Excuse me, all this economic clap trap is totally unimportant to us here in Australia.
We have bigger fish to fry, gay marriage. Please don't waste our politicians time by discussing doom and gloom of world finances. Get your priorities right!

Yeah, if it was only about being wealthy, westerners would sell their assets here and move to Cambodia, etc.

Globalization is a far-Left, totalitarian, world-government affair, in which Australia is being used and abused by foreigners.

"Only when Moral Hazard is expunged from the global financial system, interest rates normalized and the world undergoes debt deleveraging will the world economy recover its long-term growth trajectory."
Globally, money always has to come from somewhere and always goes somewhere. So the only way the private sector can deleverage is for the public sector to leverage.

"the swing towards socialism and protectionism"

Protectionism is nationalist, not socialist.

A nationalist economy can be *internally* liberal, while only external restrictions apply.

"Military instability" in the past was due to imperialism (e.g. Japan and Germany in WWII), not nationalism.
If all countries focus on minding their own business (nationalism), there would be no wars.

Well most of the history is right, but few if any of the conclusions?

We've gone from the third wealthiest nation on the planet and a creditor one at that! Literally awash in unprecedented prosperity!

And as a consequence of the rubbished socialism/keynesian economics!

To one now drowning in debt and mired by greed is good individualism, dog eat dog, bleed them till they die, stack and rack em, business models. Marked by the twin evils of unaffordable energy and unaffordable housing!

We could remain an Island of sanity in a world gone mad chasing its tail, trying to consume its way to a debt laden future.

Where homelessness punctuated by ghettos, squats and armed to the teeth, fear riddled, gated communities, will predominate a landscape nearly as inviting as the desolate dark side of the moon.

That island of sanity will be based on cooperative capitalism and energy and capital returned to the rightful owners, as opposed to those who've purloined it!

Energy needs to be co-op operated/controlled, thorium or biogas based. And as such, allow us to compete with all comers and dominate in an energy dependant future, for market share!

Capital needs to be controlled by co-ops that allow our money to be retained here circulating again and again in our own economy, rather than bulking up the coffers of offshore hedge funds etc/etc. [With a little help from their, rollover for a tummy rub, friends.]

Tax measures/relief that gave the cooperative models/owner occupier collectives a genuine advantage, would restore our purloined economic sovereignty, even as the enraged howls from foreign controlled boardroom could be heard from London to New york and old Paris town!

It's not their prospects that ought concern us! As for ("all for one") Trump, twice tripled bankrupt, (rat eat rat) economics?

The State of Kansas applied them almost to the letter, and in just three short years turned a once thriving economy, to one teetering on the brink of a regional, Great Depression!
Alan B.

Aidan's proto-communist economic theories again.

Aidan believes in totalitarian control of the citizenry; that governments control all money earned by their citizens. This from one of his comments in May 2016:

"Government money is government money, not other people's money. The government may choose to return it to the people (or not take it in the first place) but doing so has economic consequences."
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 23 May 2016 11:26:28 PM

Or they can tax, tax, tax and effectively enslave. Hey, it's the government's money.

Today he says:

"Globally, money always has to come from somewhere and always goes somewhere. So the only way the private sector can deleverage is for the public sector to leverage." Money mysteriously comes from somewhere and goes somewhere. Like a leaf in a creek. How profound.

Aidan, governments do not generate wealth. Nothing a government does increases the size of the cake. Governments actually COST money, particularly by massive expansion of the public service at vast expense. Every time a government interferes in a market, that market is ruined.

The "free market" poseurs in the Turnbull government - Greg Hunt, Scott Morrison, Kelly O'Dwyer, Scott Ryan, to name a few - have all supported government interference in the energy industry. They are in the process of destroying the energy market via ridiculous subsidies to wind and solar farms and compulsory renewable energy targets. And we now boast the most expensive electricity in the world (South Australia), with NSW, Victoria and Queensland in the top ten. We also know that South Australia's electricity supply is unreliable and that Victoria is following down that path with the closure of the Hazelwood plant.

