This article is so thoroughly confused its hard to really say anything about it except that the author has grabbed facts almost at random from the US, Australian and European scenes - all completely different - in different decades, to put together what is basically a propaganda tract.

One of the problems this "analysis" faces is that most of the European countries he criticises haven't adopt neo-liberalism at all. The UK under Thatcher definitely did swing towards neo-liberalism, as did Australia under Hawke-Keating. Then you have to start hunting. So were the economies of Aus and the UK better for dumping a host of protectionist and market controls? Many people would say yes.

The GFC was essentially due to the US finance market being under-regulated, but that has always been the case and isn't going to change. This time around, the shock of the banking collapse in the US had unexpected knock-on effects.

There are those people who are intelligently left of centre, those that are mildly left of centre, those that are very left of centre, and those that are absolutely barking mad left of centre. After analysing John Tomlinson's article, I would place him in the latter category.

It is impossible to refute his long list of extraordinary assumptions and misconceptions in 350 words, so it would be better to attack the ideology which is the foundation for his extraordinary worldview. John appears to be one of those people who is convinced that money falls from heaven, and that prosperity is a natural law of nature.

One would have thought that the complete destruction of avowedly socialist economies in the Soviet Union, China and eastern Europe, and the tottering economies of Western Europe groaning under the weight of welfareism, would have prompted John to re-examine his ideology and conclude that the rationale which supports his thinking needs a bit of work.

But no, all we need comrades, is another five year plan. Sooner or later, it has got to work.

John's excuses for the demonstrable, abject failure or socialism and the welfare state, blame the usual suspects. We have to find a way to make the rich pay, says John.

The only problem with that, is that the working class people who once might have supported this silly notion, now realise that when John talks about "the rich", he really means them. The working class people who are going to throw out Julia Gillard and her misnamed "Labor" Party in the next election, are the ones now having their wages gouged by "Labor" people who delight in thinking up creative new taxes to impose on them.

And then John drones on about how there would be plenty of money, if only the nasty capitalists stopped making war on peace loving Muslim and Socialist people, for the purpose of stealing their resources. Well, that might work with Emperor Julian, Marilyn Sheppard and Arjay, but such a premise will not make any headway with anyone capable of reasoned analysis

Seems to me to be a reasonable enough analysis of the situation, not unlike the book Economia by Geoff Davies.

And completely within the situation described by Chris Hedges in his essay A Brave New Distopia-On Brave New World & 1984. And almost everything featured on the the TomDispatch website (introduced here http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1116), by Henry Giroux on his website. And the Canadian Global Research outfit, and featured on Counterpunch, Alternet, Reader Supported News, Information Clearing House etc etc etc.

Daffy - you did read the article, right? As LEGO says its just a hark back to political ideals of by-gone days, without the benefit of coherent argument. A major part of Europe's problems at the moment is that governments like Greece and Italy have burdened their economies with vast spending on public servants and on welfare, and are being told to kick the habit without the benefit of currencies that can adjust.. and now we are told its really due to neo-liberalism. Right! Actually its partially due to commentators like John who simply will not or cannot adjust their world view to reality, and are still employed in the media and/or academia..

One point the author has (deliberately) overlooked is that freeing up international trade, which has destroyed the featherbedding of protected industries and contributed to the increasing disparity of incomes in the West, is exactly what has enabled the grindingly poor economies of Asia to lift themselves out of the poverty trap.

Given the choice between sponsoring a Ford worker at Geelong whose take-home salary exceeds mine, and an impoverished Chinese labourer who can do three times as much work for a quarter of the pay, I know which I'm going to opt for. What a pity that Tomlinson and his fellow-travellers don't want to give us the choice!

