Western governments today proclaim their commitment to ever-increasing economic efficiency, and the general public applauds this as a good and necessary thing. The simple fact is that 'economic efficiency' is perhaps the most successful deception ever perpetrated on Western nations, and especially on the better-educated amongst its peoples.

The key to the deception lies in the use of the word 'efficiency'. A more efficient motor car uses less petrol than a less efficient one. A more efficient bureaucracy achieves better outcomes with a smaller expenditure of time and money. Efficiency is obviously a Very Good Thing - or is it?

Consider what a maximally efficient society would be like. It would have the smallest number of the largest possible companies producing the maximum amount of goods for the lowest possible cost, to be sold at the highest possible price and return the largest possible profit. This would be done by retaining the smallest number of employees working the longest possible hours at the lowest possible wages and conditions. It would also require materials and services provided at the lowest possible cost by the smallest number of suppliers; the elimination of all additional costs and concerns such as waste disposal and environmental damage; along with minimal taxation, duties, and social obligations. In other words, it would be a society of slave labourers with no civil rights or personal lives working full-time for a small, wealthy elite who were free to do as they pleased.

Traditional, human-centred societies are, in fact, economically inefficient, in that they do not result in the maximum concentration of wealth; they spread the common wealth fairly evenly amongst the population, but allow energetic individuals to accumulate somewhat more than the average. They are socially efficient rather than economically so. The sort of world that 'maximum economic efficiency' must eventually create is where the so-called 'developed' nations are heading with the full support of their gullible and unthinking public, and is increasingly being imposed across the whole planet.

"Consider what a maximally efficient society would be like. It would have the smallest number of the largest possible companies producing the maximum amount of goods for the lowest possible cost, to be sold at the highest possible price and return the largest possible profit. This would be done by retaining the smallest number of employees working the longest possible hours at the lowest possible wages and conditions. It would also require materials and services provided at the lowest possible cost by the smallest number of suppliers; the elimination of all additional costs and concerns such as waste disposal and environmental damage; along with minimal taxation, duties, and social obligations."

You haven't said why you think that. How would you prove it?

Also, will you avoid being as efficient as you know how in answering it?

Beelzebub,

Having majored in economics, I find your definition of economic efficiency to contradict most of what I have learnt.

Economic efficiency improves when impediments to economic activity are removed, and the best "value" is achieved by both the businesses from their employees, and from the employees from business.

This would imply:

- Higher levels of productivity in business per hour worked,
- close to full employment of individuals in jobs that they are most productive,
- Jobs that provide the highest "value" to employees in the balance between pay and leisure,
- Sufficient infrastructure to enable production, where it is most economical,
- Businesses to be size appropriate for their function.

As the economy has become more efficient, small businesses have proliferated, and to bring more people into the work place, more flexible hours have become more common.

Shadow Minister; could this drive for efficiency be caused by the
difficulty in getting growth ?
In an era of low growth or indeed, contraction, is efficiency the only
option in sight?

Hasn't all of this efficiency got something with standard of living.
Standard of living means material things, there is no standard of living for the workers, they are too busy trying to earn enough to pay for the things that make for a better living standard. Why not be a little more socialistic in our approach to work and wealth management.
Rich companies are not satisfied with making a fortune here in AU they count up how much extra money they can make by going to a communist country and manufacture.
This will always be the case, we are in an enviornment of free trade, trade may be free but the playing field has got lumps in it.
Maybe a pull back is in order to protect our own..

> You haven't said why you think that.

Because this is the direction in which all 'economic restructuring' has moved for the past three decades.

> How would you prove it?

By observing what is happening in society.

> Also, will you avoid being as efficient as you know how in answering it?

Only if you can explain what this cheap shot actually means.

> impediments to economic activity are removed,

What are the impediments? Higher wages? Better working conditions? Developing local industries instead of going offshore?

> As the economy has become more efficient, small businesses have proliferated

If you actually talked to small business people instead of studying them at university, you'd find that most of them are struggling to survive in a slow, losing battle.

> and to bring more people into the work place, more flexible hours have become more common.

And most of those forced into 'more flexible hours' would much prefer a reliable, full-time job. You have the makings of an excellent economist. You have already divorced yourself from all human and real-world considerations.

> Hasn't all of this efficiency got something with standard of living.
Quite right, 579, but inversely - i.e. the greater the economic efficiency, the lower the standard of living for the majority, but the better for the elite.

> Why not be a little more socialistic in our approach to work and wealth management.
This has been the most common social argument throughout history.

> This will always be the case
Not necessarily. We have a choice, and it is ultimately between apathy and action. But the action must be intelligently conceived and executed if it is to succeed.

> Maybe a pull back is in order to protect our own.
Precisely. We've now had three full decades of the corporate globalization agenda, and the dominant consensus in those countries most affected by it is negative. Time for a change, but to what?

Seems Beelzebub has stumbled on the great secret of capitalism that is never ever mentioned for fear of exposing the whole system for the sham it really is.

<<In other words, it would be a society of slave labourers with no civil rights or personal lives working full-time for a small, wealthy elite who were free to do as they pleased.>>

We dont have far to go do we?
Modern capitalist economics is a religion founded on even more spurious basis than the real religions.
Taking existing power structures and inequalities as "natural" and deriving a theory from it that just happens to increase the power and the wealth of the upper classes, capitalist economics perverts everything humanity and civilisation has stood for for millennia and turns it into a dollar value as if nothing else matters. Soulless and inhuman economics of the rich. Isnt it obvious why we are heading down the toilet at a great rate of knots? It wasnt called "voodoo economics" for nothing.

"Capitalism knows the price of everything but the value of NOTHING!"

*Standard of living means material things, there is no standard of living for the workers, they are too busy trying to earn enough to pay for the things that make for a better living standard.*

So let me see. Average wage is around 1200$, more cushy benefits,
bells and whistles then any other workers in the world.

Perhaps its how they spend it, 579. Billions on the pokies etc.

Shut the pokies down, I say.

Meantime Aussie workers are creaming it all the way.

Beelzebub, before going somewhere, do you first make sure to puncture all the tyres, so you don't get there too efficiently? When you make yourself a ham sandwich, do you first make a sandwich that you don't want and then throw it out, so you're not guilty of the economic crime of making the ham sandwich too efficienty? When you want to go to the shops, do you first do a detour via some place you don't want to go to, so as to make sure you're not to efficient in going to the shops?

All human beings strive to satisfy their wants with the least waste of effort. This universal fact is what is behind economic efficiency.

The whole point of human society is to reap the benefits of co-operation, and the benefits of co-operation come because labour in co-operation is more productive than labour in isolation, i.e. it's more efficient - more outputs for same inputs.

To oppose ecnomic efficiency is to oppose the purpose of human society itself. You're basically saying, why don't people waste more, and not co-operate as much - for a better more humane society?

Many people today live at the margins of subsistence. Urging the most productive people to be less efficient is the same thing as urging a policy for the most marginal to die.

So capitalists are ruthless exploiters if they employ people full-time, but if they don't, that's also because they're ruthless exploiters? If they develop industry on-shore, they’re dreadful leeches, but if they do it off-shore, they’re dreadful leeches? If they make profits, they’re parasites, but if they don’t, they deserve bankruptcy?

>> How would you prove it?

> By observing what is happening in society.

Prove that economic efficiency is the cause of the problem, rather than government intervention. For example, when governments impose regulations on business, they count most against small businesses, because of economies of scale. The effect is to favour big companies, at the expense of small business.

But your economic illiteracy is such that you look on this phenomenon, and decide that the cause must be not enough government regulation, without the slightest reason or evidence for this conclusion.

With that depth of confusion, what makes you think that your mere observation is capable of distinguishing A preceding B, from A causing B; or distinguishing causation from mere correlation?

You can’t prove your case or disprove mine; I can prove mine and disprove yours.

That’s why you can’t answer the questions in my first paragraph. Isn’t it? But if you can, then what’s the answer to them?

