I wondered where my old mate col rogue was

I appreciate belly’s recognition that the society in which we live has aspects of both communist and capitalist systems built into it. I also think that we can look at what we have got in Australia and say to ourselves, considering our current situation in a historical perspective, that we have got it ok. We have got reasonably democratic systems of governance that have helped ensure our welfare, our rights in the workplace, etc.

This is not to say that I do not want the place to improve. Also as Belly said, we need to find a new way forward. Realistically I think that much of the wealth that we now live on was not created so much by the capitalist system, or by the huge economic growth experienced by the USSR throughout most of the 20th century, but by the incredible amount of energy, in the form of fossil fuels, that we have been burning.

Advocating once again for the middle way, I think that the time is coming where we will not be able to afford (either in an environmental or an ecenomic sense) to sacrifice the efficiencies available to us either through competition or cooperation. We’re gonna need both.

Personally I’m in favour of both centralization and decentralization. Yes to democratic governance on the large scale and yes to local political autonomy within the broader social structure

You were lucky, Stern.

>>My commuting costs fell to 30% of what they were previous (a drop of 70%) when Margaret Thatcher broke the UK rail monopoly on commuter travel into London.<<

I'd be interested to hear from you what they are today.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/

Check it out and let me know how it compares, won't you.

Peter/stern et al.
Again you all
a. oversimplify. (stern) People are far more complex than you give them credit for.
b. Assume (incorrectly) that the options are limited hard and fixed at each end of the continuum.

All of you seem to deny the obvious
a. Just because other, perhaps more acceptable options (hybrids?) hasn't been articulated doesn't mean they don't exist.
Either or scenarios only work when *all* factors are known and allowed for. The point I made before that either wasn't understood or ignored was that all factors aren't known and are unlikely to be ever known.
Given these incalculables it stands to reason that any plan/philosophy must therefore be flexible to adapt to the ever changing needs/situations. dogmatising a one off solution i.e. Capitalism or What ever immediately fixes the solution to a narrow band of circumstances.

Capitalism as *part* of the solution is fine, I have no issues with it in that context. But as the entire solution? we end up with a Malthusian conclusion with is devoid of ethics. suitable automatons but not people.

Neither is Dogma driven socialism the answer.

To then say to me what is the solution I must answer I have a general framework but beyond that I have neither the motivation of time to write/design it especially when I favour democratic participation

Looking for balance within our society is not about some half-arsed compromise between opposing ideals. The middle way is a genuine, well thought out political position with a long history.

Understanding the search for democracy as the search for balance between our connectedness as a community and our separateness as free individuals, we can witness the tendency toward increasing democracy within our institutions of government over the last couple of hundred years as an example of this.

What's more, while the polarized debate between the more extreme elements tends to steal the headlines, the moderate position is actually far more popular than either of the extremes.

While our current economic institutions therefore may be skewed too far toward the right; toward individualism and competition, the answer in trying to correct this is not to polarize the debate by arguing in favour of collectivism and cooperation, but to assert the balanced, moderate position.

Pericles... train fare ... about the same price as 1983 but who knows how much UK government subsidy

Houlle... time for a change of model... like the motor.... currently an SLK

Examinator “oversimplify. (stern) People are far more complex than you give them credit for.”

Please expand on that “simplistic dismissal”, start with referencing what I said from which you draw such a generalist and arbitrary conclusions

“Just because other, perhaps more acceptable options (hybrids?) hasn't been articulated doesn't mean they don't exist.”

your “more acceptable options”.... are also called “whimsy”, “stuff-and-nonsense”, “hypothetical inertia” and “bulltish”....

when you actually stoop to articulate one, we will doubtless be able to shoot it down in flames

re “Either or scenarios only work when *all* factors are known and allowed for.... all factors aren't known and are unlikely to be ever known”

Capitalism “works” quite well without all knowing all the factors.... we call them “Futures Markets”

Re “we end up with a Malthusian conclusion with is devoid of ethics. suitable automatons but not people.”

Such an absolute prediction cannot be presumed.

To “hoist you on your own petard”, I did see you write, recently

“perhaps more acceptable options (hybrids?) hasn't been articulated doesn't mean they don't exist.”

Re “..what is the solution I must answer I have a general framework but beyond that I have neither the motivation of time to write/design it especially when I favour democratic participation”

Even gibbering idiots can be aware of a ”framework” and most have more energy than you...

If find it hypocritical in the extreme for you to parade criticism of working systems and then admit you lack the “motivation of time to write/design” an alternative.

And the last time i looked, “capitalism” is wholly compatible with what you call “democratic participoation”, the danger is the inherent arrogance and temptations of collectivism is not!

Gilbert Holmes. "hasbeen" was right...

“Gilbert, spoken like a true "public servant...... etc"

mikk “The mega wealthy.”

Try work on joining them,,

instead of firing up the envy engine.

And - Buffet and Gates are giving most of it away