Why is it that we look to our politicians to deliver a just society? Both major Australian political parties are camorras. Where else in the world can theft of public money as a servant be classified as an honest mistake? To expect any politicians to rise above the grubby behaviour that they engage in and deliver a just society is an expectation that won't be realised.

The common factor in all politics world wide is that the move towards market liberalisation is inexorable, and the differences between the conservative and left wing major parties is only how quickly the changes are implemented, and how well considered are the side effects.

If the author of the article is expecting a federal labor to roll back the changes of the past 10 years in the name of a "just society", whilst the rest of the world continues, he is likely to be disappointed.

A different federal government is likely to slow the rate of change, but not stop or reverse.

sadly, alp in government during teh 1980s did follow/implement too many regressive policies - such as privatisation (as you say). however, there were also some positive social justice initiatives - for example, $$$$ directed towards primary school and primary school children on the basis that education in early years was important and could lead to fairer distribution of resources/opportunities for children growing and grown up; indigenous australian policies - not as good as one wanted, but in the right direction - eg the effort to remove 'white' bureaucrats from the provision of indigenous australian services and to promote indigenous australian representation by changing from the department of aboriginal affairs to atsic; multiculturalism - although toward the end of the hawke/keating government gerry hand as minister introduced the shameful camps policy (which now stands as a monument to australia/australian horrors); endeavour to introduce positive policies for women - although changes to the industrial relations system (enterprise bargaining) were regressive so far as low paid workers and women (most of the low paid workers) are concerned.

there was also hope during the hawke/keating years - which has been totally lost over the past 11 years. at least there was excitement in the air and the air was full of possibilities - which is not the case under jh and co and certainly won't be if they are re-elected - no wonder there is so much talk of and concentration upon depression at the present time - practically everyone must be suffering depression to a greater or lesser extent under the jh/pc government - except for those two of course!

Once the ethical high-jump bar is lying in the grass (where even the snakes can slither over it) there is no way in the world that a political party in power will do anything to raise it. The only way to bring about change in these circumstances is for external parties to expose those that are corrupt.

So, I thought the expose of the Transport Workers Union's slush fund on the Sunday TV program last weekend was a beauty. There should be more of it. The allegation is that the TWU's bosses took money from some businesses in return for not pushing them to increase wages for their workers. This resulted in a situation where honest union members in those businesses (that pay their dues to support their officials, and supposedly themselves) were being shopped by those very same officials. The officials then went on a spending spree dining out in the best restaurants in town.

If true, this is hypocrisy with a capital H. Just think. Some of these corrupt officials will get into political power one day. What does anyone think they will do when they get there? Serve the public interest?

Pretty much my sentiments.
The key issue is the development of a mass movement. The main reason for the Labor Party's demise as a 'working Class Party' is that it's membership is not representative of the mass of Australia's Workers.
During my years as an active Union Member, amongst 300 workers in my workplace,there were less than a dozen ALP members and of those only two or three ever bothered to attend ALP meetings, Yet,the majority of workers in the workplace considered themselves 'Labor supporters'

As a Union Activist, I was nominated a number of times to join the ALP but I never contemplated joining precicely because I perceived it to be too right wing.

These days I vote Green or independent, depending on the candidates policies and consistently put the Libs and Nats last which invariably means my preference 'trickles down' to the Labor party as the lesser of the two evils.
Unfortunately, the Democrats destroyed their credibility when Meg Lees sold out on the GST and don't look like recovering despite a couple of hard working members since being prepared to work to amend coalition legislation .

Until there does develop a mass movement, the best I can hope for is a strong green/independent vote that can successfully point the ALP in the 'left' direction.

As for the Union Movement, there has long been a movement away from Rank & File Control. There will continue to be scandals such as corrupt practices by some officials whilst ever their work does not come under the scrutiny of members at regular general meetings or union structures provide for efficient delegation and reports to Rank & File.

James, it's very doubtful that Labor will make any great difference to the plight of society whilst the general population resides in a "bed of apathy!"

The Australian population has adopted the age old "bugger you Jack" attitude whilst they continue to strive for greater and greater wealth, McMansions, SUV's and putting their spoilt little brats through private schooling.

The "boomers" may have started the guest for the "holy grail of greed" but it's the following generations that are racing down to the finish line. As long as nothing changes too much on the political scene, they're quite content in their race with the "Jones."

Both Labor and the Coalition know this and are also busy making hay while the sun shines or, in reality and hand in hand with the Global economy, using our resources and energy at a rapidly depleting rate. Both will continue to pander to Big Business realising that most voters are too tied up in their struggles for financial gain to put any real effort into demanding change from politicians.

Within the next few years, the human population will reap the benefits of their folly in accepting the mantra of an ever expanding economy and population. The end of industrial man will bring a renewed interest and involvement in Australian politics, but by then it will be far too late. We need a new leadership in this once great country. Howard's mob of backward thinkers must go, yet I'm not sure Labor are up to the task of preventing massive social upheaval once the resource boom grinds to a halt and cheap and abundant energy is depleted.

"Can Labor bring about a just society?" They never have to date! Nor have the Liberal party! Why should we expect anything different in the future?

Totally agree with your final remark Jocelynne!

Likewise RobP and especially Maracas. Exactly right.

(Qualifier: I have been accused of posting '40 words or less'. Whilst I await the attendance of the Word Police to bash my door down, I will say that I WILL continue this civil disobedience; particularly when others post far more eloquently on what I would like to say.)

If we had those brilliant lefty policies we could be really advanced like Cuba or Venezuela.

Instead we have to make do with low unemployment, low inflation and a Top 20 standard of living caused by the hateful Hawke / Keating / Howard years.

I disagree with Howard on some key things but I don't accept that we are an unjust society.

Rudds Team is ALL of US at a TIME when the WORLD needs our CITIZENSHIP and ATTENTION against unfair policies shutting out key "aspirations" to live in a JUST and PEACEFULLY supportive environment at ALL regional levels.

See my OPEN LETTER to HOWARD, RUDD, AUSTRALIA.

No matter what Australia, I believe; "...the Broadband issue, the ALLIED Health issue, the APEC issues like the Community Provisions, Services and Future Development National issues are ALL inter-connected. "

http://www.miacat.com/Open%20Letter_Sept_14th.htm

It's Down to Community Enterprise. Family supports (be it for mothers and children in Iraq or our kids at home). Global planning is impacting on citizens everywhere.

Technically this is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

We as citizens KNOW THE SCORE.

There is no one else to wait for now... the TIME IS NOW and IT IS UP TO ALL of US.

After Rudds election I believe Australia will go into a focused KNOWLEDGE, SHARE and EXCHANGE DRIVE. There will be some healthy hair-raising arguements. We will Problem Solve many things as a nation and we will once again learn better how to strengthen our pluralistic sense of oneness as an Australian Nation. AUSTRALIA is a leader in ethical political policies and debate in the everyday world forum.

I believe organisations like Candoo NGO (see open letter) will be able to participate in community enterprise again - without the adversity around ("LOCAL + REGIONAL PARTY POLITICS)

I believe "renewables" on climate change will be widely sought. As with balanced multi-fixed agreements for a "broadband-max" telecommunication plan. (i.e., e-democracy is a about cutting Red-tape, Inclusivemness, about having a NO WRONG DOOR POLICY!)

A FAIR AUSTRALIA POLICY IS PROVED BY ITS FOOTPRINT IN MARKET PARTICIPATION AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN THE BUSH.

Here transport is a key issue under-mining economic values. Fuel and insfrastucture depict our access to basic services.ie: Product Markets and Civic Health.

I believe our wonderful business minds will be more innovative then in any time previous. We need ALL HANDS ON DECK.

I believe there is a strong POLITICAL WILL TO ACT in Australia and Australia is progressively ready for this challenge

http://www.miacat.com/
.

westernred,

Any fool who has the good fortune of being able to sit on top of a pile of mineral wealth and is prepared to flog it off today rather than to preserve some of that wealth for future generations, or take care of our national and global environments and can create the illusion of being brilliant economic managers.

This is all the more so if the newsmedia that is supposed to hold that Government to account is sycophantic and uncritical, and if the Government is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of our taxpyaer dollars to promote itself in a deluge of saturation-level self-promotional advertising.

Most those positive indicators to which you referred (which in any case are flawed) are due to Australia's foreign debt increased by a staggering AU$200billion last year. Compare that with the $AU10billion "Beazley Black hole".

For further information, see my post at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6326#94409 and the associated article "Living standards and our material prosperity" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6326

Also please check Steve Keen's blog on Australia's ballooning foreign debt at: http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/?p=39 and John Hermann's article "Myths of the economic competency of the Howard Government" at http://candobetter.org/node/164

----

Sage wrote "To expect any politicians to rise above the grubby behaviour that they engage in and deliver a just society is an expectation that won't be realise."

One thing is certain: If ordinary decent people don't engage in politics, then we will continue to be governed by corrupt rulers.

If things are ever to change for the better, then many ordinary people are going to have to risk dirtying their hands by becoming politicians. Of course there's a risk that such people can become corrupted in the process and will end up becoming indistinguishable from what they once opposed, but that outcome is not inevitable as my article has shown.

James Sinnamon (author)

As an oldie going on 87 who experienced how Keynesism got us out of the Great Depression and gave us help and confidence to begin again after WW2, as well as a dying Keynes figuring out the wonderfully successful Marshall Plan during the Bretton Woods Agreement, can't understand why we have to change back these days to the empirical greed of the colonial days.

Regards - BB, WA.

The Howard Government is on the nose because it assumes money is the only motivation for people.
All of us do many things every day without money being the reason. Money is a not a motivator, it in effect, enables us to; buy food, drink, clothing and shelter.
True motivation often comes from inside us. We do things because we enjoy doing it; our work makes us feel good about ourselves. We improve productivity because we want to.

When manufacturing industry collapsed in the early 1980s, the union movement took a deliberate decision to lift profit share by foregoing wage rises, to the extent that real wages declined by 14% by 1996.
The workers lifted the profit share of the employers in order to be able to see a regeneration of our economy. In return they got the ‘social wage’via the ALP Government. This included things like Medicare, Education, Superannuation levies and the like, and it also included very substantial tax cuts, with a deal done with the union movement to ensure Australian industry recovered.
Politicians who think everything turns on money will loose the support of workers in the long run.
All of the above supports research that shows union members will fight 30% harder to gain conditions than for a pay rise. Workers will be 30% more likely to attend meetings if the agenda is about conditions rather than about money.

The “Liberals” forget the facts, when they pretend that the Industrial Arbitration Commission of this country is a mere instrument of economics. From the very beginning one hundred and three years ago, it has been an agency of something much more important and that is, industrial equity, a "fair go all round" or, as many would now describe it, human rights.

If you undermine unions, if you undermine democracy in the workplace, then you undermine democracy in the nation overall. First destroy the unions, and then you destroy democracy. That is when you can introduce your dictatorship, your secret police, your sedition laws and political detention centers.

The ALP has a completely unwarranted reputation for being the 'social welfare' party which cares about people. The reality is quite different - only need to look at the State governments.
Is Australian society so bad that we need to make it worse by voting in an ALP government and letting the union movement take over? That would really be unjust.

If I recall foreign debt in 1996 was about $200 billion, it is now more than double that. I don't think the proportions have changed that much.

Anyway there is nothing intrinsically wrong with debt. I accept that of more concern for the longer term is the capacity to service that debt. That has been manageable to date but it is at levels which even small economic changes could adversely affect.

I agree that Howard / Costello have had it easy with favourable global conditions and demographics which is feeding full(ish) employment plus they have failed to deal effectively with environmental issues. I think K-Rudd could do better.

I would have to add though - I will take liberal democratic solutions to issues everytime over Malthusian agrarian - socialist claptrap parading as viable alternative policy.

On balance - judging by the posts a "just society" would seem beyond our reach - sigh!

I am more optimistic - but I dont know that it will be Labor that will bring it about - even the most techno savvy social engineers are incapable of such a change.

All of the presuposes we are not a just society - I would contend we are - but we are just not just enough at the moment - we have blind spots - poverty, asylum seekers, aborigines for example - with the exception of indigenous affairs we dont do too badly - asylum seekers seems to be a fleeting canker borne of this government that has infected the opposition to a certain degree as well - I suspect the larger community will sort them both out in time - in fact the evidence is there already.

Juatice will come from the communty it will be demanded of the government to be implemente

Yes after nearly twelve years...and no sign of a just society with John Howard as Prime Minister,a change and a chance that Kevin Rudd will make Australia a just society,we have lost all under John Howard,and vwith some faith and hope, it may change under Kevin Rudd,not we do not need or want yet another term under this anti working family Prime Minister by name of John Howard,enough is enough,we need change for the better of all Australians

Look at the state of indigneous health under successive Labour parties in a number of States and you have your answer re Federal Labour. Neither Liberal, LAbour nor the minor parties have the capacity to bring about a just society. No one can even agree on what a just society is so this is a pointless post. Some people see the indigneous plight as the fault of the whites while some see it as as result of greedy black leaders. Some see the druggie problem as being caused by economic factors while some see it as being caused by liberal laws. Some see locking up illegal immigrants as just, some unjust. Some see David Hicks as a traitor while some see him as a hero. Justice is in the eye of the beholder.

I am disappointed that previous posts simply deplore the fact that money rules the world, and don't realise that the world does not owe us a living, and that at the moment, measured by our external financial position, we are living far beyond our means.