On the positive side, you are trying to understand economic phenomena, and wish for a better society. I respectfully recommend you start with the first chapter of Murray Rothbard's Man Economy and State: http://mises.org/books/mespm.pdf
and let us know if there is anything you can disprove by logic

> Seems Beelzebub has stumbled on the great secret of capitalism ...
There is a great deal more psychology deployed in service of corporate capitalism than is generally realized. Highly recommended; browse the sites and borrow the videos from the local library for more:

www.thecorporation.com
www.zeitgeistmovie.com

> Modern capitalist economics is a religion ...
Yes, well said, mikk. Unfortunately its attractions are now so great that the most talented people find them increasingly irresistable, and have so much influence that alternative voices struggle to be heard.

> Shut the pokies down, I say.
A nice thought, but just a drop in an ocean of problems, Yabby.

Peter Hume, your rant is so full of things you claim that I've said when I haven't, and so full of one-eyed bigotry, that it cannot warrant an answer. The belief that economic efficiency is "the purpose of human society itself" is undoubtedly the most crippled understanding of humankind I've heard. The Devil surely has no claim on your soul - there isn't one!

> ... decide that the cause must be not enough government regulation ...
I never mentioned governments or regulation. You're so stuck in your own mind and its ravings that you can't even read the words on the screen.

Sorry, in a hurry, slip in the editing; should read 'I never mentioned government intervention or regulation.'

*A nice thought, but just a drop in an ocean of problems, Yabby.*

Well its around 20 billion $ a year Beez, so not to be sneezes at.
Today workers largely own the means of production, ie industry and
those "evil" corporations, through their super funds. Thats another
1.3 trillion or so. The more profits those evil corporations make,
the more workers have in their super funds, to enjoy retirement.

What capitalism does is maximise opportunity and innovation for
those who can be bothered, unlike say Mikk. Those who just
want to complain, well IMHO they are happiest complaining, that
is just their nature. Nothing is their fault, its always everybody
else. Its a human foible, I know.

beelzebub, do you deliberately do things to make your actions less efficient?

Your description of "economic efficiency" is quite simply 'way off target, Beelzebub.

>>Consider what a maximally efficient society would be like. It would have the smallest number of the largest possible companies producing the maximum amount of goods for the lowest possible cost, to be sold at the highest possible price and return the largest possible profit. This would be done by retaining the smallest number of employees working the longest possible hours at the lowest possible wages and conditions.<<

In this scenario, who would be available to purchase the goods?

For "maximum amount of goods" to work, you would require a sizeable market. In order for a population to be in a position to buy in bulk at the prices that would give the supplier high profit margins, it would need to be both numerous, and affluent.

But the population in the picture you paint appears to be either out of work, or poorly paid. Neither condition would lead to the market that is a prerequisite to your scenario.

There is another problem.

If these companies are able to make "the largest possible profit", you would quickly find less greedy entrants to the market, who would sell more cheaply and quickly take away their market share.

"In other words, it would be a society of slave labourers with no civil rights or personal lives working full-time for a small, wealthy elite who were free to do as they pleased."

I suggest that you read (or re-read) Dickens. His era took us closest to this scenario, for three reasons.

One, the markets were still in their infancy, allowing a small number of suppliers to dominate and extract excess rents.

Two, the labour force was not yet organized. This didn't come until the twentieth century.

And three, the supply chains (and communications) were primitive, which allowed the industrialists to control input costs in a way that would not be possible today.

It is economic efficiency that allowed us to leave those "Hard Times" behind.

Our Western economies are not effficient because we have no money for infrastructure,hence our living standards are falling.

We are being crushed by the burden of too much debt.We have given away the right of creating new money for GDP + inflation to a private group of banks who are screwing us into abject poverty.

http://secretofoz.com/

""" The belief that economic efficiency is "the purpose of human society itself" is undoubtedly the most crippled understanding of humankind I've heard. """

Wow! You're either an OHS officer, or one of those greeny people that want to ban the wheel so everyone can have a job carting stuff by hand.

But lets not miss quote people, shall we?

Beelzebub wrote:
<<In other words, it would be a society of slave labourers with no civil rights or personal lives working full-time for a small, wealthy elite who were free to do as they pleased.>>

mikk wrote:
""" We dont have far to go do we? """

No we don't! The lefties who have been running us for the past two hundred years have got us right where they want us and it's getting worse!

Now I'm confused. I always thought Communism was having the plebs do all the work while the plutocrats ate lobster and caviar all day!

mikk wrote:
"Capitalism knows the price of everything but the value of NOTHING!"

And you know this how?

Because as far as I've ever known, our generation has never experienced a true capitalist free market.
You must be like 6000 years old?

> Today workers largely own the means of production ...
Maybe own, but not control. Voting and non-voting shares, which is how the CEOs and Board members get their massive rake-offs even when the company's going to the dogs.

> The more profits those evil corporations make, the more workers have in their super funds
This has been the cleverest move of all, to get the poor sods to put their savings into legal entities that, sooner or later, will be revealed as purely paper constructs. By the time they retire, the company's assets will have been moved to a different legal entity, the company loaded up with debt (the borrowed money sitting in the Board's off-shore accounts), and all they'll 'enjoy' in their retirement is a mess of legal fees. Ask the 'beneficiaries' of James Hardy's asbestos 'compensation plan' how this works, or the 'investors' in Storm.

> What capitalism does is maximise opportunity and innovation ...
In theory this is correct. In practice it works rather differently ...

> beelzebub, do you deliberately do things to make your actions less efficient?
Hmm, I may have been too subtle. Efficient actions and efficient economies are very different things. My point is that the word has different implications and consequences in different contexts.

> In this scenario, who would be available to purchase the goods?
Quite right. This is one of the flaws of the present system, that it requires unceasing expansion to survive. So long as there's another China, India, or Africa to exploit it can keep doing so, but the mess it leaves behind in exploited countries is devastating. Hasn't happened in Oz yet, but is now in the US, which is a failed state, socially and financially.

> But the population in the picture you paint appears to be either out of work, or poorly paid.
Yep, that's the case in the US today.

> Neither condition would lead to the market that is a prerequisite to your scenario.
So long as ongoing expansion can be maintained, the system will survive.

< continued ...

... continued >

> If these companies are able ... away their market share.
yep, the big boys eat up the smaller ones until only two or three monopolies remain; then they slug it out to see who'll get the lot. Presently happening in the US car market (all failed companies surviving on government handouts) and the international steel market.

> I suggest that you read (or re-read) Dickens. His era took us closest to this scenario
And, in the inevitable cycle of events, we're now heading back there.

> One, .. a small number of suppliers to dominate and extract excess rents.
And we're now seeing the plethora of smaller companies born last century being eaten up by TNCs.

> Two, the labour force was not yet organized.
Union membership is now at historic lows and declining.

> And three, allowed the industrialists to control input costs in a way that would not be possible today.
Today they have off-shore manufacturing, free trade, and immediate international cash flows.

> It is economic efficiency that allowed us to leave those "Hard Times" behind.
... and is now returning us to them. Thanks for proving my point.

> Our Western economies are not effficient because we have no money for infrastructure
The billions of dollars haven't disappeared, they've been used to create umpteen new millionaires across the globe.

> .. to a private group of banks who are screwing us into abject poverty.
Quite right, and IMO this is the key to constructive change. Nature uses multiple redundancy to ensure survival. An economic system with multiple autonomous currencies would easily survive corruption and collapse in a few of them, and would prevent a greedy elite from controlling everything. The LAST thing we want is a single international currency, which exactly what the international bankers are after.

> Because as far as I've ever known, our generation has never experienced a true capitalist free market.
No generation has - it's a theory and ideal incapable of practical realization, and would collapse overnight were it achieved.

No amount of verbal tap-dancing can conceal the fact that you haven't actually answered a single point that I raised, Beelzebub. Talking in trite soundbites seems to be about the best you can do.

I asked, "In this scenario, who would be available to purchase the goods?"

You responded:

>>Quite right. This is one of the flaws of the present system, that it requires unceasing expansion to survive.<<

Having admitted that it cannot work the way you had proposed, you proceed to call upon some kind of mythical "unceasing expansion" to explain it away.

