Just to try and kickstart something... Looks like there's quite a few readers but not much debate. (none actually :-( ) It's always good to provoke thoughtful debate when you write something, though; To see you've made people think about issues... So if anyone is thinking of commenting pls do. :)

Tristan

I have what could be a good idea,Irwin.Julia owes it to her union mates to enhance their standard of living by giving those who survive being laid off as a result a lot more wages. Then go one step further.Give them tax concessions. This may maybe drive the millionaires overseas taking their business with them and giving jobs to others there. That process has already started,hasn't it.She can always say that the treasurer of the year has done it and therefore it can't be all that bad. The Chinese, Indians etc will line up with plaudits and wave Aussie flags.
Brilliant.

socratease

Tristan
Since according to your theory, employment is intrinsically exploitative, why not just confiscate the wealth of all employers, and give it to the exploited working class? Surely this would be the ultimate in the social wage, since after all, according to your labour theory of value, the entire final product is imputable to the labour of the working class, and the role of capitalists is only parasitic. Right? Why do you resile from that logical conclusion of your theory?

Peter; I would support a variant of the labour variety of value - but not the same as Marx's.At a certain point at least Marx believed that various forms of labour were commensurable. Thus the true value of goods and services could be discerned from the AMOUNT of labour applied to creating these.

But in reality it's impossible to come up with an objective measure. Apart from skill & 'labour market forces' there's also the nature of different forms of work - whether the work is enjoyable or unpleasant...

But regarding capitalists themselves - there are small investors who work hard to acquire the capital to invest; These are not 'at the same level' as the 'rentier' capitalist class - those who have so much wealth they do not need to work and can afford to delegate whenever they want...

But even then there are some capitalists who are visionary or innovative - and their labour is valuable... But even then - Bill Gates made an enormous contribution to Microsoft - but was this such as to warrant making him a BILLIONAIRE?

The point: You can't 'pin down' the EXACT value of labour - but where a rentier class exploits on a grand scale - or even where visionaries and innovators exproriate more than their (admittedly valuable) contribution warrants - then YES - Exploitation occurs - but again cannot be quantified in PRECISE terms...

Further to this we are integrated in a global economy... The kind of exploitation that goes on in a capitalist economy may be morally deplorable; But to access the innovations of the transnational corporations we need allow them operate on our soil without fear of expropriation.

On the other hand we CAN have collective capital formation and public investment (eg: a sovereign wealth fund); and unions can and should bargain for collective capital share in return for a history of wage restraint. Finally we should create a supportive environment for co-operative and other democratic enterprise... And corporations need pay their fair share for the infrastructure, education etc they benefit from - as against all-pervasive corporate welfare...

The value of a capitalists' contribution doesn't come from whether he personally works. If that theory was right, then it's not the capital, but the labour of the capitalist that is important.

You cannot establish any principle which determines whether a given enterpreneur "expropriates more than his admittedly valuable contributions warrants".

"The point: You can't 'pin down' the EXACT value of labour" -

The point is not that the LTV is correct but you can't pin down the EXACT value of labour. The point is that the entire labour theory of value is wrong, and *that's why* you can't pin down the exact value of labour.

Since *all* of the entrepreneur's profits are in exact proportion to the masses of consumers - "the workers" - valuing his product higher than all the other things they could have had with the money they had to hand over to buy it, and since the final value is attributable to that and *not* to any alleged but undiscoverable objective value of labour, therefore the LTV is wrong and there is no exploitation or expropriation taking place.

"The kind of exploitation that goes on in a capitalist economy may be morally deplorable"

But you haven't established that there is any exploitation involved yet. The costs of production do not determine prices, as the classical economists wrongly hypothesised and Marx parroted from them. It's the other way around. The reason you can't find an objective value is because *all* human values are subjective. This means your entire theory is wrong, and all your conclusion that follow from it.

"On the other hand we CAN have collective capital formation and public investment (eg: a sovereign wealth fund); and unions can and should bargain for collective capital share in return for a history of wage restraint."

We can also have total expropriation of the capitalists. But you haven't shown how that, or your proposal, would better serve the wants that the masses consider most urgent, important or valuable.

"corporations need pay their fair share for the infrastructure, education"

Please define fair share of taxation.

Tristan, you acknowledge Ms Wong's warning of a shortfall, but you then suggest in your piece an incease in welfare payments to the working population. Do you not see the inherent contradiction?