The other thing that no-one wants to know about is that we are coming to the end of the age of cheap oil, and that the standard of living of all of us, and particularly those at the lower end of the spectrum, has to be reduced considerably.

This need is not because of any inferiority of those at the lower end, it is because they travel further to work, using more petrol, than more affluent people who have been able to afford to buy houses within walking distance of public transport.

The problem is that we only know how to run an economy that is growing. The last time we had a sustained period of no growth was called the Great Depression, and no-one liked it very much.

Twice in our history, in 1894 and 1931, we have had our foreign debt called in, and that wasn't a lot of fun either.

At least the Howard government has paid off all our government debt, and any default will only hit private citizens with large debts, although, heavens knows, there are enough of them.

With it policy of "borrow from overseas and spend" a Labor government could have us in a major financial crisis in no time, particularly if Rudd plays silly buggers over wirhdrawing troops from Iraq.

Any doubters should remember the golden rule of capitalism:

"The person who has the gold makes the rules".

"Most those positive indicators to which you referred (which in any case are flawed) are due to Australia's foreign debt increased by a staggering AU$200billion last year. Compare that with the $AU10billion "Beazley Black hole"."

Daggett, you are comparing apples with oranges. Do not confuse
Govt debt with private debt. But of course some won't let the
facts get in the way of a good story.

To be good economic managers, most important its required that
Govts don't rush off on hairbrain fruitloops schemes, using
public funds! Given the Kehmlani affair, such economic financial
disasters as the Burke Labor Govt, the Kirner Labor Govt etc,
Labor deservedly have the reputation of being bad economic managers.

"It seemed like it was a good idea at the time" is no excuse for
pissing huge amounts of taxpayers money up against walls.

Keating was the first bright economic light on the labor horizon
for a very long time. But then half of the left were against him
too.

Communicat,

The evidence that Labor does care about people lies in the following achievements of the Victorian Labor Government:
Making government more democratic by changing the constitution so that the Legislative Council is elected by proportional representation and making that change unable to be further changed without a referendum of the people,
Making government more accountable by instituting the auditor-general as a constitutionally protected officer of the parliament,
Supporting freedom of speech by removing the ministerial ban on teachers debating educational issues,
Making health care more accessible by employing thousands of extra nurses,
Making the community safer by employing more than a thousand extra police,
Improving educational opportunity by employing an additional 5,193 teachers and funding schools to cap prep to grade 2 classes at 21 pupils each,
Making education more open by instituting a reporting system that tells parents the level their children are actually achieving no matter what level they are in and showing how much, if any, the student has improved since the previous year,
Improving the quality of teaching by setting up the Victorian Institute of Teaching to uphold high standards of professionalism and ethics,
Improving school facilities by investing $1.4 billion in rebuilding schools so far and promising another $1.9 billion in this term as part of a plan to rebuild every school in the state.

If I want to see Labor’s caring for the community, I take the dog for a walk through my pleasant rural town, whose tranquillity is protected by the Labor Government’s urban growth boundary, past the brand new Labor Government built CFA station, the brand new Labor Government built primary school and the brand new Labor Government built police station.

We aren’t scared of unions.

You want a just society? You can't handle a just society!

Why should it be solely on the shoulders on pollies to deliver a just society?

What are your definitions of a just society? Rawls? Aristotle?

Why is it always the ALP that this obviously pro-Greens advocate turns to when they're threatening not to allocate their preferences to them?

Why do people want to turn the economic clock back to the high tariffs and highly regulated economy of the 1950s?

Yawn

zzz

Maracas,

Why does the left have such a problem with the GST? It seems to me that the issue is just their idiosyncratic and symbolic bit of token resistance. The reality is that the Government of the day is going to get its piece of flesh out of society one way or another. Why not just accept that fact. Then its a logical extension to say that it (the Government) may as well share the burden more fairly (as the application of a flat-rate GST across the whole economy does) instead of overly slugging middle income earners to get its revenue as has been happening over the past 30-40 years. So long as the extra GST income is counterbalanced by a commensurate decrease in Federal and State taxes and charges (preferably the distortionary and nuisance taxes), the economic playing field will be more even for everyone. Isn't that the ultimate aim of the left?

Once you start flattening out the tax system, I suspect you'll see more opportunities for people opening up everywhere.

Chris C,

In some ways the Bracks made Victoria more democratic than it was under Kennett, but how could he not have, given Kennet's appalling record and Victorian's expectation of something better?

However in many in many other ways it has behaved outrageously undemocratically.

Consider:

* His promise to build the Scoresby Freeway broken and a tollway built instead. We know from "The Latham Diaries" that he refused Latham's plea to honour that promise, so Federal Labor paid the price for this in 2004, whilst by the time Bracks came up for re-election the odium of the broken promise had work off just as Latham had predicted, and the horrors of the Howard Government that Bracks had helped get re-elected paradoxically drove Victorian voters back into the arms of Bracks. (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=884#15571)

* His promise to build a railway line to the (Avalon(?)) Airport broken. Now it often costs more to get to the airport by taxi than the flight itself does.

* His giving away of Royal Park to the Singapore company Australand so that they could build housing under the guise of building an athlete's village for the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

* His agreement to participate in the Privatisation of the Snowy Rive scheme.

* His insistence on funding infrastructure projects as Public Private Partnerships instead of raising loans which would be far cheaper. They were so advantageous to the private sector that even the Queensland Government invested in Victorian PPP's.

* His encouragement of poupalation growth without any consultation with the Victorian public (see "Complaints about Melbourne 2030: record of submission to Planning Minister 16-8-07" at http://candobetter.org/node/149) when there is not enough water for existing Victorians.

James Sinnamon (author)

Chris C I am glad I do not live in Victoria - your examples do not impress. Many of them were underway when Kennett left office but the ALP claimed them for their own. Same here in South Australia - ALP is riding on the reputation of the previous government, especially in economic management.
As Daggett rightly points out they have done plenty wrong...and let's not forget that it is Victoria which is holding the rest of the country to ransome over the River Murray. (Yes, funnily enough Victorians do not own the river...it is a national asset that needs to be cared for by all Australians not just those who live outside the Victorian border.)

Define just? Is there an objective definition? Ask a dozen people...
Redistibute the wealth, perhaps?(Sowidawity, bruvvers!) And then watch it all go back into the hands of the people you redistibuted it from.(Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!).
Why should Labor or Liberal parties rule the roost at all? If you take time to examine the rules governing the electoral process you'll notice that YOUR local representative must be just that, a local person who is nominated, supported and voted for by their local constituency, NOT some party nominated individual. The major parties maintain their grip on government and govern, in effect, illegally due to population ignorance or, more likely, apathy.
If the author advocates "grass roots" change, perhaps he should abandon his pro ALP stance and teach people "how to". Bring about real government "by and for".

IT is useful to consider what others have said about fairness and a “just” society

Quote:

“On one thing, nature and nurture agree: we are all different. If this is unjust, then life is unjust. But, though one hears this expression - usually in the form of the complaint that 'life is unfair' - it really means nothing. In the same vein, someone once said to Voltaire, 'Life is hard.' To which is replied: 'Compared with what?'”

"When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality - other than equality before the law - that government poses a threat to liberty."

“Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag."

But my favourite remains

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

The source – Margaret Thatcher. Someone who knew that the price for the pursuit of socialists “just” ended up as equal shares in nothing.

What a fascinating series of posts! Let's see. "market liberalisation is inexorable..." "...there was also hope during the hawke/keating years..." Well you can all read.

The quote from arch bitch Thatcher is quite true. One should remember however that the cause of Socialism (and all its attendant evils,[see M. Hirsch. Democracy v Socialism he was a Victorian.])today presented as "Labor" is and are the horrifying conditions that "capitalism" expects people to work and live under. There is another way. But, typically, this blog is full of words and innuendo and quotes but there is no political substance - no proposals even as to what constitutes a "just society."

A just society must start with one thing: The land belongs to all men, the rent is the benefit, it should be collected by society.

"A just society" is too hard to define as everyone is so different.

However, I think Mark Latham had the right operating paradigm for the current time when he talked about civilising capital markets. In other words, make our economic systems work for the benefit of people rather than the other way around.

Of course, there are as many perspectives to achieving this as there are people.

Firstly,

I am not a member of or even a supporter of the Greens.

Those who have read other posts by 'daggett' on OLO on the subject of the Greens will know that I have been highly critical of the Greens in a number of regards.

Also, it needs to be said that, in spite of their name, the Greens have failed to take a clear and strong stance on the biggest driver of Australia's environmental, social and economic problems, that is, population growth, principally caused by Australia's record high immigration.

That having been said, I think, as maracas has said, the best way for voters to indicate that they want to change the course of this society for the better is to give a high first preference vote to the Greens or Independents standing for similar policies and to ensure that their preferences flow to Labor ahead of the Liberals.

I believe that they also need to actively engage themselves in political activism and not simply confine their efforts to voting on polling day.

---

This thread seems to be getting sidetracked into a pedantic discussion about the meaning of 'just society'. It should be obvious to all that the result of thirty odd years of neoliberal economic 'reforms' is that money has been taken out of the pockets of most ordinary working Australians and the disadvantaged sectors of our society, as well as future generations and placed into the pockets of high-flyers from this country and overseas.

James Sinnamon (author)

I saw a brilliant sticker on the back of a car today that sums up the pending election .
"Celebrate your ignorance, vote for Howard". I reckon that says it all.

Daggett,

Having titled your article “can Labor bring about a just society?”, it’s a bit rich to complain when posters discuss what a “just society” might entail – especially as you didn’t proposed a definition of your own.

What you say “should be obvious to all,” clearly isn’t. The “thirty odd years of neoliberal economic 'reforms’” you so bemoan have:

- reversed Australia’s previous steady decline in the ranks of advanced economies’ living standards;

- put more ready cash in the “pockets of ordinary Australians” than ever before, with record high real wages and household incomes;

- generated unprecedented household wealth;

- delivered persistent low inflation;

- delivered low nominal and real interest rates;

- given us the lowest unemployment rate in a generation;

- given us seventeen years of unbroken economic growth, despite periodic crises in the global economy that in the past would have tipped us into recession.

You’re right to identify Keating and Hawke as the ones who really got this process going, and Howard and Costello as the ones who pushed the process along.

If the next Labor government builds on the strengths of the previous one – economic reform and flexibility combined with progressive social policies – I believe it will do very well.

daggett (James Sinnamon),

My examples were to show that Labor does care in answer to communicat who claimed that Labor Governments do not care. I do no not support everything that the Victorian Government has done, including some of the examples that you have given. The Labor Government is better than the Liberals. Of course, the Liberals were so bad, it is easy to be better.

The promised train was to Tullamarine, not Avalon, and a study showed that it would not be viable.

Communicat,

If you were lucky enough to live in Victoria, you would know that none of the examples I gave was under way under the previous Liberal Government. Rather, they are all examples of the Labor Government undoing the damage down by the Liberals, who had:
not carried out the Liberal election promise of 1973 to reform the Legislative Council,
privatised the activities of the auditor-general,
imposed a ministerial ban on teachers debating educational issues,
undermined educational opportunity by dumping almost 9,000 hard-working teachers who were needed by our children and using retrospective legislation to remove all legal limits on class sizes,
made education more jargon-filled by bringing in a reporting system that used “beginning”, “consolidating” and “established”,
undermined the quality of teaching by abolishing the teacher registration boards,
allocated minimal capital spending on schools,
undermined Melbourne’s liveability with dual occupancies, and
did not commence building the brand new CFA station, the brand new primary school or the brand new police station in my town.

Victoria is simply insisting on its constitutional guarantee of fair access to the rivers in the state (which by the way, do not include the Murray).

I did live in Victoria - and where did you get the idea that there was a Ministerial ban on debating educational issues? Was there a spy in every staff room and whenever teachers met?
Come on that sort of example is patently nonsense!

Communicat,

I got “the idea that there was a Ministerial ban on debating educational issues” from Victorian School News – also known as Pravda among teachers – Vol.1, No. 12, 22 July 1993, which contained Ministerial Order No. 140, the ban on teachers debating educational issues, from which I quote from clause 3.12:
“(1) Except where authorised by the Minister or the Director a member shall not make public comment on the Government or the Directorate;”
and even more chillingly:
“(2) Where public comment is authorised by the Minister or the Director, a member should ensure that comments are consistent with and reflect the policies, practices and directions of the Government and/or the Directorate;”
Sub-clause 3.12(3) allows public comment “in a private capacity” under certain restrictions which seem to reduce the effect of sub-clauses 3.12(1) and 3.12(2) but which do not make them null and void – an attempt by the government to restrict debate while claiming not to.

Of course teachers continued to debate educational issues – inside and outside the staff room – in defiance of the government. It was their professional duty to do so. The willingness of teachers not to be intimidated by the mob running the state from 1992 to 1999 is one of the many reasons that we finally go rid of that foul government.

"......- put more ready cash in the “pockets of ordinary Australians” than ever before, with record high real wages and household incomes;

- generated unprecedented household wealth;....." (Quote: Rhian)

Here we go again. This is a classic Howard Regime mantra.

...and it is absolute rubbish!

