TRTL: Something I forgot is that I don't agree entirely that people see themselves as being rich one day. I think people see themselves as being rich one day based upon good times continuing indefinitely, but have no back up plan should the economy turn.

Regarding the Coalition, it does seem like they're strange bedfellows (the Nats being agrarian socialists and all), but then, the Liberal Party seems like a bizarre mix when you consider the range of stances it supposedly encompasses.

As far as everything else, I suspect there would be all sorts of unintended consequences. As tao points out, capital is global.

tao: I don't actually want to force people to save money. I was pointing out that I could come up with ideas of saving people from themselves, but that ultimately, I don't want to do such things.

The main reason most people in Australia can't save has nothing to do with income and everything to do with spending. Here are two revelations for you that don't require anyone to be Warren Buffet: live within your means and pay yourself first (10% is a good starting figure). When people smoke a pack a day, drink a couple of slabs per week, gamble, don't prepare their meals at home, etc. (not to mention throwing money at consumer goods) of course they won't have any money left to save. This applies equally to those on high or low incomes. I know you won't (though others may), but I suggest you read this book as the authors went to great lengths to research the lifestyles and thinking patterns of the wealthy:

http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206

To pick but one example from capitalism, do you know why I don't have a problem with the outrageous interest fees charged on credit cards? Because I have the self-discipline to live by the maxim: if you can't pay cash, you can't afford it.

Personal responsibility and a little common sense have everything to do with the fact that despite the fact that it's unlikely that I'll ever earn a lot of money, I'll still be financially stable.

Shorbe,

Well la-de-da-daa.

Must be a good view down your nose from up there on your moral high-horse.

Do you not understand the basic fact that to be “wealthy” there must be others who are not wealthy? If everyone in the world had what the wealthy had, they wouldn’t be wealthy, they’d be normal.

Do you not understand that the richest 1% of adults in the world own 40% of the wealth in the world? Do you not understand that the poorest 50% of people own 1% of the wealth? This is not because of personal habits, it is because the economic-system perpetuates it. And you know what? Those richest 1% ALL WANT MORE – where do you think they are going to get it from - their own labour?

In an ANU report released last year it was found that, after declining from 1921 to 1980, the income share of the top 1 percent rose from under 5 percent in 1980 to 9 percent in 2002. The share of the top 0.5 percent soared from 2.95 percent to approximately 6 percent over the same period. The share of the top 0.1 percent, which had fallen to approximately 1 percent of the total in the 1980s, more than doubled to over 2 percent by the end of the 1990s. These are only top incomes for which information was available in tax returns i.e. Kerry Packer doesn’t count.

If, as a share of the whole, the proportion of income going to the rich is increasing, then it means that the proportion going to the rest of us is less. This pattern is continuing – and it is a world wide pattern. If the share of total income for the lowest 80% of people keeps decreasing, then 80% of people must get poorer and poorer, relative to the wealthy.

It might be possible for you as an individual, with your holier than thou ways, to be “secure”, however it is impossible for everyone to do so. Sure ANYONE can “make it” in capitalism, but not EVERYONE can “make it”.

Get real shorbe

tao: You get real, you're as up yourself as I am.

Firstly, you're assuming there's a pie that stays the same size. Objective measures of standard of living such as life expectancy, infant mortality, daily energy intake, etc. have all steadily improved the world over, not just in the West. One of the big lies perpetuated by your ilk is that it's been a zero sum game in this respect. By your logic, if our life expectancy is at or near 80 years of age now, it must be what, eleven (and falling) in the developing world? Heaven forbid that you should actually admit that it's not all doom and gloom for people in other parts of the world, and that the scientific progress (which has been most pronounced and rapid under capitalism), might have improved people's lives.

Secondly, the poor in the West are fat and have Playstations. They die from self-inflicted causes such as heart disease or lung cancer. Obesity is a disease of poor people. Why should I feel sorry for these idiots if they want to eat, smoke or drink themselves into an early grave, or if (through the marvels of modern science) they manage to make it into old age, just because they've had less foresight than the average squirrel, why should I be expected to pick up the tab?

As for the developing world, they're realising that as soon as they dump antiquated political and economic theories, corrupt governments and backward religions (the last two both being tautologies, I know, but still...) they start to move ahead in leaps and bounds.

