the refugees are fleeing. In these circumstances, it would seem unfair for Australia to deny a place in the stable for those in need.
Mike Reddy, Curtin 
Owen Reid (Letters,   November 17) and others ask us to concede that Tony Abbott's speech in London has now been justified and therefore right. The simple answer is, no. Abbott was wrong when he was PM and as a backbencher wrong in London. His speech was predictable and shallow, and did nothing to enhance Australia's international standing.
Owen Reid denies the facts that the dreadful attacks in France were carried out and co-ordinated by home grown citizens of France and Belgium. So to in Lebanon and Turkey. This does not make the London speech right.
Speeches and statements that incite fear and demonisation are dangerous. It is irresponsible to deny people seeking asylum by distorting the facts.
John Malouf, Hawker

Good behaviour bond
Referring to decorated New Zealand war veteran, Ngati Kanohi Te Eke Haapu, better known as Ko Rutene, William Maley (Letters,   November 16) does not mention that there are three other NZ nationals who are Rebel motorcycle gang members who have also been issued with deportation orders. So Ko Rutene is not alone and was arrested when leaving Casuarina Prison after visiting a senior member of the gang.
It seems to me that if Ko Rutene is a man of high moral character as is claimed, he should be allowed to stay in Australia on a good behaviour bond and on the basis that he not fraternise with outlawed motorcycle gang members.
Ric Hingee, Duffy

Dodgy arrangements
Long an admirer of Julian Cribb's articles, I am impressed yet again with his courage in speaking up. This time he dares to express concerns about the very future of the nation state ('The nation state is doomed', Times2,   November 16, p1). All his arguments are thought-provoking but I would like to add support for the first two.
His comments on the nation state being no competitor to the "rise and rise" of the economic power of trans-national businesses is of even more concern when we realise that the current free trade agreements, either under negotiation with the Pacific or completed with China, have endorsed the use of very dodgy arrangements for settling disputes between a nation state and a transnational company (Investor-state dispute settlement).
While making the point about the power of trans-national businesses, Cribb comments that they are "nearly all autocracies despite the occasional shareholder meeting". This is a situation which we in the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility are trying hard to remedy. Australia shareholders have considerably less power to express their views than in the US or Britain, and we have taken on appeal our concerns about this matter to the federal court. With respect to Cribb's point about transnational businesses' defiance of regulation, national governments may be powerless to stop the toxification of their own citizens but shareholders are not. It is time that citizens, most of whom own shares or have a stake in a superannuation scheme which does, realised that they still could have power over these transnational businesses, if they exerted their rights as shareholders.
Jill Sutton, convener, ACCR, Watson
On Monday, I happened to be in Canberra with time to spare and I decided to flip through the Canberra Times. I just happened to come across the article written by Julian Cribb. After reading it I wondered why such an intelligent man isn't in politics. If only we could get rid of the 'dead wood' and have someone who makes sense like Mr Cribb in government. How about it Mr Cribb?
K. Robins, Goulburn, NSW

Hundreds lost homes
A parliament hearing is told that the Commonwealth Bank committed fraud when it deliberately lowered the value of loans acquired during the 2008 global financial crisis. Loans worth more than $8.5billion.
That lowered valuations and enabled the bank to foreclose on loans even though customers had never missed a payment. The human cost of the decision on the hundreds of families losing homes and hard earned wealth has been tragic.
The hearing was told that the hundreds of families who have lost homes and hard-earned wealth were left destitute. The tragic consequences, the hearing was told, of " this financial benefit by deception" has been enormous.
The Commonwealth Bank denies the fraud. Surely this deserves a royal commission? After all, the one that dealt with the fraud in the trade unions is peanuts compared to this one.
Reg Wilding, Wollongong, NSW

List of future 'rulers'
Penelope Upward (Letters,   November 16) is somewhat confused about who our "ruler" is. She nominates, in turn, our politicians, us, and the governor-general. By contrast, our famously royalist former prime minister, Robert Menzies, was in no doubt that our monarch is our "ruler", so describing King George VI on the occasion of the king's death in 1952. So, if we do not become a republic, we can look forward to our future rulers being Charles III, William V, George VII, etc.
Frank Marris, Forrest