Meanwhile, hypocritical politicians see nothing inconsistent in selling as much Australian coal as possible to countries which continue to expand their coal-fired economies at our expense.

There's no mystery about where money comes from, it comes from private enterprise, not from governments, from entrepreneurs and risk takers and to a lesser extent from investment, thrift and saving by employees.

The only risk taking governments do is going to an election.

calwest,I merely stated the truth. Your labelling it as proto-communist shows your fear of communism has blinded you to what's really going on. And this blindness results in you making ludicrous (not to mention libellous) claims.

I do not believe in totalitarian control of the citizenry. According to the test at politicalcompass.org I'm in the Libertarian Left quadrant.

I do not believe governments control all the money returned by their citizens; I merely acknowledge that they have the legal power to raise taxes, and that when the tax is paid it legally ceases to belong to the people and instead belongs to the government (which should be accountable to the people, but that's a different issue). Obviously you can't handle this truth because you think it's too much like communism, but that is a mental deficiency on your part.

Today I had absolutely no intention of conveying any sense of mystery when I said money must come from somewhere and go somewhere. I could, if you really don't know, explain exactly where it comes from and goes. But for anyone whose ability to think isn't constrained by an irrational fear of communism, further explanation shouldn't be needed to understand that globally if the private sector deleverages, the public sector must leverage by the same amount.

calwest, ownership does not determine whether wealth is generated or not. If you doubt that, maybe you should have a go at explaining how a private hospital generates wealth but a public hospital doesn't? Or are you saying they both don't? If the latter, I think you have a poor understanding of what wealth is.

Also, you seem to be trying to conflate wealth and money. They're not the same thing.

Government interference in a market does not ruin a market. I agree the government's actions have had a negative effect on the electricity market, but that is the result of the particular actions, not an intrinsic outcome. If instead they'd intervened by providing concessional loans for renewable energy infrastructure, the outcome would have been positive.

Hi Aidan,

An "irrational fear of communism"? That's tautological. There's nothing irrational about it. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ulbricht...just keep adding to the list. Millions dead under communist regimes in the 20th century. Millions more living in fear day and night. Nearly half a million political prisoners in the soviet gulags. I'd suggest that if you don't have a very rational fear of communism, then the mental deficiency is entirely yours. Or you could tell us why communism is a Very Good Thing. Go on, give us a laugh.

On markets, can you give us an example of government interference in a market where the result was generally beneficial - you know, an "intrinsic outcome", not the result of "particular actions"?

Perhaps you'd like to start with some examples from Australian markets which had the "benefit" of government support for producer and manufacturer cartels. Or just skip straight to North Korea or Venezuela.

And good luck with your aptitude tests at politicalcompass.org.

Hi calwest,
I think you meant contradictory rather than tautological, but I contend that an irrational fear of communism is neither.

There are three reasons why your fear of communism is irrational:
1. Communism is not a threat to us. Almost nobody here wants it (I certainly don't) and there's no realistic way it could be implemented anyway.

2. Ruling by fear, killing many of your critics and taking others prisoner are tactics of totalitarian regimes rather than specifically communists. Indeed these things also happened in the name of anticommunism (e.g. in Soeharto's Indonesia). And not all communists are totalitarian. You've made the mistake of conflating communists with communist regimes, but most communists have never been in power. And never will be!

3. Your fear extends not only to communism itself, but also to sensible policies (and even mere observations) you misconstrue as communism (or protocommunism). You seem to have failed to realise that we can pick and choose the policies we support and oppose - whether capitalist, communist or anything else, we don't have to opt for the whole package!

Regarding government intervention in the markets, I think in most cases the benefit is dependent on the details of the government's action rather than being intrinsic. For example, even with something as apparently one sided as emissions standards, the costs can outweigh the benefits if they're set too strict.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you asked for "examples from Australian markets which had the 'benefit' of government support for producer and manufacturer cartels" as private sector monopolies are generally a bad thing - indeed one of the main reasons for government intervention in markets is to prevent private the public from being disadvantaged by such monopolies. Admittedly I used to support the single desk policy for wheat export, but I now concede I was wrong on that.

