If we look to the end of WWII, the start of the current credit economy developed by the Western governments (lead by the USA), we see banks lending money only to those able to afford the repayments and have collateral as security; regulatory bodies looking over banking and business; CEO's, senior execs and directors earning only 6-8 times the lowest income earners of their companies/businesses; conservative stability across all markets from property to shares.

We see only relatively minor rises and falls in any market at any given time....until the 1987 Stock Market Crash. But what happened before the crash of '87? In the 1972 Lima Declaration, it was suggested to assist underdeveloped economies by trying to have 20%'of the West's manufacturing base relocated to underdeveloped countries by the year 2000. That figure is now 80%.

Around 1980, the deregulation of banking and business occurred, and these were to be "self regulatory". Since deregulation, we've experienced the 1987 Stock Market Crash, the '91 crash, the Dot Com Bubble, the Subprime Loan fiasco, and the GFC. Forty years of steady prosperity, then suddenly a succession of financial catastrophes over nearly the same time period, with worse to come, and a greater disparity between the wealthy and the not.

What's dogma got to with this? Absolutely nothing. It's economics, rule changes to advantage big business only, and a total absence of oversight by regulatory bodies. None of this is really left wing or right wing, but it's ALL business and finance related. And it's ALL self-serving. Clearly, self-regulation is a farce.

Economics is the dogma of the world, not left or right wing ideologies, for both sides serve the same masters....big business. Government no longer is government for the people, by the people, representing the people. It's a business world that controls the governments of nations, making policy for business first, while the people are incidental, existing only as labour, markets or cannon fodder.

That's not to say there can't be political agitation by the masses, but you'd have to drag everyone away from their TV's, X-boxes, computers and tablets.

Dear DD,

We have an interesting future ahead of us.

The world is becoming a single marketplace, where
capital, jobs, and products appear to be moving
with little regard for national boundaries.
As we've already
seen a computer designed and marketed in Texas may
have its casing built in Mexico, its microchip in
Japan, its circuit boards in Singapore, its
keyboard in Taiwan, its disks in Germany.
The combined effects of international competition and
technological development is leading to the re-allocation of
resources from old industries to the enterprises of the
future in ways that are changing the face of the
economy and society. Who knows what the innovations of
the day, or the implications will be in future decades?

Dear Foxy,

<<The world is becoming a single marketplace, where ...>>

There you stated the whole problem - there's no need to continue with the details.

Do you want to live in a marketplace?

I don't!

Dear Yuyutsu,

Trade, travel, and telecommunications have made
the nations of the modern world more interdependent
than ever before. You may not like living in a
"marketplace" but we may possibly not have much
choice in that direction.

I'd be interested to hear your views on the subject.

Dastardly has given us a lot to chew on.

I'll return to this thread when I've had a chance to mull on it.
This is too important to take lightly.
Should hopefully raise some interesting contributions.

I reckon 'Shocker' will have some ready answers, but I'd really like to hear what 'George' has to offer (and Alan Austin?).

This may appear a 'market' (or economic) contemplation, but 'Politics' is at the root, and can provide the only effective avenue for a 'resolution'.
(Revisionary or 'corrective' Legislation is generally the product of political activism, is it not?)
Interesting times; and the shape of the world's future in the balance?

@Saltpetre, thank you. I'm glad someone got the gist of it. Unfortunately, due to limited word count and not being used to such limitation, I didn't get all that I wanted to say into my Opening Post, nor could I add to it until Big Brother viewed it (sheesh!!). So I've been waiting for someone like you, in order to elaborate a little. As you rightly said, it's a big topic.

Those of you that remember the 80's and 90's, and have a more objective view of the political climate here in Oz, rather then being dogma or hero worshippers, would recollect that Hawke and Keating actually promoted conservative policies, rather than left wing dogma to win elections. Howard, had to use "left" policies to win his election, and then broke every promise he made.

My point, is that for poitical parties, dogma is redundant. Dogma is merely the type of promises that will be broken. Both major parties serve the same corporate masters and abide by no particuar dogma, but swap and change in order to appeal to the public, giving occasional lip-service to dogma for the "party faithful", as for most people, political dogma is their 1st or 2nd religion.

Wran also enacted more conservative policies than left wing ones, but is lauded as a "great man" of Labor. That's what charm, intelligence and charisma will do for you (and strangely, is also the way you describe a psychopath).

What if we dropped the crap, and call a spade, a spade? Call them party "A" and "B", since they don't care what they say, so long as they win. Maybe then, the "religious" followers can focus on what is actually being said and done, rather than genuflecting at the altar of hypocrisy and corruption.

As an aside, I remember this wonderful photograph of Bob Hawke sitting at the head of a table, Kerry Packer on one sade, Alan Bond on the other. Only Bob was eating, while the other two were smiling sweeetly at him, not touching their meals. I wanted to write the caption, "Who's feeding who?"