Any party that is governed by ideology is going to bad for society in the long run. Ideologies almost by definition are inflexible, unwilling to accept that the human interactions are infinitely complex, and that it's rarely the case that one simple action (such as lowering taxes) can be shown to increase or decrease "fairness", perceived or otherwise.
The ideologies of extreme laissez-faire capitalism, and of extreme state-control have both been tried (the former in late 19th century America, the latter in various communist regimes) and found wanting.
In between the two are a range of options as to how much and what sort of government involvement in otherwise private economic acitivities can exist. Examining a range of economies from low levels of involvement (Hong Kong, Singapore) to high levels (Norway, Sweden), it's not particular obvious that either produces a "better" overall result (either in directly measureable and quantifiable terms, such as GDP per capita, employment figures, life expectancy etc.) or more subjective results ("happiness" surveys etc.). Ultimately, democracy is the best method to determine what level of government involvement is best - if the majority of Swedish and Norwegian voters are happy to have 50% of their income taken in taxes and redistributed via extensive government involvement in welfare, health, industry etc., then that's entirely their perogative (and to some extent, recent elections have shown a drift back towards lower taxes and less government involvement, but it's still very much "big government" compared to Australia). On the other hand, I believe the next election will demonstrate that Australians in general do want government policies to protect them against abuses of power by employers, and to ensure the paying of reasonable wages is not entirely left up to unrestricted market forces - in other words, they are not happy with the state of the country as it has been under Howard, and will vote accordingly (FWIW, I personally have no strong opinion about WorkChoices - my biggest concern is that it seems to have increased red-tape for many businesses)

Daggett, I did not know that the ALP was the oldest surviving political party in the world. How incredible. What does that mean, I wonder?

Reading your article and then the posts I am struck by the difficulty people seem to have in relating to the idea of a grass-roots movement. I note that your website, www.candobetter.org seems to be trying to form such a movement and shows activity from some very diverse groups. Congratulations are due because I do not believe there is another site like yours and it seems to me that without a grass roots movement of people with the confidence to insist on retaining their quality of life instead of selling it off cheap for baubles as in "putting more ready cash in the pockets of ordinary Australians" we are doomed to go from bad to worse.

There is a great divide of comprehension between the bauble-o-philes and the quality-of-life-o-philes who care about freedom and food and water. The baublelovers seem just regurgitate what they are fed by the political parties and the mainstream press and the quality-lovers find it hard to stand up against that onslaught. But they must. Those of us who realise that without free access to necessities and amenities we are doomed to suffer as soon as government loses the small control it still has over the resource barons (banks, property developer land-banks, water traders, agribusinesses etc) have to strengthen our identification of these threats and develop more solidarity in our defense. That does mean getting rid of Howard, and, after that, getting rid of the bad guys in the ALP who think and act like Howard. And getting rid of those high priests of babble and bauble, the economist mouthpieces for the trickle down fairy-tale that promotes the lie that we should trust in thieves and that the rich are rich because they deserve to be and the poor are poor because they deserve that.

Kanga,

I fully agree with your sentiments, but when you say the quality-of-life people need to "develop more solidarity in our defense", how on earth can you possibly defend yourself if the Government itself only has tenuous, and ever-diminishing, control over the big companies? What magical powers do you have that no one else has exhibited to date? I hope I'm wrong but I can't see how you and a few of your mates are going to be able to make a difference.

Yendis” The quote from arch bitch Thatcher is quite true”

Ah and Margaret would reply “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

As for “A just society must start with one thing: The land belongs to all men, the rent is the benefit, it should be collected by society.”

If you think a government landlord is any different to a private landlord, you are sorely mistaken.

The real issue with such a proposition is, however, by investing all land and I assume productive assets in the representative of society, I guess, the state, you are infact creating stagnation and removing competition (state or government monopolies are no different and as manipulative as privately owned monopolies).

Worse than that, you are denying every private individual the right to aspire to being a landlord and denying those who would seek to opt out of the state tenancy agreements the opportunity to do so.

RobP "make our economic systems work for the benefit of people rather than the other way around.”

They do. The ownership of assets is ultimately, through shares or superannuation, owned by people. That those who err to prudence, rather than profligacy tend to benefit more is just a matter of individual perspective as you commented re – “there are as many perspectives to achieving this as there are people”.

I am politically, libertarian. I follow the values of my perspective and leave you to follow yours. It is socialism which would seek to force us to adopt the same “perspective”

Sarnian “Celebrate your ignorance, vote for Howard".

Ah yes, I have one on my car too “prove your stupidity, vote labor”

At least with the liberals, we are not mortgaging our childrens future with massive public debt which Hawke/Keating and every other socialist government has racked up.

Col Rouge: "Ah yes, I have one on my car too 'prove your stupidity, vote labor' "

Would that be the Bentley? I'd like to see that!

One point that always amuses me when this argument about
"poor workers" and "evil companies" comes up, is when
I look up the top 20 shareholders of most large companies.

Nearly all of them are super funds. Fact is that the
superannuation now owned by Australian workers is around
1 trillion$. Thats about as much as the whole ASX is worth!

So the real owners of those "evil" companies are in fact
all you badly treated "workers" who are doing all the
complaining :)

Those highly paid managers are not employers after all,
but workers screwing the system for all its worth,
to enrich themselves at your expense, as you are
the ultimate shareholders and owners.

Kanga,

The ALP is not the world’s oldest political party – I believe that honour goes to the US Democrats, though the British Conservatives might also have a claim (if you accept that the current Tories are in continuity with their earlier namesakes, and the Democrats didn't get going until the 1830s). This is another of Daggett’s creative factoids.

Those of us who care about unemployment rates and real wages also care about freedom and food and water, and lots of other aspects of quality of life besides.

A key difference seem to me that, where we assume a prosperous society is better able to supply the other things that contribute to quality of life in the broader sense, you assume the two are mutually incompatible.

Another key difference is the pessimists’ assumption that indicators of quality of life that are not quantifiable in economic terms are mostly deteriorating. Certainly some are, but many – I believe, most (and the most important ones) - are not. The ABS produced a regular publication “measures of Australia’s Progress” that seeks to look at a diverse range of quality of life indictors including

- individual wellbeing measures (life expectancy, education and unemployment),

- economic performance measures (real income overall, the real income of low-income households, national wealth and housing conditions)

- environment (threatened species, land clearing, greenhouse gases and oceans and estuaries)

- community (participation in voluntary work, crime rates, democratic participation)

Its most recent report shows that all of its individual wellbeing indicators and all its economic indicators had improved, more environmental ones had deteriorated than improved, and the social indicators were mixed but (on my reading) slightly more positive than negative.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/1383.0.55.0012007%20(Edition%202)?OpenDocument

Rob P.,

I could quote some irritating cliches about how a one buzzing mosquito can get all the attention it needs or how every great movement was started by a handful of people, but I won't. The mainstream media market a certain reality to you me and them and they include in their constantly repeated message the idea that we are helpless. But we are not totally helpless and what is more we now have alternative electronic media. It is actually possible to organise via netsites like Daggett's and via U-tube movies where lots of individuals are putting across more critical views of reality than the Murdoch/Fairfax/Packer etc infotainment. Furthermore, we have no choice since the road they are leading us down is getting harder and harder to follow. We need to make as much noise repeatedly as possible, like the mosquito, so that people will begin to realise that what they thought they were perceiving all alone is actually a shared experience. Lyrics to music are also a powerful vehicle. For a long time the rich middleman has captured all the lyrics and pictures (which are humans' principle source of mass communication) but that is beginning to change because artists and writers now have so much more control over marketing their own ideas (of course they cannot put money first to do this, which used to be the old way for 'professional authors'). Each of us has a voice; instead of being silent and hypnotised and alone in a group watching tv, eyes turned in a crowd towards some silly leader who we have been told is important, let us turn and listen to each other. Geographic closeness can be exploited as can value closeness (the latter via alternative media).

Rob P wrote: "I fully agree with your sentiments, but ..."
Posted by RobP, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 12:16:30 PM"

Col Rouge:
"If you think a government landlord is any different to a private landlord, you are sorely mistaken."

Please read my lines again. I said nothing about government owning land. You appear to "assume" many things - perhaps you should investigate a little further. "Progress & Poverty" by H.George is a good start. The "The Law" by F. Bastiat will open your eyes a little. Perhaps a browse through http://people.aapt.net.au/~radical will help
PS. Neither book will cost you - they are available on the net.

Col Rouge, libertarian "ideals" are all fine and good (and appeal to me philosophically), and if humans and corporations generally did actually act in their own long-term best interests, and natural abilities in wealth-creation didn't vary excessively, then I would be all for it. But unfortunately this isn't the case: we cheat, we steal, we lie, we constantly look after our immediate short-term interests (even at the direct expense of others), with little thought towards what the long-term collective result of everyone doing the same would be like. Further, with no attempt to balance out differences in wealth-creation ability between various members of society, wealth and power will inevitably slowly accumulate in the hands of a few, leaving the rest relatively disenfranchised, with is historically a situation ripe for revolution.

One of the better rebuttals to "libertarian" idealism I've read is at http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html. I particularly like the idea of allowing a bunch of libertarians to go off and start their own country with little or no government control, and see how well it really does!

Kanga,

I meant that I fully agreed that people should get a better deal than they do. However, putting idealism in my back pocket for a moment, a realistic perspective tells me that if you go up to the wall of the fortress with yourself and a couple of mates holding a blunderbuss, you'll have hot oil dropped on you. All that you will do is cause your followers grief when they finally work out that those inside the fortress are stronger than them. Having said that, if you can change majority opinion, good luck to you. However, you'll have timing to thank for it and nothing else.

Yendis ” Please read my lines again. I said nothing about government owning land.”

You said “The land belongs to all men, the rent is the benefit, it should be collected by society.”

So, apart from a duly elected government, which other organization is qualified to collect the rent for “the benefit of society”?

Some religious organization? but not every one holds fealty to any one religion – and I am assuming not some corporate or private entity in which all of society holds shares – shares which they can buy more of or sell as it suits them.

The capitalist system works, as Yabby said, the most significant segment of shareholders are and have been for many years, superannuation funds, insurance companies and mutual funds, which are run, ultimately for the fund depositors, the insured or mutual beneficiaries.

As for your link – looks like Doctor Zeuss on junior economics.

Wizofaus “But unfortunately this isn't the case: we cheat, we steal, we lie, we constantly look after our immediate short-term interests”
Speak for yourself, projecting your own values on to the rest of us is an early sign of self-righteousness.

And libertarianism does not presume no rules, it presumes government is maintained at a minimum, rather than expanding government and allowing some mindless bureaucrat to curtail the vital and productive energy of individuals in the name of “the common good” (translated equal shares of poverty).

“I particularly like the idea of allowing a bunch of libertarians to go off and start their own country with little or no government control, and see how well it really does!”

And I particularly recall all those examples where socialism has runamok, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mugabe, an endless list of misery. I wonder why it is that socialists should gravitate to such extremes, maybe Lenin was right when he said

“The goal of socialism is communism.”

He was right when he cynically said “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

That describes labor to a tee, a lie for the proletariat, for the usurpers to use for implementing socialism’s policies of repression.

Who's Doctor Zeuss?

the discussion about the meaning of a 'just society'. In my haste, I spotted about two which I still maintain were pedantic contributions, but, on looking closer, I can see the nearly all the rest which discuss the definition of a 'just society' were useful contributions and were not pedantic. So, my apologies.

---

Rhian,

Your claims about the 'achievements' of thirty years neo-liberal 'reform'' have been hotly disputed on another thread at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6326 related to my article "Living standards and our material prosperity" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6326

It's interesting to note that when the heat seems to be off, you
neglect to show your concern for people who have been clearly hurt by the policies of neo-libralism in general and Howard in particular. I guess that if you did the record of 'achievements would not appear nearly so unblemished.

James Sinnamon (author)

Dear Col Rouge,
Your protestations show clearly why your ideology will not win the next election. Whilst I find socialism to be abhorrent I am reminded, by your posts why I shall vote Labor and not Liberal at the coming election. You must really hate your fellow man.
You don't answer questions or make salient points. You attempt the put down to all suggestions,ideas or philosophies.

"The land belongs to all men, the rent is the benefit, it should be collected by society." It's a pity this is too complex for your mind. But then you no doubt would have metres to measure the air we breath to satisfy your capitalistic everything can be owned! Then your Bentley could carry a sticker "Freedom the only end." Far better than insulting people.

Col Rouge, can you honestly say you know a single adult that has never lied, cheated, stolen, or put short-term personal gain at the expense of the long-term good of all?

The extreme ideology of socialism is just as dangerous as that of libertarianism. In both cases they have immediate superficial appeal, but in practice, neither work, because they fail to take into account the realities of human nature.

My position is that as long as the people have a choice between a government that offers more liberalization and smaller government, and one that offers more protection of the underprivileged and regulation of corporate excess, then we collectively get to choose what sort we want. Personally I will vote ALP because I am sick of Howard's divisive and populist policies, and because I believe he has pushed his neo-liberal ideal too far: 5 years ago, Australia already had a liberal market economy, with plenty of workplace flexibility, and undoubtably that has contributed towards our current GDP and unemployment - but I see little indication that his government is prepared to invest properly in the future, especially in regard to reducing our fossil-fuel dependency. It also concerns me that the wealth of the last decade has not well shared: regardless of whether you think it is "just", allowing wealth disparities to grow excessively is a recipe for social unrest and ultimately revolt.

The government's job is not to magically fix all our woes, and guarantee happiness for all. However, it is their job to provide a framework within which free market enterprise functions well and generates prosperity for as many as possible (both present and future generations), a job I believe Howard hasn't done well.

Further, from a libertarian point of view, given my representative is Kevin Andrews, who doesn't believe in the right to euthanasia, the right of women to control their bodies, the right of same-sex couples to basic entitlements all other couples get, the right of immigrants to citizenship unless they fit his personal idea of what "Australian values" should be, why would I vote Liberal?