Economic fairytales
Ross Gittins ("Economists frugal with new advice" BusinessDay,   November 2, p11) wrote that the only advice economists give governments is to put a price or tax on things. A good illustration of how this blinkered view creates absurdities is Leo Dobes' article "Invasion of the McMansions" (Times2,   November 11, p1). Dobes says, in referring to people who build large houses on small blocks, "the loss of greenery and the associated lifestyle reduces their psychological enjoyment of their residence". He then says the difference between what a person is willing to pay for a large house on a small block and the actual market price represents the net happiness or satisfaction the person obtains from buying a large house on a small block. This is nonsense.
Cost-benefit studies are tools to justify political decisions. The ABC TV series Utopia illustrates their absurdity.
There are other economic tools. We can use computational thinking to test models of the economy. We can run real experiments on the economy. We can make rational decisions without putting a price on everything.
Let us stop telling economic fairytales. Let us have the debate we should have around the political issues of unemployment, disadvantage, unearned rents, obscene uneven distribution of wealth, damage to our environment and to our social fabric. Let us create a science of economics.
Kevin Cox, Ngunnawal

Recommended read
For the second year running, the Paperchain "summer reading guide" delivered with the paper on   November 16 came up short. Under the heading "biography and memoir" are listed Garrett, Keating, Turnbull and Gough. But there is a notable omission again of the Dick Hamer biography by Tim Colebatch. That book was launched at Paperchain last year just before the release of the 2014 reading guide and I assumed it had missed the cut because of the proximity of launch and guide release.
It is a highly readable account of the contribution to Victoria and Victorian politics by Hamer, who led the Liberal government there from 1972-81. He was probably the last liberal leader to lead and govern by the values and principles of the Liberal Party, which makes it an interesting read of life in the good old days. Recommended for Liberals wondering what it may take to become human again, rather than living and governing with a blinkered corporate focus.
W. Book, Hackett

Comparison unsound
Using Perth academic Peter Newman's opinion as a justification for Canberra's light rail is not a rigorous argument (Letters,   November 17).
Newman helped to implement a new heavy-rail train through relatively undeveloped countryside, establishing new suburbs in the process. It was very successful and a credit to his foresight. The train operates on its own right of way at quite high speeds (around 90km/h, I understand) so it attracts a lot of passengers away from cars and buses. This cannot be used to justify the construction of a light-rail system through highly developed urban areas where it must interact with other traffic and, as a result, be as slow as the traffic by and large.
The systems are simply not comparable and to claim they are is duplicitous, at best.
As an aside, there has been a scheme for some years to put light rail through a highly urbanised area of Perth. Last time I checked, it had not got approval to proceed.
Arthur Davies, Ainslie

Driverless cars coming
A segment on the ABC 7.30 Report on   November 6 featured the driverless car developments at the University of Michigan in the town of Ann Arbor. Already driverless vehicles are part of the town's traffic mix, being from a major research project of the robotics faculty of the university.
Closer to home, a more careful demonstration was reported in Adelaide ("Australia's first public demo of driverless cars goes smoothly",   November 8, p8.
These developments signal the need for a delay in beginning stage one of the light-rail network for Canberra ("First look at new 25-year tram plan",   October 26, p1) and a complete rethink.
The advantage of driverless car fleets is that they eliminate the need for parking in high-activity areas, such as Civic and the town centres, and they can provide frequent, reliable and high-capacity public transport services. This is all in the context of much better road safety.
While such services may be 10 or 15 years away, the implication is clear. Build and operate a bus rapid-transit network in Canberra now, with a vision that the infrastructure investment will ultimately be used by automated vehicle fleets.
A. Smith, Farrer

British subjects
Marguerite Castello (Letters,   November 19), was almost correct. The status of Australian citizenship came into existence on Wednesday,   January 26, 1949, (Australia Day) on the proclamation of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948. Before that, persons born in Australia held British status, rather than being British citizens, and automatically became Australian citizens on 26   January 1949.
C. Wood, Charnwood
Point of order, Marguerite Castello. While those born or resident in Australia prior to the enactment of the Nationality and Citizenship Act in 1948 were not Australian citizens they were, in fact, not citizens of Britain either: they were subjects. Being a citizen confers rights; being a subject incurs only obligations.
Paul McElligott, Aranda