If there are no customers with the means to purchase your goods - which is the scenario you want us to believe - there can be no expansion, only contraction.

You contradict yourself everywhere.

"But the population in the picture you paint appears to be either out of work, or poorly paid."

>>Yep, that's the case in the US today.<<

Ahem. In case you hadn't noticed, the US is still a substantial, viable, if not particularly vibrant, component of the world economy. Have you been there recently? Or do you just read magazines?

I'd have to draw the conclusion that you haven't the slightest clue about the topic, and are simply trying your hand at sloganeering.

Sorry, I can't help myself sometimes.

When I said you contradict yourself, Beelzebub, I meant that what you write is one long self-contradiction.

>>So long as ongoing expansion can be maintained, the system will survive.<<

How does ongoing expansion occur if everyone is out of work or poorly paid? You cannot have it both ways. In logic, anyway.

>>And we're now seeing the plethora of smaller companies born last century being eaten up by TNCs<<

But these tend to be in dying industries, do they not? Your example of the rationalization of the car industry illustrates this perfectly. Meanwhile, new businesses are starting up every day.

>>Union membership is now at historic lows and declining.<<

Wouldn't you think, that if things are as bad as you say they are, union membership would be at record highs and climbing? Just another contradiction.

>>Today they have off-shore manufacturing, free trade, and immediate international cash flows.<<

My point, exactly. Where once the evil industrialists were able to monopolize the supply chain, today it is impossible, thanks to - as you so rightly say - "off-shore manufacturing, free trade, and immediate international cash flows". Yet another contradiction.

"It is economic efficiency that allowed us to leave those "Hard Times" behind."

>>... and is now returning us to them. Thanks for proving my point.<<

I would be fascinated to hear your rationale that this proves your point.

If economic efficiency allowed for the introduction of fair work practices, competitive industries and a more affluent population, what exactly is it that you believe can reverse this effect?

Beelzebub,

What is clear is that what you think is economics is far from reality.

What is clear to most that actually follow economics is:

The share of the economic pie going small business has grown continuously over the past few decades, and the real wages of the man in the street has also grown continuously over the past few decades, and I would prefer to rely on the bureau of statistics than your anecdotal experience.

Perhaps your next post will be about something of which you know more, such as nuclear physics.

*Maybe own, but not control*

Not so Beelz, for of course every worker can choose which super fund
they entrust with their money. If they don't like the fund's policies,
they can move their assets elsewhere. But yes, they haven't yet
appointed you personally as CEO, so that you have the control that
you seem to want. Perhaps you simply don't have the intellect or
the talent.

*By the time they retire, the company's assets will have been moved to a different legal entity, the company loaded up with debt (the borrowed money sitting in the Board's off-shore accounts)*

Not as far as I am aware Beelz. Just to rattle off a few of our
larger companies, where super funds invest. BHP, Westpac, CBA,
NAB, Woolies, Woodside, Coles, any of the top 200 really. Can
you name any of them doing what you claim? Do you think Woolies
is going to vanish sometime soon?

*In theory this is correct. In practice it works rather differently*

Its happening every day Beelz, wether you are aware of it or not.

Economic rationalisation of the 80s was anything but efficient. It did not result in the same services being delivered by better processes and procedures. It resulted in less service - longer queues, phone-trees, phone queues with voices telling us how important our call is and in some cases no service.

The truth is when you hear the phrase economic efficiency - RUN. It does not mean what it supposes, it is usually offered as an excuse to cut costs (staff reductions) to manufacture a better bottom line. It is rarely about 'efficiency'.

I had a boss once who when talking about service delivery, used to rant about "it isn't only about staffing, it is about better processes and procedures" like he had a poker up his bottom, and he continued with this mantra while Rome burned around him, more and more staff leaving without being replaced while the service dwindled with the inevitable repercussions and scapegoating of service staff, and he was still strutting about bleating on about 'processes and procedures' - like one of the great bureaucratic brainwashed.

Beelzebub, do you deliberately do things to make your actions less efficient?

I am very curious just when has there been “Economic efficiency” in any of the industries or government, I am not saying there couldn't be, but has there been. Our over preponderance of Lawyers and their elk, in government have produced conditions that encourage the greedy CEO's and their mates to get as much capital out of every dollar they outlay that it may look to them that they are highly efficient, but the whole view of our prosperity is very grim and we have had our parties hijacked by the wrong type of person, we should choose the person we believe will do the right thing, rather than voting for what has been our desired party previously.

> ... mythical "unceasing expansion" to explain it away.
The expansion is not mythical, it's why all TNCs are now trying to expand into China, India and Africa. Unless they can do so, their existing structures will fail. Don't take my word for it, just watch the nightly news.

> If there are no customers ... You contradict yourself everywhere.
No contradiction. The new customers are in China, India and Africa. Do you live in 2010, or still in 1950?

> the US is still a substantial ...
With annual debt at record levels and GDP plummeting ...

> viable
The US is technically bankrupt, at least if you trust such people as Greenspan, Bernanke and others who might be expected to know something about it.

> if not particularly vibrant
Let's say bordering on civil war ...

> component of the world economy.
Under the sufferance of the great majority of countries who'd be delighted to be rid of it. Did you count the number of UN representatives who applauded Ahmadinejad's speech?

> Have you been there recently?
Yep.

> Or do you just read magazines?
That too.

> I'd have to draw the conclusion ...
I'm sure you'd already arrived at that conclusion before reading my posts. And since this diatribe apears to go on forever, I'll have to plead the Forum's limit on the length and number of my posts to call it quits.

> The share of the economic pie
Don't you just looove these specific, clearly-defined economic terms? Just what is the 'economic pie'? Bangers and mash with balderdash sauce?

> the real wages of the man in the street has also grown continuously over the past few decades
Try telling that to the man in the street.

> and I would prefer to rely on the bureau of statistics than your anecdotal experience.
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Especially government-controlled bureaucratic statistics. Ever heard of weighted stats?

> Perhaps your next post will be about something of which you know more, such as nuclear physics.
It was my major, and if you'd like a dissertation I'd be happy to oblige.

> every worker can choose which super fund they entrust with their money.
Like Storm (gone bust) and the others bleeding red ink? Some choice!

> Can you name any of them doing what you claim?
Well, Kerry Packer told the Fed Govt point blank that anyone who didn't minimize their taxation had rocks in their head, and made a mint following his own advice while the pollies still grovel for their pensions. Perhaps you expect Board Members to publish their financial shenanigans on a blog?

> Do you think Woolies is going to vanish sometime soon?
Not whilst its still profitable for the boys in charge.

> The truth is when you hear the phrase economic efficiency - RUN.
Sound advice, pelican.

> Beelzebub, do you deliberately do things to make your actions less efficient?
Dear God, will someone please point this fellow to the 'Page Up' button?

> just when has there been “Economic efficiency” in any of the industries or government
It's one of beautifully suggestive but ultimately meaningless terms that economists love to bandy about. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

You can plead all you want, Beelzebub.

>>'ll have to plead the Forum's limit on the length and number of my posts to call it quits.<<

It still won't make you any more convincing.

>>No contradiction. The new customers are in China, India and Africa. Do you live in 2010, or still in 1950?<<

China's customers (as in the population of China) are being served by their own industries, not ours. In fact, it is the Chinese who are exploiting new markets, not us - just look at the figures:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Balance-of-Trade.aspx?Symbol=CNY

So you clearly got that one totally arse-backwards, didn't you.

As you can see from our own chart, we only occasionally escape from being a net customer ourselves, thanks to digging up all that coal.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Balance-Of-Trade.aspx?Symbol=AUD

But we're not doing too badly, all things considered.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Per-Capita-PPP.aspx?Symbol=AUD

And let's have a look at that disaster area, the US, while we are about it.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Per-Capita-PPP.aspx?Symbol=USD

Going down the gurgler really fast, wouldn't you say?

But what's this?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Balance-Of-Trade.aspx?Symbol=USD

There is your "expanding customer base", Beelzebub! The USA is buying stuff like crazy.