When thinking of good left style governments Sweden, The Netherlands and Denmark come to mind. High taxes on income, higher taxes on petrol, extensive provision of public housing and transport. Places like Switzerland also have fairly advanced democracies where referendums are held on public issues. And the other thing to note is economically these countries are stronger than Australia.

From what I've read their governments are often formed of coalitions of different parties rather than just being dominated by two parties on the right as we have in Australia. Labor or Liberal (in their current formations) are certainly not interested in this style.

The Greens at this stage provide the most coherent progressive policies on a local, state and federal level. James is right that they have not been strong on population control, but their sustainable approach to growth means they're not actively promoting it like Labor and Liberal are.

Daggett

Your argument rests on the presumption that most people are worse off as a result of Labor and Liberal economic policies. It is not a sign of callousness or indifference on my part to point out that this is not the case. As we have discussed exhaustively on another thread, it is possible to acknowledge that some people are suffering poor or falling living standards without leaping to the conclusion that this is the experience of the majority.

I support the economic reforms implemented under Labor and Liberal governments in the past 20+ years BECAUSE I believe that most people - especially those at the margins and on lower incomes - are better off as a result. That goes both for relatively narrow economic measures of living standards such as real wages, and broader quality of life measures such as health, travel, education etc. I also disagree with the policies you advocate BECAUSE I’m convinced we’d have far worse living standards and a far worse quality of life more broadly defined under the statist economic nationalism that you espouse.

It is moral vanity to presume that you are more compassionate than those whose opinions differ from yours.

The difference between us is not which one of us cares most about the quality of life of average Australians, but our opinions of how we best secure it.

Rhian wrote, "Your argument rests on the presumption that most people are worse off as a result of Labor and Liberal economic policies."

No it does not.

Read again http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6326#92953

Whilst I believe that most people are worse off and that this was the experience of most of those posting to the forum, my central argument is that much of the degradation in the quality of life and increase in living standards have not been properly taken into account in inflation and GDP figures. This is my experience and the experience of most of those posting to that forum (Sorry about the broken link further above.)

And even if it is true that our material living standards are rising, is it acceptable that this is occurring at a cost of the degradation of the life support system upon which our whole economy is ultimately dependant? I note that you have not even attempted to tackle that one and Yabby, your partner in obfuscation, on that forum actually agrees with me that the environment is going down the toilet. He just rationalises that nothing can be done, so we should just go on with business as usual.

Assuming that both of you understand that we can't have an economy without an environment then most surely accept that our living standards are destined to nosedive, even if you maintain that they are improving now.

---

Tristan, you make some valid points about the Greens. I just wish they would grasp how important the choice between Labor and Liberal is instead of just spouting the simplistic nonsense that Labor and Liberal are like "Tweedledum and Tweedeldee". They have every right, indeed, even a duty, to be harshly critical of Labor, but they are doing the Australian electorate an enormous disservice by being so apparently complacent about the prospect of the Howard Government being re-elected.

They should be telling the public in no uncertain terms that any Government which is prepared to squander AU$1billion of taxpayers money in just one term in lying self-promotional advertising should be resoundingly thrown out.

James Sinnamon (author)

"He just rationalises that nothing can be done, so we should just go on with business as usual."

Daggett, perhaps you missed the main point that I was trying to
get across, or I explained it badly, so I will try again:

Its fairly pointless for you to suck your proverbial thumb in
the corner and promote ideas that would bankrupt the Australian
economy, if they achieve little more then as a feegood exercise.

Like I pointed out, if Australians and Australia vanished off the
global map tomorrow, nothing much would change, when it comes
to the megaproblems facing humanity.

So its going to take megasolutions, not shooting yourself in
the proverbial foot, as solutions.

Perhaps some new technology will come out of the race thats happening
in Silicon Valley, to find energy solutions. We'll see. Nobody is
even addressing another yearly 80 million a year in global population
increase. But these are global problems, not just feelgood exercises
to cheer you up for the day

Daggett

Falling living standards are (or were) central to your hypothesis. You wrote:

“If the ABS inflation figures were to comprehensively measure these costs, and attach monetary values to the various ways in which the quality of life for many has declined, the “real wages” figures would probably reveal a substantial drop in the actual standard of living of most Australians and a massive drop for many on the lower end of the income spectrum.”

Some measures of environmental health and quality are deteriorating, others are improving.

According to the latest State of the Environment Report, on the positive side, land clearing is down, we have good urban air quality, recycling is increasing, the hole in the ozone layer is diminishing, the area of land and water under formal protection is growing, and per capita greenhouse gas emissions are falling.

Negative indicators include: total greenhouse gas emissions are still rising slowly, biodiversity is deteriorating, southern wetland qualities are poor and the proportion of overfished fish stocks is rising.
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/report/pubs/soe-2006-report.pdf

I don’t deny we have real and serious environmental problems that must be addressed, but I expect I disagree with you about their causes and solutions.

Most of our most severe problems, such as dry land salinity or overuse of the Murray-Darling system, are a consequence of decades of wilful or ignorant misuse of resources, not a product of the relatively recent “neoliberalism” of Labor or Liberals. Indeed, most of it is down to dumb decisions by governments, not the private corporations you so despise. Governments gave us the cane toad, compulsory land clearance and the Snowy River scheme, for example – all the kind of grandiose statism you seem to admire.

We are devoting an increasing proportion of our resources to environmental monitoring and protection, a trend I fully support. We will need to do more about greenhouse in future, and this is starting to happen. In short, it’s far better and easier to address these problems meaningfully in a prosperous society with a robust and flexible economy than return to the failed dirigiste policies of the past.

Except Yabby you're yet to prove that the poster's ideas will bankrupt Australia. The fact is that there are plenty of European economies that adopt high taxes and high levels of government-provided services that are doing quite well, and from all accounts are thoroughly pleasant places to live in, where the citizens are generally happy to continue voting in governments promising more of the same (and yes I know Sweden and France have recently voted in more "conservative" governments - but the ALP is a good deal more conservative than Sweden's current ruling government).
OTOH, what I see in America, where successive governments have moved further and further in the extreme economically "conservative" direction, is a country with extreme wealth disparities, a barely manageable foreign debt, a dying manufacturing sector, a free-falling housing market, a broken health system, etc. etc. It concerns me far more that Australia is headed in such a direction than the possibility that it might end up like Sweden or Denmark, even if the latter means half my paycheque goes towards providing government services. Fortunately I don't believe the people of Australia are going to let it happen.

Why is it that all the posters here seem to follow the mantra that our lot must always be getting better? In the long run we are living far beyond our means and sooner rather than later the inevitable depression will come along to destroy that myth.
The current philosophy seems to be "Eat, drink and be merry", forgetting what comes after.

David

Wiz, if you are in Andrew’s electorate, then I hope that you kick him out :) Much too
keen on enforcing his religous agenda on us, if you ask me. But then I’m an issues
person, not a party person.

As to our mining sector, fact is its our saviour, not our problem. Without it we
would be heading for being a banana republic, that’s the reality.

Who said that we should be like America or Sweden? We can learn, then
pick and choose bits and pieces from wherever and apply our own ways
of doing things. I think that Australia now, is already a much better place
to live, then either of those countries.

To understand Sweden’s economy today, you need to go back in history.
Their best years were between 1870 and 1950, since then its been
relatively downhill. They benefit from a highly educated population,
but few new Swedish companies have been formed in recent times.

Sweden’s bloated public sector is rated as one of the least efficient in
Europe.

Sweden has actually changed direction. They are moving back to
entrepreneurship, private sector schooling, health care etc,
as they realise that without competition, nobody need give a darn,
so waste is the problem, which costs everyone.

Switzerland has actually done far better then Sweden, with far less
taxes, a market economy and plenty of entrepreneurship. Also
a really good apprenticeship system, from which Australia could
learn. Throwing money at education is not the solution, how you
spend it matters.

The present Swedish Govt understands that we are creatures of
habit and that we don’t particularly like change. So reforms
are happening slowly, as nobody wants to change, but they
think that the neighbour has a problem. That does not mean that
they don’t understand the fundamental flaws in their old social
welfare model.

My information about Sweden is from the Economist website,
Articles appearing on Sept 7th 2006 and Sept 13th 2007. I can’t
send you a link, as I think you need to be a subscriber to access
their database.

Yabby, I agree that there is no reason for Australia to end up like either the US or Sweden - just that the last 11 years has seen Australia drift a little too close to the U.S. situation for my comfort, due in no small part to John Howard's ideology that free markets with minimal governmental involvement are always the best way do things.
As far as Sweden goes, I completely agree that the recent swing back away from excessive state-controlled "socialist" policies has been because they were stifling Sweden's economic development (the case is even clearer in France). But the voters worked this out for themselves - they didn't need ideology to be forced upon them. Just as the voters worked out eventually that Reaganism and Thatcherism (the first two 20th century governments that openly espoused free-market fundamentalism) wasn't what they wanted either.
If the next elections here and in U.S. don't demonstrate this again, I will be surprised but not excessively dismayed - another 3 or 4 years of the same direction and voters will be very quick to show their distaste for such policies (indeed, polling here and in the US has generally shown that voters have never liked them particularly, hence have been choosing governments for other reasons).

Political Parties in secular democracies......

represent....

VESTED INTERESTS....and 'segments' of society....

They are about... POWER.... in order to reward and protect their supporters.

This applies to Liberal, Labor, Greens, Democrats, CDP and even (shock horror) Families First.

No matter who is in....others won't feel it is just.

So..it's just a mess.

"My kingdom is not 'of' this world"....Jesus

Rhian, firstly see for my response to the first part of your previous post at:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6326#94891 ("Living standards and our material prosperity").

---

Rhian, if you choose to delude yourself into thinking that the global environmentins not in a precarious state and may well be close to the point of no return if not already beyond it, then I am not going to attempt to convince you otherwise.

For may part, most days this worries me sick. If I could convince myself of the fantasy which you maintain you believe in (which reads as if it had come from the pen of Bjorn Lomborg) then I would gladly allow myself to fall into blissful apathy.

However, I cannot, because I have read far too much material which shows me that the case is otherwise. If you show indication of having an open mind then I would consider taking the effort to show you why, but I believe that you should have no trouble finding the evidence yourself if you choose to look.

The second part of your case, you cherry-pick a few cases in order to 'prove' that what has largely gone wrong with the planet is evil big government, rather than market forces.

The solution you implicitly propose of leaving everything to market forces is so contrary to the overwhelming evidence, and to common sense, that I don't see why I should need to discuss this further.

--

Yabby,

"The Economist" is not an untainted source. I once made the mistake of taking seriously an article which depicted Hugo Chavez President of Venezuela poorly, only to have the flaws and bias in the article shown to me.

The fact that some Europeans have been persuaded to hand the reins of Government to neo-liberal ideologues proves nothing. They will learn their mistake to their terrible cost soon enough.

Daggett

Again, you misrepresent my argument. I don’t think we can leave environmental protection to market forces, and I don’t know of anyone who does (including Lomborg). I fully support appropriate government action to protect the environment. The question is not whether government should act to protect the environment, but when and how it should act.

In many cases – not all - actions that work with the grain of the market system will deliver better environmental outcomes for lower economic costs than those that don’t. So I prefer emissions trading over mandated renewable energy targets to tackle greenhouse emissions, price penalties for high-energy domestic appliances rather than compulsory use of efficient light bulbs, and (generally) incentives for farmers to plant native trees to reduce salinity and provide suitable wildlife habitats, not prohibitions or forced set-aside. I also think a properly designed permit trading system is often the fairest and most efficient way to ration the use of scarce resources by industry, as for example fishing licenses have been used successfully in the sustainable management of our rock lobster industry.

I’ll freely admit there are cases in environmental policy when market systems don’t work in and a “thou shalt not” approach is necessary. Governments can and should set land aside as reserves and national parks, forbid damaging pollution, enforce quarantine, set planning regulations that protect the environment and keep proper distance between residential and industrial activities, invest in research to better understand our unique environment and how to protect it, etc.

All of these things are less economically costly in a flexible economy that can adjust to changing circumstances. They are also more affordable and less controversial in a prosperous economy that can afford the cost of environmental regulations and, where appropriate, compensate or give adjustment assistance to those whose livelihoods are damaged by increasing environmental protections.

Rhian, I am largely with you regarding the opportunities for finding "market based" solutions for greenhouse gas emissions, and slightly skeptical that mandating renewable energy targets is the right solution, however I also believe that realistically the technological breakthroughs that are required will in order of say, the initial development of nuclear power, or of solar panel technology, both of which were the outcomes of large government-run programs (the Manhattan project, and NASA space project respectively).
The fact that governments have not been prepared to invest heavily in similar research projects for some time now is surely one of the reasons that very few real breakthroughs in energy generation technology have been made in the last 50 years.

"I once made the mistake of taking seriously an article which depicted Hugo Chavez President of Venezuela poorly"

Well I certainly would not want to live under Chavez or
Fidel! I can't see huge hordes of people getting on boats,
sailing to live in Cuba either.

As to the Economist, in terms of accuracy of its data,
it has no equal. Thats why anyone who matters in politics,
economics,or business globally is a subscriber. Their
website has some free articles, for those interested.

Daggett, which ever way you look at things, what takes
us forward is innovation. The computer you use, the
software, etc etc, all due to innovation and competition.
You benefit every day!