Even public sector monopolies tend to work better when they're competing against the private sector for at least some of their functions.

BTW politicalcompass.org doesn't test aptitude, so you've nothing to fear from giving it a go.

Aidan

‘Communism is not a threat to us. Almost nobody here wants it (I certainly don't)’

Perhaps, but some food for thought …

A 2013 opinion poll (Russia's Public Opinion Foundation) found that 60% of Russians believed there were more positive than negative aspects to life in the former Soviet Union.
http://rbth.com/news/2013/10/12/about_60_percent_of_russians_see_communism_as_good_system_-_poll_30755.html

In a 2010 survey by the Pew Research Centre, 72% of Hungarians said that they were worse off economically than they were under communism. Only 8% said most people were better off.
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/hungary-better-off-under-communism/

In a 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, 63% said their life was better under communism, while only 23% said that life was worse. 68% said that communism was a good system.
http://www.balkanalysis.com/romania/2011/12/27/in-romania-opinion-polls-show-nostalgia-for-communism

A 2011 Der Spiegel poll of people living in the former East Germany found that 57% believed life was better in the old East Germany.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-tragic-failure-of-post-communism-in-eastern-europe/23616

How lucky are those in communist countries to actually have a tangible yardstick from which to measure progress v regress.

We in the West have no yardstick and no one to blame but the politicians who created the insecure mess we now live in!

What Globalism has given 80% of the world unfortunate enough to be captured by its evil, is real true and abiding inequality, not the gay marriage variety presented by those wishing to snow the real issues of life for the majority, such as unaffordable housing and insecure employment.

Yep, I think communism sounds like a good alternative! There is a security attached to it, (if behaviour is attuned)!

".. irrational fear rears its ugly head whenever reformers seek to do things differently from time-honoured so-called sound banking practice. From the start it was to be the Bank of the Commonwealth Government. In June 1912 Denison Miller was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth Bank. He issued no debentures, but opened savings banks throughout Australia, and used the money he obtained in this way as his capital. He thus avoided being indebted and having to pay interest to anybody but his depositors."
-
This was communism and possibly Communism.

With a simple stroke of a pen, the entire housing market of Australia could be Nationalised. Housing apportioned by need, with families a priority.
Initiate a debt jamboree, which ensures mortgage holders don't end their days in debtors prison. Nationalise the major banks. Nationalise key industries such as water and power.
Scrutinise all foreign investment for national interest protection.

Since 80% of Australians are now excluded from economic progress, a political party which promises these innovations would be a winner! Communism?

Nationalised Socialism might be a winner with peoples' cars , autobahns and bullet trains.

Herr OberShortenElektricfuhrer Turnbull inspected Snowy Hydro from Luftwaffe 1 helicopter and ordered a 5 Year Plan for workers and peasants. "I'm in debt to you" he admitted to Kim Surf-Ing a burqa-clad banker from China-Autobarn and Colombian Exports smuggling coal out of Indian Qld.

diver dan,
"With a simple stroke of a pen, the entire housing market of Australia could be Nationalised."
No it couldn't.
I suggest you watch The Castle.

We don't have debtors prisons; we have bankruptcy laws instead.
And when a previous government tried to nationalize the banks, the backlash led to the formation of the Liberal Party.

We don't need communism to make housing affordable and employment secure. Globalization is not to blame for the bad economic policy that's been implemented.

Hi Aidan,

The Liberal Party was formed in August 1945. The Chifley government decided to nationalise the banks in August 1947 and failed when the High Court declared the move unconstitutional. Confirmed by the Privy Council.

The bank nationalisation policy did not lead to the formation of the Liberal Party.

Yes, contradictory, not tautological. No idea what I was thinking.

