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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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.