Australia doesn't have a "cost of living" issue, it has a "cost of consumption" problem. This is bad for those like Solomon Lew and Gerry Harvey and it's not real great for me, but I don't see that as a reason for more taxpayer money to be poured into the hole.

Over the past 40 years there has been a concerted effort to get women into the workforce, but that has brought with it a massive increase in Government spending intended to "compensate" women for working. As a result of that and the constant ratcheting upward of welfare and transfers, Government spending on those things has gone up by around 75% in terms of GDP since Keating.

I'm afraid your piece ignores the real elephant in the room, which is that getting women into the paid workforce has cost a great deal of money and has had little tangible economic benefit. We'd be far better just importing guest workers from our near neighbours and letting our women get on with the important work of raising the next generation.

In case you missed it, I recommend Goldman Sachs's 2009 report http://www.gs.com.au/documents/About/MediaRoom/2009/Gender_Research_Report_2009.pdf

Tristan, here's the actual GS report. It was prepared for the Equal Opportunity in the Workplace Agency.

http://www.eowa.gov.au/Pay_Equity/Files/Australias_hidden_resource.pdf

"Male productivity has historically averaged over double that of female productivity
over the past 30 years. We refuse to believe that a female with the same educational and
work experience as a male will be 50% less productive in a similar role."

As you see, on the one hand they have good data suggesting that women are not as productive as men, but because they are writing an advocacy piece for an organisation that has a strong predisposing discriminatory bias to increase employment for women, they include a statement of "belief", which seems incongrupus in an economic document. It was the Greeks'and the rest of the PIGS "refusal to believe" that the free ride would ever come to an end that has led to the current problems for their countries.

It seems to me that you also have a problem in preferring a "belief" that increased welfare is desirable over the hard data that shows it's simply unaffordable.

Peter Hume; you say the labour of the capitalist isn't what's important. (for me, as matter of justice)

But if that were the case the capitalist who inherited $10 billion from his father; delegated all management, lived a life of excess and never worked a day - would be in the same category as the small business person who worked an 80 hour week to keep their head above water. There's no comparison - and even without an exact measure it illustrates the injustice.

Then you say LTOV is wrong because of the subjective factor...

Then let's take a producer's co-operative - let say one like producing canned fruit. All that they produce comes from workers and from nature. Just because there is a subjective element that doesn't mean these goods don't come from the combination of labour and nature.

And let's say the business wasn't a co-operative - but there was one capitalist/manager and 500 workers. Let's say that the income of the capitalist/manager was 100 times that of one if their workers. Even without an exact measure - is this fair? And even without an exact measure - can we deny a surplus is being extracted at some level?

Or to put the question at another level. Purely hypothetically - If a teacher makes $100,000/year and a nurse $20,000 (with similar levels of work intensity and skill)- even with the assumption of a subjective element - by our best estimate would this situation be fair? (the point being that the subjective element shouldn't be used to rationalise economic/distributive injustice)

Antiseptic - a few points re: your arguments about women's labour.

First: 'Productivity' could be lower because of women's concentration in 'caring' professions where it is difficult to achieve productivity improvements. (eg: through mechanisation) This doesn't make underpayment fair. The human and social value of labour is more than the surplus that can be extracted from it. A doctor or a nurse is not worth less than a factory worker because the factory worker achieves greater productivity via robotics/mechanisation.

Apart from this work needs to be seen as self-realisation as well; so in this sense women have a right to self-realisation through work; But on the other hand in capitalist society domestic labour is unpaid and hence undervalued; Greater support for women OR men who choose domestic labour including child rearing (social reproduction) deserve greater (including financial) support without stigma. The problem is especially difficult with single parents who are being forced back into the workforce just when their kids need them the most...

re: Welfare - The point is that with active labour market policies there is no excuse to leave the unemployed in dire poverty - and facing stigma. And the argument that it is unaffordable doesn't hold up to scrutiny either. Many European nations manage fine with far more generous programs than we have.

Tristan
I think you’re trying to have a bet each way.

One the one hand if you’re going to argue that the market rate for labour is not the fair rate, you need to show by what principle the fair rate is determined.

Marx reasoned that capitalism is exploitative by theorising that the final value of a good was derived from the labour factors of production that had gone into it, and only the labour factors. The value of non-labour factors such as capital or land involved, he imputed to labour still further back in time. In this, Marx adopted the core of what was wrong about the theory of the classical economists Smith and Ricardo – the labour theory of value.