The major totalitarian governments were all communist and the main exception, Hitler's Germany, claimed to be socialist. It really is nit-picking to spin those facts as simply the actions of totalitarians rather than communists. Totalitarianism was a fundamental part of the communist package, starting with Lenin, who had no problem with liquidating his colleagues.

What we know for certain is that communism is not and was not the utopia Diver Dan seems to think it is. If there is no financial incentive available, why bother to be productive? Such an economy eventually stagnates, as history has shown.

While there is little chance that an overtly communist party would win many votes here, we do have a large chunk of the electorate who are hard left supporters of the Greens and Labor. Communists in spirit.

As for "public opinion" in Russia, Hungary and the former East Germany, those are very dubious polls Killarney references. Such opinions are impressionistic, not based on any evidence or facts. Remember the good old days? Remember how "secure" it was as long as you didn't express an opinion?

Yes, there is a pro-communist rump in the former Soviet Union. Quite possibly those who were in privileged positions pre-perestroika. Or perhaps they simply lacked the education and skills to cope in a capitalist economy.

There's a large Russian and former soviet states community in Australia now (as there have been of Hungarian and Czech imigres in the past). I've met a lot of them. Wonderful people.

They seem to be very happy to call Australia home and couldn't wait to get the hell out when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Their children, now well-educated, high-achieving adults are doing just fine here.

Dear Calwest,

«What we know for certain is that communism is not and was not the utopia Diver Dan seems to think it is. If there is no financial incentive available, why bother to be productive?»

Correct, but it's so sad that you could not come up with a better counter-argument!

Is THIS our main reason for detesting communism, that it's an economic disaster (which it is)?
Suppose communism happened to be economically brilliant, would you then embrace it?

---

Dear Dan,

«We in the West have no yardstick»

Please speak for yourself: I live in the West and I have a very clear yardstick. I don't need government or politicians to provide me with one.

«Yep, I think communism sounds like a good alternative! There is a security attached to it»

So where would a religious person like yourself end up under communism? In a very secure prison or gulag, or securely six feet underground!

---

Dear Aidan,

Thank you for introducing us to "politicalcompass.org".
I am happy to share your quadrant: http://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-1.0&soc=-4.05

Regrettably it's only two-dimensional as the most important dimension is missing - the spiritual dimension.

cakwest,
I stand corrected regarding the formation of the Liberals.

"The major totalitarian governments were all communist..."
This form of cherry picking proves nothing. What stops nationalist China from being "major"? And why should the minor ones be ignored? Totalitarianism is totalitarianism whether it's Communist, Anticommunist, Baathist or anything else.

"Totalitarianism was a fundamental part of the communist package, starting with Lenin, who had no problem with liquidating his colleagues"
It may have escaped your attention, but Trotsky (the most famous of those liquidated colleagues, though it was Stalin not Lenin who ordered him killed) had quite a following. Indeed a large proportion of communists today are Trotskyists. It would be fanciful to imagine they'd have the same attitude as Trotsky's killers. Indeed this highlights the idiocy of regarding communism and capitalism as packages rather than collections of policies we can pick and choose from.

There does indeed need to be financial incentive available. But don't make the mistake of assuming that incentive is all that's needed. Opportunity is a far bigger limiting factor at the moment. Indeed ample opportunity but little reward is so preferable to ample reward but little opportunity to get it, it's hardly surprising that people remembered communist times fondly, especially straight after the GFC.

Aidan,

Communist China was - until relatively recently - communist, not nationalist. I certainly regard the Chinese communist revolution as "major". Indeed, I specifically mentioned Mao.

As for Trotsky, he was a failure and died in exile. That a large number of poseurs admire him is neither here nor there.

Similarly, communism and capitalism are indeed incompatible packages. One can't pick and choose from each package. That's why the US and its allies won the Cold War: capitalism was more efficient and effective than Soviet communism.

