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.