It was a step toward democracy when English parliamentarians got paid. It meant that no longer did a person have to have independent means to get a seat in parliament. Malcolm Turnbull stated that he spent enough money to get preselection in his electoral district. He is a throwback to the era when men such as he dominated parliament. Some rich people are capable of understanding the needs of those who are not economically secure. Some people coming from a poor background such as Ronald Reagan no longer identify with their roots.

I am thankful that Kevin Rudd is who he is.

Yes I think Kevin is trying to articulate a vision of what the collective good-life might begin to look like from within the ruins of what is left of our culture, which was systematically wrecked, beginning with the Reagan/Thatcher years.

I quite like the book The Man Who Sold the World:Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Mainstream America by William Kleinknecht.

A book which describes what the Reagan agenda really did to Main-Street America, as compared to the starry-eyed horse-pooh of those who champion the "great"-man and his legacy.

What Rudd did was to try to produce a political spin on one single event in isolation. He showed that he did not understand the cause of this event, and came to the wrong conclusion that government should tax people more and accumulate more power.

Key question is, why did the sub prime mortgage happened in America, why did it not happen in Australia. Why is the Australian bank not in trouble, when we operate in a capitalist economy like America?

Lets contrast Australia Vs America. Australia bank requires a deposite of almost 30% on a property, if you do not have 30% deposit, you are required to take out mortgage insurance, the free market had led to some of the best lending principles in the world

So why did this fail in America, In America, govenment ensure that the bank can only lend on no-recourse loans, ie if you cannot repay, the bank can only get your house back. America's governmetn also forces bank to lend to minority, with little ability to borrow. This is hardly a free market, like it is in Australia, in fact the government had stacked the deck against the bank so much, that the Sub-prime crisis was always going to happen.

At every turn, you can see Kevin Rudd's government know best socialist idea happening in America, what Kevin Rudd is trying to emulate are also the things that caused the sub-prime crisis in the first place, - Government social intervention.

The Australian Banking system operate well in the free market, lets hope Rudd learns the lessons from America, and does not cripple our economy, like the US did theies, the early signs are not good

We do not have a true free market. There has always been some form of regulation. The free market followers are of the belief that the market can fulfill all peoples needs. Therefore when it came to housing, it had to be provided by the market for all. Intervention is not seen as worthwhile. In Australia it has been the role of various government to cater for the low income earners to a greater or lesser degree. This is not true for countries such as USA who claim to be a free market. The market is not able to fulfill this role without some government intervention. The result is the disastrous outcome in the USA.

dovif2, Not sure where you live in Australia but here in Victoria a similar "Sub prime" lending spree lead by a labour State Government lost the whole of our "State" bank. South Australia the same thing. All forgotten by the labour-luvvies in the media. It never happened, it is never talked about and cannot be brought up again.
Ditto South Australia.
The Labour Party who lost my State Bank will do the same again but this time to our whole country.
But do not worry chaps all the labour politicians who lost all our money are being stupendously rewarded from our current taxation less what John Howard salted away for the rotten miserable lot of them..

Speaking of the vision thing, John Howard and George Bush used to tell us that they werent in to the vision thing---which was a lie.

Under Howards rule every aspect of the Australian body politic was affected and changed, and thus stamped by his personality---that is by his world-view or "vision".

So too, with Bush and America---and his case, by extension the entire world. Which is why there was a collective sigh of relief when his term ended.

Leaders always and inevitably impose their personality and world-view (vision) on to every aspect of the organization, however small or large, of which they are the leader, head, or uno numero.