I know it's really hard for you to accept that any successes of people in life have had anything to do with a psyche of personal responsibility and I suspect this all cuts so close to the bone with you because you indulge in that most Aussie of pursuits: dropping by the TAB on your way to pick up a pack of Winnie Blues before heading down to your local to piss what remains of this week's pay up against a wall.

Shorbe,

Are you Col Rouge in disguise? I’m sure I’ve had this discussion before, and you are becoming just as irrational as him.

If you go back to the causal-claim discussion you can see that your argument is flawed, or at the very least, not conclusive. You claim that millions of people are poor because they eat the wrong food, smoke too much, drink too much, and gamble too much. You claim that all of these social behaviours, or anti-social behaviours, are the result of individual propensities within each person which then cause them to be poor. However, it could be the other way around – they could engage in all of these anti-social behaviours because of their socio-economic position in society – lack of education, lack of opportunity, lack of community, lack of entertainment, lack of money. By your own “falsification” concept, you can’t even say you have positive knowledge that your theory is true – but of course YOU JUST KNOW ITS TRUE.

And of course it has nothing to do with the corporations who produce junk food, cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling-venues – no doubt they’re just “meeting demand” according to you – they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions. They can take advantage of the millions of “losers” in the world.

These issues are social issues, not individual issues.

And just because Western countries over the last 50 years have had better conditions doesn’t mean that it is going to stay that way, or that there is equality. In a 2005 UN Human Development Program report it was found that “health outcomes in the United States, the world’s richest country, reflect deep inequalities based on wealth and race.”

The UN-Development-Program report includes what it calls a “human-poverty-index” for the 20 wealthiest countries, to “better reflect the extent of human deprivation that still exists” among the populations of these major economic powers. By this measure, the US ranks next to last among the top 20, only ahead of Italy. On such indices as life-expectancy, and especially infant-mortality, the world’s “sole-superpower” lags significantly behind many other countries.

UNICEF also presented a report in 2005 on the growth of child poverty in OECD countries. According to the UNICEF definition, the countries with the largest proportion of children in poverty are Mexico (27.7%) and the US (21.9%). In the EU, Italy has the highest proportion of child poverty, with 16.6 percent, followed by Ireland (15.7%), Portugal (15.6%) and Britain (15.4%). These countries are followed by Canada, Australia and Japan, each with more than 14% of children growing up in poverty.

Yes, 21.9% of children live in poverty in the richest country on earth, that exemplar of capitalism – USA. That is more than one fifth of children in the USA in poverty. And inequality is increasing.

Now, even if you could somehow blame the individual parents for their gross irresponsibility with their money (where the minimum wage is something like US$6 per hour – HUGE!), should the sins of the parents be visited on their children? 21.9% of them? (Oh sorry, you probably think they shouldn’t have children – you’ll be arguing for sterilisation of the poor next)

You carry on about individual responsibility, but it never extends to social responsibility i.e. responsibility for the society we actually live in – the one that you actually enjoy the benefits of, and that many others are adversely affected by. You’d just prefer to make your pompous judgements about millions of other people, and bury your head in the sand.

Thanks for your responses shorbe and TRTL.
.

“Well what a load of twaddle.”

Now that’s nice of you tao! So just what is it that you object to here? The very notion of wanting to discuss the best system of governance that will direct us towards sustainability? Or are you just pulling out a small part of shorbe’s argument (increased financial regulation of the people by governments, and protectionist policies) and branding him/her, TRTL and Ludwig as twaddlers because of it?

You have a good knowledge of matters discussed on this thread. But this unfriendly look-down-your-nose-at-all-others attitude is highly off-putting.

“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.”

That is a pretty unfortunate interpretation. These things were suggested as part of a possible solution, not the main points of consideration and certainly not the whole answer.

”You people are deluding yourselves.”

We are searching for answers to critically serious issues here. We all agree that the overall appraisal is extremely grim. No one in this discussion is deluding themself.

Can I ask you the same question that I put to shorbe and TRTL;

Is there any political ideology that can take us off our future-destroying path and lead us to sustainability, with urgency. Or more particularly, how could we possibly adapt our current system of governance in Australia?