Oh. Wait.

You see, that's the problem with talking in slogans. They can only disguise for a short while the fact that you know absolutely nothing about the subject.

>>Under the sufferance of the great majority of countries who'd be delighted to be rid of it. Did you count the number of UN representatives who applauded Ahmadinejad's speech?<<

You mean, this one?

http://tangibleinfo.blogspot.com/2010/09/ahmadinejads-un-speech-full-text.html

Do tell us. Which parts did you applaud, and why?

The perfectly reasonable question arising from your post is whether you purposefully waste resources of time, energy and money, so as to make it more difficult to achieve an end that you are aiming at.

If you do, then the stupidity of your thesis is obvious.

And if you don’t, then you are a hypocrite; and there’s no reason why anyone else should follow your call to be more inefficient.

But the thesis is even more confused and ignorant than that. Because even if you do try to be less efficient in producing something, let’s say widgets, because you would prefer more leisure, then all that means is that you have reached the point where the disutility of producing widgets, is greater than the utility of using scarce resources for purposes of leisure, or singing Kumbaya around the campfire.

It doesn’t mean you value economic inefficiency. It just means that you now value more highly, using scarce resources for some other purpose.

People *cannot ever* value economic inefficiency higher than economic efficiency. The very fact of human action necessarily implies that people are using scarce resources to achieve their most highly valued ends. If they weren't, then they would be using scarce resources to acheive some other goal with priority, in which case, we must conclude that they are using scarce resources as best they know how to acheive their most valued ends. If they are not aiming at one thing, they are aiming at another.

If instead of buying a pencil from the stationer’s for $1, you buy it from the Legacy stand for $1.50, you should really enter that in your books as “stationery $1, charity $50c”. Similarly, if instead of walking straight to the shops, I detour via the park for my health, that doesn’t mean I prefer inefficiency. It means I prefer maximal efficiency in achieving each of the ends I am trying to achieve in my value scale, as best I know how with the limitations of resources I've got.

The same necessarily applies to all human action. How could it be otherwise?

> China's customers .. are being served by their own industries, not ours.
Which is why VW's were the most common car in Beijing when I was there recently. Yes, of course.

> the Chinese who are exploiting new markets, not us - just look at the figures:
Here are some figures for you:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-13/foreign-investment-in-china-jumps-for-a-ninth-month-update1-.html
Many of China's CONSUMER exports are the produce of Western CORPORATE intellectual property and manufacturing licenses - it's just a matter of where in the spectrum of things you pull your figures from.

> So you clearly got that one totally arse-backwards, didn't you.
Nope.

> And let's have a look at that disaster area, the US, while we are about it.
This assumes that the US dollar is correctly valued. The strident complaints by the US about the renminbi being UNDERVALUED are to hide the fact that the US dollar is grossly OVERVALUED.

> Going down the gurgler really fast, wouldn't you say?
Me and many others.

> But what's this? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Balance-Of-Trade.aspx?Symbol=USD
I quote the first line of this page: "The United States reported a balance of trade deficit equivalent to 42.8 Billion USD in July of 2010". A deficit of US$43Bn is a healthy economy? I'm beginning to suspect that you're an economist!

> There is your "expanding customer base", Beelzebub! The USA is buying stuff like crazy.
.. and going broke in the process. You ARE an economist!

You're trying to pull the old trick of selective, plausible deniability, Pericles. Pollies and economists are past masters at it, but you seem to be practising it in reverse.

Beelzebub,

You majored in Economics? I seriously doubt it. If you did, it was wasted, as you certainly didn't let economics interfere with your socialist dogma. That you offered to do a dissertation (usually a post graduate research document) indicates that you have no clue as to what a dissertation is.

The statistics generated by the bureau are according to world recognised metrics so as not to be as impartial as possible. I wonder what stunning source of information you use? Did you chat to a few of your mates?

> You majored in Economics? I seriously doubt it.

Shadow Minister, please take off your specs, clean and polish them carefully, and replace them; then find the 'Page Up' button on your keyboard, and concentrate carefully. With diligence and perseverance, you may eventually find this before your eyes:

> Perhaps your next post will be about something of which you know more, such as nuclear physics.
It was my major, and if you'd like a dissertation I'd be happy to oblige.

Would you like to discuss the anomolous properties of the nuclear strong interaction? It would mean starting a new thread, of course, but I'd expect a clear understanding of the implications of nonlinear electrodynamics for energetically saturated bounded n-dimensional space as a basis for discussion.

P.S.:
> The statistics generated by the bureau are according to world recognised metrics so as not to be as impartial as possible.
I thoroughly agree. These statistics are anything but impartial.

The destruction of a State Labor Party.
From the Cambridge Catalogue website:
"Power Crisis, by former minister and Labor historian Rodney Cavalier, is the latest volume in the Australian Encounters series (jointly published by Cambridge University Press and the National Centre for Australian Studies (NCAS), Monash University). It will be launched in Sydney by Senator John Faulkner, who may well have some words about the current plight of Australian Labor, and MCed by Dr Tony Moore, commissioning editor of Australian Encounters and Director of NCAS.
Power Crisis is an explosive account of the self-destruction of the New South Wales Labor government, which has seen a turnover of four premiers in five years. Cavalier exposes the backstage dramas of the ALP and tells the story not told by the media. He draws on history to illuminate the crisis. Featuring interviews with ex-premiers Iemma and Rees, this book contrasts the current turmoil and self-indulgence within New South Wales Labor over generations before, and asks, “What went wrong?”

“This is a forensic and penetrating analysis of the crisis facing modern Labor. Cavalier is unrivalled in his ability to identify the dilemmas of the present but locate them in historical context.”
– Paul Kelly, The Australian
“Rodney Cavalier analyses the root causes of the crisis to explain why government in NSW has become a grim game of musical chairs. He reveals a bitter conflict between an elected Labor government and the party that created it. The problem for modern Labor is the hijacking of party and government by a professional political class — operatives on big salaries with minimal life experience or connection to the broader community”
– Dr. Tony Moore, Director of NCAS
- and doesn't this also apply, and minimum concern for our workers, not only for the state of NSW, but for our country of Australia.

The issue is not the difference between aspiring to economic inefficiency or efficiency but how 'efficiency' is defined and asking what does efficiency look like.

Not all human/economic activity is meant to be lean and mean when the purpose is to provide an essential service - such as a service that is funded via taxes. An essential service can still be provided with efficient deployment of those taxes but it is only efficient if it actually performs the service it was designed to deliver. If budget cuts actually prove detrimental to the service then it is inefficient use of taxes even if that inefficiency looks more 'efficient' on paper as real costs of labour are blurred or hidden under private consultations.

As for the private sector - it has become so wrapped up in maximising gains for shareholders that service and efficiency got lost along the way.

Efficiency now means building profit and savings by budgeting for the lowest level of service that you can get away with before losing business. That is, how your service compares with your competitors who hopped on the same 'efficiency' bus along with you and between you keep the expectations low and the competition non-existent.

This requires constant vigilance and observation of one's competitors but both riding on the security of the LCD view of service. In other words there is no competition when the competition are in on it.

That does not mean there are not real inefficiencies in some cases but oftentimes commonsense goes out the window while the top end of town finds no problems in the inefficiencies of higher salaries and bonuses (with no corresponding achievement). Much of it comes down to personal greed and using funny money or shifty bookwork to promote the impression of savings and services, when the reality is quite different.

Look more closely, Beelzebub.

>>Which is why VW's were the most common car in Beijing when I was there recently. Yes, of course.<<

Where were these VWs being manufactured?

>>Many of China's CONSUMER exports are the produce of Western CORPORATE intellectual property and manufacturing licenses<<

Of course. But who is doing the manufacturing and who is doing the buying? China is manufacturing, the rest of the world is buying. Hence the inwards investment you pointed to.

>>A deficit of US$43Bn is a healthy economy? I'm beginning to suspect that you're an economist!<<

I did not say it was healthy. I said it was substantial. But the critical point that you ignore, is that the US is in trade deficit with China. That is, they are China's customer. Your original position, which you seem to have either forgotten about or abandoned, is that "economic efficiency" can only be maintained when there is "ongoing expansion", i.e. the customer base continues to buy from you.