Thats why the best economic system will be one where anyone
is free to innovate, take risks and let consumers decide.

Thats why market based systems work so well, compared to
Govt planned economies. Stifle innovation and everyone loses.

Thats the reality.

Rhian,

I agree with much of what you have written, but not all.

Perhaps, if you arrived at my understanding of just how serious the situation is you might see the necessity for more government mandated solutions rather than largely free market solutions will be necessary.

I don't believe that we would have got through the Second World War merely by providing the right incentives to private companies, and as I believe that peak oil, global warming and all the other looming threats will combine to create a crisis vastly more serious than the Second World War, then Government mandated action, including against recalcitrant corporations may be all the more necessary.

I would hasten to add, that this need not preclude democracy and active participation of the populace. Indeed, I beleive it would work better in such and environment.

---

Yabby,

How could I not have anticipated those cheap shots against Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro? I could have omitted to mention what the article was about, but I did not. Nevertheless, the point remains, from my experience, I don't consider The Economist to be a fair and objective journal.

Anyway, here's the start of the article:
http://www.economist.com/business/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=7270301
... which is now behind a pay-wall.

It is essentially an attempt to discredit the concept of government-owned oil companies. In the case of Venezuela, it makes no mention of the broader context before Chavez came to power and how more and more of Velezuela's oil wealth was siphoned off into private hands whilst the poor went without before Chavez came to power.

And here is a previous online discussion about Hugo Chavez and Venezuela where the article was cited:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/11/27/monday-message-board-51/#comment-95075

Also, if you have anything new to say about Cuba which has not already been said, why not post your comments to: http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/12/12/castro-and-pinochet/#comment-103920
?

However, the hoary old argument that considerable numbers of Cubans have been lured away by the promise of first world affluence in the US has already been tried, so you may have to come up with something else.

Daggett, you are free to shoot the messenger, in this case
the Economist, but I happen to agree with their point of
view. I can't see why Govts should get involved in the
oil business, when they can leave that to experts and
simply tax production as a resource tax. Sounds
to me that Chavez stuffed what used to be a good oil
company.

At the end of the day, who is developing new technologies
etc for the oil business? Private enterprise of course,
as its where innovation can and does happen.

I read some of your quoted threads and you come across
very much as an apologist for Castro.

You are free to think that Castro and Chavez are great
politicians, personally I think that they are both
fanatics who are damaging their countries bigtime and
its the people who suffer in the end.

Trying to excuse the disaster of the Cuban economy, based
on the fact that the US boycotts trade with Cuba, forgets
the fact that Cuba has the rest of the world to trade with.
Fact is they don't have much to trade, as their economy
is a disaster. Govt planned economies don't work, as
creativity and innovation are stifled. So everyone loses.

It sounds to me as if you prefer an egalitarian society,
where everyone is poor, rather then some rich some poor.
What market economies can do is create wealth that would
not have existed in Govt planned economies. Thats the big
difference.

Wealth creation comes from innovation, creativity and
entrepreneurial types backing their own judgement and
taking risks. Some will fail and lose the house, others
will thrive, consumers will decide. If Bill Gates had
been born in Cuba and been forced to work on a sugar plantation
by Castro, everyone would have lost, including you the
consumer.

Yabby,

As I wrote, if you have anything new to say on the question of Castro and Chavez, feel free to add your comments to those threads I mentioned above, or else, start up another, perhaps on OLO. I think others will find that the 'arguments' you have put here have already been been put on http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/12/12/castro-and-pinochet/#comment-103920
... and have been answered, so I am not going to waste further time here.

---

Simply stating over and over again the unfounded neo-liberal doctrine that innovation is only possible where the profit motive exists (at least three times in your last two posts) is not proving your case.

In another thread, "Can Australia ever be self-reliant for national defence?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=860 I discussed how Australia became an advanced industrialised nation between the two world wars and succeeded (contrary to popular mythology) in deterring a Japanese invasion and subsequently playing a major role in the defeat of the Japanese. Much of that innovation which made that possible occurred in Government-owned laboratories and factories, which in turn, made their knowledge freely available to the private sector.

In fact, deference to the wishes of private corporations who were on occasions hostile to Government-led innovation actually hampered our industrial development. In the case of aircraft manufacturing, if the Government had just got on with the job, Australia would have been able to build a modern fighter at the outset of the Pacific war instead of the middle of 1942.

Also, Telstra was for decades a world leader in telecommunications technology as I have shown above. The groundwork for this was established prior to WW2 by those government research laboratories and by the Post Master General (as it was then known). For further information, see "Armed and Ready" 1995 by Andrew Ross.

In the case of Castro's Cuba, they magnificently adapted to the sudden loss of much of their oil from the former Soviet Union in the middle of the 1990's. If a few more Australians could caste aside their idological prejudices, I think we could learn a lot.

James Sinnamon (author)

Yabby, you say "Wealth creation comes from innovation, creativity and
entrepreneurial types backing their own judgement and
taking risks" - true, but many of the technologies that we enjoy today (including the internet) came about because of significant government funding and indeed non-private enterprise. So to deny that the government can have an important role in driving innovation and technological change is to completely ignore history. I fail to see private enterprise getting us to the moon, delivering us the ability to split the atom. On top of that, Linux and the rise of open source software (almost certainly powering the forums that we're on right on) has proven that significant innovation can happen without the motivation that private enterprise relies on (profit!).
Anyway you look at it, the idea that private enterprise is the only, or indeed even the most important driver of innovation and wealth creation turns a rather blind eye to reality.
And while I am no supporter of Castro or Chavez, and have no desire to live under such a regime, there are myriad complex reasons why such societies have not been economically successful (U.S. sanctions being an obvious one) - to assume it is entirely because socialism at its core necessarily suppresses the human ability to innovate and create wealth is to take a very simplistic view of reality. Capitalist and socialist ecomonies both have lessons to learn from each other - both in what each has done poorly and what has been done well. Cuba's ability to transform its food-production in the wake of its loss of oil imports cannot be dismissed out of hand - nor can its achievements in medical science and healthcare. But as long as Castro and Chavez see capitalism as inherently "evil", it is unlikely they will succeed in significantly reducing poverty in either nation.
(BTW, any votes on taking this conservation to different forum - without the absurd 2 posts in 24 hour limit?)

ColRouge,

You said, >>RobP "make our economic systems work for the benefit of people rather than the other way around.”

They do. The ownership of assets is ultimately, through shares or superannuation, owned by people. That those who err to prudence, rather than profligacy tend to benefit more is just a matter of individual perspective as you commented re – “there are as many perspectives to achieving this as there are people”. <<

It's true that ownership of assets is held by the people, but for any individual, that ownership is often only nominal or with strings attached. For example, how often do people who try to get access to their insurance money, get blocked by the fine print of the contract? And there are a myriad of other examples where it becomes obvious when delving into the detail that some people are much more equal than others when actually accessing their sequestered wealth.

However, I agree with the truth in the principle "you get out what you put in" which is implicit in your ideology. It's true that people who work harder, generally do better. But, it is precisely with this view in mind that welfare, which is just a big offset (ie a side payment that doesn't seek to compete with or crimp the wealth generators), was created. It is a recognition by the state that "we know you can't compete with, contribute to or participate in the economy for whatever reason, but this will help keep your head above water".

This is an example of civilising the otherwise damaging effect of capital markets on humans. Another example that we may well see in future is the flattening out of the market so that, overall, more people at all levels can participate economically and earn a decent crust - ie, a spreading out of opportunity for people.

Another is to continue building central social infrastructure that is cheaper built by Government but which helps all citizens - ie, the economic system is steered toward improving the common good.

BTW, I'm not a socialist, but can see its merits.

Daggett, nope the Castro questions were not answered on the other thread, more like
excuses and apologies made, as to why he does not stand for elections and let the
people vote, for instance. If Howard did the same, you would rightfully have a
hissy fit. But read Castro’s speeches, if it makes you happy. Others of us judge
him by performance, which has been pretty hopeless. Hopefully he’ll fall off
the perch soon.

There is no reason why Telstra could not have continued with its research labs.
They still make billions of $ in profits. GE and other technology companies
make progress because of their research. So its bad management and bad
management occurs when there is no competition, which has always been
Telstra’s problem.

Wiz, I agree, Govt sponsored research is extremely important, but its not
up to Govt to take risks and turn it into consumer products. It needs to
be accountable. I was once on a research review committee, where
scientists had to justify their funding. They were horrified, as they had
this cosy little agreement of dividing up the money and being accountable
to nobody. So waste was enormous, as one would expect.

Yup Linux is great and you have heaps of companies taking it and turning
it into consumer ready solutions, for which they charge. Fair enough.

When it comes to innovation, have a look who registers patents and how
many, that tells you a bit about innovation and what drives it.

As to creating wealth, take a company like Microsoft. By virtue of
the stock exchange, it clearly has a value. So innovation creates
wealth, apart from consumers benefiting. The amusing part is then
how the wheel turns full circle. Both Gates and Buffett, the two
wealthiest individuals in the US, are giving their fortune to charity!

Compare that system to the Govt planned economy system of the
USSR, where the Govt decides who makes your toothpaste and
anything else you might want to purchase, no matter how shonky
the product, I know which system I prefer. Yup 2 posts is not enough.

Yabby - I'm not sure our positions are too far apart, but it concerns me that the last few decades' of drift towards "free market fundamentalism" and lowering taxes (arguably more in the U.S. than here) has starved government of the funding it needs to contact big research projects on the scale of the Manhattan project or the Apollo program - many have argued that it's time we need a similar sized project with the goal of producing new energy technologies (potentially solving several problems simultaneously - reducing our dependency on unstable oil-exporting regimes, mitigating the oil supply shortfall that even the IEA is predicting by 2012, and of course to address global warming). But that would inevitably mean higher taxes and "bigger government", which many seem so ideologically opposed to.
Further, I dispute that government-run enterprise is capable of bringing consumer products to the market - many have pointed out that the ABC produces its multiple television channels and radio stations on a much smaller budget than its commercial rivals (which typically only have a single channel to worry about, and produce less local content). And the U.S. has shown us that private enterprise has failed to supply health services with the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of universal government-run programs that the rest of the world enjoys. I do agree that the private enterprise should be allowed to compete with government in supplying such services (this was Milton Friedman's argument - he never suggested that governments should get out of supplying consumer services altogether), but to suggest that government can never have a place supplying consumer products is pure ideology that again ignores the reality of cases where it works well.

BTW some alternative forum suggestions:

http://www.ozelection2007.info/forums/
http://aussiepolitics.proboards51.com/index.cgi
http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
http://cracker.com.au/threads.aspx?categoryid=11121
http://tooright.info/

Wiz, I agree that spending on r&d is important and not wasted, as so often
is the case. But when r&d budgets are compared to military spending, they
are very small indeed, so it’s a question of allocation of resources.

Governments already spend 35-55% of GDP. Fact is, no matter how
much you give them, they will spend it. The problem with r&d is that
its not a vote winner, politicians prefer to allocate money to buy voters.

Don’t underestimate the ability of venture capital to bring about change.
Its tiny in Australia, but ever since 911 the Americans are getting serious
about energy, as they realise that the Arabs have them by their proverbial
testicles. So a lot of that money that was made from
IT venture capital is being directed towards energy solutions. Bring
together innovation, technology and money, you might well be amazed!

I see the ABC and commercial channels as having different goals, so
its hard to compare them. The commercial stations are all about
entertainment and ratings, whereas the ABC and SBS provide a niche
educational service that private enterprise is not really interested in.
One reason why the ABC has to perform, is because its so public,
so under huge constant scrutiny. All that accountability brings
about results.

As to American health care, to me it seems that their biggest problem
is the nature of the American litigious society. I’m sad to see that
starting to emerge here. America is full of lawyers and everyone sues
everyone. If you go to a doctor there, he’ll make decisions based on
avoiding malpractise lawsuits, as much as anything. That adds hugely
to the cost of American healthcare, which I gather is around 15% of
GDP, compared to our 8-9%.

I’ve started an economics thread in General, so that allows us each
4 posts a day, so feel free to post there. IMHO the whole topic
of what role Govts play in the economy, is an important one
and makes for interesting debate. I’m less into the black and
white, I hate Howard or Rudd thinggy.

Yabby
"I’ve started an economics thread in General, so that allows us each 4 posts a day, so feel free to post there. IMHO the whole topic
of what role Govts play in the economy, is an important one and makes for interesting debate."
Great. How & where can I partake?

"I hate Howard or Rudd thinggy." If that is "thuggery" I agree!

Yabby wrote, "the Castro questions were not answered on the other thread, more like excuses and apologies made ..."

Why not let others be the judge of that?

Yabby continued, "... as to why he does not stand for elections and let the people vote, for instance."

In fact, that was the very first point made against me in that discussion at : http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/12/12/castro-and-pinochet/#comment-104227

... and I responded to it here: http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/12/12/castro-and-pinochet/#comment-104253

... here: http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/12/12/castro-and-pinochet/#comment-104347

... and here: http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/12/12/castro-and-pinochet/#comment-104858

Arguments on http://johnquiggin.com can often last for many months, but that discussion lasted barely more than two weeks after I made my first post. My suspicion is that the usually tenaciously argumentative right-wing ideologues quickly grasped the severe weakness of their case and the futility of their perseverence.

