The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Unions and Labor: is Dean Mighell right? > Comments

Unions and Labor: is Dean Mighell right? : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 24/2/2010

After the ACTU campaign to bring down Howard one would have thought unions would have more influence under Rudd Labor.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Tristan said
"After the ACTU campaign to bring down Howard one would have thought unions would have more influence under Rudd Labor".

Why? where was the evidence that Labor would? If you took notice of what did occur prior to the 2007 election from the words of Rudd and others, you should have realised that Labor was not going to return to the past, at least not to the extent that many on the idealistic left had hoped.

It will take an economic disaster for the types of policies you want, but given you still do not have any real ideas about how to balance national and international aspirations, I suspect even your wishes will not be without serious consequences.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Wednesday, 24 February 2010 4:09:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Should have happened a long time ago. The ALP is no longer solely worker focussed, in the same way the Coalition is no longer a small business enterprise party.

Membership fees should not be wasted on the ALP (or any other party) and would be better spent via cheaper membership rates or to support workers who need assistance after dodgy retrenchment deals or similar worker benefits.

Unions fail their membership by not advocating on their behalf to both major parties. Some unions do, like the police unions, and it makes sense given corporate bodies and industry associations (business unions) work both sides of the fence.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 24 February 2010 4:50:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris: what precisely do you mean here?

"I suspect even your wishes will not be without serious consequences."

It's not impossible to interpret it as a threat of sorts - but I'm hoping that's a misinterpretation...

For my own part - I believe in participatory liberal social democracy. I respect the rights of my political opposites to have their say - and I hope the same goes for their part in regard to me also...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 24 February 2010 4:51:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan, you said

It's not impossible to interpret it as a threat of sorts - but I'm hoping that's a misinterpretation...

You referred o my words "I suspect even your wishes will not be without serious consequences."

I don't know how you come to such a conclusion.

Please refer to the whole statement "It will take an economic disaster for the types of policies you want, but given you still do not have any real ideas about how to balance national and international aspirations, I suspect even your wishes will not be without serious consequences".

My statement implies, and I probably should have made it clearer for you at least, that your solutions (and general tone) will have consequences at the international level. Greater union power will inevitably mean greater industry protection, which means less opportunities for poorer nations.

As usual, your comments and statements do not indicate how we can balance national and international considerations. Maybe I am wrong, and you can show me why, but surely a return to the past will have consequences for many around the world. While i am a critic of china, I remain a supporter of freer and fairer trade which may mean serious policy adjustment by Western nations in the future rather than an ongoing reliance upon debt and consumption.

It is one thing to make silly statements like "The Liberal Party in Australia was not always so dominated by factions of the “hard right” as is the case today", but such words are an injustice to their efforts and representative of biased simplicity that has little grasp of the complex issues faced by Western nations in recent decades.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Wednesday, 24 February 2010 5:46:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris - glad to have that cleared up - from my perspective the way you phrased your response was ambiguous... It's now much clearer exactly where you're coming from...

You say that greater union power would mean more protection - and less opportunities for poor countries...

I think there must be a balance here. Without strong unions co-operating at an international level; that is - without solidarity - generally workers will be at the losing end of the equation...

re: Protection in the Australian context - I don't believe in 'across the board' protection - but I think it's reasonable to protect strategic industries... All countries should have the ready potential to feed their own people; should be able to provide for their basic defence needs. And competition is not necessarily the best solution when it comes to infrastructure - where consumers can end up paying for duplicate cost structures. And the knowledge base associated with some industries can also reasonably be supposed to have consequences for national security.

Strategic protection can also be justified when it comes to maintaining a reasonable balance of trade, providing for a 'transition' in the economic mix, and responding to structural unemployment.

Increased world trade can be important in the sense of providing a 'win-win' - that is - economic growth in developing economies will ultimately provide us with export markets that buouy our own economy.

But if competition generally drives down the rights and conditions of workers internationally - instead there can arise a 'lose-lose' situation.

