A lot of the posters make solid points about reform everywhere.

However, there is room for policy change. While each nation will undertake reform according to its debates, Tristan is right to refer to different national examples to show that we are not all forced to do the same thing. Australia has chosen its policies, including a much greater reliance on mining (China), debt, and record house prices, although we are now not alone.

True. But I don't believe that's the key point being made here Chris Lewis.

>>However, there is room for policy change<<

The basic problem with Tristan Ewin's article - and so many like it all over the internet - is the language employed.

It is a warmed-over pastiche of pseudo-revolutionary Spart-speak, containing absolutely no relevant information whatsoever. Slogans and broad-brush anti-capitalist accusations do not a cogent argument make, I'm afraid.

While there have undoubtedly been some egregious examples of unfettered greed and barely-legal rent-seeking over the past thirty years or so, the system is not, in itself, the problem.

To rail against unfairness *within* the system is therefore perfectly valid - I applaud it as a necessary wake-up call to governments everywhere - but at the same time it renders the random nature of the "stick-it-to-the-man" content both impotent and meaningless.

We are presently blessed (?) in this country with a strong, resilient economy, and a weak, ineffective and values-free government. Complaining about unfairness is one thing. But to advocate the destruction of that economy and the overthrow of the democratic system in order to correct it, is entirely another.

For all Mr Ewins employs the words "democratic" and "democracy" in his article and in his comments, his suggested solution to the problem is anything but.

Curmudgeon; The Danish model works in the sense it reduces unemployment via labour market flexibility but provides meaningful and deep security for workers via a strong welfare states. That security is the precondition for workers to accept flexibility.

It succeeds on the criteria of material security, living standards, unemployment...

I'm not certain how far they take that flexibility and thus whether I'd support all the policies. I think there are many ways of reducing unemployment. But it shows a farier alternative (than we have in Australia and the US) is possible; and can work based on these critera.

Tristan
Okay, fair enough.. my recollection of the Danish system is that the workers get paid a high percentage of their old wage if they lose their job and that there is considerable intervention and retraining..

But that high intervention, high-paying system has to be paid for so you come back to the question of taxes and just how much the Australian community would be willing to bear.. and no, its not good enough to brush aside that point by saying we can make the wealthy pay. As we discussed earlier, much of the shift in tax law in past decades has been towards closing off rorts enjoyed by the wealthy. I forgot to mention the introduction of the capital gains tax, and lots of rules about lending from private companies now being declared a deemed dividend.. and so on, and on..

So you have to work out how to pay for that higher level of security, and how it would fit into a community with considerably less social cohesian than the Danish, not to mention making major changes in institutions mentioned before, including the way wage increases are negotiated.

Doubt if it would work in Aus - particularly when you start talking about the tax increases necessary - but you're welcome to waste your time that way as any other..

Pericles - what specifically is "undemocratic" about my arguments? Do you suppose there is some "essential nexus" between economic liberalism and democracy? Have you not heard of "social democracy"? Do you suppose democracy and citizenship should be limited to the political sphere - and not to the social and economic? It is to fight against the grain to support social and economic citizenship - but how is it 'undemocratic'?

*But it shows a farier alternative (than we have in Australia and the US)*

But its not a fairer alternative Tristan, its simply a claim to
entitlement by those who don't want to put in the effort to paddle
their own canoe and want everyone else to paddle if for them.
Lazyness really.

We in Australia are somewhere in the middle between the two
extremes of Denmark and the US. Not a bad spot to be, actually.

The latest Mercer global pension index for instance, shows that
Australia is no 2 in the world, when it comes to pensions.
Healthcare costs nearly as much as it does to feed people (around
5500 $ per person per year) mostly paid for by Govt. We have
pensions for everything. Most Australians simply don't realise
how well off that they really are.

We know what happened when taxes went over 50%. People have a sense
of fairplay and if they are working hard for their money, underground
miners, shearers, etc, its hardly fair on them if all that effort
is not rewarded, so that the lazy can sit around claiming
entitlement.

Next you have a brain drain, some of the smartest people head overseas
where effort is actually rewarded. The mega rich move their affairs
offshore too.

Even the Swedes are realising that now, thats why they have started
flogging off state enterprises and are changing their system.
Its not much good to Sweden, if the average person has been taxed
so high, that they have no savings. Otherwise Swedes might actually
own Volvo, rather then the Chinese. I'm just waiting for the day
when the Chinese have learnt enough, shut the whole Volvo show
down and move it to China.