In any case, if you had read my posts properly, you would know I wasn't being uncritical of Castro, I simply considered that, as Castro appeared to be close to death at the time, he deserved, for all his faults, to have the monumental achievements, made by his government in the face of such adversity, duly acknowledged, instead of my just taking a cheap shot at him, as appeared to be the fashionable thing to do.

Also, it needed to be pointed out that the feigned concern for the democratic rights of the Cuban people is nothing more than a smokescreen to allow Castro's opponents to ransack the Cuban economy and to steal the wealth of the Cuban people as happened after the USSR collapsed. If their naked selfish hypocrisy is not exposed, then there is a grave risk that they could hijack any transition to democracy in a fashion similar to that which occurred in the former USSR.

Now, how about pursuing this discussion elsewhere? But, before you post anything more to wherever you decide to, please, this time, look more carefully at the discussion at http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/12/12/castro-and-pinochet/#comment-103920 in order to find out if what you want to say has not already been said and responded to.

James Sinnamon (author)

"My suspicion is that the usually tenaciously argumentative right-wing ideologues quickly grasped the severe weakness of their case and the futility of their perseverence"

Daggett, I had read your various arguments, you are free to believe
whatever you want. To me it was more like the case of BD, when he
preaches about Jesus. I don't even bother to argue the point with
him, apart from a few cheeky or humorous comments. Now he might
be convinced of his alleged "amazing" points. I see him more as
a bit of a Jesus fanatic, so don't even bother with rational arguments
anymore. No matter what my points are, Jesus is his lord and saviour,
so I can't see the point.

There is no excuse for not holding democratic elections in Cuba.
Yes, the US might try to interfere, but they could do the same
anywhere in the world, including Australia. So do we cancel elections
because of that threat? I doubt it.

Yendis, if you go to the top of the page, click on the General
link right on top. You will find a heap of threads. The economics
thread is listed under "General"

Yabby wrote,

"I had read your various arguments, you are free to believe whatever you want."

And you are just as free to address the substance of those arguments including my responses to your argument about the question of free elections in Cuba, whenever you want, but preferably on another forum.

You wrote: "There is no excuse for not holding democratic elections in Cuba."

Did I ever say there was?

To be honest, I don't know if they should or should not, but given the almost unlimited capacity for the US to meddle in any elections held in Cuba, which even you have appeared to have grasped, and given the economic and social devastation that ruling pro-free-market parties wrought on countries like the former USSR after their transition to 'democracy' and would just as readily inflict on the Cuban people upon winning government, I would not rush to judgement of Raul or Fidel Castro for being reluctant to hold free elections.

Let us not forget the record of the US around the world and particularly in Latin America:

* Iran in 1953
* Guatemala in 1954
* Indo-China from 1954 until 1975
* Bay of Pigs in 1961 and subsequent support of anti-Castro terrorists
* The Dominican Republic in 1965, Chile in 1973
* Australia in 1975 (according to Christopher Boyce)
* Grenada in 1984
* Panama in 1989
* Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1970's and 1980's
* Afghanistan from 1978 where it funded and armed Osama bin Laden
* Iraq in 2003
* etc
* etc

"I would not rush to judgement of Raul or Fidel Castro for being reluctant to hold free elections."

You have just made my point for me, I don't even need to look up
your old thread!

There is no excuse for not calling free elections. Yes the US
try to interfere in other countries business, so do Australia,
France, China, Russia and a host of other countries, the US is not
alone.

The debacle in Russia had more to do with peoples lack of experience
in democracy, so they voted in a drunk like Yeltsin, result being
a few Russians screwed the system and still do to some extent.
Gorbachov would have been far superior IMHO, but people have to learn
the hard way sometimes.

At least now the stores in Moscow are filled with food, no more
queing up for an hour, to get a loaf of bread.

Fact is that apart from no rights, Cubans have a GDP of roughly 1300$,
Martinique, Virgin Islands and similar places with less natural
resources then Cuba, around 10'000$ GDP.

Forget crying tears about US trade boycotts. Australian farmers
have faced US and EU trade boycotts for years, so they developed
other markets. Fidel is a fanatic who has put his pet theories
above the interests and welfare of his people. They have paid a
huge price and don't even have the option to kick him out.

Shame on Fidel!

Yabby, while I don't strongly disagree with your assessment of Castro, many of us would argue that Howard has also "put his pet theories above the interest and welfare of his people" (not that I would want to be thought of as being part of "Howard's people"). It's interesting that in the recent Australian online poll about what it is that will most influence our vote, 52% said "basic ideology". Previous polls have confirmed that most people voting on such polls have no intention of voting for the Coalition, so it's good evidence that the majority of (online) voters think that Howard's "pet theories" are not in the interest and welfare of those voting.

"many of us would argue that Howard has also "put his pet theories above the interest and welfare of his people"

Wiz, you may well argue that and you may well be right. Personally
I am not even a fan of Howard, I think its time he went off to prune
the roses etc. The point however is that Howard has put his head
on the block every 3 years, electors could chop it off at any time,
if they so decided and they still can and probably will.

Contrast that with Fidel, who has treated Cuba as his own piece
of property for around 50 years now, with the people having no
say, there is a huge difference!

What pees me off is when apologists then claim that "oh those
naughty USA is why he can't really have an election in Cuba"

Whatever one might think of Howard or Fidel, it cannot be denied
that Howard had the guts to put his head on the chopping block,
whilst Fidel continued with his own personal fiefdom, and clearly
won't let what the people think, interfere with his agenda.

BTW, if I had my choice of an Australian cabinet, it would be
something like Costello, Rudd, Mckew, Garrett, Hockey, Turnbull.
Sadly the rest of the Australian public don't agree with me :)

Yabby wrote, "You have just made my point for me, I don't even need to look up your old thread!"

Then don't.

Yabby wrote, "There is no excuse for not calling free elections. Yes the US try to interfere in other countries business, ..."

Tries?

But didn't they SUCCEED in overthrowing popular democratically elected Governments in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile and invading many more sovereign countries? Do yo think the fact that they only TRIED but did not quite succeed in bombing Vietnam back into the stone age is a great consolation to the Vietnamese?

If you are determined to claim the high moral ground over the issue of elections in Cuba, then how about also being a bit more forthright with the facts?

Yabby wrote, "Fact is that apart from no rights, ..."

No rights?

What about secure housing, free health, free education and free child care?

You seem to believe that one set of standards applies to me and a different set of standards applies to you. On the one hand you refuse to acknowledge or discuss a large number of facts on the thread http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/12/12/castro-and-pinochet/#comment-103920 which I consider very relevant on the grounds that I won't condemn the Cuban Government out of hand for not holding free elections, but on the other hand you expect me to acknowledge and accept a different set of 'facts' that you happen to consider important.

Yabby wrote, "Fidel is a fanatic who has put his pet theories above the interests and welfare of his people."

Well, please provide some examples. Show us in his own words what a fanatic he truly is. Show us where he "has put has put his pet theories above the interests and welfare of his people."

So, what are you waiting for?

Well Dagget, I would certainly argue that Castro's "pet theory" that capitalism is inherently evil, and instead the government should control the economy, is a significant factor behind Cuba's economic status. And BTW, I agree that democracy will cause difficulties in Cuba, if not introduced carefully. But on principle, it's pretty hard to argue that if free and fair elections were held in Cuba tomorrow and the vast majority of citizens voted against Castro remaining in power, then Castro should remain in power anyway. And without such elections, we will simply never know what the people of Cuba actually want (although polls have been conducted, generally concluding that most Cubans do want democracy).

wizofaus,

If you think a belief that capitalism is inherently evil makes one a fanatic, then there are a good many others who would also qualify as fanatics.

There were periods in the history of Western democracies where this belief was mainstream, and, at times, even a majority view.

I personally don't like the capitalist system, although I don't believe that all capitalists are inherently evil and I expect that Castro does not either.

There are times when it appears to have worked well, but only when it has been constrained by a strong state, and only when there has been abundant natural wealth to sustain it, particularly fossil fuels and metals. However, there seems to be a dynamic within the capitalist system which causes the most extreme anti-social trends to eventually predominate.

This is certainly the case in Australia, where we are ruled by figures who are fanatically hostile to any public ownership or provision of services or any government protection of the rights and wage levels of workers (tempered only, very briefly, by the need for the this Government to get re-elected, hence the almost impossibly complicated 'fairness test' that will inevitably be watered done as soon as the election is out of the way).

Personally, I believe that some amount of free enterprise could work very well, but only where the commanding heights of the economy are firmly controlled by the people of this country through its government.

Whatever, it needs to be agreed to at a fair and free election, and I would argue, thanks to the insidious influence of the corporate newsmedia, particularly Murdoch's, not to mention all the current taxpayer-funded Liberal Party advertising, we have not had one since 1972, if even then.

---

Back to Castro: Please show with quotes (google Castro's speeches) examples of his 'fanaticism'. I think you will find that of all the political leaders in the world today he would have to be one of the most level-headed and articulate, and, again, I am not writing that as one who is wholly uncritical of Castro.

James Sinnamon (author)

Daggett

You also say “there seems to be a dynamic within the capitalist system which causes the most extreme anti-social trends to eventually predominate.”

Let’s compare the very few occasions on which the political system has come close to controlled experiments of capitalism and alternative ideologies - North and South Korea, and East and West Germany. I’d suggest the capitalist route showed far less tendency to cause anti-social trends to predominate.

You say there are times when capitalism “appears” to have worked well, but “only when there has been abundant natural wealth to sustain it, particularly fossil fuels and metals.”

Not so. Hong Kong became the trading powerhouse of the east with no economic resources and one of the most laissez faire economic regimes the world has ever seen. Singapore, Japan and Taiwan all likewise have negligible resources, but are amongst the richest countries in the world, certainly far more prosperous than many of their neighbours more abundantly endowed with natural resources.

Or contrast North and South Korea – before it was partitioned, the North was relatively wealthy, while the South was poor and had a dearth of natural resources. But the South has grown prosperous through capitalism while the North is one of the most repressed and impoverished countries in the world – a poster child for the ill-effects of state-directed isolationist economics.

One of the key benefits of globalisation is that it allows people to get access to things that they can’t produce themselves, or which other produce more efficiently – not just raw materials but other goods, services, cultural artefacts, capital, and ideas.

Can you name a single non-capitalist country whose citizens enjoy either the freedom or the prosperity that we do?

Daggett, actually I never used the word "fanatical" wrt Castro, although it wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

And I agree, for capitalism to work well...that is, for it to maintain stability and prosperity, it needs significant government oversight. The closest thing to "raw capitalism" that was ever tried was probably late 19th century America, with its robber barons, stifling monopolies, worker conditions that today would be intolerable, and extreme mistreatment (even murder) of workers who tried to organisation resistance to their exploitation. Most importantly, it clearly wasn't viable economically - manufacturers were running out of markets to sell to, as workers worked too many hours and had insufficient money to buy anything. Eventually it lead to the "New Deal", which was the first genuine realisation by governments that capitalism needed regulation and monitoring to function successfully. Since then, I would argue that as an economic system, certainly compared to anything that came before it, or has been tried in the mean time, it has functioned extremely well, bringing billions out of poverty and giving us standards of living that could only have been dreamed about in ages past. Yes, it has come with certain costs - and certainly current trends can't continue on too much longer, but that doesn't mean the basic principle of free enterprise should be discarded - indeed, were we to do so, it would have consequences that I shudder to think of.

"What about secure housing, free health, free education and free child care?"

Every unmarried mother, unemployed person etc in Australia,
is given money for essentially free housing, free food, free
eveything else, along with free education and free healthcare.
So whats the big deal? Given the wages paid in Cuba, there
is little other choice. My chookshed is better maintained then
some of those houses.

"Show us in his own words what a fanatic he truly is."

The very disaster that is Cuba is more then enough evidence.
Look up the definition of a fanatic. In mine, fanatical people
have very strong views about something and behave in an extreme
way. Thats Fidel for you!

If a fair election was the main concern, the UN could be called
in as in other countries, to monitor the election. A free press
would be allowed for a start, not just hours of endless brainwashing
by Uncle Fidel. The real issue is that he knows that his people
would probably kick him out, something that he simply can't handle,
because he's a fanatic. Hopefully he'll die soon, so that people
at least get the right to free speech

Yabby, thank you for the good news!

It's great to now have learnt from you that the problem of homelessness and housing unaffordability has been solved in Australia, even for unemployed people. I guess the fact that over 80% of Cubans own their own home and that none lack a secure roof over their head doesn't seem like such a groundbreaking achievement after all, in the light of this happy news.

---

Yabby wrote, "fanatical people have very strong views about something and behave in an extreme way. ..."

"Strong views", you say Yabby? "behave in an extreme way"? Thank you. I'll keep that in mind.

Who knows when I might soon run into someone who fits just such a description? If I consider more carefully all my encounters on OLO I might find that it has already occurred.

Still, it's a shame that you have not been able to provide me with direct quotes to show me how a fanatic actually talks, as I have asked of you.

Perhaps, this is because you have found that Fidel is an exceptionally devious fanatic and has not, in any of his many hundreds of speeches, revealed any overt signs of his fanaticism?

---

Personally, I would love to see free and open elections held in Cuba if that were possible. I believe that if this occurred the outcome would be an overwhelming victory for those in favour of preserving Cuba's socialist system. In all likelihood, the Cuban Communist Party would have to share power with other pro-socialist parties, and I think that that would be a very good thing.

However, unlike you, I am not convinced that guarantees of free and fair elections can be given, even by the UN.

If you choose to judge me for not joining with you in your condemnation of Castro over that and use that as a pretext not to acknowlege any of the other points I have raised, then that's your prerogative, but others may judge me differently.

