I tend to believe in enlightened self interest.  Build a society in which it is in ones own self interest to help other people. 

Conservative views on taxation is that you want to ensure that there is real incentive for people to create wealth so that there is more of that wealth to tax and use for things that benefit all of society.

Without the motivation of profit, most of what we have today would not exist.

hehehe Champas... you really dont like the Liberal party do you?

Well... I am not the biggest fan of John Howard either, but I sincerly beleive that the Labor party could not a job that was any better. I just dont have any faith in the Labor parties ability of economic management, and essentially the wellbeing of a nation all points back to the economic management - trusted and true fact, money makes the world go round, and I would rather Australia be in the black than the red...

Its going to be an interesting election.

BAM!!!

The sad thing is the wets in the Liberal Party today are right in the thick of everything - Vanstone, Costello and the ridiculous foreign minister are all wets. We're seeing the more "welfare liberal" side of the Party, and it's hard to tell it apart from the religious conservatives.

Without the motivation of profit, most of what we have today would not exist

There is a correlation between the rise of profit-based enterprise and the rise of the super-rich, but the correlation between the rise in profit-based enterprise and rises in communal standards of living could equally be linked to the rise of unions and their ilk. Sure, the motivation of profit increases the amount of money going to the very rich, who perhaps choose to distribute it amongst their employees, but it's the increased wages and buying power amongst the many that got us the slinky and "I can't believe it's not butter".

Champas and Muggaz for that matter -- who DO you want to run the country? It's not likely that an independents going to be PM - or a green or a democrat - from the very very small amount I know about politics I think we're voting for 2 people to lead the country -- you seem to think they'd both lead us into the ground

Does anyone think the National party's got a chance - John Anderson seems like an interesting man - we haven't heard much about him - but I read an interview in the Woman's weekly with all three men's wives (Mrs Howard, Mrs Latham and Mrs Anderson) and they were all asked why the Australian public should vote for thier husband.
Does anyone think John Anderson's got a prayer or are we really looking at voting for either Howard/Costello or Latham

Does anyone think John Anderson's got a prayer or are we really looking at voting for either Howard/Costello or Latham

It's within the National parties interest to maintain the coalition... if Australia wasn't so urbanised, yeah, the Nat's would have a fairly good chance, but we are urbanised, and for that reason it's good to have the ruling parties looking out for both the interests of regional and city folk.

Make no mistake, if Howard wins this election, the Prime Minister will be Costello in the not too distant future, I just hope the Liberal party make a concerted effort to emphasise that, make sure people are voting for the party, rather than the individual...

It's not a case of asking who we want to run the country, it's a case of choosing the lesser of two evils...

BAM!!!

The National Party is in serious decline. Every election it has lost seats, and this one doesn't look like it will be any different. It could never make government on its own.

"I tend to believe in enlightened self interest."

And many Australians tend to believe in Santa Claus, but that doesn't mean parents shouldn't buy their kids Xmas presents simply because of a belief in a system that will never work.

Well Trina finally finds a voice! I must say I'm surprised to see my political views lumped in with Muggaz. Much as I enjoy Muggaz' contributions, I've tended to think we differ politically. Nonetheless, Muggaz, I agree with your post today (although I can't think where you got the idea that I don't like the Liberal Party :>).

If we want to talk ideals for running the country, Gough Whitlam or even Malcolm Fraser would be good (and yes I'm aware that JH was Fraser's treasurer, however under Fraser he wasn't allowed to run rampantly to the right as many in the Liberal Party have criticised him for doing as PM). Ben Chifley or Alfred Deakin were excellent economic managers, even if practically everything else they did was awful. My preference is for Beazley, but I realise he does not perform well for our current media climate.

As to Latham, well he has an economics degree and that's a start. He has Gough's approval and that gives me hope. If he had Hawkey's approval, it would not. Hawke was the 2nd best PM we had, but his management of the economy was what set up Howard's free trade stance which is a stance that goes against everything this country has stood for since Federation, and goes against everything Labor had ever stood for, whether Hawkey likes to acknowledge it or not. The Protectionist Party (who strangely enough merged with the Free Trade party to defeat Labor as what would become the Liberal Party) believed in a more egalitarian society and it was mostly achieved (if you ignore the racism and sexism). Even Menzies, Mr Howard's hero, believed in a more egalitarian society than the current Government. Workers had strength then, largely thanks to Unionism and Protectionist policies. It was one of the few things they had right in the 1950s.

Oh, and no, Anderson doesn't have a prayer.

"I tend to believe in enlightened self interest." And many Australians tend to believe in Santa Claus, but that doesn't mean parents shouldn't buy their kids Xmas presents simply because of a belief in a system that will never work.

Capitalism is built on enlightened self interest. Seems to work pretty well. Per capita GDP is $35k here and most Americans live in pretty good comfort.

Well having had this conversation with you already I can finally give an unqualified "I agree.".

"Without the motivation of profit, most of what we have today would not exist."

Good point. We might not have: companies that pollute without consideration for the environment (enviromental destruction in general), wars over oil, heroin dealers, SPAM, telemarketers calling during dinner, exploitation of people in third world countries, third world countries, organised crimes, girls being kidnapped and sold as sex slaves, N' Sync, corruption, reality TV, diseases that nobody can get funding to develop cures simply 'cause it isn't profitable, Bank and Insurance Companies that screw over their customers....hmm am I missing anything here?

Go the moneyless society!

