I can remember when Australians supported the principle of egalitarianism and a government that lived 'up to its economic and social responsibilities'. Now it seems that both these ideas are regarded as 'socialism'.

Peter Saunders doesn't even understand why some people believe inequality to be a bad thing.

In the 1960s we:-

1. Regulated the price of money (currency) but had a market determined price of credit.
2. Had high tariffs on international trade but low tariffs on inter-household trade (domestic taxes).
3. Had no significant trade barriers in the way of exchange rate risk on international trade.

In the 2000s we:-

1. Regulate the price of credit but have a market determined price of money (currency).
2. Have high tariffs on inter-household trade (domestic taxes) but low tariffs on international trade.
3. Have very significant trade barriers in the way of exchange rate risk on international trade.

The world may have been turned on its head. However we do not have more free trade today. We arguable have less.

I would happily see a return to the gold standard and the low tax levels of the 1960s. Not to mention the minimalist levels of government welfare associated with that era.

Why does Governemnt welfare bother some people so much? Is it a moral issue or an economic one? Just a guess but I bet you don't like trade unions either.
From memory I believe we didn't need welfare back then because we had full employment. The public service (with all it's faults and ineffeciencies) provided employment to many people who are now are in receipt of unemployment or disability benefits.

First, to correct a few factual errors in the main article. In 1972 the dollar started at $US 1.12 and was appreciated by Whitlam up to $US1.4875 in a burst of economic insanity. We only fell below parity against the US dollar during the infamous incumbency of Fraser.

The main thing that people forget is that after saddling itself around 1906 with the arbitration and wage fixing system that it had, and which would have destroyed most other countries (Argentina?) Australia had the great good luck that our principal trading partners got themselves chopped up in two world wars that left us untouched. This let the party continue here until the seventies, when they had got back on their feet had started to give us some real competition in the trade area. Instead of doing the right thing, which was to sharply reduce the Australian standard of living, governments starting with Whitlam began to borrow. Thirty years later we now have an unpayable foreign debt, and it is now a race to see if our wages and conditions can be cut fast enough to prevent our debt being called in. At least our debt is mostly private, and not government, as private individuals can go bankrupt. John Howard is responsible for the change-over and should be praised for that. The outcome will be interesting.

The revaluation of the Australian dollar against the US dollar can not be considered in isolation to what was happening to the US dollar itself. In 1971 Nixon devalued the US dollar against gold, so any appretiation of the Australian dollar against the US benchmark should have merely compensated. This is not to say there were not consequences, but the decision did not occur in a vaccum.

The fact that the world now uses the US dollar as a benchmark for value is a big problem. Gold was at least impartial and Alan Greenspan could not order more gold into existance at whim the way he does with the US dollar.

A gram of gold today still buys pretty much what an Australian dollar did in 1966 when the two were at parity. Gold has kept its buying power.

If the world was to again choose a harmonized price index then it could do a lot worse than gold. Gold is a fairly reliable marker for value. The US dollar on the other hand has a very rocky history. A US dollar does not today buy what it could in 1966. Unlike gold it has lost a huge amount of value.

The world needs a reliable "unit of account" against which to benchmark its national fiat currencies. The US dollar won't do

"Why does Governemnt welfare bother some people so much? Is it a moral issue or an economic one?"

It is both. Welfare reform is about both social policy and economic policy. Welfare dependence is bad for both the taxpayer and the recipient. The fact that a population that today does a lot less manual labour than 30 years ago and yet has record numbers of people with back problems on disability pensions causes many people to smell fish.

"Just a guess but I bet you don't like trade unions either."

I think collectives are fantastic so long as they are voluntary and optional. When they become compulsory, mandatory and entrenched then they are a menace and a threat to basic human liberty