From our perspective, we have an interest in providing support for high-wage, high skill industries: and also ensuring an economic mix that provides for our national interests, maintaining full employment, providing support for 'transition' in the case of 'sunset' industries...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 24 February 2010 6:12:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan, that was a thoughtful piece. I think ultimately the pragmatic approach to IR by Gillard will see two tribes emerge from the pragmatists, the real 'modernisers' and the real 'left'. I don't think their interests are easy to appease, which is why we had a debate the other day. The real 'modernisers' will ultimately view Rudd as big ideas and little follow through on market reform and public service delivery reform and the real 'left' just think he hasn't done enough culturally, economically and socially to reduce the operation of markets in the distribution of resources.

'Strategic' industries, I'd say that is closer to a rent seeking cabal. Clearly Kim Carr's been persuaded that the car industry is strategic despite it being in decline for years and likely to decline as necessary so the economy can re-allocates resources in a time of very low unemployment. Clearly re-structuring is painful but it is better to do it in good times than bad ... see how difficult it was in the 80s for manufacturing workers who were made redundant.
Posted by CorinM, Wednesday, 24 February 2010 8:35:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

i also have a concern about policy trends. for example, has the emphasis on productivity seen jobs lost in manufacturing replaced by similar well paid jobs in other sectors. An important question given the rise of Walmart in the US and decline of manufacturing.

I am sure that all people interested in politics want answers to such questions rather than just accepting the theory of free trade.

My major beef with you is terms the 'hard right' and 'social democracy'.

Was Howard as mean-spirited as you suggest as he emphasised the importance of ghe economic imperative yet sent welfare spending to record levels? Do role model nations (such as Sweden and Norway) also benefit from the neoliberal policies set by the US and others?

when you acknowledge the complexity of international relations, you may find that who is supposedly 'hard' or 'soft' in their policy stances is much more blurred than what the left would have us believe.

The unions are just one player in the scheme of things, and govt has to weigh up many considerations, albeit they csn always do it better.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 25 February 2010 9:26:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris:

Just re Howard and 'mean-spiritedness'.

On the top of my head I can remember Howard cutting back the Disability Support Pension by about $50/fortnight; and implementing tests that served as a disincentive for these people to work part-time.

I also recall the Howard govt implementing laws that cancelled the tax-free status of charities if they commented on govt policy.

Newstart rates stagnated - and one of the main reason Labor lets this continue - despite the fact it's not even enough for subsistance by modern standards - is fear of opportunist attacks from the Conservatives - based on prejudices they have helped to build up over decades...

Further: the Howard govt only introduced a 'no disadvantage' provision after the application of strong pressure...

And finally the tax mix became more and more regressive under the Conservatives despite Howard's claim to support the principle of progressive tax.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 25 February 2010 10:15:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, with environmental, aged care and security spending rising under the Howard govt, it is becoming harder and harder to meet all needs.

As money does not grow on trees, and Australians are generally reluctant to pay higher taxes, expect more suffering in the future unless our attitudes change or we accept much higher govt debt or taxes.

Sorry to say this Tristan, but you idealists of the left would have us believe it is all so easy if only we did this and that.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 25 February 2010 2:42:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>And finally the tax mix became more and more regressive under the Conservatives despite Howard's claim to support the principle of progressive tax.<<

Tristan,

This comment is said as though progressive taxation is true forever and a day. Progressive taxes are good protection for citizens in a closed or command economy. Once the economy turns more outward, progressive taxation becomes a ball and chain for ordinary workers as more ane more of them become innovative and independent.

The question is which form of taxation best suits the majority of the population. At the current time, as people are becoming more economically independent, progressive taxation is becoming anathema to them. If this trend continues, we'll have a flat tax system in about 20 years.
Posted by RobP, Thursday, 25 February 2010 3:16:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Associating progressive taxes with a "closed or command economy" is ridiculous. Most countries have some form of progressive taxation - and I don't know that there are any left that could be identified as having a 'command economy'. Also: there is no intrinsic relationship between a 'closed or command economy' and socialism anyway. Personally, I argue for a democratic mixed economy.

Chris: re - the Left not being 'realistic' - There's a different between 'realism' - and cynical defeatism and capitulation.

I'd like to see an Australian society in many ways similar to what we see now in Sweden, Denmark, Holland etc. But by no means do I think we can get there overnight.

If we were to work over the term of Labor government to increase public expenditure by 1%-2% of GDP - with corresponding tax reform - then this would give us significant scope for reform in Education, Health, welfare, public housing and other crucial areas.

