This discussion is interesting for me because you all seem to be discussing On Line Opinion as a blog. I guess it is, at least by definition, but I don't tend to think of it in quite that way.

Not sure why not. Perhaps it is because of the relatively higher degree of editorial control than I see on most blogs. Or the fact that authors can't just enter text into the system.

But perhaps we should embrace the blog paradigm more consciously?

What else would politicians run on but public opinion, is that not the definition of democracy. As for the use of this forum as a source information into the opinions of the public, I can only say that I hope so, because the truth is, political persuasion and leadership in Australia is far to focused on entertaining the majority of the Australian public, A majority that cannot think about the long-term effects of government policy today, A majority that can only see as far as their own hip pockets, as enforced by current media. I believe that Education is the key to the realisation of what is really beneficial to the welfare of Australia. When will current government entertain the minority of Australians who understand effective economic policy and effective government leadership?

“What else would politicians run on but public opinion, is that not the definition of democracy”

What else? One or more of the following….

They run on the power of big business to get their wishes, by way of political donations and other forms of reward, and the threat to shift big financial backing to the opposition if they don’t get their wishes.

They run on self-interest, like the majority of ordinary folk. They are very often real estate or business people themselves, so their decisions affect their own businesses

They think they know better than the average citizen and can make decisions against the wishes of the majority, especially early in their term.

They believe the guff that big business espouses and turn it into their own doctrine: – that we have to have constantly increasing productivity or else the whole country will stagnate – that economic growth is the bottom line, not quality of life – that monetary policy rules the roost, not the quality our environment and resource base, etc, etc.

All of this means that our form of democracy is far from the real thing.

But as I said last time, OLO and the internet in general are perhaps helping to break this undemocratic stranglehold down a bit….. although I fear that it may not last.

"that we have to have constantly increasing productivity or else the whole country will stagnate – that economic growth is the bottom line, not quality of life – that monetary policy rules the roost, not the quality our environment and resource base, etc, et"

LUDWIG, you seem to be missing some basic economic knowledge so let me enlighten you. In relation to the sustainment and improvement of the quality of life economic growth IS the bottom line, as high economic growth breeds low unemployment and economic prosperity. Monetary policy IS THE MEANS by which to direct funds into the preservation and conservation of our resources and natural environment. Also that microeconomic policy relates directly to efficiency and productivity that construct the foundations of a booming economic cycle.

Gamble, you wrote:

“In relation to the sustainment and improvement of the quality of life economic growth IS the bottom line, as high economic growth breeds low unemployment and economic prosperity.”

So what do you make of economies that have essentially remained stable for a long time, but have continued to provide a high quality of life, a high rate of employment, a high rate of old-age security, a high rate of health care, and so on…. in countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc?

“Monetary policy IS THE MEANS by which to direct funds into the preservation and conservation of our resources and natural environment.”

Yes – for as long as this monetary policy represents an increasing average per-capita return. If the pile of money is forever bigger, but the population is also forever bigger, and the problems with our environment and social infrastructure are forever bigger, to the point where the average per-person share of the money is not bigger…then we are on a losing trend…well and truly. And that is where we are at in Australia, Gamble.

I think you need to very seriously question your belief that continued unending economic growth is the bottom line. Let’s have real per-capita economic growth for a while and then stabilise the size of the economy at a point that provides a sufficiently high quality of life for the majority of us to be happy with, and that is in harmony with the ability of our resource base and our technological abilities to provide that level of comfort.

Gamble ,
just an observation- i think GROWTH is NOT necessarily good for society. Unbridaled growth for growth's sake,it produces too much damage to the environment which we depend on and locks us in to a destructive way of life which won't last and is hardly ideal.
As for the extra jobs you say it produces ,I think many people work too hard for too long producing something that is going to be thrown in the rubbish tips around the world .Shorter hours can produce more jobs and hopefully happier workers . We should make better "stuff" and hang onto it , perhaps become a bit more selective in the posessions we buy .I am working hard on this aspect!
It would be better to have working people learn to relax more - say contribute to OLO and other forums and engage with their children and friends at the local parks or clubs [if there's still one left ].Be happy to help the Missus in the house a bit more and get onto the Pollies to spread our scarce resources around in a fairer way .