A good and realistic article.

"In contrast to the self-declared social democrats who merely criticise, Australians will utilise our liberal democracy to encourage change to shift the centre of politics again back to the Left, just as they did when a clear majority of voters gave their primary votes to Labor or the Coalition at various elections to promote economic reform since the early 1980s."

This is a very good point. It's basically where society says, "OK, we've got some benefits out of economic reform and globalisation over the past 25 years, but we are suffering other societal costs, so why don't we take stock and civilise the situation we find ourselves in now". This is exactly the right way to go for Australia, IMO. We can't wind back the clock, but we can regroup society and find its proper niche within our current economic situation.

Chris,
Have you ever been to Disneyland?
Trust me there's nothing fantasy about it. It’s a shrewd marketer’s capitalistic wet dream. The whole place is geared to part you from your money down to the timing of the rides. From that perspective Brilliant, just don’t look without rose coloured glasses.

You’re correct of course we need a target to focus on “watch the eyes of the charging rhino when you see the whites of his eyes squeeze the trigger and… Bang…no charging rhino. “
“What if I miss and I and the thirty spectators get trampled?”
“Never mind that son it’s the way we do things”
“but what about the rhinos”
“….Jees Son what are you some Social Democrat or one of them Greenies?”
My point here is that the article boils down to yet another Gross unsupported Generalization. Much like the overly simplistic Left/ Right diatribe. Apart from the intellectually lazy or deficient who fits any of these moulds?
Then when defending status quo that is clearly broken “of course it’s not perfect” that has to be the understatement of the week. As if talking the BIG picture somehow renders a majority of individuals as being collateral damage.
I also note you took 3 pages to say “You think Social Democrats are wrong”
With a subtext that “there’s only one way to deal with the economy… by maintaining the current paradigm.”
To use an old saying “There are many ways to skin a cat”.
Ultimately I reject your assumption to the contrary.

Two final points
If a blind man has an elephant’s tail and describes it as short and ropey does that describe the beast? You would be wiser to wait until you have the whole plan in context and then logically make specific point rather than the elephant’s tail perspective.Al you're achieving is preaching to the converted and causing more unjustified conflict.

Examinator

Fair enough.

But point of article is to suggest that it is easy to criticise, what were the ideas of social democrats in the past and why were they not listened to if the futility of our ways is so obvious, and liberal democracies do adapt to change in an imperfect world where freer trade remains the only sensible option to appease competing nations. The only thing now is that futility of debt means that we wil have to accept much tougher times ahead or return to greater protectionism.

This article is right in saying a liberal democracy is probably the only system that will work in the long term.

Up until this point I think we have had a liberal (unfettered greed and capitalist system) with the failure of successive governments to actually apply the democracy part in looking out for the best interests of the demographic (the whole of society). Such as allowing private individuals running banks too much freedom with the people’s money. Allowing greed to predominate over the training of a new generation of Australian skilled workers.

What works best is a capitalist, free market society, with socialist brakes applied by the government where it is seen to be necessary.

The questions this article asks should be debated and thought about in trying to find the best way forward for the West and our people. Are global companies actually a threat to the West and our people in the long term in terms of loss of jobs and industries. Does their so called helping of developing societies (slave wages?) come at the expense of our own societies. Should a socialist brake of some kind be put on them or is that impossible given the money they probably have to buy governments.

Chris, suggest you study economic history further, the greatest period of economic growth was from 1945-1970s. This occurred under capital regulation and fixed exchange rates established by the Bretton Woods Agreement.
International Trade flourished as businesses could invest without costs associated with uncertainty from floating exchange rates.
Casino capitalism has led to increased curreny volatility hence increased trade costs which inhibit growth.
The Bretton Woods system broke down because of the burden placed on the international reserve currency (US) by the Vietnam war and the OPEC crisis. Rather than having the savvy to reform the international framework they through the baby out with the bath water. Suggest you read two articles I have written on subject. Furthermore for supply side social democratic policies suggest you read "social Democratic response to the GreatDepression of 2008"

Slasher,

I do not deny some of what you said.

But you do not explain what the US should have done instead of ending capital controls. Of course, you would know some forty years later.

You also need to read more eco history to fully understand the many reasons why the US would choose to get rid of capital controls and why no other nation/s was prepared to takeover the US role.

If you want a debate about history, bring it on.