I think Neo-liberalism deserves all the criticism that it gets.
Basically it is/was a fake philosophy: Outright greed was framed as a "system" for governance and economics.
The results speak for themselves in all the countries that embraced this pseudo-intellectual fad: Debt, Credit pumped asset bubbles, massive profiteering (top 5% gaining at expense of bottom 50%) and the growth of unproductive investment (housing) at the expense of manufacturing and other forms of production.
The "good times" of the last decade were fuelled by spending money that did not exist. The next decade will be spent in recovery and you already hear folks forgetting that the problems we face now are due to the irrational exuberance just past.
Liberals used to stand for Liberalism: now they are "conservative" while still supporting big government. Labour isn't much better as they have embraced Neo-liberal economics and are also "conservative". The radical nature of the "conservatives" which is driven by narrow minded and intolerant church interests is a real worry.

I have no quarrel with the author of this article but one point needs to be made. Manne and others have been complaining about a freeing up of markets, and scrapping of regulations in this and that. In fact, the real trend of the last few decades has been a change in regulatory emphasis. Instead of trying to regulate the market for milk or restrict textile exports, successive governments have been trying to regulate greed. The regulations for floating companies, insider trading, banking (BASEL II ect), accounting standards (you use to be able to get away with almost anything in the company books) and in tax, have all been increased and tightened considerably. Not sure where that fits in with neo-liberalism, but I don't think its what Mann wants to hear.

The author says he is concerned about rising income inequality. And with reference to countries such as Denmark and Sweden says 'but this is Australia'.

Firstly, I understand that we cannot just 'import' foreign social democratic models 'lock, stock and barrel' within the space of one or two terms... But Australia did have its own model: once comprising a mixed economy, a more progressive tax system, and greater protections for workers. This has been gradually undermined for decades - eg: with privatisation - often without real support or understanding from the public...

Today the govt is fudging commitments that no worker be worse off under 'Award modernisation'. The changing structure and mix of the tax system has also for a long time resulted in ever greater inequalities.

There has been a failure to reform the tax mix; and tax and spending as a proportion of GDP... But we have a population which is ageing and growing rapidly; there is a housing shortage and a lack of infrastructure; the social wage has not been reformed to compensate for growing inequalities in the labour market.

Clearly something has to be done... But Rudd Labor has been sitting on the Henry Tax review a long time: afraid for the debate to come into the open; afraid to take a position even. And Abbott is in the wings ready to capitalise on greed and fear...

In all this, we could do well to look at Denmark, Sweden, other Scandinavian countries, Holland... We can't just "import" their system and 'policy mix'... But we can derive an 'orientation for reform'.

Even by restructuring the tax mix and raising tax as a proportion of GDP by 1%-2% we could achieve much: invest in preventative health care andcut hospital waiting lists; reform welfare, invest in public housing to correct the bubble; offset labour market inequalities; invest in education and transport infrastructure for a growing population...

It's a debate we need to have and neither major party is dealing with these "big issues".

Tristan,

You got it right. This is Australia and Australians will decide what policies will be implemented, just as they did the last 25 years. I hope the outcomes will be to your satisfaction.

Dear Chris;

One of the points I'm making is that some policies - eg: privatisation - had very little support amongst the Australian public. The problem is that there was a bipartisan consensus with Liberal and Labor in favour of neo-liberalism. Many people didn't like much of what was happening - but in the end didn't have the confidence to break with the two party system. The point - again - is that Australians as a whole never decided to embrace neo-liberalism.

what is neo liberal-ism..a buzz word..
i see the fruit and know its fruit is most foul..

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/soapbox/article/-/article/7124677/would-plain-packet-cigarettes-stop-you-lighting-up/

has plain lable worked for homebrand? on an other note..a comment re do we believe advertising?

lol..we know them photo's [on the ciggie packet]..have been doctored thats the problem..further the constitution dosnt allow any tax/recall the salt tax/..ghandi was a lawyer/.he knew

i hear the numbers..15,000 deaths..problem being..my ciggie pack says 19,000..
thats the issue govts lie..even passed a law allowing them to lie..thats unconstitutional../or immoral..note re the deaths..WE DONT have autoptcy..death..'cause'..is what the doc writes down..if the possable death cause is..'smoking/RELATED..thgen it goes to the deaths..'ATTRIBUTABLE'..to smoking

kids dont care about the price of cigs..it all goes unthinkingly onto the credit card..they only make minimum pazyments on..how much percent is minimum payment?..they are ..'buying their fags/booze/cars..for pennies on the dollar!..we have a huge problem..for two packs of smokes..i can now buy a bottle of spirit..or 6 liters of wine..or 2 kiloes of suger/lollies

interesting i called smokes the fa g word..sorry..i meant smokes..never thought of any other definition..im not gay..wonder if that gets the fag treatment too..these destractions remind me k/rudd..is doing this to destract away from other issues..he also cant.. constitutionally do...anyhow both parties have the same adenda...advisedc by the same bloated/pensioned elite..and their banker/;awyer mates

.recall the carbon tax..[unconstuitutional/too]..yet is was the same as howhards..see the same bloated public service boys club runs the two party system..via the sports rorts clubs/getting huge multilevel/govt grants..wont get intoi murdoc running the sports club..there is the rub..half our news is sport