You started off talking about "Western governments". We now appear to be discussing the growth of Chinese industry, and the impact of its balance of trade with the rest of the world.

Which is a good and interesting topic. But not, in fact, anything at all to do with "Western governments" pursuit of efficiency.

In fact, I'd suggest that it highlights, spotlights, and brings into sharp relief, the utmost urgency of that very pursuit of efficiency that you seem to despise.

A bit off-topic, merv09, but a useful aside in remembering that what ever ideals are espoused (econ eff being but one), many political players see it simply as a game played for personal intrigue and profit.

A nicely thought-out post, pelican.
> how 'efficiency' is defined and asking what does efficiency look like.
This approach has always been my preference, so I've decided to put up a page containing some relevant definitions that we can refer to with using up our word-limit or posting quotas:

http://52midnight.com/articles/101014.html

> Not all human/economic activity is meant to be lean and mean ...
Yes, this is the crux of the matter, especially at a time when the almighty dollar is used to measure everything without concern for human and real-world issues.

> budgeting for the lowest level of service that you can get away with before losing business.
Spot on! Tried registering a complaint at a call centre recently?

> to promote the impression of savings and services, when the reality is quite different.
Ring Telstra's customer services and you'll be informed by the tediously polite female voice that Telstra is restructuring its services and they'd be obliged if you'd indulge them; and this has been going on now for years!

.. cont >

On this basis, European nations are mature adults, China an old man, the US a burly adolescent pumped on testosterone and brute power. Even Singapore qualifies as mature, since the Peranakan Chinese have lived there for centuries. But Australia is like a boy in short pants who hasn't yet untied mother's apron strings. It may be embarrassing to admit, but it's surely the truth.

There's something else, as well. The US has 1776, the UK the Magna Carta, New Zealand the Treaty of Waitangi, even little Singapore has 1965. All of these were crucial events in which the entire nation committed itself emotionally to a vision or ideal, even at the cost of lives. It's this emotional commitment that fuses a mob into a nation, I believe. By contrast, in 1901 the British Parliament passed an act which granted Australia national status - but this was a legal fiat by a foreign power, not the sort of crucial emotional crisis that's needed for true nationhood. As a result, Australia is not yet a real nation IMO, just a legal entity with pretensions to nationhood. This is why we have this dreadful posturing of 'Australian pride'. People in other countries don't go about forever boasting how PROUD they are to be Bigendians - it's a quiet inner conviction that doesn't need verbalizing. This whole thing is an invention of the political spinmeisters to keep the football crowd emotionally pumped. Australians WANT to be a nation, they WANT to feel proud, but they haven't yet found a path to that achievement; and hollow boasting and media jingoism can never provide it.

> people are well aware they have full sovereignty .. and have been nurtured in .. responsible decision making
You're on the ball here, IMHO.

< cont ..

.. cont >

> in a system such as ours, most people don't bother because they know it's not THEIR input, but the
> figurehead's and their lobbyists, long before the values of the issue itself are even addressed.
Spot on! This is the real issue we need to address. All of the legalizing and bureaucratizing can come later - they're quite straight forward. As always, it's the human issues that are the most difficult, both to identify and to address.

> so long as referenda are voluntary, it will only be the engaged who will leave their homes
Yes. You've obviously given a lot of thought to these issues, and equally obviously have a good deal to contribute once that stage is reached; but until the human issues are resolved, none of the others will be in the least effective. It would be like trying to construct a building without foundations - no matter how many times you rebuild the walls, they'll still fall down.

Given that the only thing you could comment on was my typo, I take that as an admission that:

-You have no economic credentials whatsoever,
-You have no idea what "economic efficiency" actually means,
-You have no facts or data other than personal opinion upon which to base your post,

To sum up, the premise of this post is entirely baseless.

Sorry for the wrong posts, folks. New here and still learning the ropes.

And Shadow Minister, I readily admit to having no economic credentials. If that disqualifies me from holding opinions in the matter, fine. It would be a great pity to waste the time of so highly qualified and erudite a person as yourself, and I'm sure that your valuable professional advice would be far better offered on another thread. Leave this one to us unqualified yobbos to amuse ourselves with.

I get it now, thanks Beelzebub.

>>Leave this one to us unqualified yobbos to amuse ourselves with.<<

I quite understand that it is important to be allowed to write complete rubbish on a topic that you know nothing about, simply because it is an opinion that you hold.

Fair enough, no question. You are indeed so entitled.

That doesn't however give you leave to be quite so dismissive of the opinions of people who do, actually, know a little bit about that which they write.

Enjoy your sandpit of ignorance.

Two issues currently in the media illustrate the need for views such as those presented by pelican:

1. The sale of QR National.
2. The National Broadband Network.

Back in the days when Queensland was a part of the Australian Commonwealth, Queensland Rail was an asset of the common wealth, owned collectively by all Australian citizens, and run for the benefit of society as a whole. No-one would claim that it was run at maximum efficiency, even were it possible to measure that; but it was very effective, provided essential transport services that were cost-effective for individuals and businesses, and stable, long-term employment for thousands of skilled Australian workers, all of which required a minimum of bureaucratic tinkering or 'economic restructuring'.

On 3rd December 2001 the Queensland Consitution 2001 came into being, and Queensland then became an independent sovereign State with a Corporate Government known as the Brigalow Corporation, registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission under No. 0001244818. At the same time, Common Law was replaced by Civil and Statute Law, under which all Crown land, assets and infrastructure on that land including schools, hospitals, roads and so on became responsiblilities of the Ministers of the State, and assets of the Brigalow Corporation. This is how politicians, who previously were the appointed guardians of Commonwealth assets, but never legally OWNED them, have been able to sell Australian public property into foreign private ownership. See http://www.abpac-australia.net for details of this.

The QR network is no longer confined to Queensland, but spans the continent. As well as its public and industrial transport services, it it a crucial part of Australia's national defence infrastructure. Should this country ever need to defend itself against either external or internal threats, the national rail network would need to be commandeered to ensure rapid and reliable transport of defence materiel across the continent. This cannot be given any realistic economic value. By selling it, especially into foreign ownership, Australia is seriously, if not criminally jeopardising its future defence capabilities at a time when stringent economic constraints are being enforced on the Defence Department.

.. cont >

As valid as the above arguments might be, they are, in fact, somewhat dated. The major threats that Australia faces in the foreseeable future are not military, but social, economic, and political. No country would be so stupid as to mount a military invasion of Australia in the foreseeable future. Not only is it logistically impossible, it is strategically foolish. At present, our neighbours in the region are primarily interested in our mineral and agricultural wealth, and these are far easier to acquire by political and financial means. A process of slow social impoverishment and national decay is a far more certain and permanent way of obtaining whatever is required than a military offensive. In the modern world, business is a form of warfare; Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" is required reading in many modern business curricula. By selling crucial national assets to foreign competitors whose social and political situations are far more stressful and under far greater threat from flood, famine, and other natural disasters, Australia is jeopardizing its future sovereignty, independence, and social stability.

That the above considerations apply to the proposed NBN are even more obvious, given the importance of national and international communications to both business and the military. Like the railways, it should be a public asset, not the financial plaything of wealthy investors and speculators. According to all news media, we are currently experiencing perhaps the largest economic boom of all time. If the wealth thus acquired cannot be used to create and acquire fixed, long-term assets, then not only will it have been wasted, but the opportunity thus squandered will never recur and the common wealth will be impoverished to the point of penury.

These are the issues that politicians and the media refuse to discuss. All vow alliegance to the doctrines of corporate globalization and economic efficiency at the behest of their masters in the world of international finance and Big Business. It's time for Australian's to wake up to this, else they will slowly but surely be reduced to poverty and servitude.

How can we ever achieve efficiency if we constantly go for more ?

Beelze, there are indeed good reasons to flog off QR rail. All
this was discussed in the media 20 years or so ago, but perhaps
you are too young to remember.

