Yabby,

How about sticking to the point? How are my views about Cuba relevant to the discussion?

---

Yabby wrote, "Daggett is suggesting, ... a Govt that controls everything and dictates just about everything."

Where did I 'suggest' that?

---

Yabby wrote, "... nobody claimed that Costello was an economic genius, ..."

No, not is so many words. Here's what you did write:

"We owe a lot to Costello, IMHO far more then to Howard. He's left the economy in just about too healthy a state. ... He's paid off the debt, left the coffers full, with virtually full employment.

"... He's dominated parliamentary debate a bit like Keating used to. He's a bright guy, but not enough of a crawler for politics. He clearly does not need politics as much as Australia needs a good treasurer.

"So I wish him well and he'll no doubt thrive in private enterprise, with a huge salary. He's done his bit for Australia. Thanks Pete."

I take it you aren't referring to the same idiot who doesn't know the difference between 60% and 70%? (See http://candobetter.org/node/227).

How such an apparent simpleton as Costello, seemingly devoid of intellectual depth "dominated parliamentary debate" is a mystery to me.

---

You may be interested to know that I have found the time to responds to your post to the forum in response to the article "They're not really that poor" by that other free-market extremist, Peter Saunders. The post is at: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6576#100198

Yabby, actually the government most certainly could stop people borrowing recklessly, if it wanted to. Now, personally I would prefer to see a tax/fee system that at least strongly discouraged it, but legislation to control irresponsible lenders is probably also worth considering. This isn't an issue of the government being a "nanny state" - it's a matter of observing a problem, and finding a solution. Especially if the alternative is to allow a small minority of the population to continue irresponsible borrowing of overseas funds, almost certainly resulting in a situation that leaves us *all* worse off.

As far as "bureaucrats with an agenda...yet...to get it right anywhere": that's an absurd claim. Bureaucrats, directly and indirectly, have been responsible for the backbone of our economy for well over a century, making decisions on infrastructure, education and health facilities, regulating economic activity etc. Here's a good list of things government bureaucrats in the U.S. have got right, and no doubt a similar list could be compiled for Australia:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Governmentsuccesses.htm

And I can assure you that 2 billion Indians and Chinese will not be driving oil-powered cars, ever. Not even the wildest estimates of the maximum rate that oil could ever possibly be extracted would allow it, even given the most fuel efficient vehicles imaginable.
China's government is already making strong moves to encourage its citizens on to alternative forms of transport, including back to bicycles (many electrified). I fully expect that dealing with peak oil will come from a mixture of market forces and government initiatives to facilitiate the transition. Unfortunately I'm far from convinced that any government has really begun to take the issue seriously, and if anything are adding to the problem by continuing to pump more money and effort into roads than mass transit options. As a result, there will be large sections of the population that will suffer directly, leading to economic consequences that we'll all feel. I just hope they can be kept to a minimum.

CJ

Yep, your response is exactly what I expected from one dimensional labor thinkers.

Wiz, you are comparing the efficiency of the Govt sector with what? WA produces
over 40% of Australia’s exports, with roughly 10% of the population. I’ve spent
most of my working life observing a globally focussed, internationally competitive
export sector, how they act and think. I compare that to the State and Federal
Govt departments that I deal with. To put it mildly, its like day and night!

In between we have a locally focussed manufacturing sector, who are little better,
unless they have good old competition to keep them awake. It seems to be a fact
of human nature, that people commonly prefer complacency, self interest and feathering their
own little nests, unless they have good reasons to do otherwise.

Sure Govt has done many things, but how efficiently? With the monopoly of taxation
income, who keeps them accountable? If its virtually impossible to fire somebody,
why should they to put in too much effort? Some do, but many don’t and that
is the problem.

As to China, India and oil consumption, take a look at Beijing 10 years ago and today. They were all on bicycles, today they have traffic jams. Those two billion
might not all have cars yet, but they aspire to have them and in Beijing alone,
another 1000 cars a day are added. Next, due to the high price of oil, we have
a mass of wealth transfer going on, from the West, to the Middle East and other
oil producing countries. Brazil has just found a large deposit. So you think that
South Americans, Arabs, Venezuelans, Nigerians, etc, won’t be burning more
oil, as their wealth increases? Think again. You can save all you like, they will
burn it faster then you can save it.

So how are you going to ban people from borrowing more then they can afford?
Are you going to ban Harvey Norman from offering “free credit”? Are you going
to ban people borrowing over a certain limit on their credit cards? How far
are you going to intrude on peoples lives with your rules?

tbc

I never said anything about the efficiency of the government sector.
But the fact remains is that private enterprise would never have flourished without the infrastructure and social services provided by governments.

Nor did I say that developing nations won't be burning more oil - just that at some point in the near future, there will be significant limits on how much higher consumption rates can go.

Nor did I imply that I had any hope of "saving" oil by restricting my own personal use - there are plenty of far better reasons for doing that.

And nor did I suggest that the govenrment should ban people from borrowing more than they can afford. I suggested the introduction of taxes or higher fees to *discourage it*, and the possibility of better regulation of *lenders*. I don't see that this will intrude on people's lives to any significant degree.

Did you actually read my post Yabby?

Daggett, your views about Cuba clearly tells me something about your political persuasion. Time after time, you have suggested that Govts do this about that or
something else. Clearly you are not a fan of market economics, where consumers
make their own decisions, by voting with their wallets.

Regards Costello, credit where credit is due. I’ve paid compliments to both
Keating and Rudd, as my politics is issue driven, not party driven.

Costello is one of those rare treasurers, who did not leave the country with a great
big economic black hole. He served for nearly 12 years, why should I not say
thank you ? If Rudd does a great job, I will say the same.

As to Costello’s debating skills, the man has talent and a sense of humour, which
seem a mystery to you, but not to most others. That’s your problem, not our problem :)

Wiz, yes I read your post, I just approach the subjects from a different perspective.

What Govts achieved, they did at the expense of hardworking taxpayers. I’ve been
in enough industrial situations, to see little people working really hard for their money
and being taxed handsomely. I don’t blame them when they are pissed off, seeing
Govts waste, what they worked so hard for.

Private enterprise flourished long before Govt was even invented. People have
been trading goods and services, for as long as we can remember.

Why would taxes on say credit card debts, achieve so much? Those over borrowing
are already taxed with huge interest rates by the lenders, but they still don’t learn.

Perhaps a grim reaper style information campaign, would make people stop and think.
It worked pretty well in increasing awareness of HIV.

I was told by one borrower, that her Mastercard was great, as it let her pay off her
Visacard. It seems that spending less, had not even occurred to her.