Rhian, if you examine social and economic trends of the 20st century, especially in Britain and the U.S., there's quite solid evidence that the bulk of the policies "intended to extend prospeity to all members of society" worked quite well. The 'peak' of shared prosperity appeared to be somewhere in the 60s and early 70s, but once Thatcherism and Reaganism took hold, that signalled a gradual swift back towards high wealth disparities, and limited prosperity for the bulk of the population. The same phenonemon has been less extreme in Australia, but is still present. Personally I would be surprised if the next decade did not witness a swing back away from neoliberal policies, as more and more voters realise they have not benefitted. Even Kevin Rudd, a self-professed economic conservative, has written quite forcefully on this.
Unleashing "free market" forces with minimal restraint does have the power to generate significant amounts of wealth when starting from a low base (e.g. Ireland, China) - but it is not really a suitable economic model once significant levels of prosperity have been obtained, as J.K.Galbraith noted 50 years ago.

Did you follow the thread Yabby started in General? (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1083)

Wiz

Across mainstream Australian politics there is broad acceptance that there are things the market does better than government, and things it doesn’t. Competitive markets are good at directing resources efficiently to diverse consumer wants and needs, spurring innovation and keeping prices down. Governments should provide the things markets can’t or won’t (free education, defence etc), a legal framework (including business regulation such as protections for consumer standards), redistribute some income from the wealthy to the poor, and also raise money to deliver the range of social, environmental etc objectives the community wants and can’t get from business or by their own efforts.

The difference between the major parties on this are mainly about the balance between the different objectives and the means of achieving them. There is little argument, certainly from the parties' leadership, about the principles themselves.

Labor tends to be good at reforms that reduce to power of business over consumers, because they understand that such reform is progressive (for all the business lobby groups try to paint themselves as victims), and because they are less wedded to business welfare and get less money from business that do the Liberals. So Labor started the program of tariff cuts, introduced National Competition Policy, etc

For similar reasons, Labor has been relatively weak at implementing reforms that impinge on its own financial and political power base in the unions, which of course are a favourite target of the Liberals.

In this context I think the “neoliberalism” that Daggett sees in both Labor and Liberals is a straw man – neither side of Australian politics has any intention of emulating Margaret Thatcher (and indeed her “reforms” were often more about political opportunism and rewarding her voter base and financial backers than about ideology, bear in mind government spending as a percentage of GDP rose under her administration, and her privatisations were outrageously transparent bribes to the lower middle class).

I believe that Daggett’s anti-capitalist views put him outside this mainstream consensus, and the policies he advocates would do serious harm to Australians’ economic wellbeing.

Rhian wrote,

"Many of these policies were scrapped or changed because they failed to achieve their intended objectives, or because they had other adverse consequences that caused more harm to society than their putative benefits."

Sorry, I don't accept that.

It sounds like Peter Saunders of the Centre for Independent Studies telling us how detrimental welfare payments are or how wonderful things woud be for everybody if only they abolished the minimum wage.

I worked hard for years and paid my taxes and suddenly got retrenched through no fault of my own. When I went to University, I found I wasn't eligible for Austudy because of mean-spirited restrictive guidlines, so I had to had to support myself with casualised unskilled work whilst attempting to study full time. That was whilst Keating was still in office. I couldn't even get a loan off them at usurious rates to pay my living expenses. When I left Uni and found myself unemployed for a few weeks, I was treated like dirt by some public servants whose salaries I had probably paid a few years earlier. At that point Howard had just came in to power and immediately toughened up the cetnerlink requirements.

I found the experience so traumatic that on the next occasion in my life when I was unemployed I did not even approach Centrelink. On the following occasion I was out of work for over three months before I went to Centrelink.

The treatment of welfare recipinets is designed to deter people from claiming benefits and cause people to accept low-paid second-rate employment conditions.

Since then the treatment of welfare recipients by Centrelink has gotten worse, largely thanks to the clamouring for a harsher welfare regime by the likes of Saunders.

I don't accept that this is in the interests of the welfare recipients themsleves, nor society at large.

---

Rhian wrote, "(Thatcher's) privatisations were outrageously transparent bribes to the lower middle class."

I think we're largely agreed on that. I would argue the same for various privatisations in this country including those of Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank.

(more later)

Rhian, no major disagreements, but Thatcher was most definitely motivated by ideology - I'm sure you're aware of her "This is what we believe" remark, referring to Hayek's "Constitution of Liberty". Howard is definitely not quite the Thatcherite that some make him out to be, but even many Liberal party insiders have commented on the party's ideological embrace of many neoliberal tenets, and the party's close association with the CIS, IPA and HR Nicholls society (all unashamed "free market fundamentalists") is well documented.
Keating's initial embrace of "economic rationalism" was, at the time, not entirely unjustified, as oppressive labour market regulation was definitely holding back productivity. But the growing gap since then between the haves and have-nots is a cause for concern, if for no other reason that it has made our economy unstable and dependent on overseas demand for our raw resources. A large, prosperous middle class is necessary to maintain a strong domestic economy where providers of goods and services have a viable market to sell into. Further, an increasing marginalized lower-class is a recipe for crime, social unrest and a drag on the economy as more and more of the population become drains on the economy as opposed to productive citizens. Decades of unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism in the U.S. (only briefly and barely reigned in by Clinton) is predictably leading to this result, and Australia risks following the same path without a rethink of what policies actually make the most sense.
James’s view might be marginal, but more and more are likely to be attracted to it if the less palatable face of capitalism start to overshadow the undeniable benefits of market economies and free enterprise. Indeed, that’s how we got communism in the first place.

"A large, prosperous middle class is necessary to maintain a strong domestic economy where providers of goods and services have a viable market to sell into"

Wiz, this is your problem. The middle class grew rich on farming
and mining. Farming finally collapsed, partially due to all that
weight. Now its time for that middle class to show that they
can earn an income in the global economy, like the rest of us
have to.

Yes, a market economy is going to be less egalitarian, as individuals
can operate more to their potential. Some will thrive, create
wealth and make it all happen. Other troubled souls will struggle
along as best they can.

The extra wealth created by market economics can help them to
help themselves better. The question is where to draw the line
in the sand, where many find it easier to screw the system, rather
then bother to help themselves. None of us like to be taken
for suckers.

Right now on average, Australia is doing pretty well. Latham
understood the benefits of mums and dads being direct shareholders.
I gather thats something like 42% of the population, so quite a
large share. The wealthiest group seem to be the grey nomads,
people who worked and saved all their lives.

I still believe that part of the left wing problem is envy. I know
a few, most of them buy lottery tickets :)

wizofaus wrote, "James's view might be marginal, ..."

I don't believe they are.

Perhaps you could you tell me what you understand my views to be? I don't think I recall saying that 1930's Russian-style barracks 'socialism' was a good system for Australia to adopt or even that we should exactly emulate the Cuban form of socialism.

If you accept that, then what else do you think of what I have I have written is 'marginal', and please use my own words and don't put other words into my mouth.

---

Rhian you wrote: "Can you name a single non-capitalist country whose citizens enjoy either the freedom or the prosperity that we do?"

I can see the logical leap that will ensue from the answer you seem to be anticipating.

"No! No socialist society has been able to achieve the freedom or prosperity of Austalia in 2007. So it follows that any policies that will signifcantly impair the operation of the free market can only make us worse off."

(tobecontinued)