But even if this theory were correct, it would not justify a state-mandated wage increase. It would.it would justify the expropriation of all capitalists, and the abolition of privately-owned capital in favour of the working class as a whole – internationally.

However you yourself are not adhering to the labour theory of value – for good reason, because it’s quite plainly wrong, is easily disproved, and is indefensible. (That’s not how prices are formed. They are formed by people deciding whether they prefer the good to the asking price. They assess this by comparing with the other values in their scale of values. All these values are subjective. However the prices are not subjective, because people adjust what they are willing to pay or accept according to what others are paying or accepting.)

Therefore there is no objective principle by which the market price could be distinguished from the fair price, and your claims of "undervaluation" are invalid.

On the other hand, if capitalism is morally deplorable, then by your own theory we are not morally entitled to participate in its benefits.

So far as unemployment is voluntary, your argument is invalid, and so far as it is involuntary, the problem is precisely the policies that you advocate.

Therefore none of your proposed policies can be justified, even in your own terms.

Changing the dividend imputation system is not a good idea. The current system works well because the tax is paid at the taxpayers marginal rate. It is a very progressive system. Low income earners and super funds pay a low rate and high income earners pay their full marginal rate. How can you complain about that?

Shares are not owned by the "rentier class". Most big companies are controlled by funds, mostly superfunds.

Changing the imputation system would have a significant impact on the earnings of superfunds and would negate many of the benefits raising the super guarantee to 12%. The most badly effected would be young people because the lower earnings rate would be compounded over many years.

Tristan, I agree with you on the issue of self-realisation, but I think you're ignoring the many women who feel themselves entirely satisfied with the role of mother.

This is a piece from the SMH, by a trio of academics from Monash, on the subject

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/calling-older-mothers-selfish-is-a-sign-of-misconception-20111011-1liyy.html

from the article:

"We investigated the childbearing desires, expectations and outcomes of 569 Victorian women aged 30 to 34 selected randomly from the Australian electoral roll."

"We found that almost all the women we interviewed wanted to have children. Only 20 (less than 4 per cent) had decided they definitely did not want to have children.

However, many of the women (80 per cent) had fewer children than they desired. The women were still of reproductive age but when asked if they were likely to have children in the future, more than half (54 per cent) said this was unlikely because of circumstances often beyond their control."

"Those who did not have a child said the main reason was not having a partner, or being unable to find a partner willing to commit to fatherhood. Very few women wanted to have a child while single."

"Women with partners also reported that a main barrier was their partner's reluctance to have a child, or another child. Some said that disagreement over childbearing threatened their relationships, and that they avoided talking about wanting children in case their partners left."

"The second reason was the burden of higher-education debts. These imposed a particular barrier to securing housing, because couples were finding it difficult to pay debts that each had incurred in gaining their qualifications, at the same time as meeting the requirements of a mortgage."

"Many said it was difficult to contemplate even a short period on a single income"

Do they sound "self-realised" to you?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12715#219894
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12715#219919
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12715#219920

Tristan Ewins,

re your argument with PH, there are aspects to capitalist exploitation, your forgeting.

Anybody with savings, regardless of where the money came from, $1,000 or $1,000 trillion, can invest that money in a bank, real estate, etc & recieve interest/profit after expences, pay income tax on that income & spend the rest on anything they like. it is a simple concept called freedom.

The same person can alternatively buy shares which pay dividends/interest which is taxed & spend the rest in any way they like.

All of this has nothing to do with whether the investor is physically working as well or not, a self employed businessman takes both wages for work AND profit or loss on their capital AND pays income tax on both.

The real problem, if there is one, is in CEO's, boards & senior management who sometimes are getting too much in salaries & bonuses, even though some of them also have some of their own money invested in shares in the corporation. When this happens they are stealing from or defrauding the proletariat shareholders AND the proletariat workers.

The problem with all left wing politics is that they are ignoring the plight of more than half the proletariat & of course ALL of the proletariat workers now risk having their retirement savings stolen when super schemes are ripped off.

The poor productivity of women that Antiseptic mentioned is not about whether they can do the job or not, but the cost of having both parents in the workforce. There is NO reason why a "career woman" cannot support a full time stay at home house husband.