Individuals should make their opportunities. It's not up to governments to spend the taxes of productive individuals on rewarding people who are unwilling to get qualifications or, in way too many cases, are unwilling to work anyway and expect to be supported by those who do.

Small businesses create jobs. The owners know what any particular job is worth to them. It is certainly not up to small business owners to subsidise uneconomically high wages for employees. That would end in business failure and tears.

It's simple: revenue minus costs equals profit or loss. If the business is making a loss or too small a profit, it will fail. That is why the moronic idea of penalty rates has been a disaster: small businesses, in particular, simply can't carry the extra load, so they don't bother to open on, say, long weekends. The part-time or casual jobs employees relied upon disappear, the long term picture is lost jobs and lost income.

Here's an example from communist Kerala, India: a few years ago, government agencies decided to pay their employees an annual bonus with taxpayers' money. The government decided that private businesses should do that, too, forcing businesses, which had already entered employment agreements with each employee, to pay them an extra month's salary every year. Sound sustainable? Only to a communist.

Mind you, we now have the Turnbull government legislating a special tax for banks and trying to tell banks, via ASIC and APRA, how much they should pay their executives. Without trial or arbitration.

Calwest

‘As for "public opinion" in Russia, Hungary and the former East Germany, those are very dubious polls Killarney references. Such opinions are impressionistic, not based on any evidence or facts. Remember the good old days?’

If public opinion is ‘dubious’, why do we have so many opinion polls to measure it – especially before elections? Why are the advertising and public relations industries so influential? And as for nostalgia, those polls were taken only 20 years after the end of the Soviet Union. Not long enough in the average lifespan for amnesiac nostalgia to take hold.

Aidan

‘Yep, I think communism sounds like a good alternative! There is a security attached to it, (if behaviour is attuned)!’

Yes, financial incentive, initiative, ambition, entrepreneurial freedom and all that are well and good, but how many people place these as their highest priority in life? Only a small percentage of people in every generation are wired to be successful in a highly competitive commercial environment .

Much of the anti-communism brainwashing most Westerners receive from the cradle to the grave focuses obsessively on gulags, secret police and the suppression of freedoms and movement (which, according to people I’ve known who grew up under Communism, are highly exaggerated). This acts as a major fear-inducing distraction from the enormous advantages of the safety net and secure employment that virtually everyone enjoyed in communist countries.

As one man commented in the East German opinion poll cited in my last comment, the first time in his life that he ever encountered unemployment, poverty, homelessness and street begging was after the Berlin Wall fell.

Correction: It was diver dan I should have addressed my last comment to, not Aidan.

Dear Killarney,

«and secure employment that virtually everyone enjoyed in communist countries.»

That is, whether or not they wanted to work (especially when having no ability to choose the type, conditions, companions, risks and hours of work).

You might have enjoyed it, but it is called 'slavery'.

Actually, the first Australian convicts also "enjoyed" this "privilege" of zero unemployment.

calwest,
Nationalist China and Communist China are not the same thing. The former refers to the Republic Of China, which used to control mainland China before the communists overthrew it and the nationalists retreated to Taiwan. Though the ROC is now a democracy, it was certainly totalitarian under Chiang Kai-shek's rule.

That Trotsky was a failure is neither here nor there - after all, his apparently successful contemporaries also ultimately failed. Communists think they can succeed where others have failed, so Trotsky's failure is hardly likely to daunt them.

"Similarly, communism and capitalism are indeed incompatible packages. One can't pick and choose from each package."
Sweden did.
Indeed much of western Europe did!

"That's why the US and its allies won the Cold War: capitalism was more efficient and effective than Soviet communism."
I doubt it. Not the bit about efficiency ( I concur with that) but the Soviet Union really lost the Cold War when its economy collapsed as a result of keeping the Rouble above market value for too long.

(TBC tomorrow - I'm too tired to keep going tonight)

Yuyutsu

'That is, whether or not they wanted to work (especially when having no ability to choose the type, conditions, companions, risks and hours of work)./You might have enjoyed it, but it is called 'slavery'.'