If tax reform is progressive - and results in more efficient and equitable provision of public services - then there are good grounds for reform here. And if tax reform - for instance in the form of a Disability Insurance Scheme - is linked directly to specific policy and social service areas - then most people would be more likely to support this - overtly recognising the social benefit.

The point is to demonstrate that most ordinary people will benefit from progressive tax reform, and efficient provision of social services.

If we expanded the social wage in Australia - along the lines of a 4% expansion of public expenditure (corresponding tax reform) over the course of ten years federal Labor govt - then I think that would be a massive step forward. And yes I do think it's do-able.

I also think it's within our grasp to retain robust protections for workers, while reforming the tax mix to give a 'fair go' for the disadvantaged.

And if ALP members aren't committed to these kind of reforms, they need to ask themselves what they're doing in the ALP anyway.

sincerely,

Tristan
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 25 February 2010 7:09:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

again I don not disagree with much of what you say.

My main contention is that many on the supposed hard right also share a desire for a better society, at least in the Australian experience.

They just have different ideas about how a progressive society may be achieved. For instance, when you talk of the tougher attitudes towards social security recepients, you may acknowledge the dramatic reduction in long-term unemployed under Howard. Further, unemployment payments, at least for families, also must take acoount of higher payments for Family Tax Benefit A and B.

I, for one, think the Howard govt could have done more, especially in regard to housing, but I do not see any evidence to suggest that the previous govt was heartless. Maybe you think i am naive, but I believe Howard was indeed a most compassionate Australia, albeit from a centre-right perspective.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday, 26 February 2010 6:52:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I sent a letter to the editor of The Age in response to Dean Mighell’s article:

‘If Dean Mighell genuinely believed that unions should not be affiliated with the ALP (“Unions must leave Labor”, 11/2), he would move to disaffiliate his own union, the ETU. Given his union’s support for Greens, ALP members would be very pleased.

‘The ALP does not need to break its connection with the union movement, which actually keeps the party in touch with reality. It needs to strengthen it. It could do this by restoring the right of rank and file unionists to vote in ALP pre-selections for Lower House seats, but that is something that will not happen until ordinary party members and ordinary unionists use their internal electoral processes to make it happen.

‘Yours sincerely,

‘Chris Curtis

‘Emailed to letters@theage.com.au
As Green Dean can find the door’

It was not published.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 26 February 2010 10:34:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Chris;

You're welcome to post your comment/letter in full at my blog where I have republished Dean's article. (just so long as the content and tone are respectful - and keeps to the subtance of the issues)

My article here at On Line Opinion will likely be published again at my blog 'Left Focus' this coming Sunday also. Your contribution to the debate would be welcome there and then too.

see: http://leftfocus.blogspot.com/

sincerely,

Tristan
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 26 February 2010 10:46:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Chris.L,

I would agree that there are conservatives who in their hearts can be compassionate and decent. I've known some in my time - and that's why I make a point of appealing to people within the Liberal Party.

The point is to break the nexus between conservatism and neo-liberalism.

It's not always right or fair to 'let the market sort us out'. And there are some areas - such as Aged Care - that oughtn't take place within in a market/profit motive context.

And most neo-liberals today want to ditch aspects of the Australian settlement that were held dearly in Menzies' time. (eg: regulated labour market, progressive taxation system, mixed economy) In some ways and in some contexts the social democrats these days are conservative where the neo-liberals aren't.

What is absoutely crucial - is that conservatives and liberals on the relative political and economic Right should not be pressured to accept the 'conservative/neo-liberal nexus' on pain of exclusion or condemnation.

From what I've seen - the commitment of Quadrant to economic liberalism - and exlcusion of non-economic liberal conservatism - must be called into question.

Chris - given that you've had a level of involvement there - you would be ideally placed to push some of these questions.

all the best,

Tristan
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 26 February 2010 7:55:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

Whilst Sweden is a high taxing, high government spending nation, that's about as far as it goes. Sweden has a lower minimum wage than Australia, and less protected work conditions. The government there privatises businesses. So while you may dream of nationalising Telstra, the Swedish government has no such plans with Sony Ericson. Finally, the govt there supports free trade (unlike the Rudd govt).

Also, unemployment in Sweden is currently at 9%, and at 30% for those aged between 15-25 years. That's far higher than unemployment rates in Australia.