While we are on the subject, the allegedly high cost of the "aging population" was caused by "career women" CHOOSING not to have children. i propose the "Juliar Dillhard Tax", all women age 28 & over who have NOT produced 3 healthy children should pay an income tax surcharge according to the CSA child support formula. This money could then go towards the cost of nursing homes, pensions, importing migrants, importing guest workers, etc.

Tax Reform; the coalition does not have a policy concerning tax reform apparently, not being able to find their way to the forum.

For Peter Hume; answering some of your questions;

re: a 'fair wage' of wages; For years we had a regulated labour market in Australia; I am suggesting a regulated labour market where it would work - where it would not cost irreplaceable jobs; But I'm also suggesting a social wage to enable fairness and flexibility at the same time.

Re: 'a fair rate' for corporations - First they need to pay for the use of infrastructure and services; Then there needs to be an amelioiration of exploitation.

re: LToV again - I'll give an even more extreme example - If a doctor was paid $200 an hour at a private clinic and professor of physics was paid $1 an hour at a private university where students paid $1000 per class to attend - with one class a day; a) Would you assume this was fair because 'it's all relative'?; and b) wouldn't you assume the professor was being underpaid?; My point being you can tell if someone's being ripped off regardless of relativities and the inability to be 'precise'. And regardless of a 'precise' price you can nonetheless assume that the value created has come from labour and nature. And if you accept this then there are cases - where people are making profits out of such injustices - where you can reasonably assume a surplus is being extracted...

re: Why don't we socialise then?

Well first we don't want to be cut off from the global economy because our economy would suffer; we'd be isolated diplomatically too; and regardless of exploitation consumers can take advantage of the innovations of transnational corporations. This is important at a practical level for quality of life. And the prevalance of Ideology means citizens are raised to have skepticism of socialism and social democracy in any case. If change comes it will be gradual. But if we can achieve something it is a democratic mixed economy. (no more room)

For 'Former Snag', 'Wattle' and 'Antiseptic'

re: Dividend Imputation and 'ordinary people becoming capitalists'

Stilwell and Primrose have produced research that shows despite superannuation: "the richest fifth of Australian households each have, on average, forty times more wealth than the poorest fifth of the population."

This means that a small cut in Dividend Imputation will mainly affect the wealthy - not most Australians. And the revenue gained could go towards compensating low-middle income Australians with tax relief, welfare reform and social wage expansion. So these people would gain more through these means than they'd lose because of the reform.

Superannuation savings below a certain level could also be excluded.

Finally the line about ordinary people becoming capitalists has been around a long time. But with wealth distribution as it is, it doesn't really mean much. The big banks, funds and capitalists still effectively control these funds... And most of these people have no hope of accumulating such wealth that they can becone a 'rentier class' as with many capitalists.

Antiseptic: What you say about women in the labour market shows that ideally we should have free education; that partners who remain at home need support; and that aged pensions need to be bolstered because superannuation discriminates against women in this regard...

The American economy has gone to far towards liberalization, and you see what happens. Russia went two far into socialism, see what happens.
A mix of both worlds, as labor promotes is a more balanced economy. A better distribution of wealth, and tax sharing. Our economy because we tend to change govt; which have differing views, and results in differing wealth and tax distribution. So govt; is changed again.
We import liberal ideas from US, when we have a liberal govt; which is not always to our lifestyle. Australia is a stand alone economy and lifestyle, so a good mix of liberal and socialist reforms could keep us in good shape.

buggar it, lets solve everything by getting the government to tax everything and just distribute everything to everyone.

Everything else is completely pointless and irrelevant isn't it Tristan?

damn it's enough to make a man retire. no tax, no stress and only money from government.

Your problem Tristan, is your perception of the world. Life is
not fair, it never will be. Unless you look like George Clooney,
you will never have his many advantages, unless you inherited
an amazingly good immune system, you'll suffer from all sorts
of diseases which plenty of others have no problem with.

I see wealth as a bit the same. Why on earth should I be against
billionaires, even if they inherited the money? They pay heaps
of taxes, create heaps of jobs etc. Just ask the workers at
Hermes and Rolex, if they are well paid or not.

In fact if there were far more billionaires and far less poor
people, I would be dramatically better off, for its the poor who
are bleeding the system for every dollar.

And there will always be poor people, as we see from what happens
to lottery winners. Some spend the lot in a short time and are
back on the poverty list after a while, others go on to pay lots
of taxes.

