Anti
"there needs to be a clear increase in the standard of living achievable by being productive. If there is not, then the productivity will eventually fall, as people make the decision that productive activity is not worth the effort."

Unless the productive activity is undertaken merely just to survive (which is an incentive in itself)- but I get your point in terms of innovation and risk.

Having babies is perceived as vital to supporting an ageing population and economic growth, sailing solo around the world is not.

However, there is a point where the cost of social incentives outweigh the good they purport to achieve such as overly generous middle class welfare schemes like parental leave. Contrast that to poorly paid child care workers and minimum wage standards in some cities barely meeting a living wage. Yet we are (potentially) asking taxpayers or employers to support people 'not working' who are earning up to $150k per year.

Part one
Yet again my critics are bound by the imperative (dubiously so) for WESTERN perception style 'advantages'.

They are all assuming that the indigenous culture has the NEED for a Western capitalist system.

It seems that one thing that is not clearly understood is that between Australia and PNG there was in excess of 1000 distinct NATIONS each with their own language and cultures.
Contrary to Western zealots these culture were/are all encompassing and sophisticated. Many involved democratic principals.

It is a myth that the likes of PNG and Australian Indigenous people weren't able to support their populations they had been doing so for the previously 40-80000 years.

In any logic there is a difference between a feature and benefit.
Any assessment of benefit is subjective to the individual who is affected (subjective)

i.e. banning contact sports might be fine to me ...it would offer arguably offer several less obvious, but in my perspective, significant benefits.
However, the average Collingwood fan would want to lynch me for such heresy , so who is Universally correct?

Those who favour a western capitalist system have set ideas. I'm not so sure. Psychologists would argue that the choice is conditioning formed.

If an indigenous person's cultural system is able to meet Maslow's hierarchy of needs then an incomplete abstract notion is not a benefit.

I have observed that Capitalism (Free Trade ideology) require significant (catastrophic often inhalation) to indigenous cultures to make C&FT to work.
The problem is that these changes often strip the culture of its evolved identities (place in the universe), their control, structures and unleash a dysfunctional hybrid.
Simply put the culture hasn't had the time to evolve internalise the new abstractions.

In this context I posit that FTI needing related externalities (western style capitalism) that are in 'their cultures' of dubious benefit. e.g. FTI insists on external access to indigenous 'resources' and survival mechanism, often with scant regard for Local Culture.

NB No sweeping ideology like C& FTI operates independently devoid of wider consequences or context.

C& FTI insists on their own understanding and negotiations (caveat emptor) being paramount. In many if not most instances, the indigenous fail to fully comprehend the consequences of assigning resource right away or even ownership. Not because they are inferior or stupid simply because it's beyond their cultural understanding the underlying principals and their consequences.

Therefore I state that FTI AS IT IS PRACTISED is indeed misplaced.

To the arch capitalists,
You are entitled to your views somewhat one-sided as they are and I'm entitled to mine.

I don't come here to proselytise rather to seek and give understanding that there are always different options...the trick is to recognize them and their contextual value.

On that note I bow out to continue would be to turn the topic into a competition in which neither side will change their view already some are beginning to add acrimony.

* Next topic *

"FTI AS IT IS PRACTISED is indeed misplaced."

Actually it is more than just the application of free trade that is flawed. As I've tried to show, the theory behind it is wrong, or at least it is only half right. Even if it was applied perfectly, 'free trade' would fail us drastically.

"....the ideals of Gilbert, here are pure protectionism...." says Col Rouge, and that is indeed the truth. I am suggesting that we need to find a balance between leaving our communities open to trade and protecting the local economies of those communites. With this balance in mind, I'm in favour of protecting our communities down to the neighbourhood scale.

Actually, if you have a look at Bob Katter's website, www.bobkatter.com.au/ you'll see that protectionism may have just become the flavour of the month.

Houlle’ thankyou for your kind words. “Stern” has an historic meaning which I will not go into here... but CR is a far nicer fellow all round

Examinator “Contrary to Western zealots these culture were/are all encompassing and sophisticated. Many involved democratic principals.”

like it or not

Australia is a modern western democracy and all your hoo-haaing will not alter that fact and the “starting point” to any considerations is the existing “nature of the nation”.

“Those who favour a western capitalist system have set ideas.”

As do the intransigent minorities who feel that embracing “archaic tribalism” is the way of the future and anyone who cares to look in the direction of Africa and the fate of Rwandan Tutsi’s or Sri Lankan Tamils (who refused to assimilate into the wider Sinhalese community), can see what sort of benefits can be drawn from clinging to the millstone of such negative values.

“If an indigenous person's cultural system is able to meet Maslow's hierarchy of needs”

Your misapplication of Maslow is just plain silly to say the least and displays your gross ignorance prevailing over substance.

Maslow’s is an “individual” based self-assessment, regardless of the culture or social / ethnic constructs of the community in which a person finds themselves..

Two individuals in the same community will experience differing levels of “satisfaction”, regardless the cultural system which they share.
.
“significant (catastrophic often inhalation) to indigenous cultures to make C&FT to work.”

Wrong! “Capitalism” has existed for millennia between different but “trading” tribes

The “socialist” / “anti-capitalist” doctrine of “uniformity” is the real danger, eliminating tribal dress in favour of a single anti-individual uniform, which eliminates tribal allegiance in favour of the wider nation – example “Tibet the nation” versus “Tibet the province of China”

“FTI insists on external access to indigenous 'resources' and survival mechanism, often with scant regard for Local Culture.”
Wrong, when local people own local resources they decide. When central government owns everything the local need and expectation is subordinated or ignored.

examinator you are just spouting academic twaddle, which has no foundation in any measureable facts.

No doubt you do, GilbertHolmes.

>>I would say that the first step in bringing about this trully awesome state of affairs is to start believing that it is possible. Who know's what 'we' can do!<<

But I still beg leave to doubt that the experiment is even worth the energy you expended in writing those words.

Motel conference rooms the length and breadth of the country are full of people - paying real money - listening to some hyped-up droid spruiking the "we can do anything" mantra.

Reality, both in the form of and articulated, workable theory, and in the form of centuries of experience, guarantees that they - and you - are completely wrong.

It is the fate of all governments to succumb to corruption. Whether that corruption takes the form of outright theft from the people, or in the form of allowing a bloated, irresponsible and patently self-interested bureaucracy make increasingly meddlesome and petty regulations, corrupt they will become.

To imagine for one instant that the people of the world will at some time in the future agree to a single, unified form of government, is to fritter away a small, but valuable, component of your lifespan.

And by the way, examinator, it's quite ok.

>>Pericles, I have not ignored you.....I just have other things to do at times and can't always answer immediately.<<

Quick recap:

>>It has been a long held view that production as it is currently measured doesn't accurately reflect the real (true) cost of production.<<

Long held by whom? On what grounds? Whose definition of "true"?

>>your [locality tax] plan in theory would certainly go a way to give a quantum to the real cost of production<<

In what way does the market not already factor in transport costs?

Whenever you have a moment.