Firstly, the Queensland Govt needs the money. The state is up
to its eyeballs in debt, so something has to go. Qld residents
will benefit, saving interest on 6 billion $ or so.

Secondly, rather then your feared overseas rich speculators buying
QR rail, more likely it will be mostly both local and international
pension funds. They want a regular and steady income for workers
pensions, fair enough. I don't think that they are going to
threaten you too much. Even you might land up owning a share, through
your super fund.

There are good reasons why many of these companies were sold.
When Govt owned Qantas and Telstra, what we had were fat and lazy
Govt monopolies. Sure the staff benefitted from their cushy jobs,
but what about the rest of us?

Some of us do in fact live in the real, global world, where our
products and services need to compete. We can't do it if our input
costs are outrageous, to satisfy the whimms of a few mollycoddled
employees.

Fact is that when they were Govt owned, communication costs in
Australia were astronomical and airline costs were astronomical.
So things had to change.

Today you at least have some competition in the telephone sector.
If you don't like your landline, you have a number of competivive
mobile operators, consumers benefit. The same with internet
services, unlike the 9$ an hour that a Govt owned Telstra used
to charge me, in 1995.

At times it cost nearly as much to fly from Perth to London, as
Perth to Sydney. Why? Lack of competition. Govt employees
seem to think they are entitled to a job for life and don't like
annoying customers interfere too much with their cushy lifestyle.

So flog em off I say. The the rest of you should compete in the same world
that the rest of us have to.

> How can we ever achieve efficiency if we constantly go for more?
As long population increases we can't avoid 'going for more'. And 'achieving efficiency' is not as easy as it sounds. You can begin with government statistics, such as the very useful report here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/economics/Productivity/Subs/Sub06.pdf

in which you'll find that Australia's productivity compares favourably with that of other countries and has improved by many measures. However, you'll also see how difficult it is to arrive at good/bad high/low comparisons and judgements because of the many different ways of measuring such things, and the different datasets upon which the measurements can be based. But productivity is a well-defined term (albeit that there are multiple contextual definitions) and is not the same thing as efficiency, which has even more interpretations. And at the end of the day these are technical and financial considerations, whereas most people are interested in quality-of-life issues, even more difficult to measure. This contribites to the long-standing reputation of economics as 'the dismal science' (check Wikipedia etc).

The purpose of this discussion is not to argue the technical economic DETAILS of 'economic efficiency', but to examine its CONSEQUENCES for the wider issues of quality and satisfaction of life, social development and stability, and Australia's future, not as a profit centre for international interests, but as a happy and successful nation. There are many who believe (economists and politicians especially) that improved economic efficiency AUTOMATICALLY results in optimal outcomes for these social issues. This belief is not wrong of itself (though I personally disagree with it), but in keeping with the positivist philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism) indoctrinated in and followed by such proponents, they aggressively insist that independent analysis of these issues is invalid, and demand that only academically qualified economic opinions should be used to analyze and address them (see other posts in this thread by qualified economists).

It is, of course, quite impossible to devise valid analytical measures of such things (opinion polls usually substituting), but the general consensus in developed countries is very hostile to the corporate globalist agenda.

> the Queensland Govt .. eyeballs in debt
This is one of the most difficult issues to address. The present situation in Australia is the result of several decades of government policy conforming to a globalist agenda that was initally undeclared. On 1st December 1997, then Foreign Minister Alexander Downer announced to the Canberra Press Club that Australia was to be globalized. "Let me put this clearly; globalization is an irreversable trend. It is happening. And it is good for all Australians, the region, and the world ... Whether people fear globalization or not, they cannot escape it." In other words, you'll get because we say so, whether you like it or not. This in a supposed democracy, and from a polician whose personal qualities as a leader were disastrous for his party.

Perhaps the best way to lose an argument is to base it on 'what if' scenarios. What if Oz had not followed this agenda? Where would we be today? Is our overwhelming debt the result of following the wrong policies and agenda? Who can say? Yet at the moment we're in the position of an addict who knows that the only way to avoid the pain of cold turkey is to shoot up again, so the situation deteriorates inexorably to an inevitable disaster. Try telling the junkie that his addiction is foolish, that the only remedy is to give it up. If you don't get a fist in the face, you'll certainly get an earful of abuse. And don't even bother pleading to his dealer. The parallels with the present globalist agenda, the economic rationalists, and the international financial drug dealers don't require explanation.

Do we really want to follow this incredibly foolish course to its inevitable conclusion? Most people think not, but don't know how to escape it. Politicians are in thrall to the international banks and corporations to keep their books balanced in the short term, and have given away the sovereignty, independence and financial autonomy that, fifty years ago, would have allowed them to plot a ten-to-twenty year course out of the mess.

As long population increases we can't avoid 'going for more'. And 'achieving efficiency' is not as easy as it sounds.
Beelzebub,
There's one hell of a huge difference between keeping up with natural growth & wanting more. Keep in mind that growth in population is being kept pace with by a growth in deaths as well. What doesn't balance is the increase in wages & subsequent rise in the cost of living. Why this need for higher wages when it merely results in higher costs of living ? I clearly remember during the Joh years in Qld when the then Labor Opposition supporting Education & Health Departments catch cry was "if we had more funding we could do more". Well, guess what ? We've had a 50 or more times increase in funding & yet we're still in the middle ages when it comes to efficiency. We're still not getting any more for our Dollar in general. I can't recall which Government had a prices & wages freeze for a short time but did that hurt Australia ? Did that freeze cost jobs or opportunities ? Where I live the Goss Government sold off most of its departmental housing assets & now rents it all back from the very people it sold it to at about 20-25 times the cost. Now that is growth !

You will have to explain why globalization is irreversable, and good for all of AU.

I am forever intrigued that we can each read the exact same words, but arrive at diametrically opposing conclusions.

>>[Downer] "Whether people fear globalization or not, they cannot escape it."
[Beelzebub] In other words, you'll get because we say so, whether you like it or not.<<

Gee, and I thought that Downer was pointing out that it clearly had nothing to do with "because we say so", but merely an inevitable occurrence, like the tide coming in.

Incidentally, I'd be interested in any data behind this assertion.

>>...the general consensus in developed countries is very hostile to the corporate globalist agenda.<<

I'm aware that you have already somewhat preempted the question by admitting "It is, of course, quite impossible to devise valid analytical measures of such things", but you must have chosen a source to back you up? Or is it just your own personal view, and not a "general consensus" at all?

Nothing wrong with that, of course. We're all entitled to our opinions.

579 asks, quite pertinently:

>>You will have to explain why globalization is irreversable, and good for all of AU.<<

The trick here is to do exactly what Beelzebub suggests, and apply some "what if" questions. Only instead of concentrating on what got us to this point, look to the future.

"What if" we decide that globalization is not inevitable, and take a stand against it?

This would require a radical overhaul of the entire economy, by taking steps to discourage both imports and exports (these being the basic indicators of being part of a globalized economy), on the basis that we can survive on what we have.

It is not that difficult to model the results of this campaign. Our mineral deposits would be come worthless overnight, because we would have no-one to sell them to. And the cost of living for every Australian would skyrocket, if we decided to consume only what could be manufactured here.

So globalization is not, in theory, irreversible.

It's just that personally, I prefer not to live in a "North Korea" style economy.

Which would be our destiny, Luke.

> Government had a prices & wages freeze
When I was in Singapore years ago, at a time of international financial contraction, there was a nationwide CUT in wages, from the PM down. Singapore being what it is, nobody complained, everybody tightened their belt, buckled down, and the country pulled out of the recession ahead of every other. No, of course it didn't hurt Australia, but there would have been a gaggle of pollies fearing for their political future.

