Got that? Voluntary and mutually beneficial transactions that feed, clothe and shelter the whole population *and* produce all the wealth on which government relies, are hard and anti-social; of course everything government does is soft and “social”.

Wheee! This political philosophy stuff is easy!

“But Australia also experienced adverse developments. First, rising housing prices … and … mortgages increasing.”

Well, fancy that! Whoever might have caused a housing and debt bubble, based on who’s theory?

“For instance, 15 per cent of Americans (45.8 million) were receiving food stamps in May 2011, while recent riots in Europe may also be partially explained by anger to severe budget cuts.”

The proportion of Americans on foods stamps, and the recent riots in Europe, have nothing to do with interventionist policies of course. This is the government-as-the-teat-of-all-goodness theory.

“It is disturbing to contemplate just how competitive (and perhaps chaotic) “

(competitive = chaotic.)

“… certain Western societies may become in future years if dramatic cuts to government spending adversely affect battlers most.”

The existence of hordes of dependants on government has nothing to do with government intervention in the economy. Voluntary society is to blame. Thank God for all those government restrictions and handouts.

“We know that fairer trade must be encouraged…”

Oh goodie gum drops, who could be against fairness, as defined by … ?

Perhaps Chris could start by defining the difference between the fair price and the market price in any given transaction?

“As Westerners, with [our] guiding light for humanity, we…”

Chris, give us a break.

If you want to do social justice at the same time as promoting economic prosperity and fair trade, the one single policy measure you should be supporting is: abolish government’s license to print money. But to support that corrupt privilege, while pretending concern for social justice or economic fairness is nothing but cant and confusion.

Peter Hume, take a breath and ask yourself why world leaders have not and will not follow the policies you advocate. The Western policy mix will always be a balance between market forces and govt intervention.

Only then, you may realise that your so-called wise comments have the same strengths and weaknesses as everyone else in this competitive world where 'nobody' has the complete answers.

You have plenty to say about me, well you too always sound like a broken record. My tip, expand your reading past Mises.

what is amazing about you Peter Hume is you never ever find one point worth agreement.

Three posts by you and all of the comments rip my article to pieces.

I read Marxist stuff, liberal stuff, and what ever else, and often find many points of agreement. Hence, I admit my ongoing struggle as a student of politics.

But you see the world so clearly, basically bagging anything that raises the word intervention.

You are either a genius, which I know you are not, or completely blinkered.

Just today I hear Swan talking of Chinese companies buying raw materials from Aust companies with an agreement they only buy chinese steel.

I really don't think you have any idea, and that is why even the Liberal Party will not listen to your extremist ideas based on fantasy and idealism rather than reality.

Chris Lewis,

Yes, economics isn't a science, citizens are basically lab rats in social experiments run by the ruling economic ideologues and the sectional interests that benefit from their policies.
No government, in a democracy, can afford to allow 'market forces' to correct imbalances without intervention,the result, as usual, is 'private profit, public loss'.

The so called 'Asian Tigers' certainly aren't restricted by economic theory.

Mac,

From your two posts, i think we have similar views. I am glad i am not alone given the near blind faith in Australia with free market ideals.

Chris,

You're certainly not alone in your views.

I majored in economics at business school and more or les accepted the theory presented. Later I studied post WW2 Japanese economic history and realised that the Japanese ran their own mercantilist economic agenda that was quite different from the economic models that I'd learned. They thought in terms of market share, policy settings were developed to achieve that end and were not an end in themselves.
One mercantilist policy was, of course, manipulation of the dollar/yen exchange rate, the Chinese are now running this 'beggar thy neigbour' policy with great success.

The most likely result of the mining boom will be (1)the destruction of our manufacturing and service industries and large holes in the Outback and (2) no long term economic benefit.