Born 1942, father walked out 1944, grew-up in poor single-parent family in post-war Britain; I know about poverty. And now I'm a low-income pensioner [although I own my home]. I've always lived frugally, and I ask: what cost-of-living crisis? The problem, if any, is hidden from me. Living standards both in general and for low-income groups have been rising for a long time, but not thanks to left-wing policies.

"Races to the bottom" in a high employment economy where employers need to attract and retain workers? Absolute nonsense. Growth in the economy and wages depend on firms succeeding in competitive markets, something which is hindered, often impossible, with restraints such as pattern bargaining which are not related to company circumstances and employee productivity. My children have had no difficulty finding employment and their employers work to retain them, e.g. with early promotion. (And their income doesn't flow to me, so doesn't affect my cost of living assessment.)

"Where will it all end?" With lower incomes and employment if Tristan prevails.

Tristan, do you really believe that government can spend $8000,000,000 taxpayer generated wealth on public housing which will then, not have a negative effect on current and future housing values, considering town planning practice.

Tristan, I take mild umbrage at the suggestion that I was "cutting and pasting out of context".

I used your closing paragraphs as the basis for my own snapshots

"Some problems - such as the cost of petrol - are embedded structurally now in the world economy. Only investment in alternatives will ease demand for oil. But tax and welfare reform, and reform of industrial relations - can spread the burden more fairly."

Which I summarised as:

"To counter the high cost of oil? 'tax and welfare reform, and reform of industrial relations'..."

Given you appreciate the cost of petrol is "embedded", how exactly did I misrepresent your proposed solution?

>>And in no way do you deal with the fact that public finance is cheaper to secure than private finance...<<

Only for a while. And at the expense of the taxpayer.

If you went into a bank and asked for a billion dollars, they would examine the risks associated with the loan, and charge you accordingly. If you are going to give it away to those in need, that is a very laudable objective, but the rate at which you "borrow" will not reflect the zero financial return on investment.

After a while, this source of funds will cost more, since your actions are fiscally irresponsible.

>>You also mock the notion of expanding supply in the housing market - but have no reasonable alternative to offer<<

No, I mocked the notion that expanding supply on its own, and in the way you suggest, would have the effect you anticipate.

Where we fundamentally disagree is that you appear to believe that if you can impose some order on other people's lives, all will ultimately be well. If you build houses here, give money to pensioners there, "regulate" the labour market, mandate a higher "social wage" and so on, everyone will somehow magically be better off.

This is why I described it as "loony left". The discarded ideas and ideals of the failed twentieth century experiment of communism, prettied up and presented as new and shiny.

It. Won't. Work.

pericles

your stereotyping continues. You say Tristan's ideas are loony left.

First, there is nothing inherently leftist in state intervention. Stalinism was the ultimate expression of statised capitalism. Europe after the second world war was dominated by the State.

But my real objection is to the use of the word loony. Stalin had people put in psychiatric wards when they questioned the "workers paradise" he was creating.

The phrase loony left (apart from avoiding discussion of ideas) seems to follow the stalinist tradition of attacking the sanity of those who differ with you.

Address Tristan's arguments.

For example, is there a need for more housing in Australia? Has the market been a failure in satisfying people's needs here? Is there not a role for the State in addressing this, as it did after the second world war. (To quote a British Tory of the time, we must give the people reform or they will give us revolution.)

Are PPPs efficient? Is privatising electricity a great idea? (Iemma and Costa might not think so now.)

Pericles:

The 'embedded' and structural nature of the oil crisis must be understood in context... Looming peak oil, and instability in the Middle East - mean that oil prices are creating substantial cost-of-living pressures...

There is no simple way of dealing with this... But what we CAN do is to compensate the people who are hit hardest - those on low incomes and welfare... And if by restructuring welfare, taxation, social wage provision - we can shift the burden of the crisis - then we should do so as a matter of decency. For many decisive action is needed now - and the alternative is more and more Australians sinking into poverty...

There is nothing 'magical' about boosting the social wage - but as Medicare shows - social provision of core services can provide both universal access - with greater efficiency... And that's in everyones' interest...

re:PPPs - you bemoan the 'cost to the taxpayer' - but the user-pays fees which apply for the use of private infrastructure - is like a kind of 'private tax' anyway - but it is imposed at a flat rate - which means those on lower and middle incomees must pay a higher proportion of their income than those who are wealthy... Where's the justice in this?

Dallas - you need to get $8 billion into perspective...Firstly, this is less than 1% of GDP...And yes there would be losers - those who sought to capitalise on the bubble - but housing in Australia is less affordable than it has been literally for decades...Expanding supply is an important policy lever to neutralise the legacy of the housing market bubble...And there are 100,000 Australians homeless on any given night - who need such investment desperately..

Not enough room to respond to everyone else...But thanks Passy for providing an alternative perspective from the Left...(wish there was more Left participation in OLOs forums'...)

most sincerely,

Tristan

Tristian,

I have noticed that you haven't responded to my previous comment. From that I must read into it two things (given that you've responded to other comments):

1) That there is no logical, reality based reason for your statements on pattern bargaining
2) That your stance is purely ideological

Point 2 isn't necessarily a problem, so long as you recognise it and accept that ideology isn't the best basis for policy decisions.

Onto other things:

"Variable interest rates of Australia’s banking oligopoly, in particular, have been rising well above official RBA (Reserve Bank of Australia) rates. The banking sector should be expected to exercise social responsibility - especially in the face of probable economic contraction."

Are you aware that the cost of money has increased in recent times? Banks face higher and higher costs for the very thing that they trade in: cash. You statement "The banking sector should be expected to exercise social responsibility" is tantamount to asking a small grocer not to pass on increased costs for "social responsibility reasons".

Predictably, you'll say "you can't seriously compare a bank and a corner store", however what you're really objecting to is businesses having a consistent playing field, irrespective of the type of business.

This sort of position is consistent with the notion of the "Anti dog eat dog" law (google it). It is indeed a slippery slope you're suggesting.

It's easy to score points against the banks: everyone does it when their profits come out. However I challenge you, Tristian, to come up with some policies which don't pander to "tall poppy syndrome" and which arne't based in pure ideology. This piece of yours fails on both counts.