SL your assertions that GDP in the UK turned around under Margaret Thatcher are not quite correct. Thatcher was prime minister from 1979 until 1990 and for the first 5 years of her prime ministership the UK GDP per capita dropped, as expressed in 2002 values.

Anecdotally I believe that the Home Counties are booming and the rest of Britain is a basket case with exceedingly high levels of unemployment and low house prices. [The Home Counties are those counties in south east England that surround London and are an easy commute from the capital]

So if we translate the British experience to Australia we can expect living standards to drop for 5 years, productivity of our remaining manufacturing to increase, Sydney to boom and house prices in the rest of Australia to fall as the rest of Australia becomes a depressed economy.

Surely, we can have a better vision for Australia where the wealth is more equitably distributed and all Australians have a bright future not just that tiny proportion of high flying graduates required for the international workforce. I ask myself what is wrong with following the United States lead and instigating tariffs to protect our manufactured goods and farm produce

Shonga/tus,

Please peruse this article regarding the importance of restraining otherwise unbridled market forces;l

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/2003/7.html

John Gava makes some very important points (and a very convincing argument), demonstrating the dangers of both unrestrained capitalism, and of politico/social reasoning in our High Court.

In this era of governments removing any / all restrictions upon multi-national corporations, obviously it is time to consider exactly what the frantic drive to increase the bottom line (ostensibly for the shareholder), and the resultant cost-cutting (lay offs/ wage reductions) have on society.

Personally, I find it intriguing that in this current era, with the news (and indeed this forum) concerned predominantly with the affect of multi-national corporations and multi-national terrorism, Australia makes no concerted attempt to get into step with international law. Perhaps a unified, worldwide approach to these worldwide problems could pay dividends?

Of course, the average citizen cannot provide some of our politicians with the campaign handouts they require, or indeed the incentives, nor allow them to live in the style which they ever so quickly become accustomed to. Perhaps this may explain the reticence of some of our politicians to reign in the multi-nationals, may it also explain why multi-million dollar fraud cases inevitably result in much lower penalties than property crimes of much lesser value?

Who's sneering now Shonga - "I am heaps better off than you becaue you live in a housing commission house".
Actually, if you read what I wrote, I said it was a former housing commission house which was renovated very well by the previous owner. The neighbours are all good people and they don't judge people about where they live like your snooty dismissal of my address.
Our international debt at least is private debt - not like the previous government which owed billions.
As for me, my only debt is my house loan - I own my car, don't spend on credit cards and have no personal loans. But you'd know of course and then whinge about it to boot.
Many people do earn enough to save, they choose to spend instead. There is also a growing army of small business owners who are investing in new ventures, investing in people and saving for their future.
Of course, the new IR changes are not unbridled capitalism - there is minimum wage (the second highest compared to average wages in the developed world) and minimum conditions which must be met, plus many other laws related to safety and superannuation which protect workers financially and physically. Not to mention a welfare system which provides a safety net.
And Shonga - I would rather have people like me who advocate people taking individual responsibility for their actions, rather than government or unions making decisions for me. Your idiotic socialist ships have tended to sink a lot faster than the good ship Australia.

t.u.s

'Oughts' and 'shoulds' will never bring about change in the attitudes of the industrial barons of capitalism, so it is a waste of time talking about what 'should' be done. Answers to the inequality problem lie in understanding the personal identity of those who are making the sytem what it is. When they are persuaded that thier identity is better served by working in the public interest they will act more in accord with the welfare of owrkers. This is a huge task requiring a pardigm shift in thinking and one which calls for radical re-appraisal of priorities. Where then are the thinkers and leaders in the realm of ethics and what are they saying that will lead society in this direction?

t.u.s. You constantly equate the IR reforms and the lowering of wages, penalty rates etc with people not saving their money and over spending. This is not about what they DO with their income, it is about making that income stretch to pay for basic necesseties. You mentioned you have survived on small income, many of us have and still do, which brings the question, why are you harping back to this all the time? This reaction to these reforms is not about workers wanting anyone to wipe their noses, it is about a fair pay for a fair days work, and to have solid protections in place for that to occur. The workers of this country are not upset that their spending money will disappear, they are fighting for the retention of real wages so they can provide for their families. Many workers are not earning high wages, and still struggle and you once did.
May I also ask when you actually earned $12.00 an hour? Was it when the rest of us were also earning that wage, or when the average worker was earning less?
I applaud your frugal way of living, as many of us know, once we have gone without, we are all the more cautious in our spending. Having said that, I do not begrudge anyone earning enough to occasionaly have a holiday or to afford to pay for their child to go on school excursions, sports fees etc which is what the 'left overs' from their income, are often used for.
The worker is human, not a robot. There are only so many hours in a day, and to not have a happy home life due to working double the hours to provide the basics, is not something I would like to see happen in Australia. I saw it in the USA and witnessed first hand, the exhaustion and loss of basic day to day balance due to many working two to three jobs. This is what will happen with the proposed IR reforms.

t.u.s=t.b.t I realise that your house was a housing commission home, I have no debt, which isn't too bad for someone who obviously knows nothing about the economy. I dont even have a mortgage, or in your academic professional economist speak {house loan} yes you are the economic expert, who cannot see the interaction between foriegn debt and interest rates, and wage rates? David Boaz has similar arguements to you, however I can respect his point of view, because he has an underlying compassion for his fellow man, which is lacking in you. Are you aware that Sweeden had a democratic-socialist government for decades and during that time maintained a flourihing economy, the only difference to Australia, was it was a much fairer economy for all. What really amuses me about you is you are on the "right" of politics, and you think you are right in everything, which of course is not the case. Your side does not have a monopoly on correctness, and neither does mine. You give me the impression that you have a giant sized inferiority complex, and you need to be an employer to feel important more than any other reason. As for the Unions, very few employee's are aware of their rights, which is why a Union is critical, to correct unscrupulous employers, on behalf of the employee to prevent exploitation. You really have no idea about this subject, only a typical Liberal Party philosophy, without knowledge to back up your arguements, as you have not been able to refute even one of my earlier points, e.g. C.E.O's 1970 earned 4 times the average weekly wage, which has now risen to more than 40 times that wage, I can tell you what your answer will be, M-A-R-K-E-T- F-O-R-C-E-S that is what the Liberal Party say, instead of providing a reasonable explanation, as there isn't one, clowns like you should remain as employees, and not force your petty predudices on to good people, who are merely trying to make a living for themselves and their family.