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.