TRTL: I don't really have much to say in response to your past three posts that I didn't already say in my last response to Rob and Ludwig. All that you've said so far has been fairly correct, or at least insightful, and I'm waiting for your next post.

I guess I just wish we had more people at least thinking about these issues like you do. I'd like to think that the general Australian populace did think about the bigger picture more, but if they did, I suppose we wouldn't end up with the short-sighted ratbags at all levels of politics from the major parties. Putting aside my reservations about voting and the system of government we have in this country, even if I were for it, I would still find myself very, very unenthusiastic about all of our options.

shorbe,
“Those who remain idealistic either get knifed in the back (individuals) or conquered/wiped out (groups of people). History has shown all of this time and again, and will continue to do so.”

Does this not imply that it is not so much the idealism that is the problem but the back-knifers and the conquistadors?

Bugsy,
“But I think that you had something else in mind, yes? What "better system" do you have in mind? If it's anything like socialism based on Marx's ideas, keep looking.”

I’d settle for any system based on co-operation rather than competition and it would be kind of nice if it didn’t involve blowing up innocent peasants including children in some part of the world.

With address to an earlier remark about human selfishness – when I was studying psychology at uni, we were dealing with ‘common psychological misconceptions’ and they told us that it had been experimentally established that ‘competitiveness’ which most people assume is natural because it seems so, is actually culturally acquired.

Even though co-operative systems are more efficient, more sophisticated and more 'humane' than competitive systems the problem for co-operative systems is that when they co-exist with competitive systems, the competitive systems quite simply steal all their profits (as per the back-knifers and conquistadors of previous mention).

This is not a fault of the selflessness of co-operative systems per se but rather a fault of the selfishness of competitive systems. And for many people the price of abandoning selflessness and embracing selfishness just to be on the winning side is simply too high a price to pay – I sympathize with people who change sides and concede that it is probably the intelligent thing to do however I also think it is entirely unreasonable to insist that everyone should adopt the selfish model

Rob, you didn't answer the question, you just told us what you didn't want. The way you phrased it to makes it difficult to disagree with you, as many people would probably like (or not like, as the case may be) the same things. A cooperative system with less competition, brilliant! What is it?

So... I'd say the first step, is maximising Australia's food output as an investment in what will inevitably become a growth industry.

(as an aside here, is it just me, or is the most interesting dichotomy in Australia politics, is the fact that the National Party claims to be in favour of small government, yet regulation of agricultural trade is arguably their prime goal. Yet they align themselves with the Liberal party, presumably based on shared conservative social values. I suspect this is why the Nats are in decline).

Mineral resources are also going to increase in value, though I suppose the key difference here is the fact that these aren't renewable supplies (though we do have an awful lot).
A logical response to this would be to maximise our value adding procedure - instead of allowing profits and opportunities to go to other nations, if we can boost our local manufacturing industry we will benefit - there is also the fact that we wouldn't have to deal with the same costs associated with shipping, which makes achieving a profit margin easier.

The unfortunate consquence of this however, is that we'll be competing with other nations who place a much lower cost on labor.
Manufacturing isn't going to go away however - there's always going to be a need for planes and cars and so on (regardless of what fuel we end up using).
Basically, this will mean that we need to simply keep our manufacturing capability alive, even if it is somewhat comatose. If the world is headed for a stage when we have to accept a lesser standard of living and lower wages, then we will have to accept that fact, and presumably, we can enter the manufacturing game competing on the lower wage level of other nations, armed with the knowledge that we as a nation have the resources to do the job - and if necessary, Australia could boost those prospects by reducing exports to competitors.

The WTO of course, would have a very dim view of this, though as things get tighter, I suspect a few nations are going to start baulking at WTO restrictions.

One important political development of the next few decades will be whether the US decides to start backing WTO resolutions via the use of force in order to maintain the status quo. If we can get around this via a close relationship with the US then we'll be in a very good position.
One of the chief arguments surrounding the Iraq war has been whether it was purely motivated by economic interests... it would be interesting to assess how closely the WTO resolutions tend to favour American interests.. I do know the EU has been ordered to restrict sugar subsidies over the next few years, though I'm not sure if that's the same for the US, who are serial subsidisers.

The Australian-US relationship is of course, an important one, though I don't think it takes nearly as much maintenance as we've been giving it. We don't need particular favour as long as our interests run parallel with the US, and as long as we retain friendly relations and offer at least token support to US ventures (even just support personnel instead of military), they're hardly going to let Australian resources fall into the hands of opponents if they can prevent it. If they can't prevent it, then it wouldn't matter anyway.
Making our support for the US little more than gestures would also have the effect of relaxing members of opposing blocs, though most of this politicking would be of only passing importance.

Our relationship with China and India will increase in importance, though they're likely to be the first to object if we in any way try to restrict our exports of natural resources. The US on the other hand, won't object one jot (well, maybe to India). Here's where the relationship to the WTO will prove very interesting, as theoretically, they'd be backing China if we were to restrict exports their in favour of boosting other projects.

Shorbe et al,

Well what a load of twaddle.

The only bright spot was Rob.

You all admit that the system is screwed, yet you’re convinced we have to keep it and just tweak it here and there with things like protectionist policies and limiting credit and enforced savings.

If you limited credit for those inveterate non savers (i.e. poor people), where would the banks make all their money? There is a reason banks give credit so easily you know – because they make money from it. You wouldn’t want to restrict their “free market” would you? If people stopped using credit the economy would shrink drastically and it would probably bring on a recession.

The main reason so many people can’t save is that they are on such low incomes. Yet you want to force them to save a proportion of their income when it doesn’t fully cover their needs now. Ironically you’ve got a problem with the alleged lack of “choice” of socialism, now you want to force people to save.

As for protectionist policies - don’t you get it? Capital is now highly mobile – it moves where it gets the best return – nothing is going to make it stay in Australia if it can get better returns elsewhere. Nothing will protect Australian industry if manufacturing can be moved to low wage regions. The objective logic of capitalism and the drive for profit cannot be reversed because a few people, or the government, have some "good" intentions.

Capitalism is in an advanced state of decay. The contradictions within it mean that it cannot be fixed or reformed, and never could.

You people are deluding yourselves.