Where do you get the idea that workers had no ability to choose the type, conditions, companions, risks and hours of work? I suspect you got this from the usual Western anti-communist propaganda that equates communism/socialism with slavery. I know several people who grew up under communism and none of them claim to have been restricted on the type of work they wanted to do. On the contrary, individual skills were highly prized.

The security of full employment allowed people to pay their bills - that is, the few bills they had to pay, as public services and utilities were financed by the state.

The real slavery is the Western capitalist debt system, inextricably linked to privatised services - from university education to home ownership, from privatised electricity providers to unaffordable rents and exorbitant health insurance premiums.

FMD there are some totally blind pro-Capitalist suckers on board this OLO ship of fantasy.

Killarney "The real slavery is the Western capitalist debt system, inextricably linked to privatised services - from university education to home ownership, from privatised electricity providers to unaffordable rents and exorbitant health insurance premiums."

Most of those costs are voluntary.
If you are a "slave" paying for your degree, mortgage, etc. you *chose* to take on that debt.
You were not *forced* to go to uni or buy a house, so you are no "slave".

Aidan,

I'm well aware of the history of the communist Chinese revolution. We were, however, discussing what you regard as the admirable theory and practice of communism, not the Chinese nationalists, which you introduced rather ambiguously. My assumption was that you were saying that Mao's communists were philosophically small "n" nationalists.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

But now you're sliding to assert that Sweden and other western nations blended communism and capitalism, when in fact Swedes would claim to have introduced socialist ideas. There is no hegemony of the workers in Sweden; Sweden is not a one party state that bans dissent. Unlike communist states, Sweden has electoral democracy. It is anhistorical nonsense to claim Sweden adopted communism in any respect.

The history of communism has a core common thread: where communist parties have power, the system devolves into totalitarianism. Again I say Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ulbricht. All the joys of the KGB, the Stasi and the Red Guard. You're welcome to the lot, but please don't pretend you can defend them. And tell us again how irrational it is to despise communism.

Yuyutsu,

A 350 word comment is not scope enough for a scholarly essay, but, in fact, the economic failures of communism are on the historical record and no other condemnation is necessary. However, so are the numerous social failures, the disappearances, the jailings, the torture and the complete loss of civil liberties. I'd have thought that did not need to be repeated.

Killarney,

Do you know anything at all about opinion polling? Many are rigged.
Many are misinterpreted. I haven't bothered looking at the polls you linked because asking people about the good old days doesn't amount to anything worthwhile, it's just a vehicle for current whingers.

How big were the samples? What were the statistical margins of error in each poll? What were the questions? Who commissioned them and why?

yuyutsu

'If you are a "slave" paying for your degree, mortgage, etc. you *chose* to take on that debt./ You were not *forced* to go to uni or buy a house, so you are no "slave".'

You're making a false equivalence argument with 'chattel' slavery. Debt slavery works differently, whereby people are forced to go into debt in order to obtain the things that are necessary to survive in our current social system.

There are very few jobs now that do not require a degree or technical diploma just to enter the workforce. Those that don't are very low paid.

So too, the only alternative to owning your own home is being a lifelong tenant. By the time you hit your late 50s, if you do not own your own home, you are facing a very bleak future.

So too, many people fall back on their credit cards to finance the rising cost of the basic requirements for survival. For example, a flat-screen TV costs less than half the annual medical insurance premium or electricity bill for a family of 4.

As most people are not born to wealth, they have no choice but to go into debt. Over a lifetime, they pay out about 4 times their net worth in debt interest. And the bankers laugh all the way to their own banks.

calwest

If you didn't bother to look at the opinion poll links, then don't ask me questions about their methodology.

Oh, dear. I did it again!

My last comment should have been to Shockadelic, not yuyutsu. Sorry, guys. All your opinions are important to me, regardless of what you call yourselves. :)

calwest,
We were specifically discussing your claim that "The major totalitarian governments were all communist..." so I ask again, unambiguously:
Why don't you regard Nationalist China (under Chiang Kai-shek) as major?
And why are you willing to ignore the minor examples?

Communism has typically included a lot of socialism's features (hence the second S in USSR) butI'm glad that you're now making a distinction between communism and socialism - this is a great improvement from Tuesday when you labelled hard left supporters of the Greens and Labor "communists in spirit" and my views "proto-communist".

But you still seem to have trouble distinguishing between the economic philosophy of communism and the political repression that's needed to impose communism (or indeed any other ~ism) on a population that doesn't want it. Which is slightly strange, as you've already mentioned the communist government in Kerala, India, which was democratically elected.

Now, continuing from yesterday:
Most individuals have neither the ability nor the resources to create their own opportunities. Just taking advantage of existing opportunities is hard enough! Yet because prosperity does depend on taking those opportunities, maximising the availability of those opportunities is in everyone's interest.

People being unwilling to get qualifications or even work at all is, if not entirely imaginary, exceedingly rare. A much more common problem is people being willing but not having the opportunity to do so. Likewise the related problem of people having to settle for doing much lower value work than they're capable of.

Small business owners do indeed create jobs. But penalty rates are far from a disaster - they're a highly desirable protection for vulnerable workers. You seem to have forgotten that lower pay rates are just one solution of many. Another solution is increased mechanisation so that the value of the work done by each worker increases. Another solution is to improve the economy so that more customers are willing to spend more money. Though of course this is beyond the control of individual businesses, it's not beyond the control of the government, and it's something that's taken into account when setting wage awards.

Dear Aidan,

«People being unwilling to get qualifications or even work at all is, if not entirely imaginary, exceedingly rare.»

The only reason it's rare, is that most people cannot afford otherwise.

Why should anyone have to spend their precious life in pleasing a boss; spreading the lies of an organisation; or producing such goods and services that they would never want or believe in themselves? Even those lucky enough to work for themselves get no joy of their work because they drown in a sea of standards and regulations. Regarding qualifications, these are typically about learning to perform a job in someone-else's way.

This doesn't mean that most people would rather remain idle, but most would prefer to severe the vicious link between activities and paying-the-bills.

Killarney seems to be right that this is the commonest experience in capitalism, but is socialism/communism any better? were people there more free to produce/serve according to their own conscience and what they believe to be good and helpful? I think not.

---

Dear Killarney,

Under communism, weren't those who didn't work (even if they could financially afford not to), convicted and jailed as "parasites"? Could people who worked and saved enough decide to retire early or take a long holiday? What about those who wanted to work in providing unapproved goods and services, such as religious ministers or producers of religious artefacts?

Yes, I believe that under communism people paid fewer bills - but what was the quality of the services that they received? They had housing, but they were crowded with neighbours and offered no privacy, the building standards were poor and dangerous and hot-water hardly ever worked. "utilities" did not include a phone and "education" was a synonym for indoctrination (although this is still much also the case in the West).

Yes, the Western debt system is a problem, but this could only happen due to the corrupt collusion of government with big corporations. Still, those who are willing to swim against the stream and do without luxuries are able to extricate themselves from this shameful existence.

No, Aidan, you've caught yourself out:

>"The major totalitarian governments were all communist..."
This form of cherry picking proves nothing. What stops nationalist China from being "major"? And why should the minor ones be ignored? Totalitarianism is totalitarianism whether it's Communist, Anticommunist, Baathist or anything else."

I take your point, but you didn't capitalise "nationalist" and you didn't mention Chiang Kai Shek until a later post.

You're a great one for the glib, unsubstantiated assertion:
"People being unwilling to get qualifications or even work at all is, if not entirely imaginary, exceedingly rare." No, it's not.

So, define "opportunity" and please explain who is responsible for providing such opportunities. Are you saying employers should be creating unproductive jobs for people just to give them "opportunities"?

