Robert – Thank you

Kartiya - where do you draw the assumption that I am not advocating “helping the impoverished and disadvantaged to a better education , better health and a better life.”?

The point I made was not about the “to do or do not” – but about the “how”

My point is much the same as has often been used –
“give a man a fish and he eats for a day – show him how to fish – and he can sustain himself indefinitely” –

Most of the welfare programs, certainly in Australia are expeditions in just giving people a fish and when a positive outcome is suggested attached / made a condition – like attending job interviews or a course of study, such conditions are often resented as an unfair demand on the rights of the recipient.

Philo – your post and mine converge

Terje wrote: "Just for fun could you tell us what you propose as the replacement for 'economic rationalism'".

(Thinks : Ahhh! The TINA argument again.)

Funny you should have asked me that. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now, except to say as I posted on Margo's webdiary the other day on a discussion about the shortage of oil at:

http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/margo_kingston_comment/001367.html

<quote>
The essence of the neo-liberal economic orthodoxy which drives virtually all government policy these days seems to be that no community at any level - local, state, federal or international - is allowed to combine their resources in order to deal with problems common to that community.

Instead that community is always obliged to hand that responsibility across to some other body, that is a private corporation, and to pay that body for assuming that responsibility its behalf.

And even when those corporations aren't interested, because they are not able to make a profit, the community is still barred from acting to confront those problems, lest the markets lose confidence, if the necessary taxes were collected or loans raised.
</quote>

(As I have written elsewhere in online forum) Franklin Roosevelt turned his back on this idiocy in the 1930's when he employed millions of previously unemployed Americans to restore ruined agricutural land, and build roads and other items of major infrastructure.

Even the late President Reagan as well as Colin Powell have expressed their immense gratitude to FDR for having taken their fathers off the scrap heap and having given them a decent income and useful purpose in life.

(Will be back. How long have you got? All day and all night, I trust?)

We have more money and we are healthier than we have ever been. People are not getting sicker, life expectancy is at all time highs.
It is the poorest people who have gained the most in terms of health (apart from the indigenous community who have been hindered by too much welfare.
Relative measures of poverty are fraught with danger. By this logic, if rich people average $100,000 and poor people $40,000 and the income rises to $120,000 and $50,000, the poor people are worse off.
Be happy with what you have, don't worry about comparing it to someone else. Keeping up with the Jones is destructive Molly.

t.u.s.

Daggettt, I do agree with you but am not an economist so cannot argue about this aspect. I do have some knowledge of health and social issues and that is where I have to target my criticisms.

tus, your figures are out of date. Even the neo-liberals at CIS agree that there is an increase in health problems.

Diabetes and asthma are increasing, to name only two physical health problems.

Depression and anxiety disorders are also much higher. Check out Jeff Kennett's Beyond Blue organisation - no-one would suggest that Kennett is a welfare advocate.

Life expectancy has improved during the earlier part of this century, not because of capitalism. As I said earlier this was because of public health programs (get that? because of governments) that provided people with clean water, waste disposal and decent housing. However, life expectancy has ceased to improve during the past decade.

It is not the fact that there is an increasing gap between rich and poor, but the loss of the Australian idea of egalitarianism, of self-reliance and ingenuity and a 'fair-go' for all.

As Daggett says, he neo-liberals want private industry to provide everything and want us to buy more and more. I can't see how that makes us better off. We already have more than enough stuff but not enough community.

There is an increase in the diagnosis of some things - especially in the mental health area. Stress-related illnesses abound of course, with more and more doctors willing to give people pills to solve their perceived illness.
Maybe it was just people were too worried about their TB back in the old days to worry about their "stress".
Asthma and diabetes are hardly the same as polio and TB and because of research and devlopment are almost entirely treatble today.
Cancer seems to have increased for no other reason than people have to die of something - it is more prevalent in the older generations.
A child born today in Australia is expected to live longer than at any other time in our history.
t.u.s

col , "show him how to fish " ??,- today the howard government has said they want to import another 20,000 skilled tradesmen and women and professionals to boost the economy , while they withdraw support for state technical colleges and put up the cost of university education for all australians .
now that's choice .!!