> higher wages .. higher costs .. We're still not getting any more for our Dollar
What you're saying is that, all things remaining equal, changes in the NUMBERS don't actually mean anything, and of course this is now true. It wasn't back in the days when all currencies were tied to a finite resource, the gold standard, which made ABSOLUTE numbers significant; but since the abandonment of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971, only RELATIVE changes in the numbers have meant anything, which is why the nightly financial 'news' is largely a storm in a teacup. So, if you'll allow, I'll rephrase your question as "Why hasn't our WEALTH increased during the past several decades", since wealth is perhaps best interpreted as a subjective measure of well-being and satisfaction. This is less of a financial issue than a social one as you'll see from this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

To which I'd answer, "You're quite right; this is the key issue, not the percentage by which wages have risen over the period."

> we're still in the middle ages when it comes to efficiency
From this I deduce that you regard 'efficiency' as a measure, not just of wealth generation, but of wealth generation for the population at large. If you asked New York bankers, they'd gleefully declare that THEIR wealth has boomed recently (not all of them, of course), that efficiency has soared and is a marvellous thing. So the crucial question is "How do we increase and fairly distribute the national wealth?" to which I answer, "I don't know, and that's what I'm discussing here."

> an inevitable occurrence, like the tide coming in.
Why should an occurrence devised and implemented by human beings be inevitable? Comparing it to a cyclic planetary phenomenon is surely a delusion of grandeur. Corporate globalization is a socio-economic agenda devised and implemented by financiers, economists and politicians, and whilst many sincerely believe themselves to be 'Masters of the Universe', I regard such inflated conceit as a dangerous delusion. Globalism, by contrast, is an emerging reality, and probably inevitable.

> data behind .. hostile
The difficulty is not providing data - there's a veritable flood of it - but agreeing what's relevant and reliable, and whose analysis and interpretation of them we'd agree was authoritative. On these points we're bound to disagree. If I nominated an emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, you might be favourably inclined; but if I pointed you to his website:

http://www.globalresearch.ca

which carries a plethora of quality articles by highly respected and qualified academics and researchers, you'd undoubtedly dispute their impartiality and interpretations because they differ from your own.

> not a "general consensus"
It was to imply the general population rather than specialist opinion. So far as I'm aware, all of the ongoing worldwide protests oppose globalization; I'm not aware of any demanding or supporting it.

> explain why globalization is irreversable
See above.

> and good for all of AU.
Hmm, thought I'd made it clear that I believe it's extremely BAD for Oz.

> .. take a stand against it?
This is exactly what I'm proposing.

> a radical overhaul of the entire economy
A very big ask.

> discourage both imports and exports
A long-term plan if it's not to be disastrous, but not impossible.

> we can survive on what we have
Not at present, but surely self-sufficiency is a wiser and more worthwhile ambition than abject dependence on forces beyond our control, especially when they're socially destructive.

> worthless overnight .. cost .. skyrocket
Only under an overnight plan.

> a "North Korea" style economy.
Are you suggesting that this is the ONLY alternative to globalization?

Not sure there is a significant difference, Beelzebub.

>>Corporate globalization is a socio-economic agenda devised and implemented by financiers, economists and politicians... Globalism, by contrast, is an emerging reality, and probably inevitable.<<

Globalization simply means that we are reaching the point where the pricing of products and services are no longer under the control of individual countries, but are effectively "global" in their application.

As far as trade is concerned, I see no difference between globalization and globalism. They are linked. Cause and effect.

Both are inevitable, because they are brought about by "progress" in connectivity and communication, everything from airfreight to container ships, email to online product searches.

None of which can be un-invented.

>>So far as I'm aware, all of the ongoing worldwide protests oppose globalization; I'm not aware of any demanding or supporting it<<

I can't think of a single reason why anyone would take to the streets in favour of globalization. It would be like marching in favour of the telephone.

>>[a "North Korea" style economy] Are you suggesting that this is the ONLY alternative to globalization?<<

Well, yes. Exactly.

You cannot simply "opt out" of the world economy without incurring additional costs.

Let's say you start with a simple "buy Australian" import-substitution campaign. Thanks to the import tariffs that you would need to implement to achieve this, you make it too expensive to import computers, plasma screens, cars etc. This will raise the cost of living, which is, in effect, an input cost to our exports.

This will start pricing us out of the market for our export products. Over time, this will create a no-import, no-export situation that will be so similar to North Korea, it won't be funny.

To add to the analogy, we are bound to lose a whole lot of international friends along the way.

Some of whom, we might like to keep.

But never let it be said that I don't have an open mind on this. Perhaps you could outline an alternative scenario for us?

What I find amusing is the assumption that Globalisation is imposed on the world by a few wealthy and powerful individuals sitting on a pile of money and rubbing their hands.

Over the past 50 years the cost of international transport has reduced by more than 90% in real terms, communication and other infrastructure is light years ahead and cheaper enabling millions of large and small businesses to trade as easily with others overseas as next door.

Globalisation is driven by the ease with which local production can be replaced by foreign production.

To try and stop it would be like King Canute trying to stop the incoming tide, and the only way would be to sink the ships, ground the planes, dig up the roads, fill in the ports, shut down the internet, and what you would get would as P put it, look not much different from North Korea.

Globalization to me is setting up buisness in the cheapest part of the world.
No import tarrifs only aid the home grown foreign manufacturer.
I thought globialization would be a sharing senerio.
The exact oposite of my type of global sharing is what is happening.
Globalization is a fraud, manipulated by the greed for money.
Bring back tarrifs to protect our own.

> I see no difference between globalization and globalism.
Even Wikipedia warns "Not to be confused with globalization." at the top of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism
Your philosophy will blind you to things that others regard as self-evident. I accept this, but feel no obligation to accomodate your unfortunate shortcomings. I don't say this to be offensive - I find it rather sad, especially because so many others are similarly afflicted.

> It would be like marching in favour of the telephone.
Again, could you explain the similarities between:
1. The telephone, a technological device which was enthusiastically embraced across the world because of the personal and social benefits it conveyed.
2. Globalization, a socio-economic agenda imposed by an elite on a protesting world.
Ordinary, unqualified folk have no trouble recognizing these things as completely dissimilar. Your academic training has certainly created a remarkably distorted perception of the world, and again I find this sad. You're obviously educated and intelligent.

> the ONLY alternative to globalization? Well, yes. Exactly.
I am amazed that someone can have so limited a view of human history and potential.

> Let's say you start with ...
All of which is true in a static scenario. This is called linear projection, and is a crude, first-order model of physical dynamics. The real-world is nonlinear - one interaction changes another and another - you've surely heard of the 'butterfly effect'.

> we are bound to lose a whole lot of international friends along the way.
Given the changes in China and the rest of Asia, we're far more likely to lose friends by continuing to flash our US-awarded sheriff's badge.

> outline an alternative scenario for us?
One day I'd like to be able to oblige. For the present I have nowhere near the insight or breadth of knowledge required. Whatever the case, I could never do so alone. Any realistic scenario could only evolve from a dedicated group.

> What I find amusing is the assumption
There will always be those who take simplistic attitudes to complex matters, but this does not render the matters invalid.

Beelzebub, if you refer to Wikipedia, it helps to do so accurately.

"Political scientist Joseph Nye... argues that globalism refers to any description and explanation of a world which is characterized by networks of connections that span multi-continental distances; while globalization refers to the increase or decline in the degree of globalism"

As I said.

"As far as trade is concerned, I see no difference between globalization and globalism. They are linked. Cause and effect."

Sounds pretty accurate to me. What's your problem with it?

Ah yes.

It's because you define globalization as "a socio-economic agenda imposed by an elite on a protesting world".

The "elite", in your view, are responsible for "the increase or decline in the degree of globalism"

Sounds all rather nebulous. Would you care to point us to some more Wikipedia wisdom that expands on this?

And it is only people who believe globalization to be "a socio-economic agenda imposed by an elite on a protesting world" that go out to protest. Everyone else thinks it is all rather neat.

Like the telephone.

>>I am amazed that someone can have so limited a view of human history and potential.<<

I know. I amaze a lot of people with my straightforward, cause-and-effect approach to life.

But it isn't so much a limited view, as a logical and credible one. To those who believe in global conspiracies, this is of course a form of blasphemy.

>>The real-world is nonlinear - one interaction changes another and another<<

Exactly, just as I explained to you. Cause. Followed by effect. Which becomes another cause that brings about another effect.

