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

Who gets to deem what your worth Edward? Coz I reckon I am worth heaps, and so does me mum!

Edward Carson:

"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"

This is the absolute heart of the matter. My questions here are:

What of the accelerated nature of this income divide? If it were a static phenomenon then perhaps it would be an acceptable outcome for society, but surely if it continues to accelerate then you will have a tiny number of people controlling the vast majority of world wealth. In this situation, would it not be logical to assume they will use their wealth and power to maintain this status quo, thus warping the 'free market' intent of the free market economy? You say the free market economy is designed to reward the deserving, but is this still the case when the powerful few act to maintain this status quo?

When you say highest GDP for the country, what do you define as "for the country"
What of profit derived by multinational corporations? what of companies that outsource their labor to cheaper economies?
In the ultimate ideal of the free-market system there is no wage regulation so is acceptable to farm out labor to the cheapest provider. Throughout recent decades, this has been almost entirely unskilled labor, but as China and India mobilise their workforce for better education, I can only assume that more skilled work - such as IT - will also be contracted to other nations, aided by vastly improved telecommunications.

When you say "for humanity’s sake, leave the economy alone" I can only feel that it is for humanity's sake that you must have some form of intercession to prevent any particular economic ideology from running rampant and to restore some semblance of a balance between competition policy and social justice.

Unrestricted trading allows people to charge whatever price the market will bear. This can lead to price gouging or if you read Crikey the CEO of Qantas earning amazing bonuses while the catering crew, cleaners etc struggle to earn a living wage.

At the moment young people looking for work in Brisbane are facing the annual range of predatory behaviours by employers who expect young casuals to work for no pay, while they are being trained or attending meetings - under Workchoices employees are still entitled to be paid for training and attending meetings.

You can argue that the Iron Lady did wonders for the UK. Before she got into power there were no homeless people in England, there were jobs and there was cradle to grave health care, there was dental care. Now how much of that still exists in the UK?

The World Bank and IMF need to be held accountable for the destruction of social structures in the old Soviet Union. Who insisted that the state assets be sold off at fire sale prices? The World Bank and IMF need to be reviewed to ensure that their policies improve the conditions of the beneficiary countries not just the American sub contractors.

Just because Rupert Murdoch tells me via his newspapers that extreme wealth is good for everyone - I beg to disagree, extreme capitalism might help his family but it doesn't help me.

As Australia dries out if we permit the market to dictate which land remains in agriculture and which land is taken out of agriculture, we face the danger that the land that is taken out of agriculture becomes a barren waste or desert. Its going to take money to rehabilitate that land to something environmentally sustainable. The gubment is going to have to stump up the dosh.

TurnRightThemLeft “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.”

Ask an East German, a Pole, a Hungarian or Lithuanian how “spot on the mark” communism was.

I find there is nothing like researching with someone who actually lived under it to find out if it really worked.

SHONGA “a system that provides each child with a good education,”

that is actually common sense. The better educated someone is, the greater their potential for productive contribution to the general community and ability to pay taxes etc. A good education system is an investment in everyones future, provided the teachers are teaching kids how to think for themselves, rather than towing the labour party line (as pursued by Joan Kirner and a quite few teaching union luminaries).

Billie “Before she (dearest Maggie) got into power there were no homeless people in England,” yes there were and a lot of unemployed too, plus the “hidden unemployed” who had “jobs” in nationalized industry, courtesy of the tax payers.

I could regale you with tales of horror under the nationalized health system, a system which was a pot of doggie doos.

As for “The gubment is going to have to stump up the dosh”
this is what you do not understand billie.
The “gubment” merely directs ever increasing amounts of your and my reward for effort (income) into pet causes, regardless of reason and without asking you or I first. It is your money they will be pi**ing up against the wall, remember that.

We are all worth the same. That is the amount which someone else is prepared to pay us. Now all you have to do is work out what to do to convince those who are prepared to pay you the most

To market,
to market,
to buy a fat pig,,,,

Over the last 20 years Australian governments have systematically sold off the fatted pigs. Telstra, Qantas, Commonwealth Bank, Suncorp-Metway, the Australian Wheat Board (now the infamous AWB Inc), various Government Insurance offices, airports, motorways etc etc.

