As I enjoy the stimulation, (intellectual, I hasten to add), education and the entertainment to be found in OLO discussions and threads, it occurs to me that most - sometimes all - of our debate over the pros and cons of the two major parties, is based on economic arguments.
Now I like a comfortable life and a buck or six as much as the next person, but I want to offer the thought that there's more to the evaluation of a government's effectiveness, or lack of it, than it's economic outcomes.
Yes, of course the economy is important, and yes of course if we don't have a sound economy we can't afford to do the other stuff, but but still, we should - it seems to me - at least be talking about 'the other stuff'.
For example, somebody wiser than me once said, "The true measure of a society is gauged by the way it treats the most vulnerable of its members."
That objective, protecting the most vulnerable, can run somewhat counter to objectives measured only in economic terms.
And if we were to agree that measures other than purely economic ones deserve a discussional guernsey, then new questions arise:
* What is the right balance between protecting the helpless and economic purity?
* How do we measure "the other stuff" so that we can reasonably say something like, "Yes we didn't have a huge surplus last year, or maybe we had a deficit last year, but we achieved great things in, say, mental health?
* If we are in economic difficulties, what should be the first safety nets to be discarded as unaffordable?
I'm wondering if, by focusing on a largely, if not purely, economic debate we might not be, in some ways, simply avoiding the tough debates.
Ayyway, I thought it might be worth kicking around.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

the measure of a nation
is how it measures up with other nations
how it manages the common weal/trust
to best service to its inhabitants

the/measure of a party is the affectivness it has
in managing within the egsisting tax regeme
[staying within budget]..even reducing tax
and putting into practice the promise of..decentralisation of govt

while still meeting all need

not greed....

[minesters should be autonimous..and *fully accountable]
even after leaving office[especially in relation..to stuff they knew of inconfidene..or obtained via office]

""That objective,
protecting the most vulnerable,..can run somewhat counter to objectives..measured only in economic terms.""

absolutly
we need a bassic health index
basic education level index
skills index.leisure index

as well as all the other indexies
[we hear nightly reported on..into the public conscience]

""*..What is the right balance
between protecting the helpless and economic purity?""

apply grant[aid]..from the base
let the base chose who gets it

all must get the same ratio*
not same rate...big users must pay more
the least users get it for free..;incentivise]

""*..How do we measure... but we achieved great things
in,..say,..mental health?""

things like road rage
reveal much more than we realise

booze/opill sales reflex unhappyness
[over compensation..[dito comfort foods etc]
really its as simple as asking people..or seeing what they comfort buy

''If we are in economic difficulties,..what should be
the first safety nets..to be discarded as unaffordable?""

public serrvice pension arrangements

""by focusing on a largely,..economic debate
we might not be..simply avoiding the tough debates.""

debaits arnt tough
bringing in worthy change is
so many selfish rich..want the title richest
while its not them that are rich..but HER FAMILY TRUST

AVOIDING TAX
yet capital gaining..wealth upon the elites
at expense of the poor...like its a govt cash cow

only just a bit more generouse
than govt licence/grant/pension

I suspect you may be contradicting yourself, Anthonyve.

Let's accept for the moment your suggestion that "protecting the most vulnerable, can run somewhat counter to objectives measured only in economic terms."

Two out of your three questions, unfortunately, bear a critical economic component, thus:

>>What is the right balance between protecting the helpless and economic purity?... If we are in economic difficulties, what should be the first safety nets to be discarded as unaffordable?<<

You have already assumed that your "measure of a society" requires to have an economic dimension, which kinda blows the whole concept out of the water.

Even your third question has a kicker

>> How do we measure "the other stuff" so that we can reasonably say something like, "Yes we didn't have a huge surplus last year, or maybe we had a deficit last year, but we achieved great things in, say, mental health?<<

How to measure the "great things in mental health" is sufficiently complex a topic to have the nation's philosophers absorbed for decades, let alone the the medical fraternity, economists, actuaries and politicians. You'd fall, I suggest, at the first hurdle - which would be to create a national benchmark for "mental health".

Sadly, everything has a price. DALYs, QALYs, YLLs, YLDs etc. are now familiar measurements, and all are invariably translated into dollars at some point.

The only possible fulfilment of a vision where economics and "treating people well" are separated can be through charity, more specifically through a benefactor system that targets particular trouble spots without consideration of financial benefits. Even there, the benefactor can be seduced by the concept of "maximum effect for available dollars", and you're back to square one.

Right, Bill?

Athonyve interesting, once you could tell who would govern by the hip pocket nerve other wise known as self interest.
I think less today care about others and welfare and such.
Not nice but in my view true.
Today we all suffer and promote, bad government.
Increasingly our views, or enough of them to make a difference, come from a Medea frenzy targeting selling more news.
And the Primary focus, influence peddling.
Any one see the Rinehart family feud news today?
Hidden in it the mum had Barnaby Joyce write to at least one of her kids, on her behalf.
Influence and politics are for sale in this country.

Of course, you're right, Pericles, there is a degree of contradiction between my basic question and the questions that fall out of the idea that there are other ways to measure a government, a political party's efficacy and, indeed a society.
The contradiction itself is symptomatic of the dilemma.
But doesn't it begin with an acknowledgement that we are something more than our wealth - or our lack of it?
And doesn't that demand a wider focus than we are now seeing engaged, or indeed engaging ourselves, as OLOers?
It's easy to say, "oh, well, that's a question for the philosphers", which is code for - it's too hard.
No Sir, it's not too hard.
A willingness to address that question might well be the price of being a fully functioning member of a society.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

quote...""questions..that fall out of the idea
that there are other ways..to measure a government,..efficacy ""

The contradiction itself
is symptomatic of the dilemma.''

of course...govt
[""political party's and, indeed a society.""]
work by numbers/rote..you get in
instal your acces to govt funds for ya mate's
issue a few new laws[for ya mates]..then get back to making the real money[big bonus]..cash in ya shares..feed your and your mates trust funds

so you can leverage it into less tax
more assets..less tax..more cash

numbers
FOLLOW THE MONEY*

the absurdity of barnaby ADVISING THE RICH KIDS
to let the public gulping up of huge tax advantages endlessly
[leaving it untouched mint..like it was a rag commic investment
instead of an active trust]

well yes..what indeed is a measure of effecicy
more cash..more power..more numbers

more more more

""But doesn't it..*begin with an acknowledgement
that we are something more than our wealth -or our lack of it?""

tell that to 'the richest person''[lol who isnt that rich..
cause its shared in a blind fund..belonging not just to her
thus too difficult to find ways to tax it

besides all the mugs got a trust fund
[somehow that sepperates them lol
from colluding..even more trust fund wealth]
avoiding tax...[all active trusts are for tax avoidance]

thats their only reason for being

""code for - it's too hard.""

mate its all about money
and hanging on to it
and doubling down your bet
then the next generation spending it
[like lord mucks/and hoodlems do..to strengthen networks]

""A willingness to address that question
might well be the price..of being a fully
functioning member..of a society.""

it is clear tax trusts
before the asset they hold in trust
turns back into rust[like yet more 'haircuts']

you dont even realise..get it
its its you [or rather your pension trust fund]..that got it
short back and sides...

[plus a mobile-phone cancer
and leaky tits poisening babies]

silly conehead's