We don't need less rich people, we need more rich people, then
we'd all be better off.

Very strong welfare states work in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Holland without 'demobilising the labour market'. And there are also stronger welfare states in Germany, France, Canada - and elsewhere - than we have in this country.

It works there; it can work here too.

I'm suggesting an increase of the social wage by 1.5% of GDP a term for several terms. Maybe levelling out after social expenditure has been increased overall by around 5% of GDP. We'd be around the same league as Canada when it came to taxes as a proportion of GDP. (about 38%) - as opposed to Sweden which has taxes at about 53% of GDP.

Further expansion might only be necessary because of the ageing population: or, for instance, if public pensions were prioritised again instead of superannuation. (maybe a good move)

Using 5% of GDP to improve Aged Care and Disability support; while making pensions fairer; and giving support to struggling and average Australians in the context of a rising cost of living - is not the end of the world.

Add to that also add an improvement in public education to create a real 'level playing field' for all young Australians, and perhaps universal public dental care. Restructuring tax to end effective corporate welfare would also be good.

It's the top 20% who have *40 times* the wealth of the bottom 20% that would stand to lose. And frankly that's fair enough.

Be careful of what you wish for, Tristan. For the law of unintended
consequences, is never far away.

The European social welfare experiment is still unfolding, with
the consequences there for all to see. Europe is not in the brilliant
financial health which many thought. Swedes might be hardworking
and educated, but now even Volvo and Saab have been sold to the
Chinese, with Mr Ikea living elsewhere, paying no tax at all
in Sweden.

Tax Australia's rich to unreasonable amounts and more of more
of Australia's mines, farms and businesses, will be owned by
Asians. We'll just be their workers and thats not going to be so
good for the Australian tax office of the future.

OTOH, convince some of the poor that if the 20 billion$ lost
on the pokies and other gambling, would be better invested in
BHP shares, then we'd own far more of our own country and everyone
would be better off.

Ignore those fundamentals at your peril.

Yabby;

If you're really worried about foreign ownership of mines, farms and other business then why not promote a bigger and more overt role for the Foreign Investment Review Board? Why not support more resource-rent taxation - but plough the takings into a Sovereign Wealth Fund - and use the proceeds for the kind of services I'm arguing for? And why not use such a fund to promote social/collective investment 'buying back the farm'? (including mining)

re: farmers - targeted concessions could be used to ensure farmers retain ownership and remain on the land... It is a reasonable exception to 'free trade' that as a nation we retain local ownership of core necessities. (farming, communications, transport infrastructure)

Pls keep in mind also I'm suggesting a tax take of around 38% of GDP as opposed to 53% in Sweden. And if the cost of low taxes is torment and suffering for our elderly then how 'sustainable' is that anyway?

As a nation we can 'hold on to the farm' without the price being enormous disparities in wealth - with some struggling to pay the bills, the eldelry and disabled facing untold suffering, and others engaging on outrageous conspicuous consumption.

We can do this via the 'democratic mixed economy' model; with collective capital formation, co-operative ownership, government business enterprises, socially-owned infrastructure... We can welcome foreign investment for the most part; but prioritise local, social and democratic ownership of the most sensitive areas of the economy; as well as 'natural monopolies'.

And we can avoid the kind of problems seen in Europe so long as we do not let debt grow to the level where it cannot be serviced. To maintain public services and contain public debt actually suggests an increase in progressive tax is a good idea.

*Why not support more resource-rent taxation*

Because if you push it too high, Tristan, its not worth taking the
risk of mining. Last time I checked, a company like BHP were
going to pay around 45% of profits in tax. That is a huge amount
of money each year, of benefit to all Australians. A good chunk
of the rest, they invest in new projects. The 27 billion$ which
they plan to invest to develop Olympic dam, has to come from
somewhere. What they invest in that project now, will benefit
the next generations of Australians, as its going to take about
5 years or so just to remove the overburden.

We already have a sovereign wealth fund, investing in all sorts
of corporations, established by a clever fellow called Costello.
Swan is free to contribute to it, if he ever becomes as smart
as Costello, but I doubt he will.

We also have 40% of Australians owning shares directly and most
of the rest indirectly through their super fund. The more they
invest, the more profits and tax stay in Australia, for eveyones
benefit.

You will always have some people struggling, because you cannot
legislate for people to make wise choices about their lives.
I know people earning 6 figures who have nothing because they
spend more then they earn. Yet by your statistics they would
be poor. Yet I know plenty of pensioners doing ok. They know
how to budget, they grow a few vegies etc, they don't play the
pokies, for luckily in WA we don't have them.

What say pensioners sell their house to fund their retirement,
rather then want to leave the kids rich?

Tristan Ewins:"What you say about women in the labour market shows that ideally we should have free education;"

I agree with you on that, although I suspect we would differ on what sort of education should be free.

Tristan Ewins:"that partners who remain at home need support"

We already spend more than 35% of our taxation revenue on redistribution and welfare and another 5-10% on administering those things. How much do you think we can afford to outlay on "compensating" people for their free choices? What's going to happen to the next generation when the mining money runs out and they've become welfare-dependent?

Even people who make a very good living indeed are eligible for thousands and thousands of dollars to compensate them for the fact that they will want to someday have children. Note, they'll WANT to, not they'll HAVE to for reasons they can't control. I'd quite like to travel a lot more, should I be eligible for compensation for lost career opportunities or income? What other personal decisions should be compensated, do you think? Should the individual have any responsibility for self-support at all?

Moreover, the handout system hasn't worked: men are choosing to leave relationships rather than have children. They have adjusted to the new paradigm by simply refusing cooperation, which is a common response to oppression.

Tristan ewins:"superannuation discriminates against women"

What a lot of tosh. Women make 85% of the spending decisions in households, according to Woolworths' new Masters hardware chain, which is spending a great deal to appeal to women, as does Bunnings and every other retailer. Women also live considerably longer and they usually inherit their husband's wealth.

Women don't have as much super in their own names because they don't work as much as men. They take more time off and they require more health care, even when they don't have children. They choose convenience and security over challenge and risk and they are paid accordingly.

All the wishful thinking and spending of other people's money in the world won't change biology

BTW, on the subject of super, I'll bet that there are literally tens of thousands of women who have more super than millions of men. I'll bet there are millions of women in Australia who have more super than me, because I've got bugger all.

While you're busy handing out other people's money, how about a few bucketsful this way?

re: Mining

Firstly: Mining enterprises should pay more than other companies as they are extracting a non-renewable resource that belongs to the Australian people.

But in any case, they are already making enormous profits...

see:

http://www.actu.org.au/Media/Mediareleases/Heresthetruthonminingprofitshavegrownbymorethaneighttimeswages.aspx

"The Australian mining sector has been Australia’s most profitable industry over the past five years, earning a total of $204 billion in pre-tax profits since 2004-5 (ABS catalogue 8155.0). Yet less than 10% of the total income earned from mining has been paid in wages and salaries to its workforce."

Meanwhile "overseas interests own about 83 per cent of Australia's mining industry, and that about $50 billion will leave the country over the next five years in dividends." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-29/mixed-reaction-to-greens-mining-profits-report/2776784

It begs the question why we don't just have more public investment in mining...

Antiseptic:

Women are discriminated with superannuation as they are more likely to have an interrputed work cycle, or to work part time because of 'home duties'.

The answer is a stronger Aged Pension and more generous means tests.

Some men will be affecte by this also.

But if women (and men) in this situation are contributing to society through social reproduction (raising children/domestic work) surely that are entitled to financial security in retirement. And single parents especially need support for longer - as a matter of the interests of the children concerned if nothing else. Just because some work occurs outside of the labour market does not mean it is unimportant; that it ought not be recognised.

Tristan, the miners already do pay far more taxes, then other
companies. Only some of those are paid to the States, as the
States actually own the minerals, not the Commonwealth.

Wages paid may well seem low, when analysing the figures, because in
today's mining industry, a great deal of their work is contracted
out to the mining services industry, which employs a great many
people. Plenty of miners don't even own the bulldozers etc, its
all contract work.

In the last 5 years, some miners have indeed done very well. Had
the China story not created such demand, our resource prices,
miners and our economy, could well be on the ropes. We are now
benefitting from billion $ investments made by the mining industry,
10-30 years ago. Just as we will benefit from the profits which
they are now reinvesting in new projects, in another 10-30 years.

On the last point, you are correct. But public investment can also
be investment by the public in mining, which is likely to be far
more profitable then the 20 billion invested in the pokies and similar. Anyone can own BHP shares