The state and federal trasurers then gloat about their budget surpluses. Well I could sell my house, rent it back for $1000/week and my budget would be in surplus. For a while....

Having run out of government enterprises to sell, governments are now turning to Public Private Partnerships. All the while, the merchant bankers and lawyers have been growing rich on the fees and commissions. Governments then spend some of the proceeds on flim-flam like the 2000 Olympics - often feebly justified by the "tourist dollars" these events will create.

Meanwhile, my taxes have been going up, rather than down as governments trumpet their "efficiencies". Well they've certainly become efficient at spending my tax dollars, that's for sure.

-->"TurnRightThemLeft “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.”

Ask an East German, a Pole, a Hungarian or Lithuanian how “spot on the mark” communism was.

I find there is nothing like researching with someone who actually lived under it to find out if it really worked."<--

Once again, Col Rouge has turned up selectively misquoted somebody and then has proceeded to defeat this straw man he has built up.

What "TurnRightThemLeft“ was trying to point out that, while communism was not the answer, the problem it was attempting to address was. Which was the inherent failures of a completely free-market system (We can see this because it has failed completely wherever it was actually implemented). East Germans,Poles etc have nothing to do with the actual point.

This a typical feature of Communists and Libertarians who can't defend their ideas honestly. The reason for this is because their ideas don't work and are indefensible.

Subject: Economic Models explained with Cows:

SOCIALISM: You have 2 cows, and you give one to your neighbour.

COMMUNISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, then throws the milk away...

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.

ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.

A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.

GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are, when you find them you turn them into leather and go out to lunch in your new shoes.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. Both are mad.

IRAQI CORPORATION: Everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them that you have none. No-one believes you, so they bomb the hell out of you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy....

WELSH CORPORATION: You have two cows. The one on the left looks very attractive.

AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. One skinny, fly blown and drought ridden and the other fat pregnant and rare. You sell the pregnant one to the international market for a beer then shoot the skinny one and have a BBQ & drink the beer...

Col,
I agree thank you for your confirmation, education is the key, however if education is not available on an equal basis, then the opportunities I refer of course to private schools who charge enormous amounts of money per student, and then are subsidised by the federal government to boot.

Same with health if you can pay privately for an operation you skip the line up, those who can't pay die, what a kind, compassionate system we have, and the the little rodent than has the hide to refer to mateship, a concept of friends helping each other without payment, simply because your mate needs help, I hate hypocrisy.

Col - by that phrase I was saying communism was not the solution, but the diagnosis of the flaws of capitalism was correct. Yes, you can ask the people of communist regimes, and yes they will tell you how bad it was. I wasn't arguing that at all.

The point of my post is that capitalism may be the best system we have at present, but it needs to be tempered with a level of intervention, as the free market system is far from stable.
Matters such as wage regulation are crucial for a fair society that places respect upon human life, though in the penultimate free market economy such a phenomenon would not exist.

SHONGA – disagree, individuals should always have the right to invest more in anything which takes their fancy. For some, that is education for their children and others, enhanced health care. Things like a School voucher system and government support for private schools simply allows flexibility of choice.

TurnRightThenLeft “The point of my post is that capitalism may be the best system we have at present, but it needs to be tempered with a level of intervention, as the free market system is far from stable.”

That is why we have government.

Government should not control the means of wealth creation or income because, to “control the means”, preordains a vested interest in the market process.

Government is there to perform the role of arbiter or umpire. Government is there to draft the legislation which represents “tempered with a level of intervention”

An “arbiter” who has a “vested interest” has a conflict of interest.

I recognize the important role of government and would observe the excesses of monopolistic corporations are addressed by government through anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation.

However, the excesses of government owned corporations are never, ever questioned, least of all by the government.

Examples of government monopoly excesses

My travel costs in London dropping to one third of what they were when British rail operated a commuter monopoly

My telephone bills in Australia reducing with the de-regulation of Telstra

The failure through decades of the “Two Airlines agreement”, the consumer being charged excessive rates by an agreement hatched between a (then) “government owned” air transport corporation and its only competitor.

The “special dividend” which the state government of Victoria leaches from the Melbourne Metropolitan Water Companies (which it owns), depriving the domestic water users of the essential “infrastructure” which their rates and charges have paid for.

The notion of “state collective ownership” lacks the transparency, objectivity and accountability which is demanded of other forms of ownership, through corporations and tax legislation.

The free market is already “tempered with a level of intervention”

Unfortunately, with government ownership, “stability” tends to be debased until it ends up as “stagnation”.

Col,
I agree with your notion, however for those who through no reason of their own find themselves living in poverty, does your notion mean they should get what they get given,their children get a less than perfect education, and die earlier because they can't afford private health? This is not a stirring question mate, only wanting to know your view. As you are aware I find myself agreeing with some of your posts, I am wondering if there is an option for these people.

TurnRightThenLeft
The ”powerful” few act to maintain the status quo?
What does that mean? Maintain the free market? (Sure, but why is that a problem?) Maintain their position on the ladder? (there is no literal ladder, it is only a metaphor.) Maintain their wealth. (yeah, so what?) Maintain their power? (What power? A free market implies a free society where the law protects persons and their material and intellectual property. When we talk about Rup Murdoch having power we are using poetic licence when referring to how they “command” attention from Presidents and Kings and “dictate” when the general population reads and views. But in reality this is hogwash. Murdoch has less real, literal, tangible power than a parking inspector. A parking inspector has the discretion to decide whether or not you will pay a $100.00 parking fine in return of which you get nothing. What can Murdoch legally do to me to make me suffer? The ‘power’ of law abiding plutocrats only comes to them because they have the talent of giving the others what they want. Every time they attempt to exercise arbitrary power by doing what they themselves want rather than what the public wants they begin to diminish their power, by opening the door to a competitor. ((Murdoch allegedly installed Thatcher into power in the 1980s and Blair this decade. But when you look at it carefully was he really appointing or just identifying and then following two very competent politicians.)) If their “power” is purchasing power then come and make me the victim. Let them throw money at me to make me do things they want me to do. I’m ready to be bullied. )
There’s a difference between the power of the dollar and that of the whip and those who don’t know deserve to find out the hard way.

It gets complicated when you talk about world trade. The free market doesn’t have to imply that. Are you saying that if Australia was all of the known world then you would believe in the free market?

Rupert Murdoch openly says that his newspapers have changed Australian governments. Rupert always gets the government he wants, even though he is now a US citizen.

Alcoa's mission statement was "we are in business to maximise profit in a socially acceptable manner". That's clear and simple. It's up to society to set limits on what's socially acceptable. Its the role of our elected representatives to represent our interests and set the boundaries of what is acceptable behaviour.

No, its not the role of the market to set the boundaries of reasonable behaviour. Throughout history the markets have shown themselves to be prey to price gouging, restrictive trade, insider trading. The economists pure competition mrket is a mythical beast, but Australian farmers have long been held up as examples of units operating under pure market conditions. As such Australian producers regularly experience tomato gluts, the 11 year cattle cycle, the n year hog cycle, go broke prices for fresh milk, Australian Wheat Board.

Clearly under these conditions the foolish and unlucky don't survive. Are we as a society prepared to watch 5% of the market driven to the wall? Probably yes. Are we prepared to see 50% of the market driven to the wall? Probably not. Are we prepared to see 90% driven to the wall?

Does it advantage society to have the winners living comfortably and the losers living in poverty? Well that probably depends on proportions. The high taxing Scandanavian countries have a more equitable society than the the UK where the pop gods and aristos complained loudly about their massive tax bills.

Did I read Col Blimp approving of his dear margaret who championed the mass murderer Pinochet who executed 3000 Chileans in his first 48 hours of terror then disappeared and tortured thousands more in his reign, including the current president of Chile who graduated in medicine from Australia. The remaining population lived in grinding poverty, as you do when the breadwinner has been shot or exiled. The military officers lived very well and sent their chidren to Stanford University south of San Francisco.

Civilisationalist, Caroll Quigley, notes, there is danger in wealth and power co-existing in the same hands at the decline stage of a society. Herein, those with the muscle will protect their status quo, and innovation is arrested, as a result. Protectionism destroys the societal structures from the inside, making the decling society ripe to be defeated by a more able expanding society.

Billie
There’s a difference between a Danton using eloquent speech to communicate with the masses and inspiring them to rise up and overthrow the shackles of tyranny, and a Robespierre who doesn’t bother to inspire but just drags out Madam Guillotine to threaten force against those who disagree with him.
Governments and only governments have a monopoly on real power. Ask your mate the Great Helmsman about power and gun barrels.
Murdoch boasting he can change governments is like Sarah Bernhardt boasting she can bring her audience to tears. To the degree that they can it is to their credit that they can communicate, not to their detriment that they threaten tangible harm. I, for one, shall never fear words.
Alcoa's mission statement simply means that they will operate within the criminal law which is nothing less than what we should expect. Governments have the right to set laws but only laws that apply to everyone. No one, corporation or humble pedestrian, should be allowed to steal, obtain an advantage by deception, violate prescribed rules that protect the environment or dishonour a contract. But when you introduce laws that target one otherwise legitimate group in society for the benefit of another, you become nothing more than the grubby thugs you accuse others of being. (eg. why is it that an employee has the arbitrary right to quit a job but the employer does not share the same right to dismiss?)

P.S. Colonel Blimp was a Boer and Great War hero who certainly wouldn’t lower himself to petty, spiteful, class war jealousies. And he’d be respectful enough to use capitals when writing the name of a lady such as Margaret.

Edward,
"why is it that an employee has the arbitrary right to quit a job but the employer does not share the same right to dismiss?"

The employer possesses two vital powers: to hire and fire. The employee only has one power : to quit. Employees have fewer choices, if they want eat and live in safe accommodation. Correction: eating is compulsory.

vivy,
Edward is one of those power hungry employers that Workchoices was bought in for to boost their ego's. There are many good employers, who are not arrogant up themselves specimens like Edward, he seems to think he has decended from Royality, we both know what part of the Royal anatomy it was that he decended from.

Capitalism in a less extreme form than we have in Australia at the moment can be a good thing, the trouble is with any system when the extreme is reached as it has in this country now. More rich people sure, no problem, but a lot more poor people which is a problem. As a Christian nation, we have a duty of care to lift these people up to an acceptable state of living, it's our moral obligation.

Only when the last fish is caught from the last poluted river will man realise money cannot be eaten.

You right Edward Carson I was disrespectful but perhaps you should read this:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8413038

The one thing about this country is that if you come from the gutter if you have the will and perseverance you can do anything.

We have the ability to go to school, to go to university, get opportunities and generally if you have a go we are one of the few places in the world where you can acheive anything.

Shonga's comments:

'we have a duty of care to lift these people up to an acceptable state of living, it's our moral obligation.'

Partly we do yes and we do that as a country already, with one of the best welfare systems in the world. I know this because my mother raised us on it.

But we can only do so much, we have welfare, medicare, free school, hecs, scholarships, schemes for the disadvantaged, charities and the like.

There is enough out there so that if you are not an idiot with your money you will have an acceptable state of living. If you choose to work hard or get educated or trained, you chances of earning more are increased. They are the facts.

If there where restrictions on markets and it was anything other than free and unlimited, we would see many of us who started at the gutter stay there.

I am sure people like shonga would have more to whinge about though, which would suit her fine.

Vivy
You sound like you’ve never run a business or otherwise been an employer in your life. In reality it is not as simple as that.
A pizza shop proprietor advertises for someone with a car to deliver his pizzas. The first applicant didn’t bother to shave or shower before coming, the second arrived an half hour late because he got lost. The third was similarly a half hour late but he didn’t get lost, he just had to finish his joint, man. The fourth applicant is on time, presentable and keen. Problem is he’s not that happy with the pay and/or working conditions and thinks he might do better driving a cab.
Finding an employee is just as stressful as finding a job. Have you ever wondered why some companies pay big bucks to employment agencies. Some agencies are known as ‘head hunters’ who endeavor to poach workers from one company to go to another by offering a better package.
Employers, bosses and shareholders have to eat too.

Shonga,
By the plethora of grammatical mistakes in your post (the plural of ego is egos) and the 2.40 pm timing one suspects you may have had a well lubricated lunch. Good for you. You either are a talented person who can demand a good salary with commensurate lunch breaks, or you work for the government or are on some type of government grant. Either way you should thank capitalism for your lifestyle. It either affords you a high well deserved wage or maintains the fatted calf of industry from which the govt. poaches its take so as to be able to pay its tribute to all its ideological supporters.

