Peter Hume,

Actually, now that you've restated your position and realise that I'm not arguing from a Marxist perspective( in fact, my knowledge of and interest in, marxist economics is negligible) I have to say I agree with some of the points you've made.
Because of the scepticism I mentioned earlier, my postgraduate education has been in economic history, so I'm not in a position to critique economic theories.

"But that does not
1. prove that economic science is impossible or non-existent, nor that economic theory is nothing but ideology
2. establish a case against voluntary transactions
3. establish a case in favour of state interventions."

Agreed, I don't have any reasons to doubt those propositions. I never disputed that an "economic science" is possible or that some areas of economics don't have an empirical basis. When I wrote-

"Economics isn't a science, so, neo-liberal policies are basically ideological positions that, by a strange coincidence, favour the owners of capital."

I was simply emphasising that economics, like all "social sciences", is vulnerable to ideological bias. "He who pays the piper selects the tune".

I now understand your position better however, I still agree with Chris Lewis.

Peter; It's funny your characterisation of Marxism … power.

Tristan
Why is that funny?

Firstly I don’t think there is any significant difference between the Labor and Liberal parties. I see them both as thoroughgoing socialists or statists - two wings of the one predatory class with a common interest in living at the expense of the productive class based on a double standard of confiscating the fruits of other people’s labour and giving it away to others as bribes for votes, in a fraudulent armed attack on voluntary and peaceable social co-operation.

Secondly I don’t accept the labour theory of value as it is flatly incorrect (and I have never seen anyone attempt to defend it except as you have just done, by appeal to absent authority). For that reason, I don’t accept that employment is intrinsically exploitative as socialists do on the basis of preferring theory they cannot defend to theory they cannot refute.

Since employment is voluntary, I recognise that it is not exploitative but mutually beneficial (unlike taxation). So far as employment is motivated by differences in wealth, that is not the fault of the capitalist, who more than anyone relieves the relative poverty of the worker by advancing present goods against future goods which may never be realised.

I recognise that it is meaningless or confused to talk of a shortage of any economic good except at a specified price. Able-bodied people need to work for a living at the market rate, like everyone else. Minimum wage laws force people into unemployment, else why not make it $1,000 an hour? The problems of chronic permanent unemployment are caused by government interventions, overwhelmingly socialist in provenance. Laws that force people to be unemployed and poorer, instead of voluntarily employed and richer, are abusive and should be abolished.

Similarly housing is no exception to economic goods in general. The problem of “homelessness” is politically created *by socialism*. There’s loads of land, materials, builders and willing consumers to solve the problem. They just need to stop being prevented by government’s meat-axe approach based overwhelmingly on “socialist” (anti-social) nonsense.

I do regret the title. I should have said Australia's liberal democracy: the rocky road ahead.

Tristan, yes there are some nations that do have different tax rates.

In Australia's case, given the structure of its economy and high reliance on investment, I believe that this makes it hard for our govts to go much higher, based on recent trends. That is probably why they went for a mining tax.

However, I would not be surprised if higher taxation rates are again introduced in the US in coming years, perhaps a consumption tax, which will raise aggregate levels.

Should this happen, then the trend the other way may begin throughout the Western world, although i doubt if rates return to pre-1980 levels.

Peter Hume,
I'd have thought that if economics sets itself up as a "science" it would be familiar with the second law of thermodynamics--closed systems and entropy and all that? Are you arguing for perpetual motion (in this case consumption?
Furthermore, since the "science" of human economics, what Smith, Marx et al more modestly called "political economy", is surely akin in its complexity to the "science" of climate change, how is it that you place so much faith in the former but not the latter, which is also supported by empirical science?
Further-furthermore, Marxists do not argue "that the empirical and positivist methods are invalid for studies of human action, which is subjectively motivated". Marxists acknowledge the value of empirical science but are sceptical of ideological influence--which even scientists are sceptical of! Empirical science works hand in glove with the prevailing order for Christ's sake!
Marx, if not all Marxists, following Hegel, did believe that a priori conceptions were also not merely valid, but vital to a holistic conception of the human world--not merely in the quest for "truth" (excuse me while I snigger), but in the quest for relevance and poignancy.
"The only refuge of its critics, such as Chris Lewis, Squeers and Tristan, is flight into the abnegation of reason itself".
I take no such flight; you talk as though "reason", divorced from a priori human judgement, was stable ground, ground from which "you" take flight.
"As opposed to theory, all policy, as it is based on value judgments, can be called “ideology” if we want. But if one denies the possibility of economic science, then there is no objective way of knowing cause and effect, and therefore no reason for any particular ideology to be entrenched in policy, which supports the Austrian school conclusion"

So who is the relativist now!
It is your neoliberal "policy" that's entrenched in "ideology"!

Peter, I have not yet seen a successful delivery of housing or its affordable cousin by the left or their 2nd cousins the public service.

I had hoped that key themes i identified, such as ongoing higher costs for food, utilities, and services, would have been the focus on debate.

I am concerned, and would have appreciated criticism, even from libertarians, about why my concerns are not warranted.

But instead, I get told I go around in circles and so on, and I am a fool for believing in the merit of democracy to elect and make accountable our politicians.

I have always been interested in issues, not theory. That is what I write about. I try to assess the strengths and weaknesses of all sides in terms of policy trends.

I am a liberal, in that I support its values, but I am a realist that also accepts that there are many reasons why certain individuals and nations do well and other do not. After nearly two decades of political study, I am certainly not going to throw my lot in with garbage that declares we should open up our borders completely to trade and immigration.

Sure, i bag the left at times, but I will never reject their sentiment. I also do not reject the observations made by marxists or neomarxists. In fact, I often get my info from such sources.

My perspective is shaped by many arguments made about issues, with little consideration given to theory.

I feel that is how life works, and that is how I try to think and write about issues.