UFC barbaric
When having a quiet hotel meal at the weekend, I was confronted by an appalling spectacle on the public television screen. I refer to the disgraceful, so-called "sport" of UFC. I could not believe what I was seeing.
This "sport" is nothing more than barbarism that is being exploited for profit. I cannot believe it is legal in our society. Anyone who promotes, profits from, watches or enjoys this travesty should hang their head in shame. How can it be good for an opponent to knock another to the ground and then pound the injured opponent's head while they are unable to defend themselves? Has our society completely taken leave of its senses? Boxing is a most barbaric "sport", but even it does not allow this.
Furthermore, with the escalation of violence in our community (especially domestic violence) how is it possible that we can allow these contests?
These violent spectacles will only encourage others to try to emulate this type of violence in their own lives. Surely, we must put a stop to these shameful exhibitions.
T. Griffiths, Griffith

Modern trams great mode of transport
I totally agree with J.Green (Letters,   November 16), bored by the constant "can the tram" letters published almost daily in this column. "Folly" seems to be the word of the week in the letter-writing campaign.
I would like to put the view of a person who has used trams/light rail widely. I am an avid user of trams when I travel overseas and have done so in 15 countries.
The modern tram is a brilliant form of transport.
In France, since the year 2000, they have built or are building trams in over 25 towns and cities, both big and small (some much smaller than Canberra). I have travelled on many of these modern, efficient systems and they are my preferred mode of travel, much easier to use than buses.
They have a different attitude to infrastructure in these countries and can see the benefit of building for the future.
From my reading and experience, the usage of trams is almost always higher than predicted; for example, the Gold Coast, where trams have been introduced and where use of public transport is up significantly on pre-tram figures.
The writers never seem to acknowledge that any trams could be successful. They seem to think trams will not work in Canberra, even though they work everywhere else. They do not seem to want a modern efficient transport system to improve our city.
Don Lennox, Bruce
I hope J.Green (Letters,   November 16) is just as bored with "can the tram" letters when he/she has to cough up $550-$600 extra in rates, every year for 20 years, to pay his/her share of the $95million to pay for 12 kilometres of tramway he/she may rarely, if ever, use.
M. Silex, Erindale
TO THE POINT
The Canberra Times wants to hear from you in short bursts. Email views in 50 words or fewer to
letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au
MORBID THOUGHT
Here's a message to those who promote the reintroduction of an inheritance tax: over my dead body!
Peter Burns, Murrumbateman, NSW 
ABBOTT'S UTTERANCES
Since his demise, every utterance from Tony Abbott has provided a clear indication as to why he should never have been prime minister in the first place.
Peter Crossing, Curtin
HOME-GROWN KILLERS
In the wake of the Paris atrocity, N.Bailey (Letters,   November 17) thoughtfully calls for all "bleeding hearts" to support a call for Australia to refuse all asylum seekers from the Middle East, notwithstanding that the majority, if not all of the terrorists, were natives of France or Belgium. Thanks, Pauline.
John Richardson, Wallagoot, NSW
HEARTLESS HYPOCRITES
Why would refugees fleeing Islamic State be pro-IS? The same vicious hypocrites who want to turn back Arab refugees would have returned to Europe the Jewish refugees who fled the Nazis. The   September11 hijackers travelled on student, tourist or business visas, but the usual suspects aren't proposing that we close our borders to students, businessmen and women and tourists - just refugees.
Bill Browne, Turner 
ADULT NOW IN CHARGE
To A.Pavelic, N.Bailey, Owen Reid (Letters,   November 17) I can only respond, thank heavens we have an adult in charge as Prime Minister now!
Roger Terry, Kingston 
IMAMS HEDGING BETS
The imams here are having us on - they're having a two-bob each-way bet.
Tom Middlemiss, Deakin
SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS
Phil O'Brien (Letters,   November 17), when the police ask if you have drunk any alcohol, I thought the correct answer was, "No, I always drive this badly".
David Markham, Flynn 
DODGING GST
John Passant (Letters,   November 17) pointed out at some length that rich people don't pay GST on income from their investments. But no one pays GST on their income. I suggest that John applies his expertise to a quantitative explanation of how the rich avoid paying GST on their expenditure. I have no doubt they do this (for example, by spending money overseas), but it would be interesting to know the details.
Mike Dallwitz, Giralang
Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message ???eld, not as an attached ???le. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.
Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).