Yes I did read the essay. Having done so I would add most of the items to be found on the Commons Dreams website and all of the items featured on Democracy Now.
Plus the work of Naomi Klein and all of the authors to be found on this truth-telling website http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com
Also http://www.valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com

In formulating his approach, John does a huge disservice to the poor he would help.
To try and describe the welfare products of much of Europe as neo-liberal, is just plain nonsense.
One recalls that at the height of its industrial success, German unemployment benefits climbed to around 80% of the average wage, and affordable in a climate of overfull employment and a trade-off, that eliminated unfair dismissals, as was the case in most of socialist Scandinavia.
Even so, he has identified an area, where we must now head, as we can no longer rely almost exclusively on population growth, or highly flawed neo-liberal trickle down theory or economic rationalism, that is anything but rational?
There was a time when the most senior executive salaries never exceeded thirty times that of the lowest paid on the factory or shop floor! And to make management worth much more than that, is just plain humbug/horse feathers/birds fur!
It is just as difficult to make decisions for 5 as it is to make decisions for 50 or 500!
All that changes is economies of scale!
Simply put, finding and eliminating poverty in all its forms and guises, will create additional economic activity, in all those areas around the world, we might describe as post code poverty traps, and in so doing, advance the financial prospects of everybody, further up in the economic food chain.
Some have proposed a tiny Tobin tax to pay for it.
And in truth, the actual amount of money needed to lift the poorest from begging to growing self reliance, is not all that much.
Particularly if you can bypass corrupt officials; or middle men profit takers; professional paid management or humbugging parasites.
We for our part need to produce and grow a strong economy, if only to be able to extend the sort of financial help needed.
Part of that story is genuine and vastly overdue real tax reform, coupled to cooperative capitalism; plus investing in our own people and their better ideas.
Plus, a charity starts at home model!
Rhrosty.

Daffy - referring me to other writers with the same bent world view does not excuse your support for the writer on this site.. the article is just nonsense and not even well argued nonsense.. the fact that the writers you cite make similar points is a problem from them.. I just hope they can make a better case..

My problem with poverty in the uncivilised developed world is that those who are poor due to policies get persecuted even more whilst those who are poor because they're lazy hangers-on get the attention of the social benefit crowd.
It really is all ar$e-about.

Allowing for Inflation, the GDP of Australia has doubled from 1965 to December, 2011. But something rather interesting happened in the intervening years.

Overall since 1965 the country is 2X richer, while the number on welfare is 5X.

The ageing population would be one explanation, but most baby boomers have yet to retire. The fashionable "dole bludger" surfie and hippie mentality that still exists among young people, could be another. But welfare social security has cracked down on that. Could the answer be, that the prime reason for poverty in Australia, with all of its attendant intractable social problems, is because we insist on importing it?

Afghans alone have employment rates in Australia of only 6% after five years of residence. Iranians are the next group most at risk from long term unemployment and poverty, with 88% still unemployed after five years. In Europe, 50% of the Muslim population is on welfare. Angela Merkel summed it up nicely. The reason for European stagnation, she said, was because "Europe had 12% of the world's population, 26% of the world's manufacturing capability, and 56% of the world's welfare recipients."

In 1965, 3 % of the working age population in Australia was on welfare benefits of one sort or another. Now 16 % of adults rely on welfare. Another take on this – in 1965 there were 22 taxpayers for every one person on welfare; now the number is 5.

Extrapolate forward and you see a vision of Greece, Spain, Cypress, and Ireland, with their own open borders and "refugee" programs, and their own national insolvency problems. The populations of these countries and their elected representatives were acutely aware of their financial insolvency, decades ago. But like irresponsible creditors with a new credit card, they borrowed until they could borrow no more, and they wished away their problems until the bailiffs arrived.

The Australian government is charged with the responsibility of looking after its own people. Not every other nations people. We either get real about protecting our borders or we go broke.

The Australian government is charged with the responsibility of looking after its own people. Not every other nations people. We either get real about protecting our borders or we go broke.
Lego,
I wonder why the present Government doesn't know about that ? Or perhaps they are aware of it but simply haven't a clue how to go about it because they're all of academic upbringing ?
Well, the situation can not be allowed to continue & we can only hope that some voters will develop a brain by September 14.