...Where it all goes from here “Squeers” is, I believe from the unfolding evidence, into depression economics. Maybe read some “John Steinbeck” for self help survival strategies into the future.

I'll have a go at decoding.

The idea of 'panem et circenses' revolves around giving the people what they want rather than what they need. To placate the at times unruly Roman mob, the senate and later the emperors chose to fatten and entertain the people, rather than enact policies that would bring about long-term prosperity or rectify problems. Besides providing bread and circuses, they would on occasion alleviate (or distract from) food shortages by expelling fringe dwellers: Jews, sorcerers, worshipers of Isis, to name a few. There was the potential for a short-term gain: get rid of the undesirables, and there's more grain to go around. The leadership had the appearance of doing something about the problem, whether it worked or not; they also distracted the people from the problem by turning their attention to the much more 'serious' issue of foreigners bringing down the greatness of Rome.

To bring the matter to the present, we see governments maintaining the appearance (not too well, it would seem) of doing 'stuff' by bowing to populist demands. The tax is going to hurt? That's fine, we'll compensate. We don't like our cattle being abused in Indonesia? That's fine, we'll halt the trade. Both are shallow measures that scratch at the surface of the problem but do not address its root causes.

Of course, a degree of arrogance is required of anybody who deigns to tell us what we 'need'. And that degree of arrogance is accentuated when somebody deigns to tell us that we want the 'wrong' things.

In a way, this links to Kim Sawyer's article, also posted today. Bowing to populism isn't a bad thing if the people are provided with sufficient relevant information - and less irrelevant 'noise' - to know what is best for us and to want it. Sadly, our bickering pollies and our sensationalist media tend to stand in the way of that.

Have to agree with Kenny. Individual citizens generally do quite a good job when it comes to taking care of their own ... because they own it. They value what they have secure title to, or power over. It's what they DON'T own that gets abused: the Tragedy of the Commons. Voters want low taxes, security, a minimum of burdensome regulation, as much freedom as they can get, and (finally) as many freebies as they can cajole out of politicians, in roughly that order. Government, however, wants voters who are dependent on their largesse, full stop. Law and order is always a winner for pollies because it's one of the few things citizens value highly but can't readily buy: they'll give up some freedoms for it, even pay tax for it. They don't mind a bit of regulation for business ... unless it regulates them out of a job, increases prices, inconveniences them, or they own a business. Today's problem is that taxes probably take a third of voter's income, on average, but the value attached to the services government provides is decreasing. Local libraries close, roads are congested, hospital waiting lists lengthen, graffiti artists tag whole neighbourhoods. These days, you only hear from local government when they’re reducing closing libraries, finding fault with the plans for your new deck, or raising rates, usually the lot. The Feds want to build more social housing (which might lower property values or increase crime), reduce CO2 emissions (which is cool if and only if you could afford $20,000 worth of solar panels earning rebates paid from increased power bills paid by pensioners), and send boat people to Malaysia at a price per head which is roughly equivalent to the mortgage it’ll take you another 20 years to pay off (not counting interest). Howard succeeded because he produced more bread than circuses. Gillard is ringmaster of a pretty ordinary circus, and Swan wants to tax bread. Yes, Cameron, the answer is radical simplification -- but of government, not ‘society’. Thoreau nailed it: ‘That government is best which governs least.’

Sorry donkeygod, you've got some of that wrong.

Quite often much of the population just wants to be left alone, to get on with their lives. They do, of course want toget into the trough when they perceive everyone else is in there, at their expense. Answer, dice the trough.

However they also get their knickers in a knot at what they perceive is unnecessary, expensive & stupid interference in their lives.

Take councils, [& dump them preferable], with all their officious rules & regulations, enacted, & enforced by not just "B" grade people, but C, & even D graders. We get planers who have managed the requirements of some course, at a B grade institution, run by some C grader, who could not hold a job in private enterprise. These people then start deciding where people can put doors in their houses.

Another prime example was the tourist promotion grants the Qld government gave to councils, a couple of years ago. All the councils hired tourist promotion officers, all with "public sector" experience, all graduates of the same university course, what else?

My wife hates it when my predictions come to pass. So when these "B" graders all put exactly the same adds in exactly the same media, at the same time of day, [word perfect, but for name of destination], just as their professor told them to do, she was annoyed with me.

Try starting a small business today, & you'll find the circus. It is at the council chambers, or George St, run by those who wouldn't survive in the big world.

Give them bread, I've never found anything they give away, except a hassle that is.

Peter Hume “Rather, a state built on slavery and taxation merely took the fruits of the labour of the productive class, and gave them away to whoever would maintain the state functionaries in their position of privilege. Sound familiar?”

Oh yes Peter, so very familiar….

Have you noticed how this threatened “Carbon Tax”, the objective of the immoral socialists and their watermelon partners in grime is being heavily promoted with the notion that

Half the tax will be given back to the tax payers as additional welfare or tax cuts

And

How some people, those at the bottom of the contributory order and top of the welfare benefits list (the rich fields of socialist votes) will actually be better off with a Carbon Tax than without

Imho that amounts to direct economic leveling and directly erodes the values derived from accepting personal responsibility and accountability…

With God on our side (and it is his Country after all), Gillard will lose the next election and her Circuses will be sent packing

I see Squeers agrees with the article….

As I have said before...

Squeers expressing the contrary simply means Peter Hume, SM and I must have it right

Col: <Imho that amounts to direct economic leveling ...>

I don't think you're capable of humility, so you may as well drop the h from imho.

I confess it's a dilemma. On the one hand I agree with the wealth redistribution agenda, only it doesn't go nearly far enough. I suggest a progressive and individualised carbon tax based on each person's carbon footprint. Once the footprint goes beyond a modest point the tax accrues exponentially. There could be tax credits for cyclists, walkers, vegetarians and various other forms of low consumption and concomitant emissions, while the degenerates from all classes are slugged heavily for their opulent and corpulent lifestyles..

It's true that wealth redistribution in the current paradigm only encourages those on welfare to seek to emulate (or parody) the decadent lifestyles of their unworthily wealthy "betters".
So ideally, for me, and as I allude above, let them make their own bread. As someone says above, bring back the commons; cut welfare and let those who want to regenerate work it for their subsistyence.

Until then though, "user pays", the catch cry of the neoliberals and conservative Christian hypocrites-- http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/04/20/european-christians-dont-want-government-to-reduce-income-inequality/ --tax the consumer's carbon emisions!
..you might have to get rid of a few trophies, Col...