So the example of Sweden does not support your argument. Likewise with the other countries you mention when the facts are scrutinised.

For example, Denmark has very a flexible and mobile labour market, where employers can hire and fire almost all will;

Surely the home insulation and school halls debacles would make you consider that governments are not suited to playing such an active role in the economy?
Posted by AJFA, Friday, 26 February 2010 8:19:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJFA, I think your points about the scandanavian's are well made. I also think they are not relevant to a largely resource driven but service employing economy like Australia and also people who hark on about them are deluded frankly. Keating knew better than any other politician in the last 30 years that Australia has no natural trading partners (except for our raw materials) so we have to fight hard for markets and be agile and adaptable as an economy. The manufacturing rent seeks like the car companies and unions are dinosaurs that will disapoint. Given the high dollar, they are going to naturally get smaller or adapt to a different model. That is the creative destruction of markets at work! We need it to prosper ...
Posted by CorinM, Friday, 26 February 2010 10:58:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just a few points: If you have a social wage as strong as we find in countries like Sweden - then you can afford more labour market flexibility without there resulting poverty and social dislocation. We are not so fortunate as to have such a strong welfare state in Austalia.

Secondly - trying to 'make the labour market clear' with 'McJobs' which are unskilled and poor playing - without a strong social wage - is a recipe for social dislocation. At the extreme, you have the kind of working poor and underclass experienced in the United States.

Perhaps one of the best ways of dealing with this is through a combination of an interventionist industry policy; and with targeted tax breaks and other social wage benefits.

But in Australia I don't think we need US-style labour markets in order to have minimal unemployment. Although sadly there are people would would benefit from the exploitation on an underclass; and maybe these people therefore don't see a problem with minimal labour market protection.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Saturday, 27 February 2010 6:51:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJFA:

Just responding to your points re: Sweden, Australia, Telecommunications...

I have no problem with telecommunications companies competing in a global market context when it comes to things such as mobile telephony technology. I believe there is a crucial role for market signals and pressures driving innovation here.

What I DO have a problem with - is duplication of cost structures and abuse of market power in a context of oligopoly - especially when it comes to communications infrastructure. I believe that the INFRASTRUCTURE should be public. And while I don't think there should be a public monopoly when it comes to the broader communications sector - I DO think that a public player in these markets can in fact spur competition.

The same goes with health insurance - with the example of Medibank Private. And collusion in the banking sector could have been better contained with a public Commonwealth Bank having a charter of holding other players accountable in the context of competition...

This kind of commitment to a mixed economy should not be problematic for the broader Labor Party... There was a time when it wasn't even problematic for Australia's conservative parties. Maybe one day we will return to the mixed economy consensus again...And therefore we should keep the 'lines of communication' open across the political spectrum.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Saturday, 27 February 2010 7:02:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

I don't really have much contact with Quadrant. I was fortunate to have four articles published 2006-08, and have been to one function ever (2009) where I briefly met John Howard and Tony Abbott and others. As i have said, I find such individuals to be sincere and compassionate Australians, although I do not agree with all of their views.

I have never been one to support free trade in its pure form or rely upon market forces or the private sector 100%. This should be evident from my articles. To be honest, I would be surprised if any serious commentator would hold such a pure faith in the virtues of the market.

Policy and politics is very much a dynamic struggle as issues, context, public opinion and elites change. It is hard to say how policy trends will go in coming years. I think we are in for more turmoil ahead, at least from a Western perspective (notably the US and Europe).

It is up to each individual and player to make their case. The times will suit particular arguments but they should always try to make appeal across the political spectrum.

For myself, I still have a greater affinity with the centre-left perspective and even believe in an environmental tax. I am very much interested in all ideas that ensure decent social welfare, mobility, and help appease tensions at the international level.

My major goal is to call politics in balanced way. That is why I will look to the strengths and weaknesses from both sides. That was my goal at Quadrant to prove that someone with a centre-left perspective could be published there.

I am a very critical person, but I do believe that most people who in engage in policy ideas do have good hearts, and even the right should be respected and listened to.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Sunday, 28 February 2010 11:14:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

A publicly owned telecommunications retailer or wholesaler can't have any benefits for competition within the industry, because it is well established that the public sector is not as cost efficient or competitive as the private sector.

