Murray suggesting higher paid public servants! That’s good coming from highly paid people like him who, like all people in the position he was in, showed no evidence of the claim that high pay attracts better people.

“While some will point to Australians living beyond their means, the gap between higher and lower income earners will widen as the latter is less able to purchase our modern era’s abundance of goods”

What is that supposed to mean? Australians ARE living beyond their means: mainly those lower income earners who are ‘widening the gap’ (tiresome cliché) for themselves because they are spending – or rather borrowing or buying on credit – when they don’t have a chance of paying the money back. That’s where the trouble started in the U.S: lenders handing out money to people who had no hope of paying it back – ever!

Our “… modern era’s abundance of goods” consists of non-essential products, and there is no excuse for low income earners trying to emulate wealthier people by buying them on the never- never.

The author refers to Alan Griffin’s warning regarding high credit card interest rates and consequences for consumers, and then says: “…political leaders have done little since.” He doesn’t say just what it is they should or can do. But then, people who refer to politicians as ‘leaders’ give these elected should-be servants of the people a mystique they do not deserve.

People have to learn to look after themselves. They are not going to be coaxed or led out of their foolish ways like tiny tots; certainly not by politicians who, in most cases, are no better at managing money than the drones; and certainly not by a Labor PM.
But, as for Rudd himself and the chest beating attributed to him by the author, I think we can assume that the PM is fully aware of the advantages of trade with China, which the author condescendingly explains to us.

This far too long essay seems to be exhorting us to be careful who we listen to. Start with this author!

Chris,

I've given you stick before for your perceived narrow focus (bias?). This time you’ve encapsulated my preference for objective discussion and challenging assumptions particularly those that are ideologically dogma based. The presentation of this article is well done sir. Congrats.

I would qualify one point, differentiating between objective conversation (being based on facts in the pursuit of conclusions from all available facts) and the common perception of the word “debate” (which implies two diametrically opposed points of view…opinionsin some faux competition. ) as this usually leads to an exchange of biased information which usually ends in acrimony and defensive entrenchment of each side…. A Waste of time effort and opportunity.

Notwithstanding this all I can do now is warn you that our general concurrence could mean your views need re- evaluation. As members of CIS and others axe grinders have implied, anything I deduce must be wrong. :-)

Australian wisdom? you sell this short the concept of not accepting that any issue is simply one isolated perspective are wise words.
Or as foxy noted Socrates was right. Paraphrasing his words "A perspective not questioned isn't worth having".

I hope this piece encourages lots of sensible comments.

Cheers.

Examinator, thanks for your response.

I agree with your following statement that debate often leads to the "exchange of biased information which usually ends in acrimony and defensive entrenchment of each side…."

But I don't think that bias it is ever a waste of time, even though many arguments are flawed and simplisitc, perhaps even my own.

We all know that organisations like Greenepeace are radical, but it plays an important role in exposing issues to the public.

It is the same with debate. Sure, you will get some pretty heated arguments that can never be settled due to one's ideological bias or right to a different perspective.

I try very hard to write in a way that is fair and balanced, but my opinion is just one perspective obviously incapable of incorporating the complexity of humanity in regard to its wide range of thought and experience.

But as you suggested with past comments, a passionate scholar should avoid ideological bias, although I am sure that some of my future articles (should they be published)may annoy you in the future.

The key point I would argue is that all scholars should strive for a better society, but that one must endeavour to reflect the many perspectives as much as possible.

My belief is that debate itself is the key ingredient of democracy, and hopefully even debate between biased authors can lead more people developing a certain point of view to encourage a sophisticated policy reponse.

And for the most part, i think Australia does it pretty well. We only have to note that the centre (sorry baout that term) of Australian politics is more willing to address environmental issues than the US, although some American states are more progressive

mr lewis,

as soon as you figure out the difference between democracy and oligarchy, i'll begin to consider if you know anything else.

since there is no 'by the people' in oz, discussion of political affairs by people not in parliament is empty chatter, below-stairs gossip.

i realize you are content with faux politics, and are so blinded by social conditioning as to use the word 'democracy' in relation to australia without hypocrisy, but young ozzies might profit from knowing there is such a thing as real democracy that they can aspire to. you are one of many dis-educational influences that keep australia from joining those 'progressive' american states.

Chris,

This is off topic but in line with your answer.
Surely the point of having academics it that they have the training and knowledge to help the public understand complex issues (guides)?

I was also under the understanding that the point of any academic is to go where the evidence leads to the conclusion not the other way around starting of with a decision then selecting the facts that fit that conclusion. The latter is clearly the fact of biased arguments. The consequence of your reasoning is to confuse the public who don’t have the knowledge or skills to maintain an objective perspective. Otherwise there seems no point in soft science academics.

It is a fair observation of human nature that the moment you add competition to a situation the “issues’ truths” (benefit to mankind as opposed to the individual) becomes secondary to the need to win. In searching for the ‘truth’ the trickle down effect (sic) concept of Laise faire profits is down right counter productive. Even this reasoning is a WIP. “The more I lean the more I know that I don’t know” is still the greatest statement of fact and wisdom.

Bill Broome

Your observation about democracy/oligarchy is a fair one. As for Chris being a disinformationist in the context this article is debatable and up to him to comment on.

I don’t know of any national system that is truly Democratic even the ancient Athenian version had its contradictions and hypocrisies. Do you know of any please tell me so I can have a look at them.

True democracy is as the Americans constitutional framers viewed were ‘mob rule’ by a more acceptable name. Hence the essential philosophic difference between our two systems.

Exterminator

You are right, academics should have the training and knowledge to help the public understand complex issues (guides)?

Some of my articles will offer a strong position, as evident in "Wake up Australia" which urged the Coalition to support carbon trading and "The truth of about recent policy trends" which expressed pessimism.

Other articles (which you are referring to) do urge the importance of debate merely to question and argue in the hope that Aust society can alter the policy landscape for the better. Call me naive, but I do believe that it is important that as many people as possible have an opinion even if one is an anarchist, socialist, communist, liberal or conservative. If they are fair dinkum students of politics, as you are, they will learn from each other to fine tune or even change their views. After all, it is the pragmatists (those who can incorporate and mediate amongst different views) that will hopefully win greater support and influence.

Yes, I do have a position: things are getting worse, a view that will win support from socialists and critics of liberalism. But unlike them, and the many simpletons within the Australian social sciences (no offence colleagues), I remain a die hard supporter of liberalism struggling to come up with better answers. I heard Philip Adams and another commentator salivating over John Keynes, but he also did not have the answers. Just take a look at what happended to the Western world in the 1970s, events we are still struggling to get over. It is very hard in a world of competing nations to find the answers, and I will not pretend to have them.

My position is that freer trade will cause greater misery for a growing minority of Westerners, unless govts adopt approporiate redistributive measures, but can help many more in poorer naitons as long as China-type development lessons to allow market forces to work better so that other poorer countries can benefit. I am not as confident in regard to the environemnt, as economic growth can only hasten our planet's destruction.