The Forum > Article Comments > The Assault on the public > Comments
The Assault on the public : Comments
By Marko Beljac, published 14/5/2013Just about everything with the word “public” in front of it is under attack.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by Chris Lewis, Tuesday, 14 May 2013 1:30:59 PM
| |
There is a little more to this nonsense than simply bloodsucking parasites pandering to their corporate mates, said parasites also benefit because once public enterprises have been flogged off, the premier & relevant ministers no longer need to accept any semblance of responsibility. Ever since Nero, the bottom-feeders have sought to be free of hassles whilst still enjoying all the perks. mind you there are some like a certain ex-treasurer cum previous PM hopeful who figured that running a lobbying company didn't necessarily preclude him from doing the odd highly paid 'consultancy' job on the side with a view to 'looking after' his lobbying paymasters at the same time .... good stuff this getting paid twice to do the same job.
Posted by praxidice, Tuesday, 14 May 2013 1:48:45 PM
| |
I agree with the tenor and contents of this article. In one way I would go further. The Common Good or Common Weal are essential for the wellbeing and cohesion of any society and for thirty years before 2007 such concepts have been largely neglected.
Neo-liberal/conservative philosophy in its recent form first came into prominence under that charlatan, Richard Nixon, who, putting the interests of the USA even more to the fore than is usual, devalued the $US, and went off the gold standard. The second was probably unavoidable but the first led to the various oil shocks. The USA enjoys a tremendous advantage over all other countries because its currency is both the currency of international trading settlements and the principal reserve currency. This is another instance of Keynes foreseeing the ultimate problem. A first move to curtail that USA advantage could be for all other major trading countries to accept payment in baskets of other currencies. For example trade between Australia and other major trading partners countries such as China, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia and India could be a mix of those currencies as negotiated between the traders or the governments. A recent comment by the Prime Minister indicates that she is aware of that possibility. We have just had the example of a real asset, Graincorp, being purchased by people of a debtor nation, using $US created by the keystrokes of Quantitative Easing. Unless we use those dollars to buy back something at least as valuable from either the USA or some other country willing to sell an asset as valuable in exchange for the $US Australia has been taken a lend of. I cannot resist commenting that Peter Costello is proud of the Future Fund. I would be too if the Future Fund held investments overseas equivalent to the assets sold under the various privatisations. That way we would have an income stream for when out resources are depleted, just as Norway will have when its oil is exhausted. Posted by Foyle, Tuesday, 14 May 2013 3:49:48 PM
| |
Interesting informative argument. One notes that neo-liberal concepts, when given first preference by extreme capitalists, created both the Great Depression and the later GFC?
Largely by concentrating too much of our finite wealth, in the hands of too few, worshipping at the altar of neo-liberal individualism! Or that the period of post war Keynesian economic paradigms, in practice, led to a period of entirely unprecedented prosperity. All created by the widespread creation of increased discretionary spending by/for the masses! (Gradually dismantled ever since.) Or that the cooperative business model, was the only one that saw private capitalist profit motivated enterprise, surviving largely intact and unharmed by the economic turmoil, that was the Great Depression. Or that a basically bankrupt war-torn nation like Japan, rebuilt from the rubble, via the cooperative model, rather than the rat eat rat competition of common commercial activity! Activity that turned up enterprises like Enron, that apparently cheated millions, out of literal billions? Or, the clever creation by the clever people, of deceitful derivatives and Ponzi schemes. Then we have the privatisation advocates, regardless of the fact, that privatisations, seems to have no verifiable history of either price reductions or improved service outcomes, or long term improved Govt budgets. Just infrastructure run-downs and rising profit charts? It is beyond time we acted to put the word public back into public service,(energy and capital) if only for the social and economic benefits, no privatisation model can ever even hope to match? Rhrosty. Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 14 May 2013 4:56:33 PM
| |
Rhrosty ‘…neo-liberal concepts, when given first preference by extreme capitalists, created both the Great Depression and the later GFC’
Going even further back, they also created the slums of Dickensian England and the quasi-genocide of the Irish Famine – which, if the current neoliberal trajectory is not arrested, will be the resurrected reality of most Western nations by 2050. Neoliberalism is the 20th century extension of laissez-faire, with some fancy economic theory thrown in for academic respectability. Foyle ‘… Peter Costello is proud of the Future Fund. I would be too if the Future Fund held investments overseas equivalent to the assets sold under the various privatisations.’ It beggars belief that this disastrous and totally predicted consequence of 1980s neoliberalism is surgically removed from all mainstream discussion of why so many Western countries sank so quickly into bankruptcy after the GFC. Privatisation destroyed a large portion of sovereign revenue for many countries, and moved it to the private sector and, more often than not, offshore. Combined with the fanatical neoliberal devotion to tax cuts, governments had little choice but to borrow heavily to fund infrastructure and social spending. Posted by Killarney, Tuesday, 14 May 2013 6:31:12 PM
| |
Public lavatory, public enemy, public nuisance … Lots of things starting with “public” are not under attack.
According to Marko: ‘if something with the word “public “in front of it is designed to serve “the public,” … then it’s under attack.’ This is nonsense. An attack on child labour or child poverty is not an attack on children. Even if we take “public” to indicate “intended for the public good”, that is no guarantee that spending ever-increasing amounts on it is in the public’s interests. Do “public services” actually deliver the benefits expected? Is this the best use of “public” funds? Are they value for money, given that the “public” foots the bill for them as well as getting the use of them? If public services are under attack with anything, it is with dollars. Spending on health and education has risen far faster than is needed to match population growth and inflation. Between 2002-03 and 20011-12, Australia’s Consumer Price Index rose by 28% and its population by 14%, meaning that spending on government services would need to increase by 46% to sustain its real per capita level. Over this period total general government spending rose by 90%, including growth of 113% in health spending, 86% on education and 112% on housing and community services. Even compared to GDP growth of 84%, these items grew in relative terms. Hardly an “assault”. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5512.02011-12?OpenDocument Inequality has indeed increased in Australia and most developed economies, but in Australia the change has been relatively modest, and not consistent. Mirko argues that the “rich have gotten richer in the past 30 years by extracting resources from, and by lowering their obligations to, the wider population”. The growth in government spending would suggest otherwise. Spending on social security and welfare rose by 82% over the period analysed above, despite a decline in the unemployment rate. It’s true that the rich have got richer, but so have the poor. After allowing for inflation and household composition, low, middle and high income groups have experienced significant real income growth in the past few years: http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/DBE855896D8CA36DCA2578FB0018533C/$File/65230_2009-10.pdf Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 14 May 2013 7:59:10 PM
|
The role of 'the public domain' in policy making will be with us for a long time yet. It has a history in the Western experience as important as any rightful emphasis on the individual.
The key is always getting the right balance, depending on the context, and i expect this will long remain the case. This will be the same for Coalition and Labor govts.
It is up to supporters of the public interest to better articulate the case in these difficult times. This is a new era that will demand commentary and scholarship of the highest order