I ask again: Surely the home insulation and school halls debacles would make you consider that governments are not suited to playing such an active role in the economy?

My point about the Scandinavian countries answers your claim that old left ideas of the 60s and 70s can provide the same levels of economic growth and employment that we enjoy today. In spite of this, you still demand a return of those old left ideas in spite of your main justification for them being refuted.

Finally, it's inaccurate to say that the Liberal Party represents the free market. Ayn Rand and Friedrich von Hayek would not have a bar of Howard, Turnbull or Abbott
Posted by AJFA, Sunday, 28 February 2010 12:13:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJFA - You say it's 'established' that the private sector is 'always' more efficient than the public sector. Your claim here is unsubstantiated - and only seems to carry weight because it confirms the dominant ideology.

Yes - as I recognise, there are times when competitive markets drive innovation. This is a good thing.

But there’s no reason why public enterprise can’t compete in a market context.

There are also circumstances where natural public monopoly is appropriate: water infrastructure, energy, communications infrastructure… Duplication of cost structures costs consumers in the final analysis. And with competition in some areas – eg: electricity distribution, water etc – privatisation confuses consumers and is an unnecessary burden. In some of these cases the potential for innovation is also limited – lessening benefits from competition.

Further: the public sector can usually finance infrastructure and other projects more efficiently because of a generally higher credit rating.

Finally - your points re: the insulation program of the Federal Govt are redundant... While the program was intended to provide a quick stimulus, the poor implementation was not something 'essential' to these kind of programs. It was something specific only to this instance - and this instance alone. And it is unfortunately that was was generally a good idea, was implemented without sufficient caution or oversight. It says nothing 'essential' about either the public or private sector.

If 'government got out of the way' when it comes to health, we'd end up with a US-style health sector: inefficient, discriminatory, tens of thousands of bankruptcies every year from people who could not afford cover...

A 'pure' and wholly private market economy makes sense only in the abstract... When it comes to the human suffering that follows, the only sensible recourse is a mixed economy - with a balance of public and private, and of markets and planning, and a social wage which furthers the social good...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Sunday, 28 February 2010 6:28:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

Sorry for the late reply. I haven't been feeling that well lately.

Perhaps I'm wrong to say the private sector is ALWAYS more efficient than the public, but there is no doubting that that is generally the case.

If it were otherwise, we could expect Cuba to be wealthier than the United States and Australia. As we both know, that is not the case. Every planned economy has failed because governments are not very good at running things.

Re: the insulation debacle. The lack of safety is merely the top of the iceberg when it comes to problems with the insulation program.

It is well established that the scheme was plagued with rorts, that a lot of the insulation was low quality, and that the whole exercise was a waste of money, as recently pointed out by Henry Ergas.

Even the decision to stop the scheme was not well thought out, as it left a lot of workers, businesses and stock out to dry.

I therefore strongly disagree with your claim that "the poor implementation was not something 'essential' to these kind of programs. It was something specific only to this instance - and this instance alone."

Finally, the US health system is not a 'government get out of the way' system. It is a fact that the US Govt spends more on healthcare per person than any other government in the world.
Posted by AJFA, Tuesday, 2 March 2010 9:45:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJFA;

re: the US and Cuba;

a) The economic pre-eminence of the US is partly based on a core-periphery economic structure, with exploitation of economically peripheral countries by the 'core'.

b) The United States has been blessed with more abundance of natural resources than Cuba, and through 'special relationships' has its economy bouyed via supply of oil, and cheap foodstuffs including meat.

c) Even regardless of this, Cuba has outperformed the US in child mortality rates for decades...

d) With skyrocketing private debt, US lifestyles could well be unsustainable - indeed, has been unsustainable for a long time...

Finally: Cuba is not my ideal model anyway. I prefer the example set by the Nordics, Denmark Holland - at the level of providing a progressive tax transfer system, high quality infrastructure, and a strong social wage.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Wednesday, 3 March 2010 1:21:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

I tried to post at your site, but it would not let me.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 7 March 2010 6:54:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan,

None of your points undermine the fact that the US is a more prosperous country and on the whole a much better place to live.

If the Scandinavian countries are your ideal, then surely you would support free trade, mobile labour markets and privatisation for the reasons I have already outlined?
Posted by AJFA, Monday, 8 March 2010 1:05:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy