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

Hi UOG,
Well that pretty much covers all the bases.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

the measure of a nation to a degree is how we treat ourt elderly and unborn. Once we measured well but since secularism has created a totally me centred country we have gone down the tube. Individual 'rights' no matter how perverse are now more important than the corporate good of the nation. This is seen clearly in the way crimminals literally get away with murder, those supporting gay marriage, defacto relationships replacing marriage (commitment)and total indulgence in drugs and alcholol. Interesting enough in order to mask our moral vacuum many have taken up the 'environmental ' cause not because they really care about the environment but they need to display some form of self righteousness to fill the vacuum.

Dear Anthonyve,

Great thread!
There should be some interesting responses.
We do need to discuss what kind of society
we want to live in - and select the party
at the next election that we feel will be
able to point us in the right direction (no pun
intended here).

Personally, I would like to live in a society
that does leave room for social equity,
compassion, and the idea of an egalitarian society.
A society that does provide social welfare, public
health, education, a co-ordination of trade and
economic policies. We're living in critical times
and we do require a re-assessment of the relationship
between labour and capital, a re-assessment which
takes into account the politics of industrial democracy,
profit and long term planning which allows for the
proper protection and preservation of our environment.
The only way in which the country can work properly is
for management and labour to co-operate with one another,
not condemn one another.

However, therein lies the problem. In most industrialised
democracies "wedge politics" - that is - deliberately
creating a division between sectoral interests - is the
name of the game. Hence, interest group self-interest
and antagonism between citizens permeates policy-making.

The much-touted notion in liberal democracies that
governments govern for all, is not believed by significant
numbers of voters. It is all too obvious that governments
actually don't do this. This destroys social capital, that is
trust, togetherness and the tender feelings of a caring
society. It becomes - "Them" and "us," rather than simply
"us," and much effort is employed in partisan politics
which could be much better utilised in positive pursuits.

Living in a functional society requires the seeking of
a consensus "the mean" between extremes - which is the
operational principle for sustainable policies. Otherwise
we will be in continual dispute. We need to make
consensus-building into a fine art in societal decision making.
But I won't be holding my breath for that to happen any time
soon. Our current state of politics is in quite a mess -
and "wedge politics" is the name of the game.

The true measure of a nation is patriotism in tough times not when it is fashionable. To give yourself huge pay rises whilst so many can't find employment because those with the pay rises can't mange is not patriotic nor is it a good measure for a nation.
It is not a good measure for a nation to hand over more good cash to other countries which also don't have a fair wealth distribution policy.
A good nation looks after its own more than after those who come to exploit & change it.

The true measure of a civilisation is how it treats its
weakest and most vunerable members. The same measure shouold
apply to the policies of its political parties.

The economy is the engine from which all the money for protecting the most vulnerable comes.

I have spent some time in Africa, and in Kenya where well meaning benevolent socialism plunged the majority into abject poverty, the saying "the path to hell is paved with good intentions" is hammered home.

By contrast, the real incomes of the lowest paid and most vulnerable increased in real terms by far more under Howard than under Hawke and Keating.

Making the rich poorer never makes the poor richer.

I think Shadow Minsiter makes the most powerful argument yet.
But I wonder if it isn't a case - just to some extent - of using one extreme to defend its opposite.
Sure the kind of socialism and throwing money at the problem that Africa has experienced is a powerful lesson for us all. And it is a crazy strategy.
But here's a question: Does taxing according to wealth truly make the rich poorer?
And here's another: Isn't it usually true that the wealthy use more of the common weal than do the poor? To give an example, how much of the public road system is used - heavily - by trucks supplying and bringing goods to market, goods that are owned by the very wealthy compared to the wage slave who hardly uses the road and whose little toyota does little damage?
Is this not an example where a national asset is used disproportionatly by a rich person? Ought that rich person pay perhaps a little more tax?
The mining industry which is making a - relatively - few incredibly wealthy is causing genuine hardship to the rest of our society through the two speed economy. Is it not reasonable to ask those benefiting to contribute to rectifying the problem?
Yet another question: There will come a time when the mines will run out of minerals. The mining companies will lay off their workers.
Who will pick up the tab? Who will provide unemployemnt benefits if needed, health services if needed?
The taxpayer will. So, is it really so unreasonable to require the wealthy to pay more in taxes than those less well off who are not benfifiaries of the mining boom?
The fact is that the super rich did not become so in isolation. ANd I do feel that that should be taken into account.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Anthonyve,

Why do these curious myths about the poor
persist? The ideology that legitimates
stratification in our society holds that
everyone has the same chance to get ahead,
and that inequality provides rewards for
personal effort.

Many people believe that if those who can
get ahead can claim credit for their success,
then those who fall behind mist, logically, be
blamed for their failures. The poor are supposed
to need incentives to work, rather than help at
the expense of the taxpayer.

There are few complaints, however, about how we
pay out more in "handouts" to the non poor than
to the poor. This fact generally escapes
attention because these benefits take an
indirect form of hidden subsidies or tax deductions
rather than the direct form of cash payments.

We have to be careful in our explanations of poverty
to not "blame the victim." We need more on the social
forces that create poverty rather than on the supposed
faults of the poor. This doesn't mean, of course,
that poverty is "all society's fault." Some people
undoubtedly contribute to their deprived circumstances.
But poverty, like wealth or indeed any social
characteristic, is the outcome of a complex
interaction between individual human beings and the
social environment in which they find themselves.

Since social stratification is socially constructed
it must, in principle, be socially modifiable as well
provided only that people are conscious of their own
ability to change what they have created. Whether
they preserve, modify, or change the system is
ultimately up to the people themselves. It is
therefore vital to make the right choices in selecting
the type of society we wish to live in and the type of
government and policies that will ensure that we are given
the society that we want.

cont'd ...

I don't think that Winston Churchill meant the quote that Shadow
Minister used in his post - in the way it was given.
I don't think Mr Churchill meant that we allow 1 percent to
get richer while 99 percent get poorer - or that low taxes
for the rich plus tax avoidance and evasion was the type of
society he was advocating.

At least I don't think he did and getting the rich to pay their
fare share is not a big ask.

Hi Lexi,
I wholeheartedly agree.
Too many self satisfied rich are simply winners of a lucky sperm competition, and feel that somehow that makes them better than someone who gets no kick start at all.
Or who, in fact, may have been born with a set of genes that simply made it harder to compete.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Lexi and Ant,

You both missed the point. The difference between idealism and reality is that this is not a zero sum game. As I pointed out, Howard encouraged the rich to get richer, and in doing so this lead to the income of the poor improving far more than it ever did under the well meaning Labor. The super rich miners employ thousands at high salaries, all of whom pay tax.

With the mobility of capital and skilled Labor, Australia is competing for investment and skills. Higher taxes on investments and income encourage them to generate wealth and taxes elsewhere.

I do get your point, Shadowminister, it's valid and well made.
I'm delighted to see the rich get rich, but you're essentially making the
trickle down argument that the Republicans are pushing in the US.
The trickle down theory has been historically discredited when it has been left to natural forces to drive the redistribution.
Only when taxation and other interventions have been used does the redistribution occur.
Right now we are seeing the widest gap between the rich and the poor in history. Many historians and economists (Krugman, for example), in the US are powerfully making the case that if taxation is kept too low and natural economic forces are left to drive a redistribution, then it is not and will not happen.
Even a cursory look at income relativity trends shows that they are correct.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Anthony,

In the US people have long regarded the Democrats
as the party more likely to favour the underdog,
and the Republicans as the party more closely
tied to business interests. Or as someone
jokingly summarised - D stands for drive, (Democrat -move
forward), R for reverse (Republican - go backwards).

What we're currently witnessing in the US is a
de-alignment - a breakdown of traditional
loyalities in favour of a more fluid party system,
in which people pick and choose among personalities
and positions with little regard for party labels -
to vote for candidates of each party for different
offices. In fact recent polls have found that
only a small amount of the public considers it
important what party a presidential candidate
belongs to. Certainly, a trend towards a
de-alignment of party loyalties would not be
unexpected in a post-industrial society whose
hallmarks are individualism and choice.

Perhaps this will one day happen in Australia,
or at the very least - perhaps the Opposition
will select the right sort of leader - who will
be willing to see the bigger picture on
policies that are good for the country - and be
willing to give those policies support.
One can only live and hope.

Dear SM,

Your comment about the mining industry needs
to be clarified. You stated that the mining
industry gives employment to many workers
who earn high wages and pay high taxes but
the reality is that the mining industry itself
does not pay its fair share of taxes and those
employed in the mining industry constitutes
only approx. 2 per cent of the national workforce.
That does not mean that the mining industry
contributes to the wealth of the country. The wealth
is not evenly shared. A mining tax will create an
even balance - which is what the government is
trying to achieve but does not have the support of
the Coalition.

The Coalition believes that the more wealth the mining
industry has the more financial support the Coalition
will have. And that is why presumably they are against
this tax.

Ant,

This is not the trickle down / supply side economics that Reagan tried to employ, which is one extreme, the high taxing socialism that is the other extreme that is also discredited.

The trickle down effect provides employment and wealth to many, but not evenly and bypasses those that need protection. On the other hand high taxes and government redistribution of wealth taken too far kills the golden goose who largely take their profits and skills elsewhere.

The mining companies will invest where their returns are more certain, and Africa, Canada, and South America are providing attractive returns. This can be clearly seen in mining investments. In 2007 Australia had nearly 22% of new global mining investment, while today it is about 15%. The mining companies between state royalties and corporate tax, pay in excess of 40% of their profits in tax (higher than any other companies) to state and federal coffers, and the nearly quadrupling in corporate tax revenue since 2007 has saved federal labor's budget from massive deficits.

The clarion cry that the miners must pay their "fair share" is pure populism, as no one has yet defined what is "fair". In labor's case, it just means "more", and the miners are perceived as easy targets.

Dear SM,

I agree with most of what you've stated in your last post.
It's an excellent summation overall. Apart from your
statements concerning the mining tax. From my understanding -
It's only a small number of BIG mining companies that will
be affected by this tax - and if as you say - they will pack
up and invest overseas - they will leave a vacuum that
overseas investment companies will be desperate to fill under
whatever conditions the government dictates. All we have to do
is look at the oil industry that is exploring overseas
resource potentials.

We should not buy into the scare tactics that the Coalition
is trying to sell - regarding the mining tax. The mining
companies will always make their BIG profits by whatever
means they can - and if Labor costs in Australia are too
high they will import overseas workers to maintain their
profit margins. With new technology the human work-force
is slowly diminishing. As I stated earlier- the workforce in the mining industry is a miniscule proportion of the total workforce in Australia - and the wealth of the land should be shared by the whole nation - which it currently isn't. The mining tax will correct this
situation.

cont'd ...

It's not as if the mining industry is creating something out of nothing - like the manufacturing industry. The mining industry is taking a natural resource that belongs to the nation and selling it overseas. We object of large land estates being bought out by overseas interests - so why should we not object that we get no national value buy the sell-off of our mineral wealth where only a
few benefit. It would be like a few commercial companies selling off our water resources at great financial gain instead of it being shared by the nation.

Lexi,

Your assumption that others will rush in to invest in mining is not borne out by the facts. Not all new mining projects have the spectacular returns that some existing mines have. Many are pretty marginal. That Australia's share of global investment has dropped by 1/3 in the past 5 years shows that while the plum projects are proceeding, many others are not.

Just as with manufacturing. The profitable ones will survive Labor's carbon tax. Those struggling now will close their doors, and their employment and emissions will simply move overseas.

Dear SM,

You argument has no rationality. You seem to be following
Mr Abbott's rantings.
Re-read my previous post. The mining tax applies only to
a small number of very BIG established mining companies
that are making
huge profits. If those mines close they'll be overseas
companies lining up to take over who will be willing to pay
any tax - to simply get into Australia.

To threaten that the mining companies will move overseas -
doesn't make any sense considering that overseas - they will
have to spend a fortume to find minerals in the ground before
they can even set up and start mining. It's not like
manufacturing - which can be relocated at a reasonable cost
and paid for by the cheap labour overseas.

Think logically. "I'm going to threaten the government, I'm
going to leave a big hole in the ground, and nobody's going
to touch it..."

Now seriously - sit down and think about it.

cont'd ...

I am truly amazed at the lunacy that prevails
under Mr Abbott's current leadership.

I don't recall such irrational thinking under the
previous Turnbull leadership of the party.

Unless you can produce evidence to the contrary.
I'd be happy to hear it.

Lexi,

Do you understand plain English or do you only read what you want to?

Once the mining companies have invested Billions in developing mines that are profitable, no one is going to pull out. I never claimed so, nor has anyone else, which makes your posts above meaningless.

These big Multinational companies invest their money where they can get the best return, and the mining tax reduces this return.

Are you happy with the lunacy under the Gillard government?

Dear SM,

Are you happy with the uselessness of the
current Liberal front benchers due to its
negative leadership?

cont'd ...

Or do you find it "aspirational?"

Lexi,

Labor is so bad that it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

A typical rant from a 1% voter. By all means look after the billionaires of this world. They are the most likely to dodge tax.
We have a MRRT to spread some wealth around the country. So what is wrong with that.
Small business get tax cuts and other cost cuts, Money was meant to be shared around.
Mining investment is going gang busters.
All is positive and every body happy, except Abbott, but what's new

579

We are the 45%

You are the 31%

Dear 579,

Positive policies and outcomes will always trump
scare tactics and slogans like - "scrap the tax,"
"stop the boats." These might be fine for "Question
Time," in Parliament -
along with censure motions ("Point of Order,"
Mr Speaker), but they won't last to impress an
electorate prior to an election.
Polls change very quickly - and there's plenty of
time until the next election. It will be interesting
to see whether the Coalition's policy platforms will
be able to match Labor's robust policies and achievements.
Somehow, I very much doubt it - not with their current
leader who really has a problem understanding much
of anything - let alone the problems that ordinary
Australians are faced with on a daily basis.

Lexi,

What positive outcomes?

Juliar's slogan is "I didn't really mean to lie, the hung parliament made me do it."

Dear SM,

Stop being such a Liberal!

Small business get tax cuts and other cost cuts, Money was meant to be shared around.
579,
You're presumably referring to the businesses running sweat shops in Asia who will be gearing up for manufacturing nearly all of our consumables.
Especially if the mining boom exports double to China when they go into production/pollution overdrive while we pay Carbon Tax & Mining tax. Yes I did say WE not the companies.
Will the temporary PM compensate us for the massive job losses around the corner or will Abbott get burdened with refilling the coffers while you lot disrupt him from getting on with job of putting money back in the coffers unlike the present lot who are digging the bottom out of the empty pit. Abbott's been trying to stop them from digging deeper hence you lot call the No man. I hope he'll prove to be the No man when your lot start holding out their hands after the funds start building up again.

Dear Individual,

It's always good to read several versions of
the issues under discussion from several sources.
Here's another link that may provide some food
for thought for you, or not. It's up to you
and your political inclinations of course.
However it's worth a read - in my opinion:

http://newmatilda.com/2012/03/20/kinder-gentler-mining-tax

Lexi,

"Dear SM,

Stop being such a Liberal!"

I would need a lobotomy, then I could vote Labor. If I removed my entire pre frontal Lobe, I could vote green.

Dear SM,

Well, now I'm really surprised.

I've assumed that you've already had a lobotomy
that's why you're so rational,
well-balanced, never making sweeping statements
and consistently - providing all of us on this
Forum with such in-depth thought provoking
discussions. Always seeing the multi-faceted sides
of issues. Never being bi-partisan or one-eyed.

But if you think a lobotomy will help - go for it!

Julia is certainly good at legislation. A power of bills passed in record time. At the same time as Mr NO saying No, and he's good at that also.
Tax reform bills now, some relief for small business, and super improvements.

The word corruption is again being heard, Mr Palmer has given the coalition 4 million $ why.
That word hasn't been around since Mr Howard was caught out.

579,

Corruption is what Thomson did, which Labor reeks of. The donations received by the coalition have been eclipsed by those received by the greens and Labor.

Lexi,

I put you down as frontal lobe deficient, ie greenie.

Dear SM,

Frontal-lobe deficiency is your area of
expertise not mine.

I've never seen a damaged brain
I never hope to see one
But I can tell you here and now
I'd rather see, than be one.

As for being a Greenie?
Nah. Although manure power is funny, it's
definitely not hay.
(Politically speaking). ;-)

An economics teacher at a local school made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Gillard/Brown socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The teacher then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on the Gillard/Brown plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

tbc.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the teacher told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, and gives to those who do nothing, no-one will try or want to succeed.


It could NOT be any simpler than that.


Remember,there IS a test coming up.The next election.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You can not legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

individual,

Your example is an indictment of the triumph of "individualism" in our me-me-me society. I wonder what the result would have been if the "class" had a feeling of community - and the challenges confronting them were seen from a cooperative - community perspective? It's not surprising that we in the West have little idea of organic community relations. People in the third world are raised to see their immediate communities as integral to their own identity.

Poirot,
Shouldn't you then go & live there ? How do you then explain why everyone wants to come here ?
I live the life where I'm witnessing the efforts of people benefit mainly others.

individual,

I see you're at your most charming again.

I imagine they're all flocking here just so they can glean first-hand the art of the fortunate few perpetually whinging and whining that things are so tough....and to learn that the acquisition of "stuff" is what it's all about.

Carry on.

Rober Kennedy was gunned down in 1968.

Very few people realise today that Robert Kennedy
was the first true-green politician.

People and their means of existence (their economy)
were intrinsically linked in Robert Kennedy's formula
for environmental action. He would have introduced a
genuine sustainable society and a better world had he
lived to do so - and that was decades ago.

Here's what he had to say before he was killed:

"We will find neither national purpose nor personal
satisfaction in a mere continuation of ...an endless
amassing of wordly goods. We cannot measure national
spirit by the Dow Jones Average, nor national
achievement by the Gross National Product. For the
Gross National Product includes air pollution, and
ambulances to clear our highways from carnage.
It counts special locks for our doors and jails for
people who break them. The Gross National Product
includes destruction of redwoods and the death of
Lake Superior. It grows with the production of napalm
and mines and nuclear warheads... It includes... the
broadcasting of television programs which glorify
violence to sell goods to our children.

And if the Gross National Product includes all this, there
is much it does not comprehend... the health of our
families, the quality of their education, or the joy of
their play. It is indifferent to the decay of our
factories and the safety of our streets. It does not include
the beauty of our poetry, or the strength of our marriages,
the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity
of our public officials... the Gross National Product
measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our
wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our
devotion to our country. It measures everything, in
short, except that which makes life worthwhile..."

No wonder Robert Kennedy was considered a radical ---
too dangerous, to be President of the USA.

What he said in the speech quoted above was what mainstream
economists would come to say in the future. It has taken
so many decades for the fatal fault of traditional
national accounts to sink in.

Poirot,
It does appear that you're living a privileged existence. You obviously can afford to trivialise a life you're not living. Are you prepared to share all you work for with someone you don't know ? Unless you do you should refrain from sarcasm & ridicule.

individual,

It's quite entertaining reading your "assumptions". You're a judgmental sneering sort of chappy it seems...certainly not someone who I can be bothered engaging any longer.

Poirot,
You're effort is wasted trying to dig yourself out of this one.

Mate, there's some posters who it soon becomes apparent aren't even worth picking up a shovel for.

Mate ?
Poirot,
I always thought you were a sheilah. Well, surprises never cease.

I am a "sheilah" : )

Can't a sheilah refer to a bloke as "mate"?

In fact, I've always been fascinated at the anonymous dynamic that occurs on this forum - I wonder how much of our acceptance or angst at other posters is moderated by our perception of their gender.

I am a "sheilah" : )
Cheers for that Poirot,
Of course a woman can call someone Mate. I felt however, that that was quite an underlying tone there. Never mind.
I really believe that in Australia we're rapidly losing the concept of a Nation as such. We have morphed into a disloyal society of tolerating attempts to make this country something it was never planned to be. Just like Europe it is now Australia's turn to be broken into pieces of a puzzle which will never fit to make a whole picture. People who despise our harmony but exploit it to the fullest nevertheless are destabilising our society with no idea what they actually want. They're intelligent enough to get brainwashed but too stupid to have even a moment's foresight.

Dear Individual,

I strongly disagree with you.
Those sort of views disempowers people by
devaluing their identity. These views destroy
community cohesion and they create division in
society. These views are the opposite of the
democratice principle of equality and the right
of all people to be treated fairly.

However I understand your fears. They are part and parcel
of some notions of nationhood which are seen as incompatible
with diversity. These beliefs are usually expressed
in various stereotyped views of who the "real" Australians
are. This thinking is based on an ideology of national
culture in which minority cultures are regarded as alien
and therefore a threat to social cohesion. These
views - consist
of pervasive cultural assumptions where the customs and
beliefs of the supposed "dominant group" in society are
presented as the norm. As a result, the status and
behaviour of minority groups, particularly those who are
more visibly different, are defined and judged with respect
to the dominant group of largely British and Celtic
backgrounds.

These attitdues are widely discussed in the media and on
Forums such as this one - where they're presented as
reasonable and commonsense and reflected through media
images that don't accurately portray Australia's
cultural diversity. Unfortunately in this way these
ideologies are expressed and reinforced through a process
of group interaction and are thereby absorbed into
popular culture.

Undoubtedly, with time, education, social inter-action,
- and possibly with future generations - things may change.
Providing the best hope for our society. We can only hope
that this will happen.