Wow, what a rant ! You wouldn't be inclined to be left wing by any chance would you ?

While I agree with some of the things you say, particularly about sport. I think you tried to cover far too much ground as it is impossible to debate such a spread of subjects. Perhaps you should confine your arguments to specifics rather than try and paint a broad picture. You will then get more feed back. There is no perfect country and for all our faults it is still considered by the people that live here, the best country in the world. Why do so many people want to come and settle ? It's mainly because of opportunity which doesn't exist in many other parts of the world. There is always room for improvement but don't knock it, consider some of the benefits. If you want to debate the health system compared to other countries for instance I think you might be on shaky ground although, God knows, there is plenty of room to improve the system here, but try living in the USA or the UK and find out what a health system is like.

A far left tirade which can be summed up as “competition (& the capitalist system ) dun it”. There are so many factual errors of reasoning here. But one is sufficient to debunk the entire article.

Harry: “Australia is the third richest country in the world in average wealth per person”

For the author’s benefit, take note:

Australia is the 16th richest country per person.

Australia is the 16th richest country, behind even Indonesia & Mexico.

Australia is the 3rd most developed country.

This last figure is according to the UN’s Human Development Index, which is a measure of life quality taking everyone into account, including the 59 yr life expectancy of Aborigines. So according to the UN there are only 2 better places in the world to live than Aus. Go figure.

Don’t let facts get in the way of a good yarn, Harry.

Harry needs to write less & read more.

Funny thing is this type of nonsense in Harry’s article is so often repeated by elements of the left that to see their arguments written down in full is both very damning for them & laughter-inducing for the rest of us. No wonder Labour moved to the right & turned into New Labour. That’s because no-one apart from a few staunch stone-agers would ever vote for them.

As Kerry Packer said, “I don’t believe in competition, I believe in monopoly”.
Well all the ruling elite espouse that otherwise they would not be a ruling elite. Having a monopoly on the media is crucial for a handful of people to dominate society and oppress the larger working class, including having any say in any of the meaningful decisions carried out daily. As well as, promoting their "creatures" like Rudd and the rest of the Laborites after they have squeezed the Liberals of further useful treachery.

But as many realize modern monopoly is engendered by competition itself, as witnessed by an ever greater merger of companies over the last two decades to form global conglomerates that scour the world for ever cheaper resources and wages. The escalating competition, in which the market value of a company has become the sole criterion for survival, leaves no more room for social concessions in the workplace. At one time companies vied with each other by increasing their services - today it is ever further cutbacks including quality control.

Many of the banks got their fingers burnt in predatory dealings in the sub-prime home loans and are now cutting back on cheap credit which will have huge ramifications for production and jobs. Including those who have partially been living off their credit cards because living standards are in reverse and there has been no significant wage rises since 1982, whilst the Ceos have had some 400. Cheap credit too is the lifeblood of manufacturing. Workers will be confronted with an unprecedented proliferation of closures and mass layoffs, a sharp increase in temporary and low-wage employment, and a further but intensified assault on old-age pensions and the social welfare system. Which will add fuel to the fire because spending will sharply decrease, people will not be able to buy goods. It is evident too that the small manufacturer cannot survive in a struggle in which the first condition of success is production upon an ever greater scale and the governments looking after "big business."

It is hard to think of a way in which this article can be made a stimulus for constructive dialogue on how society and economics can be better organised for the commonwealth. A lot of things are certainly very bad. But before we make radical changes in the way we do things we have to be sure that we can do better. When I was young I was really enthused by the slogans that came out of early and mid 19th century socialism, such as: "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need" How wonderful it would be if all the producers worked their butts off for the joy of contributing to the commonwealth, and all the needy restrained their demands and sought to become producers themselves. Sadly it doesn't seem to work like that except in some close family groups. It seems that we need the incentives of competition and differential reward even though that leads to great excess and considerable inequality. But that doesn't mean that we can allow open slather and dog eat dog. That is why we have evolved a social democracy and why we want our governments to keep on chipping away at the problems. Evolution is what we want, not revolution. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater Harry!

Fencepost says "It seems that we need the incentives of competition and differential reward even though that leads to great excess and considerable inequality."
What is this "we need the incentive"? This line usually comes from someone 'who is doing alright', that is, at the expense of the majority. What incentive is there when 2 million are going to lose their homes and finish up with an enormous interest debt owed to predatory lenders?
Fencepost in his haste for "meaningful dialogue" doesn't explain that the USA manufacturers, yes the very same maufacturers who at one time produced 60% of world production, many have now turned towards speculating on the stock market rather than produce goods. Producing instead the various stock market bubbles including the predatory sub-prime home mortgage lending. And the reason for this is that profits have been shrinking due to the inherant tendency for the rate of profits to shrink and the over-abundance and over-production of goods. Moreover, the advent of the microchip and the latest technology has expanded the capabilities to overproduce and flood the markets. At its highest point competition for markets sharpens up "each against all" leading to trade war, trade sanctions and then shooting war. Every company around the globe endlessly repeats the same tired mantra "we have to be more and more internationally competitive." However their standpoint is always - they are the only one in the market - hence their constant cry for "free trade."
Todays oil/petrol cartels are precisely the normal outcome of the monopoly gained through competition. In the US the Texas oil/petrol cartels actually get the taxpayer to fund the war in Iraq so they can steal the oil and sell it back to the public at high prices at the bowser: They refer to this swindle as "double whammy." The local and mid size harware companies here, have to a reasonable extent, over the last two decades been gobbled up by the competition such as Bunnings. So that they have LESS competition.

KGB - you may be right that Harry made a factual error - I can't be bothered checking though - it's completely irrelevant to the thrust of his argument...A society in which it believed that the greatest good is the outcome of unrestrained competition (well, 'unrestrained'isn't correct - it doesn't do justice to our system of favouring the wealthy in a massive variety of direct and indirect ways)is a sick society. When the only indicator of a society's health is its economic activity (and even that is measured in ways that beggar logic) then a society has proved itself incapable of being a society. I don't know that we can eliminate competition in a society - I suspect there is a fair dose of that in human nature, but we can control competition and put it in service of building communities and fairness not destroying it. We could start by dismantling the corporate/political system - and replacing it with a human one.