Capitalism doesn’t create poor people, it merely highlights the poor in comparison to the wealthy. The working poor in a capitalist country are always richer than in any other country, but unfortunately that is always (unjustly) overshadowed by the great income divide that comes in the original capitalist country.

In a free market there will never be a last fish. As the supply drops the price rises and guess what? Pot bellied, cigar chomping, silk hat wearing barons of industry will realise that there is $$$$ to me made in fish and they will be doing things, such as protecting the fish environment or creating fish farms whatever, to guarantee that today and in the future there will be plenty of fish to sell.

As an aside: I remember about twenty years ago I visited a trout farm up around Albury somewhere. I paid my $2.00 to get in and then I decided to buy a 50c. bag of stale bread/ grain to feed the young fishies as I walked around. What a brilliant capitalist the owner was! He had people coming along and PAYING to maintain his stock.

CEOs cannot be entrusted to be societies leaders. No one elects them. By showing the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in Friedman economics that arbitraging criminal behaviour exposes we can garner a fairer market driven economy. All that is required is to legislate for Public Listed Company CEO combined salaries and bonuses to be no more than twice what senior elected officials recieve. And for bonuses not tied to productivity to be OUTLAWED as should be the case.

It is fascinating, under Friedmanomics for example, that Skilling and Lay were charged only with insider trading over ENRON. The Tragedy for America was that their criminal arbitrage of California power and of many nation's assets around the World was NEVER questioned. This criminal arbitrage which amounts to STEALING, still persists today with the blessing of US government.

With that thought in mind:

CEOs are not very nice people are they daddy? Do they have a theme song?

Yes as a matter of fact, they do son. It goes a bit like the old Randy Newman Politics song:

No one likes us CEOs-just because we arbitrage you up the eye
We may not be perfect, heaven knows we try
We pay ourselves multi-million bonuses even with the kitty dry
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's pump and dump 'em and watch 'em drown

We STEAL all their evil money- but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful, covetous and they're hateful
They 9/11 us, they don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll pump and dump them more

We'll save Australia
But we're gonna rape that flying Kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
Privatise their highways, mining, water, media, john howard and surfin', too

And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be

They all hate us CEOs anyhow
So let's pump and dump their women
With taxpayer funded childcare its as easy as ABC
So let's get cracking unzip your flys
As a matter of fact I think we'll pump and dump 'em now!

Harry Throssell writes that "Opposing Friedman’s theories were major 20th century economists John Maynard Keynes in Britain..." Not so. JMK died in 1946. In 1946 Milton Friedman was only just receiving his PhD.

Mr Ruting,

Jesus Christ also opposed Friedman's theories. Now he too obviously predated Friedman. But I don't suppose you've read any of his (transcribed) works either.

What's the deal? Watcha got? Want to let us in on it?

Kaep,

What planet are you on....

CEO theme songs.....

I day with your mind would be an interesting experience.

HHmmm, i hope you dont own any guns or work with kids!

Merry Christmas!

Realist

Realist/Edward,
The spelling mistakes are genuine mistakes as I had to leave school at 14 as my parents were unable to keep me there, due to financial constraints [poverty] if you like. I worked hard all my life, for mainly small pay packets, which I was satisfied to receive. I saved my money, built a modest home which I now own outright. I worked 3 jobs for 7 years to pay it off, I drive a 1991 Commodore and don't wish for anything, I am debt free.

However I always remember where I came from, and the struggle to get where I now am. I was lucky, this current generation of job seekers will not be as fortunate as I was, you actually need a certificate to be a cleaner these days. I know of families ling in tents up here in Townsville, and I am hosting a single mother and her child because even though she works for Woolworths, she does not receive enough money to pay rent here. This is opposed to Telstra C.E.O. pay of $8.71 million for the year or $10 million if he achieves performance indicators, which the workers perform for him anyway.

I merely highlight capitaliism does indeed reply on a poverty stricken class of people for the rich to remain so. I am not against capitalism, all I advocate is it should/must be fairer for those of us on the bottom.