Milton Friedman's ideas have been a complete disaster for the average person wherever they were implemented. Particularity South America, where his policies can be defined as a complete failure.

His one shining example was Chile, where his policies had to be enforced at the point of a gun and the killings and disappearances of thousands ( Hardly the 'freedom' the libertarian groupies who worship him prattle on about. ) They failed so utterly that inflation and unemployment rose, eventually the recently deceased dictator Pinochet stepped in and told his "Chicago Boys" (Freidman's disciples) to get lost and renationalized some banks and reversed some of his policies. Only then economic growth resumed, even after these "reforms", the amount of people living in poverty rose and have stayed higher to this day. Real wages also fell for most fell. The is the "best" example of his ideas in action.

This is not even taking into account the other enormous disaster of Argentina and mass privatization there. Friedman wasn't around, but his ridiculous ideas were again in action.

Keynesian economics can also breed its own brand of corruption. State regulation is necessary only if the market proves itself unethical. Lack of ethical trading results in dire poverty, in other words, if poverty exists than we can safely assume that the market is corrupt. How do we teach ethics to commerce students? How do we ensure that an understanding of basic human dignity is imbedded in each economic transaction? These are the fundamental economic issues. It is about politics and values, not about mathematical modelling.

Believe it or not Milton's policies have caused great hardship in this country also. Most people don't see our poverty ridden population, of homeless poor families living in tents in caravan parks, this proportion of our population is hidden. Most posters I assume would not have seen homeless people, I have, and I've seen plenty, thanks to Howard's mate Milton.

We have a homeless lady and her daughter living with us at the moment because she is working, but cannot earn enough to pay rent, that's Workchoices for you, unfair one day, poverty stricken the next.

I can't help but feel any economic model used in its purest form is doomed to be a disaster. At each end of the spectrum we have two competing theories - free market capitalism vs communism, with the shady area we like to call socialism in between.

Lingering from the McCarthy era, we have a situation where the catastrophes of Marxist governments have engendered an ingrained attitude where criticising capitalism is equated to promoting communism.

Quite frankly, I think you need both economic systems to work well - government intervention to a certain extent, which I suspect will always fluctuate, but at present is sliding in a direction which can only result in disaster.

Communism arose out of the realisation that capitalism would result in very few hands controlling great wealth.
Communism was the solution, and it wasn't the right one, but that doesn't mean the realisation was wrong - on the contrary, embracing global forms of capitalism has taught us that it was spot on the mark.

Ideally, we would live in a world where friedman's teachings are used to a limited extent. Government intervention is necessary especially for core services, and a line has to be drawn in the sand as to what can and can't be privatised.

That being said, a world where government intervention is extensive isn't an appealing prospect either, as inefficiency is sure to reign in any market without due competition.

It's about finding a balance, but unfortunately we're headed in the wrong direction.

I don't mind capitalism, as long as it cares for those who through no fault of their own are living in poverty, a system that provides each child with a good education, a system that provides an individual with good health care and the opportunity if they can work hard enough to make something of their lives.

I suppose I am talking democratic socialism, because I have not seen this under capitalism. Rudd is a social democrat, which in this small country is the nearest thing we are permitted to have, which doesn't really come close.

Nordic countries have run successful economies with this system, sadly here, it is only a matter of degree as to how much ordinary people are screwed, not whether or not they are. Australians seem to have a masochistic streak in them that prevents them voting for their own good, instead they seem to vote for the Packer family, as though they were some long lost relation, or that they felt wealth by association, a huge inferiority complex.

In criticising free markets no one ever seems to give an argument why they would fail rather than just citing questionable statistics that the median income has hardly increased, or true statistics about income divide, or giving questionable examples of what actually is a free market (when, after the fall of Russian communism, the party bosses acquired many erstwhile state owned industries while preserving their govt. enforced monopoly status; or when businesses otherwise needed a plethora of bureaucrat issued licences to operate, this was NOT the free market in action)
To say that the free market, the opposite of socialism, does not work because there ends up a great disparity in the earning levels of workers is merely a tautology. Of course there will be, this is the nature of the FREE market: you receive only what you are deemed to be worth. This inequality of earnings is irrelevant when what we desire is a system that creates the highest GDP for the country.
If, to borrow from the Iron Lady, you are obsessed with spite and envy, and hate the fact that some high earners live the very good life, then manifest your malevolent orientations by voting for higher taxes such as progressive wealth taxes or death duties, but for humanity’s sake, leave the economy alone