calwest,

'Tis your mind, not mine, that's closed. To find out why, read on:

I can understand how anyone too lazy to investigate the validity of the arguments against them could dismiss my economic theories as juvenile. But I'm baffled as to how they could possibly be "pseudo-Marxist"! What does that even mean? Some libertarians take "pseudo-Marxist" to mean anti consumerist, but I'm not anti consumerist.

Some Marxists use the term to denounce self proclaimed Marxists who they feel have deviated from Marx's ideas, but I've never claimed to be a Marxist. I don't regard Marx as as great an economist as Smith, Ricardo or Keynes. Marx did provide a fresh way of looking at things, so his work can be useful to economists, but his overreliance on the labour theory of value means his conclusions shouldn't be taken at face value.

Now, take a look at some of your alleged examples of the Left's managerial incompetence:

"Pink batts."
Improving the energy efficiency of Australian homes was a good idea, but underestimating the problems in getting the private sector to comply with safety requirements made it a monumental stuffup.

While it's convenient for critics to equate failures with managerial incompetence, a more reasonable approach is to accept there will be mistakes, and learn from the mistakes when they occur. This doesn't, of course, preclude trying to get everything right in the first place.

"Unwanted school buildings."
The School Halls scheme was excellent value in WA where the state government scrutinised every contract in detail. It was quite good value in SA, and IIRC in Queensland and Tasmania. It was only in Victoria and NSW, where the private sector managed the scheme, that huge wastage occurred. Surely the best lesson to take from this is that a capable public sector leads to greater efficiency than a minimal public sector?

(to be continued)

calwest (continued)
"NBN"
Labor sensibly went with FTTH, which was really the only option with sufficiently good results to justify government intervention rather than leaving everything to the private sector. The plan wasn't perfect and like most large projects there were some issues with delivery. But those issues were being sorted.

As I said before, the Libs did make one major efficiency improvement: taking advantage of existing HFC. But overall they wrecked the efficiency by wasting money on FTTN. Managerial incompetence at its worst!

"NDIS with virtually no funding. Gonski with partial funding."
In both cases the government and opposition both said they were willing to commit the funding. Then after winning the election, the Libs started to claim we couldn't afford it.

"Labor's border "protection" catastrophe."
...Which the Liberals could have stopped by supporting the Malaysia Solution. Instead they blocked that for political reasons and ultimately implemented something much crueller.

"Swan budget surpluses which never arrived."
I agree that was incompetence. But treasurers' incompetence seems to be bipartisan – Joe Hockey made the same mistake. And though Peter Costello has a reputation for economic competence, it's clear from his comments on Lateline that it's undeserved; his success is primarily down to luck.

"Labor's defence of trade union thuggery."
They didn't actually defend trade union thuggery. But they thought the inquiry was rigged and they wanted it broadened to look at the conduct of employers. Though I disagree with their position, I don't think your false allegations can ever be justified!

"Labor's contempt for the Australian Defence Force."
In what sense was Labor contemptuous for the ADF?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Tristan,

Union corruption in Australia is not a defence against repression.

Allowing strikes over things that are beyond employers' control is anti business.

And giving unions the power to hold us all to ransom won't discourage union criminality. But it will make unions more attractive for existing criminal gangs to infiltrate.

Abolishing the ABCC led to much more union corruption. It should be reinstated.

Aiden I think Swan did a reasonably good job. He promised to get back to surplus, though - when it simply wasn't possible. That was where he messed up.

re: 'trade union corruption' - I point to my specific arguments here. I said there should be non-negotiable industrial liberties *when industrial action is taken in good faith*. Clearly there would need to be some kind of test for this. But at the moment restrictions go too far.

Tristan,

Swan's promise of a surplus "come hell or high water" was not only unachievable, but was grossly incompetent to even attempt. What he (and every other treasurer) should have promised is to never let short term budgetary objectives make him deviate from doing what's best for the Australian economy.

But it's far from his only failing. On his watch the RBA went feral, needlessly lifting interest rates in pursuit of a phantom inflation problem (actual inflation was below their target range, but they disliked the unemployment rate being so low) sending our dollar so high that it was difficult for our industry to compete, and counteracting much of the stimulus the government was providing.

re: 'trade union corruption' - you seem to be trying to use it as an excuse to give unions powers that they'd be better off without. You falsely asserted that union criminality was a defence against state repression. But it's really 100% about greed.

I've seen the way Britain's dinosaur unions act and I don't want it to be replicated in Australia! Our regulated IR system is much better: far fewer strikes and a much more cooperative approach. And you want to wreck it all!

You can't reliably test for intentions, and corrupt conduct may appear to be honest at the time. Besides, acting in good faith does not justify victimising employers over something they have no control of.

Aiden ; though some workers are so industrially weak that solidarity through Secondary Boycott is perhaps the only way they could get a decent outcome through bargaining.

If you'd rather it was unnecessary then perhaps regulate the labour market more strongly ; and strengthen the social wage.

Also re: greed. I'm sure that's sometimes a factor. But consider the falling wage share of the economy as well. And how do we respond to that?

Are 'modernised Awards' enough or did we deregulate too much?

Also where do you stand on Pattern Bargaining and Political strike action?

The reality is that restraint has delivered falling wages proportionately, and also a contracting social wage; a welfare system under siege ; and a general stigma and intolerance against industrial liberties...

A lot rests on actions being 'in good faith' - and there has to be someone to arbitrate on that. The question is how to get someone to do the job without prejudice or other agendas.

Tristen

You state how can one live on $560.00 per week – on full time work. Approx $29,000 per annum.

There are many in our society living on less than $560.00 per week.

There are several University and other Open Learning courses available on line in order to further your education and up skill you to a better well paid position and career path.

Why not try one?