---

Rhian, I think you're comparing apples with Oranges IMO. More later

James Sinnamon (author)

80% of Cubans "owning their own home" doesn't sound very socialist to me...I thought the ideal of socialism was for no individual to own property? Here's a different perspective on home ownership in Cuba (sorry about the crappy formatting): http://www.ibike.org/cuba/library/CU%20real%20estate2.rtf - or you can try
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:HP6UcTktp-AJ:www.ibike.org/cuba/library/CU%2520real%2520estate2.rtf+cubans+%22own+their+own+home%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au

I would think that at least 99% of Australians have a roof over their head, as would be the case in most capitalist democracies.
But I agree more could done by the government here to ensure home ownership opportunities are more widely available: not making investment properties such an excessively attractive proposition would be a good start.

wizofaus,

I can't remember where I read the statistic of 80% Cuban home ownership, but the article for which you provided a link appears to confirm that.

Whatever one thinks of private home ownership, this would surely disprove the notion that Cuba is run by completely rigid Marxist ideologues.

One reason that home ownership is not, instead, well below 50%, are the laws described in that article designed to prevent the buying and selling of housing for speculative gain.

The bureacratic hurdles, whilst painful for some, seem like defensible measures to protect Cubans against the ravages that a privatised housing market would bring.

No doubt, better ways of achieving what those controls are intended to achieve could be found in a more open and democratic Cuba, but what they must not do, under any circumstances, is to allow the private trading of housing for speculative gain. In no time at all, the coastal neighbourhoods, now inhabited by poor Cubans will be sold off to wealthy foreigners for holiday homes and luxury resorts.

Personally I would prefer government-owned housing and security of tenure, but either system has been shown to be vastly cheaper than the private property market, which only serves to divert, and very inefficiently at that, vast amounts of the wealth of the rest of society to a large socially unproductive caste comprising land speculators, landlords, property developers, real estate agents, housing financiers, mortgage borkers, conveyancers, advertisers, etc.

---

wizofaus wrote, "I would think that at least 99% of Australians have a roof over their head, ..."

Of what value to this discussion is such a figure plucked out of the air?

Presumably you are guessing that 1% are homeless?

Well if it is as high as 1%, that's 200,000 Australians. As far as I am concerned, if even one Australian is involuntarily homeless, then that's one too many.

There are indeed homeless people and way too many. It is a direct and predictable consequence of the privatisation of the housing market begun by Menzies back in the 1950's.

James Sinnamon (author)

"and has not, in any of his many hundreds of speeches, revealed any overt signs of his fanaticism?"

Nope, as I am not fanatical enough to read hundreds of his speeches,
but judge him by his results. Actions speak louder then words sometimes. If Fidel was not a control freak and cared about Cuba's
people, he would allow them to decide through an election and allow
a free press, so that Cubans actually can say what they think.
Not so on either count, but then control freaks want to control
everything. It happens in marriages and it happens in countries.

That URL that Wiz posted, showed what a disaster housing is in
Cuba. Hehe, I'd like to see how Australians would respond, if
a Govt introduced that kind of legislation here :)

Australians now live in the world's biggest houses. The 3 by 1 won't
do anymore, no wonder many houses have risen in price.

Govts are free to release more land for housing. If they did then
housing costs would drop. Instead I gather then on an average
block in NSW, they impose something like 150k$ in charges.
So the problem of expensive houses in Aus is squarely at the
feet of State Govts. Some of their chardonay set legislators tried
to enforce high density housing by restricting land release.
Duh, so of course the cost of housing blows out. Building a house
is still not expensive in Australia and we are not short of land.

My only point was that I doubt Cuba's homeless rates are better than Australia's. And if homelessness in itself isn't much of a measure of anything - I'd much prefer to be happy and homeless than miserable but living in a hovel that disqualified me from being seen as homeless.
Cuba may have some achievements to be proud of, but given that's about the best that state-imposed socialism has ever managed to produce, it's not a particularly compelling argument in favour of such a system. Have you considered moving there?

Yabby,

I am not going to discuss Cuba with you any more on this forum. If you wish to continue venting your ill-informed prejudices about issues which are highly tangential to the topic under discussion, then I suggest, once again, that you do that elsewhere.

---

Rhian,

I think your post misses my point.

In any case, your comparisons between different capitalist and 'socialist' economies fail to acknowledge the different degrees of access that different countries have had to the world's non-renewable natural resources.

Cuba, which consumes vastly less petroleum that it once received from the USSR would have to be a highly efficient economy if viewed in that regard, certainly far more efficent than the US which consumes a disproprotionate quantity of the world's natural resources.

They also fail to take into account the fact that the 'socialist' economies had to overcome the devastation inflicted by war at the outset, particularly in the case of North Korea. The extreme Stalinist nature of the North Korean regime, largely the result of the horrific destruction inflicted upon that country in the course of the war, would be an illustration of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The popular guerrilla movement which had its genesis in the struggle against the Japanese became largely what the US had falsely claimed to have been fighting against. A similar point could be made about Pol Pot's Cambodia.

My essential point still remains, that is that in market economies policies intended to extend prosperity to all members of society are being progressively scrapped at the behest of neo-liberal ideologues.

That many have accordingly suffered in this country as a consequence of the policies of the neo-liberal Howard Government is indisputable.

The true consequences of these polices will become apparent to many more when this ecologically unsustainable resources boom or the world economic boom ends, that is if Howard is not first removed and his iniquitous 'reforms' scrapped.

---

Incidentally, a hallmark of Singapore is state intervention in the economy. Optus, for example, is largely owned by the Singapore Government.

James Sinnamon (author)

Dagget, I'm 100% with you on "market economies policies intended to extend prosperity to all members of society are being progressively scrapped at the behest of neo-liberal ideologues". You (and other readers) may be interested in the following recent articles, the first regarding Australia and the latter the U.S.:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/money-not-the-only-thing-making-the-world-work/2007/10/03/1191091193307.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1003/p09s01-coop.html

While both articles have an undeniable left-wing bias, the fundamental points they make cannot be dismissed out of hand.

In the end, democracy will be what determines that raw laissez-faire capitalism is not what is best for us - economically, socially or environmentally. People will only continue unwittingly voting against their own interests for so long. But not giving them the chance is inexcusable.

Daggett,
You may be right that “policies intended to extend prosperity to all members of society are being progressively scrapped” but the key word here is “intended.” Many of these policies were scrapped or changed because they failed to achieve their intended objectives, or because they had other adverse consequences that caused more harm to society than their putative benefits.

The program of reforms you call “neoliberal” is also “intended to extend prosperity to all members of society“.

Loosening labour market regulation is intended to raise real wages by raising productivity, and also open new job opportunities.

Removing tariffs and signing up for free-trade negotiations is intended to give consumers access to more diverse and cheaper goods and services. So is competition policy, deregulating the financial sector, floating the exchange rate, removing marketing monopolies etc.

Privatising some government business organisations is intended to free government resources to provide services the private sector won’t supply, such as social infrastructure.

Contracting out of non-core services is intended to achieve better service at lower cost.

You might argue that advocates of these policies are mistaken in expecting them to deliver benefits to the community. But you are wrong to assume that their advocates do not intend to do good.

---
I don’t deny that Singapore’s society and economy are highly state-directed. Both laissez faire capitalism (Hong Kong) and state-directed capitalism (Singapore) have proved successful in delivering prosperity. The common thread is capitalism.

I repeat my question - Can you name a single non-capitalist country whose citizens enjoy either the freedom or the prosperity that we do?

Rhian, if you examine social and economic trends of the 20st century, especially in Britain and the U.S., there's quite solid evidence that the bulk of the policies "intended to extend prospeity to all members of society" worked quite well. The 'peak' of shared prosperity appeared to be somewhere in the 60s and early 70s, but once Thatcherism and Reaganism took hold, that signalled a gradual swift back towards high wealth disparities, and limited prosperity for the bulk of the population. The same phenonemon has been less extreme in Australia, but is still present. Personally I would be surprised if the next decade did not witness a swing back away from neoliberal policies, as more and more voters realise they have not benefitted. Even Kevin Rudd, a self-professed economic conservative, has written quite forcefully on this.
Unleashing "free market" forces with minimal restraint does have the power to generate significant amounts of wealth when starting from a low base (e.g. Ireland, China) - but it is not really a suitable economic model once significant levels of prosperity have been obtained, as J.K.Galbraith noted 50 years ago.

Did you follow the thread Yabby started in General? (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1083)

Wiz

Across mainstream Australian politics there is broad acceptance that there are things the market does better than government, and things it doesn’t. Competitive markets are good at directing resources efficiently to diverse consumer wants and needs, spurring innovation and keeping prices down. Governments should provide the things markets can’t or won’t (free education, defence etc), a legal framework (including business regulation such as protections for consumer standards), redistribute some income from the wealthy to the poor, and also raise money to deliver the range of social, environmental etc objectives the community wants and can’t get from business or by their own efforts.

The difference between the major parties on this are mainly about the balance between the different objectives and the means of achieving them. There is little argument, certainly from the parties' leadership, about the principles themselves.

Labor tends to be good at reforms that reduce to power of business over consumers, because they understand that such reform is progressive (for all the business lobby groups try to paint themselves as victims), and because they are less wedded to business welfare and get less money from business that do the Liberals. So Labor started the program of tariff cuts, introduced National Competition Policy, etc

For similar reasons, Labor has been relatively weak at implementing reforms that impinge on its own financial and political power base in the unions, which of course are a favourite target of the Liberals.

In this context I think the “neoliberalism” that Daggett sees in both Labor and Liberals is a straw man – neither side of Australian politics has any intention of emulating Margaret Thatcher (and indeed her “reforms” were often more about political opportunism and rewarding her voter base and financial backers than about ideology, bear in mind government spending as a percentage of GDP rose under her administration, and her privatisations were outrageously transparent bribes to the lower middle class).

I believe that Daggett’s anti-capitalist views put him outside this mainstream consensus, and the policies he advocates would do serious harm to Australians’ economic wellbeing.

Rhian wrote,

"Many of these policies were scrapped or changed because they failed to achieve their intended objectives, or because they had other adverse consequences that caused more harm to society than their putative benefits."

Sorry, I don't accept that.

It sounds like Peter Saunders of the Centre for Independent Studies telling us how detrimental welfare payments are or how wonderful things woud be for everybody if only they abolished the minimum wage.

I worked hard for years and paid my taxes and suddenly got retrenched through no fault of my own. When I went to University, I found I wasn't eligible for Austudy because of mean-spirited restrictive guidlines, so I had to had to support myself with casualised unskilled work whilst attempting to study full time. That was whilst Keating was still in office. I couldn't even get a loan off them at usurious rates to pay my living expenses. When I left Uni and found myself unemployed for a few weeks, I was treated like dirt by some public servants whose salaries I had probably paid a few years earlier. At that point Howard had just came in to power and immediately toughened up the cetnerlink requirements.

I found the experience so traumatic that on the next occasion in my life when I was unemployed I did not even approach Centrelink. On the following occasion I was out of work for over three months before I went to Centrelink.

The treatment of welfare recipinets is designed to deter people from claiming benefits and cause people to accept low-paid second-rate employment conditions.

Since then the treatment of welfare recipients by Centrelink has gotten worse, largely thanks to the clamouring for a harsher welfare regime by the likes of Saunders.

I don't accept that this is in the interests of the welfare recipients themsleves, nor society at large.

---

Rhian wrote, "(Thatcher's) privatisations were outrageously transparent bribes to the lower middle class."

I think we're largely agreed on that. I would argue the same for various privatisations in this country including those of Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank.

(more later)

Rhian, no major disagreements, but Thatcher was most definitely motivated by ideology - I'm sure you're aware of her "This is what we believe" remark, referring to Hayek's "Constitution of Liberty". Howard is definitely not quite the Thatcherite that some make him out to be, but even many Liberal party insiders have commented on the party's ideological embrace of many neoliberal tenets, and the party's close association with the CIS, IPA and HR Nicholls society (all unashamed "free market fundamentalists") is well documented.
Keating's initial embrace of "economic rationalism" was, at the time, not entirely unjustified, as oppressive labour market regulation was definitely holding back productivity. But the growing gap since then between the haves and have-nots is a cause for concern, if for no other reason that it has made our economy unstable and dependent on overseas demand for our raw resources. A large, prosperous middle class is necessary to maintain a strong domestic economy where providers of goods and services have a viable market to sell into. Further, an increasing marginalized lower-class is a recipe for crime, social unrest and a drag on the economy as more and more of the population become drains on the economy as opposed to productive citizens. Decades of unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism in the U.S. (only briefly and barely reigned in by Clinton) is predictably leading to this result, and Australia risks following the same path without a rethink of what policies actually make the most sense.
James’s view might be marginal, but more and more are likely to be attracted to it if the less palatable face of capitalism start to overshadow the undeniable benefits of market economies and free enterprise. Indeed, that’s how we got communism in the first place.

"A large, prosperous middle class is necessary to maintain a strong domestic economy where providers of goods and services have a viable market to sell into"

Wiz, this is your problem. The middle class grew rich on farming
and mining. Farming finally collapsed, partially due to all that
weight. Now its time for that middle class to show that they
can earn an income in the global economy, like the rest of us
have to.

Yes, a market economy is going to be less egalitarian, as individuals
can operate more to their potential. Some will thrive, create
wealth and make it all happen. Other troubled souls will struggle
along as best they can.