There are towns up the entire length of the Queensland coast with vacant jobs in areas where unemployment rates are high, yet the local unemployed don't apply for the jobs. Apparently, they'd rather be on the dole. So Europeans on working holidays take the jobs.

Young Irish women acquire a certificate in traffic management in Ireland and come to Australia on 457 visas, working mainly on roads and construction sites. A survey published this week found Irish travellers were the best-paid foreigners on working holidays here.

In any case, what does "not having the opportunity to do so" actually mean? The education system has been dumbed down to a pitiful degree, despite the billions upon billions of dollars spent on schools, TAFE and tertiary education since the mid-1970s. Yet you say that people who have had the advantage of those resources are mysteriously unable to take advantage of the opportunities that other taxpayers have been providing? We'd better start slashing education budgets, then.

calwest

A lot of young Irish female backpackers (as with all backpackers everywhere) will do any job going when they are on a working holiday. A young Irish female student or degree holder will happily work as, say, a nanny or barmaid when she is in Australia. However, when she returns home to Ireland, there is no way that she will work as a nanny or barmaid (unless she is still studying). More often than not, a Polish woman will occupy that role.

Ditto, new migrants will work at anything, but usually until they find their feet and then move on to more rewarding, better paid work. Ditto again, university students.

Those bounteous jobs up and down the Queensland coast that Qld people are not applying for may not be jobs that they want to do or jobs worth taking. Just because someone is unemployed does not mean that they should be stripped of their dignity or right to choose.

No, calwest, stop whinging! Your objection seemed a little far fetched the
first time, but my failure to capitalise the N meant I gave you the benefit of
the doubt. But your repeating it now I've asked it again (being careful to
remove any ambiguity) is blatantly a pathetic attempt to avoid answering the
question!

And I think the reason you're avoiding answering it is because you want to
retain your delusion that communists had a virtual monopoly on totalitarianism.
By avoiding the question, you try to avoid having to admit (or even consider)
how utterly preposterous that claim is.

>Are you saying employers should be creating unproductive jobs for people just
>to give them "opportunities"?
No, I'm saying governments should create economic conditions such that
businesses can take on more people profitably. And also employ more people
directly (as there's no shortage of things that need doing). And also do a lot
more crowdsourcing to create more opportunities for the self employed.

>There are towns up the entire length of the Queensland coast with vacant jobs
>in areas where unemployment rates are high, yet the local unemployed don't
>apply for the jobs. Apparently, they'd rather be on the dole.
But appearances can be deceptive. Has anyone actually asked those people why
they're not applying for those jobs?

>Young Irish women acquire a certificate in traffic management in Ireland and
>come to Australia on 457 visas, working mainly on roads and construction sites.
So the first thing you should ask is: are there opportunities to obtain such
certificates locally?

>In any case, what does "not having the opportunity to do so" actually mean?
It means nobody's willing to employ them. Or in the context of getting
qualifications, it means the courses are not available in their area or there
are other factors preventing them from studying (such as lack of affordable
childcare).

Slashing education budgets would be deeply counterproductive. It's something we
have to invest a to more in, both to take advantage of opportunities and to
create new opportunities.

Aidan,

Let's cut through all your crap: why don't you just tell us what it is you love about communism. Tell us why you're such a big fan.

Is it the totalitarian suppression of contrary thought? Is it the random arrests, torture, jailing? Is it the accumulation of great wealth by the small gangs who have run such governments at the expense of the people? Is it the wonderful economic performance of communist states - you know, like the former East Germany and the current North Korea?

Go for it.

Go ahead, give the world the benefit of your great wisdom.

calwest,
I'm not a big fan of communism.
Indeed I'm not even a small fan of communism.
Its one admirable feature is that it focuses on improving the living standards of ordinary people and making them more productive. But that's not an exclusive feature of communism; indeed it works better, and is more sustainable, in a market economy.

My point is that your fear of communism is irrational, and is adversely affecting your reasoning. See my second and third posts in this thread for more details.