I don't suppose this happens in nuclear physics, does it? You simply rely upon the butterfly effect to complete your experiments.

>>you've surely heard of the 'butterfly effect'<<

Oh yes. I've heard of it.

What interests me in this context, is how you believe chaos theory is harnessed in the cause of "a socio-economic agenda imposed by an elite on a protesting world".

How can the elite exert control, in order to implement their dastardly plans, when chaos theory rules, ok?

Incidentally, Beelzebub, the alternative scenario that I asked you to consider was not, fortunately, an alternative to globalization.

Not at all.

I merely asked if you could offer a prediction as to the outcomes of the "fortress Australia" policies with which you propose we fight globalization.

My suggestion was that it will result in the creation of another pariah state, locked away in poverty from the rest of the world. I offered you a chance to propose some logical alternative outcome.

Otherwise, my prediction stands unchallenged: if you attempt to provide for Australia's needs by cutting us off from the myriad benefits of globalization that we enjoy every day, we will inevitably wither, and die.

Unless someone decides to take advantage of our weakened state, and takes us over in the meantime. Lock, stock and festering barrel.

After all, why would they stand idly by while we sat on our vast mineral deposits, unable to sell them any because we lacked the resources to dig them up?

So you don't need to form a committee - errr, sorry, bring together a dedicated group.

Just harness the same power of thought that those "elite" employ, and tell us how it all works out, why doncha.

"How do we increase and fairly distribute the national wealth?" to which I answer, "I don't know, and that's what I'm discussing here."
Beelzebub,
If we were to focus on educating our young instead of conditioning them for consumerism we'd escape the realm of greed.
So, the ball is in OUR court !

> If we were to focus on educating our young instead of conditioning them for consumerism
Well said, individual. Modern education is one of the saddest aspects of today's Australia.

> So, the ball is in OUR court!
I notice that the proposed new curriculum has been decisively rejected by all affected parties. I recently started another thread about Citizens' Lobby Groups with a view to addressing things like this. The pollies and bureaucrats will simply race for the quickest, most politically-effective solution and then impose it by fiat on the system. I believe that it is up to the general public, and especially the older generation (of whom I'm one) to address these issues. Not only do they have the broader perspective that comes with time and experience, but most have adequate spare time available for it.

HOW to do it is quite another question. I spent many happy and rewarding years teaching and working in Singapore, but there's no way I'd dare get involved with the education system here. That's one reason why I'm looking for productive activities outside official (and especially bueaucratic) channels.

Globalization is a fraud, manipulated by the greed for money.
579,
Globalisation is exploitation by everyone except the producer.

> Globalization is a fraud, manipulated by the greed for money ... is exploitation by everyone except the producer.
You're right, individual, and there's much else could be said along the same lines. But let me introduce you to a different attitude that I personally find more useful. I'll do it by quoting one of the oldest books known to literature, for the simple reason that globalization is just a modern manifestation of something that is ages old, and well known to all mankind throughout history.

In chapter two of the Gita, the hero has been stymied by the conflict of a moral quandary, and his mentor, in urging him to understand the truth of his situation, says, "Happy is the warrior, Partha, who obtains such a fight, offered unsought as an open door to heaven." The language of these old books is very flowery and poetic by today's standards, and they have been translated and retranslated so many times that considerable study is needed to get at the meaning. Every generation has its 'fight', its own struggle against restraining forces that is a part of the evolutionary process. The older generation had a physical fight, the two world wars of last century. The present generation has had an emotional fight, against drugs, self-indulgence, and disease. The new generation has a different fight looming that is a mental one.

In order to prepare for this fight, certain key information is essential, and has to do with human consciousness. The science of last century focussed on the material world, and has given us remarkable technologies that allow control of physical matter down to the atomic level. The new science that is now emerging will be more concerned with consciousness - mind and emotions - and its relationship to the material world. Although our academic institutions still cling to a framework of ideas that are based in nineteenth century philosophical ideas, many scientists have been working outside this framework to create a new one.

< cont ..

.. cont >

Until recently they have been ridiculed by conservative academics, and have had a difficult time of it because, as with all new ideas, lack of understanding makes it difficult to devise ways of proving them. This situation is changing. Evidence is emerging that shows proof of the new concepts, but the various fields are still disconnected, and it's difficult for outsiders to gain an understanding.

Perhaps the first thing necessary to understand about consciousness generally is that it is a field phenomenon. Your own consciousness operates inside your head, but it is also capable of interacting with others. There are many scientists working in this field, but many of them do not 'go public' for fear of damaging their reputation and hurting their careers, such is the degree of opposition at present. One who has is Rupert Sheldrake:

http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html

As with all field phenomena, there are certain limits or thresholds at which its properties change, and different phenomena manifest. Radio waves pass through your body with little or no effect, but beyond a certain frequency they become X-rays, and these can be both useful and damaging. So, too, with human consciousness.

Economic efficiency is a product of human consciousness. Its effects vary depending upon the intent motivating its application. Certain of its effects have proved very beneficial, for example to impoverished third world people who have suddenly found aid or employment. But because it has mostly been implemented by those motivated by greed, its cumulative effect is negative. This is, of course, a very abstract way of looking at things, but it allows you to observe from a different perspective from which more effective action can be devised.

You'll appreciate, I'm sure, that I've tried to address a large, complex topic in a few lines, and I'll surely be ridiculed for it by others in this forum. But if we're to move on to something better, econeff is something we need to supercede, a 'fight' we need to win in order to obtain our 'heaven', a new phase of globalism beyond the crass materialism of last century.

.. cont >

As a practical example of the above theory, one aspect of the 'fight' - that of finance and economics as warfare - see this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21415

I guess that's one way to avoid answering the questions, Beelzebub - simply change the subject.

>>There are many scientists working in this field, but many of them do not 'go public' for fear of damaging their reputation and hurting their careers, such is the degree of opposition at present. One who has is Rupert Sheldrake:<<

And Rupert is...

"...best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic resonance, which leads to a vision of a living, developing universe with its own inherent memory."

That sounds a far more interesting and productive path to tread than some random, unconnected and incoherent assertions on "economic efficiency".

I'm game. Where do we go from here?

> I guess that's one way to avoid answering the questions, Beelzebub - simply change the subject.
Once again we're back to semantics. You claim a change of subject, I deny it. At this stage I'll have to call a recess. I have a limited amount of time to devote to this forum, and I'd prefer to spend it as productively as possible. If anyone else is following this debate and would like to see it continue, I'll ask that you post something to that effect. But if it's just the two of us taking pot-shots at each other across the ditch, I'd suggest that we could both find better uses for our time.

This is not an evasion or capitulation, merely a suggestion to economize on time and use it efficiently. After all, in orthodox economic terms, as Pericles has pointed out, "To oppose economic efficiency is to oppose the purpose of human society itself."

Actually there's MANY different definitions of "economic efficiency", some quite radically different from each other.

However there's one thing for certain, without sustainability (in all areas) all the efficiency, or non efficiency, in the world will eventually come to naught.

*My suggestion was that it will result in the creation of another pariah state, locked away in poverty from the rest of the world. I offered you a chance to propose some logical alternative outcome.*

I felt that Pericles asked a valid question Beelze, I can't see
where you have answered it. So right now, my money is on him.

Sure there are lots of definitions of "economic efficiency", but those by economists are very similar.

Those that are radically different, such as many of those postulated on this thread, have little to do with either economics or efficiency, and neither do those putting them forward.

Actually that's not true. Economists have very diverse views of what economic efficiency entails. Remember, not all economists are rabid, right wing, Liberal voting ideologues.

Samsung,

Perhaps you could refer to a recognized economist that deviates significantly from what I described. I would be very interested if you were able to dredge up a name, and am waiting with bated breath.

Whilst there may be some difference of opinion in how to achieve it, economic efficiency is simply achieving economic activity with the least of effort.

While you may call me names, if economics is a science, what I see here are the flat earthers, who have no clue as to reality and who are debating what to do at the edge of the earth. It is actually quite pitiful.