Saltpetre,

fair comments. I cant really disagree with much of what you said.

Can i see a better future? Not really. Whatever policy choice Australia makes there will be consequences. Maybe i should have elaborated on that.

Also, while i do believe that Australia did not have much of a policy alternative in recent decades, I also believe that continued adherence will increase our problems. I support freer trade, but see recent trends as now having major problems.

As far as knowing the 'right'policy mix, i expect i am not alone in not having the answers.

Hence, my piece merely is as you suggest, hardly enlightening but I dont feel bad about that.

In my next piece on Abbott's prospects, I will attempt to offer some answers within my perspective which will focus more on policy possibiltes and limitations in today's world. Again, however, i wont be delivering an overly optimistic opinion.

Sorry Chris but this is a really mangled article.

Like those who have socialized science, education, medicine and infrastructure, this article demonstrates what happens when you try to do the same with economics.

Domains like economics are discrete disciplines and products of their internal processes. These internal processes respond to the inputs to produce the desired outputs.

The inputs to economics are investment, skills, people, material resources and an enabling regulatory environment. The output is national wealth through wages, taxes and return on investment.

When you try to inject social policy into the middle of this mix you socialize an otherwise sound domain. The result is socialization of the internal domain processes and you screw it.

To have any meaningful discussion about economics you need to remove the ABC, academics, journalists and social commentariat. Otherwise, as we see from the responses to your article, they go off into the realm of pet policy and ideology.

Nothing wrong with that on OLO, that’s what it’s for however, to have the “socializing elements” as the basis for your article compromises it from the start.

Spindoc,

Again fair enough comments.

However, as Graham Y has tagged the article, it was not an economics argument. Nor am i an economics specialist.

Albeit that my writing may have a long way to go in terms of quality or what i am trying to achieve, i am only interested in the policy mix of nations. This includes social and enviromental.

In all my academic and opinion pieces which focus on generalist topics concerning govt, my need to express awareness about eco and social issues is evident. This includes my brief stint at Quadrant 2006-8.

As a westerner, i am very much interested in eco, social and environmental issues, as is govts of such nations which must take account of diverse considerations.

I suspect i will continue to mix up social and economics, but i dont see any other way. I am not a specialist and never will be, so I suppose such an approach makes it harder for me.

I also do believe that certain academics and certain ABC shows, like internet media sources, also offer an important role in understanding how best to improve our eco and social balance.

Nevertheless, i always need to lift my game, so constructive criticism is always appreciated.

OK Chris, your response appreciated.

You say you “do believe that certain academics and certain ABC shows, like internet media sources, also offer an important role in understanding how best to improve our eco and social balance”.

Questions arising,

Why? Which certain academics and ABC shows? Whose understanding? What is meant by best understanding? Why should your nominated sources offer best understanding? Who is it precisely that is going to improve things? What is meant by eco-social balance? How do you get balance from the ABC on eco topics?

Finally, aren’t these sources by their very nature just their opinions? In which case why can’t you formulate you own opinion rather than trying to imply that your sources are other than argument by authority?

That was just one paragraph and I did suggest your article was mangled. I dread to think what sort of a job you are going to do on Tony Abbott but this is not a good precursor.

spindoc, no need to read my piece on Abbott if it gets published. No doubt it will dissapoint you.

As for my reliance on opinions, all scholarly or media work is an opinion, perhaps more educated at best. I wrote my piece in response to an ABC media show which expressed and discussed opinions.

Do you actually know anyone that has a mastery of 'the' facts rather than offer their opinion. If you do, i would like to meet him or her.

Even academia, which studies society, produce very different summaries of events.

Chris, thank you for your very courteous response. I don't think I really deserved such generosity, and was actually expecting a fairly sound rebuttal - as is the usual on OLO - so thank you for your openness and consideration.

I also share a concern for eco, environmental and social issues, and the impact, and future potential impact, of economic drivers on overall quality of life aspirations and realistic expectations. In my view this is a fine balance, and one which is poorly regarded - or almost totally disregarded - in the economic tsunami which is currently enveloping this finite and fragile world.

In this, I beg to differ with Spindoc, as I believe these diverse interests are indivisibly and inseparably connected - and I accordingly view 'pure' economics as mere mathematical construct, and as 'flawed' by failing to take appropriate account of downstream consequences, such as 'garbage', pollution and general health impacts (and possibly 'climate change'), as well as direct impacts on 'quality of life' occasioned by destruction of forests and over-exploitation of arable land, extinction of species, dispossession of 'natives', cultural disintegration, and conflict amongst and against the powerless, the disadvantaged and the dispossessed. An inordinately complex economic 'equation', I agree, but anything less is simply failing to 'insure' your 'home'.

(We note the air pollution in China, and their current and planned construction of multiple nuclear plants to meet exponentially increasing energy demand. A rocket ship, heading where?)

Small Oz. We have many 'smart' people now, and it's time 'tap' that resource to identify a 'balanced' way forward - be it more conservative welfare (less parental leave, more individual responsibility), childcare, not 'early learning' funding and exorbitant expectations (parents off your butts), more realistic wage and conditions demands, enterprise-driven service and industry development (jobs), more affordable housing, 'skills-based' immigration, and less ambitious 'higher learning' funding.

Preserve, protect and defend our national aspirations, and avoid the expansionist whirlpool consuming the sanity of so many others. (Let's not get too big for our britches, or 'soil' our 'nest'.)