The extra wealth created by market economics can help them to
help themselves better. The question is where to draw the line
in the sand, where many find it easier to screw the system, rather
then bother to help themselves. None of us like to be taken
for suckers.

Right now on average, Australia is doing pretty well. Latham
understood the benefits of mums and dads being direct shareholders.
I gather thats something like 42% of the population, so quite a
large share. The wealthiest group seem to be the grey nomads,
people who worked and saved all their lives.

I still believe that part of the left wing problem is envy. I know
a few, most of them buy lottery tickets :)

wizofaus wrote, "James's view might be marginal, ..."

I don't believe they are.

Perhaps you could you tell me what you understand my views to be? I don't think I recall saying that 1930's Russian-style barracks 'socialism' was a good system for Australia to adopt or even that we should exactly emulate the Cuban form of socialism.

If you accept that, then what else do you think of what I have I have written is 'marginal', and please use my own words and don't put other words into my mouth.

---

Rhian you wrote: "Can you name a single non-capitalist country whose citizens enjoy either the freedom or the prosperity that we do?"

I can see the logical leap that will ensue from the answer you seem to be anticipating.

"No! No socialist society has been able to achieve the freedom or prosperity of Austalia in 2007. So it follows that any policies that will signifcantly impair the operation of the free market can only make us worse off."

(tobecontinued)

Yabby, how is the simple economic reality that a large prosperous middle class is the best way to ensure an economy remains stable and successful "my" problem? Personally, I haven't suffered particularly in the gradual rise in pro-free-market policy making, but I fully recognise how lucky I've been in my upbringing, education and employment opportunities. But there are plenty of people out there far more talented than me, and who certainly work a good deal harder, that have suffered, often meaning that their productivity is not getting fully capitalised on. I'm not sure what "left-wingers" you know that rely on lottery tickets - although I will say your remark is a intriguing change from the usual swipes from certain conservative commentators that the Left in Australia are "chardonnay socialists" or the "chattering classes". (FWIW, my personal economic position is pretty centrist, and would probably have been seen as slightly to the Right 30 years ago).

James, in Australia at least, intellectuals that are actively "against" capitalism per se are a fairly minor group. The only political party with any strong leftward bias, the Greens, gets its votes from people concerned about the environment, not because they want to see a return to socialism. The ALP dropped its socialist pretensions long ago, and of course the vast majority of voters don't really give it much thought, and vote in their own self-interest. But my point all along has been that as long as voters *do* continue to sensibly vote in their own self-interest, then this will act on a natural check on the drift towards extreme neoliberalism. It hasn't worked so well in the US, because there are large bodies of voters there that seem to consistently vote against their own economic interests (the "What's the matter with Kansas" hypothesis). But even there, a political backlash appears to be brewing, and it won't take governments who want to stay in power long to realise that policies that work against widespread prosperity are a dead-end street.

lets see

Labor hides peadophiles, and only get caught when person goes to police.

labor hides child sexual and physical assualts, for whom, the labor party.

So labor is only concerned with one thing to protect themselves from being found out.

Vote 1 labor
hide a peadophile
hide child sexual and physical assualts
If you are really lucky you could support the education union they look after children for labor.

Become and act like kevin 07 and do nothing.

Stuart Ulrich

Rhian,

My response to your question:

"Can you name a single non-capitalist country whose citizens enjoy either the freedom or the prosperity that we do?"
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6395#95524)

... can be found on the discussion forum related to my article "Living standards and our material prosperity" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6326#95603

---

wizofaus,

Who's 'James'?

I thought I was 'daggett' to you and to everyone else on this forum.

I can't actually see where I have explicitly advocated socialism or advocated abolishing capitalism on any current thread. Now it may be reasonable to assume from what I have written to assume that I don't particularly like capitalism and I would prefer to live under a different economic system, but how about addressing the issues I have raised whatever conclusions you have chosen to draw instead of just placing a label on me and using that label in order to dismiss my ideas as 'marginal'?

---

wizofaus wrote, "But my point all along has been that as long as voters *do* continue to sensibly vote in their own self-interest, then this will act on a natural check on the drift towards extreme neo-liberalism."

I would have thought that with "WorkChoices", "Welfare to Servitude", the flogging of most of our publicly owned assets, outsourcing, the commercialisation of our Universities, the privatisation of many formerly government-run services, the privatisation of retirement income, the deregulation of the finance sector, the floating of the Australian dollar etc, we had already reached a state of extreme neo-liberalism.

How much do yo think it is going to cost us should the Australian public ever decide to undo the damage caused by the privatisation binges of Keating and Howard? A fat lot of good the 'natural check' against extreme neo-liberalism of which you talk will have done us if, by the time it takes effect, the nation has become impoverished.

James Sinnamon (author)

Well I see the U.S. as having headed far more down the deregulate-privatize-reduce taxation route than us, and they're not impoverished...yet! I've read a few articles suggesting that another 1929-type crash may well be on the cards if at least regulation on financial markets is not significantly tightened, but, despite the unquestionable levels of despair and poverty during the last Great Depression, America (and the world) did recover, and if it happens again, a) enough lessons have been learn to ensure the effects won't be as devastating, and b) I wouldn't be surprised to see perhaps the introduction of another "New Deal" type arrangement - essentially a recognition that raw laissez-faire capitalism simply doesn't work, no matter how persuasive the arguments Rand, Hayek, Friedman and others might sound.

Do I think it's reasonable that lessons have to be learnt in such a hard way, especially where those who suffer the most are not the ones responsible? No, of course...but it seems to be human nature.

BTW, I wasn't me who labelled you "marginal" - I merely said your views "might" be marginal. I thought it was reasonably apparent that I largely agree with many of your points, though by no means all. But there is a big difference between "not liking capitalism" and my position, which is that "capitalism is great...as long as it monitored and regulated sensibly by government policy, and needs government-provided infrastructure to function well". Which means I accept that in the early 80's government regulation had become suffocating, and that the government was trying to take on too much by running the commercial arms of many public services. Hence a certain amount of deregulation and privatisation was in order. But we overstepped the mark sometime in the last 15 years, and are beginning to pay the price.

wizofaus,

Your words again were:

"James's view might be marginal, but more and more are likely to be attracted to it if the less palatable face of capitalism start to overshadow the undeniable benefits of market economies and free enterprise. Indeed, that's how we got communism in the first place."

Even though the qualification 'might' was used, when I see such words I take it to mean that you are saying that my views are marginal. Certainly that would have been my own intended meaning.

Whether you wrote I was 'marginal' or my views were 'marginal' a likely effect would be to have been to cause others to dismiss my views without giving them due consideration. The way you imply it would be a bad thing if the ideas I hold were to be more widespread reinforces that interpretation.

---

BTW 'communism', in its technical sense, is what socialism was to evolve into after the increase in material abundance, made theoretically possible by socialism, will make conflict between humans and the compulsion to work disappear. At that point, each would give according to his or her ability and each would receive according to his or her need - to paraphrase the saying.

However, given that human productivity is constrained by the availability of finite non-renewable natural resources I sadly can't envision this happy situation ever being achieved.

'Communism' has also been used to describe hunter-gatherer societies such as the native North American societies:

"The old Indian stared at the government officials for over a minute and calmly replied, 'When the white man found the land, Indians were running it. No taxes, no debt, plenty of buffalo, plenty of beaver, women did all the work and the medicine man was free. The Indian man spent all day hunting and fishing and all night having sex.' Then the old man leaned back and smiled, 'Only the white man is dumb enough to think he could improve on a system like that.'" (http://www.wildernessadventures.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry061225-103331)

Neither form of society would have much need for either gulags or secret police I would imagine.

James Sinnamon (author)

Yendis “"The land belongs to all men, the rent is the benefit, it should be collected by society." It's a pity this is too complex for your mind.”

One of the conditions of process is that it should actually work.

Governments are the last place any non-functioning process should be tolerated because, despite deficiencies, a non-functioning process will soon attract its vested interest and become entrenched. It happened in post WWII UK, through the wide range of nationalized industries and the mindless government meddling which dearest Margaret terminated and for which the British People should be eternally grateful.
Similarly Reagan was right in his defense of small government , rather than government employing intrusive bureaucrats who get fat by riding on the backs of the creative, innovative and those who produce real wealth and social benefit.

Government does not produce a single social benefit, it merely redistributes the rewards from those who create them to those who (supposedly) need to be subsidized by them.

Wizofaus “Col Rouge, can you honestly say you know a single adult that has never lied, cheated, stolen, or put short-term personal gain at the expense of the long-term good of all”

Plenty and the ones who work for government are invariably better protected from public scrutiny. The problem is, working in government gives the opportunity for “grand larceny” to what would otherwise only be “petty theft’ if left in private hands.

RobP “Another is to continue building central social infrastructure that is cheaper built by Government but which helps all citizens”

The principle of “user pays” is the only test of value. The “cheapness for the common good” has never applied.

Government role is to provide the standards and define the expectation, on behalf of the public. Government does not need to fund or operate to ensure the public interest is represented / protected.

As has been seem with any number of public enterprises which have been privatized, the “best outcome for all citizens” is where government plays the role of referee, rather than been referee and fielding a team in the competition.

Col, then I can only suggest you and these "plenty" of individuals with impeccable moral records go off and start your own country - you shouldn't need any government at all!

OTOH, you are absolutely right that a government that grows to excessive size is a breeding ground for corruption, laziness and any number of undesirable behaviours. To paraphrase Einstien, government should be as small as possible, but no smaller (a quick Google dashed my hope that I might be the first to come up with that phrase!)

You at least accept that goverment is needed to act as a 'referee'.
My argument is essentially that given a large, complex capitalist economy, quite a lot of refereeing is needed, because without it, individuals will pursue activities that they see as immediately beneficial to themselves, despite the fact that the net effect of everyone doing the same thing leaves everyone worse off - as epitomised in the "prisoner's dilemma" scenario.

On top of that, the fact is that government-provided services such as education, health-care and scientific research have worked extraordinarily well over the last century, and any belief that it could be done better by private enterprise alone is at best largely hypothetical, and at worst, in stark contrast to what real-life examples we do have.

As I wrote above (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6395#94992), if the Government had not created factories and laboratories in which to conduct scientific research necessary to get our secondary industry up and running between the two world wars, and, instead, had left it largely to the private sector, this country would not have been capable of defeating a Japanese invasion in 1942 (see "Armed and Ready" (1995) by Andrew T Ross and "Can Australia ever be self-reliant for national defence? " at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=860)

BTW, just came across one of the best examples I've come across of a real-life "prisoner's dilemma" type scenario that was ultimately resolved by government intervention:

(from http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Prisonerdilemma.htm)

"Until a few decades ago, the tobacco industry was allowed to advertise cigarettes on TV. This was an enormously expensive cost of doing business, but competing firms had no choice; if they did not advertise, their rivals would, threatening to take over the market. It would have been in the best interest of all the tobacco companies to forge an industry-wide agreement to stop advertising. But no single firm wanted to risk it. Then along came the government, and banned TV cigarette ads for reasons of public health. Interestingly, this ban was strenuously opposed by the tobacco companies at the time. But their opposition proved to be misguided. After the ban took place, all the tobacco firms found that their profits improved. It was a classic example of individual benefit deriving not from self interest, but from group action."

Of course the irony in this case is that the point of the government intervention was to help reduce the amount of cigarettes sold, and the long term effect of it probably *has* been to reduce the profitability of cigarette manufactures - however, it has almost certainly increased the profitability of the economy as a whole, as far less productivity has been lost through smoking-related illnesses and deaths...not to mention excessive smoke-breaks.

Col, I'm genuinely curious...as a libertarian, what's your take on this? That individual liberty is more important than an optimal outcome? If so, doesn’t that assume enterprises are genuinely “free” to avoid wasting money on advertising…when in fact they are essentially bound to do so, just in order to stay in business?

Col,

Regarding your comment on government being a referee, I imply that when I say that governments should STEER the economic outcomes it wants. All I said in your quote of me was that governments should centrally BUILD infrastructure. (This could be by some partnership with the private sector or a national initiative like the Snowy Hydro Scheme, say; but I've got no real idea what model will work best these days.) However, I am aware that governments have proven to be pretty hopeless at running them in the past.

BTW, I pinched the following quote from another article on OLO.

"By adhering to dogmatic positions, puritans usually end up with 100 per cent of nothing. Yet puritans also cope well psychologically with such defeats, as their ideology becomes for them a grim gruel which sustains them in their solitude, consoling themselves that they remain forever lefter-than-thou, or greener-than-thou, or feminister-than-thou."

I must admit I thought of you when I read it. But I don't mind telling you because I know you will psychologically cope with it !!

I read with dismay "Latham: Beware the Polls and Swing Voter" of Saturday 17 November the second of two articles by Mark Latham concerning the current elections in the Australian Financial Review. In the article Latham finds surprisingly little fault with the Howard Government and dismisses the grass roots campaign against "Work Choices" a "scare campaign".

By thus having turned his back on those of us who desperately want to see the end of John Howard's misrule, he has shown himself to be little better than those within the ranks of the Labor Party whom he rightly exposed as having undermined his own bid to become Prime Minister in 2004, thereby prolonging Howard's reign.

I have written a response entitled "Mark Latham's political gift to John Howard" and had it puvlished on Margo Kingston's Webdiary on 20 November 2007 at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2195

Obviusly the high regard I expressed for Mark Latham in the article in not longer justified.

James Sinnamon (author)