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.