"Good point. We might not have: companies that pollute without consideration for the environment (enviromental destruction in general), wars over oil, heroin dealers, SPAM, telemarketers calling during dinner, exploitation of people in third world countries, third world countries, organised crimes, girls being kidnapped and sold as sex slaves, N' Sync, corruption, reality TV, diseases that nobody can get funding to develop cures simply 'cause it isn't profitable, Bank and Insurance Companies that screw over their customers....hmm am I missing anything here?"

Gees how pessimistic is that. Try writing that and then posting it to this blog without at least 50 companies making money from you though. If you're going to have ideals like that then it's kinda hypocritical do do almost everything, unless you grow your own food or get it for free someones making money offa you. Being idealistic can be good in small doses but reality has a habit of catching up.

As for Latham's economics degree it obvioulsy didn't help him as Mayor of Liverpool. And wasn't he having a beer with Hawke?

To Fishhead,
(apologise for overly long post)
"Gees how pessimistic is that. Try writing that and then posting it to this blog without at least 50 companies making money from you though. If you're going to have ideals like that then it's kinda hypocritical do do almost everything, unless you grow your own food or get it for free someones making money offa you. Being idealistic can be good in small doses but reality has a habit of catching up.

As for Latham's economics degree it obvioulsy didn't help him as Mayor of Liverpool. And wasn't he having a beer with Hawke"

I'm not being hypocritical, I never said I don't do anything for profit, or that people don't make a profit off me(and I don't see how the the latter would make ME hypocritical anyway). I'm just saying that profit motive is a bad motive (or at least not the best) for doing stuff, at least not when it is taken to the extreme (as demostrated by banks and insurance companies). It is intrinsically a competitive rather than a cooperative motive. The problem is unless everyone decides to ditch the monetary system you can't avoid it without essentially excluding yourself from society or sacrificing a lot its benefits.

Oddly enough, fear of exclusion from society probably is a good motive for doing something. Vapire bats are a good example of how the basic form of a reciprocally altruistic society would work (in principle of course, I'm not saying we should take to feasting on blood!). When a vampire bat doesn't get a blood fed it can get one of its roost mates to donate some. Bat are more likely to donate blood to bats who have previously donated blood to them. Bats can't cheat and not donate blood because they recognise each other and they won't donate blood if that bat refused to donate blood to them and would die if they went a couple of nights without food.

I think it would be possible to set up a system where people are only included in society if they do their share (this is, of course, excluding dependant such as children or the disabled). I don't know what exactly form this would take, but I think we should experiment. This may be the perfect point in history to try it, now that society has become so information based you could probably uses computers to try various models. I don't think a moneyless society would be perfect, but I think a lot of the problems metioned in my first post would disappear. New problem would come it their place but they may be more palatable, in the same way modern medicine has left us with the problem of need more aged health care.

As for Latham's stint as Mayor, you convienently seem to forget that a Liberal party member actually defended his expenditure and said that it was justifiable. You see, the public sector isn't there to make a profit, it's actually there to spend money on, big suprise, the public. Surpluses may sound good but really they just indicate money that isn't being spent on public services (such as health care). I've seen families turned upside down because of the lack of public services due to the government's economic rationalistion. For instance I've known people (including my own family) get highly stressed because of the lack of support of carers in the form of either allowance or proper aged care facilities. I don't personally know anyone who's benefited from the budget being in surplus or John Howard.

Essentially I think any debt you create paying for services the people need is GOOD DEBT. I'm not saying you don't paid off your debt but you pay yourself (in this case the public) first. The libs on the other hand cut services, make a surplus and pay their creditors first, all the while the people suffer (with a increasingly crap public health system etc.). The public should be the first priorit, not money.

"Being idealistic can be good in small doses but reality has a habit of catching up."

Gees how pessimistic is that? I suppose women only got the vote because a couple of idealistic shrinking violets casually metioned that they'd like the vote to their husbands. Maybe Hilter would have responded to a petition signed by a small group of concerned idealistic Jews.
No, idealism is preferable in large doses if you want to actually change reality and I hardly think my humble blog message counts! Idealism isn't a about making reality ideal but about having an ideal to aspire to and work towards. Reality only catches up because not enough people aspire to or work towards the same ideal (or at least a worthy ideal).

It's always ironic when someone sits back talking about the evils of capitalism on their personal computer that transmits their complaints all over the world via the Internet to milliosn of others who are also reading it on their personal computers.

 

Well, we all know capitalism benefits society as a whole. Social benefit = Social Cost is the economic principle that drives social benefits as well.

Capitalism provides cheaper prices and benefits to all. Socialism and other government controls hurt the economy and the lifestyle of the people it "rules" over.

Example: Rent Control in New York City: Many apartment managers had to cease operation because the government installed a price ceiling. It drove out many otherwise affordable apartments that could have operated otherwise. If the landlord is willing to accept 1,000$ a month, and the tenant is willing to pay 1,000$ a month, why not let them do it? Instead the landlord cannot cover his variable, and sometimes his fixed cost; therefore causing him to shut-down.

Example: Minimum Wage. It has been well known that when the demand for labor is forced to be lower than the supply of labor, it is a surplus of labor, hence unemployment. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, in a monopsony it is highly possible that a firm could actually increase employment with a minimum wage, but that is more theory than practice. Sort of like a "giffen good" type of scenario.

Example: USSR. USSR fell in the cold war simply because of lack of supply. When government mandates that bread be sold for .25 cents a loaf, when the fixed costs implied with bread making is .26 cents a loaf, no company would be willing to make it. Therefore government purchases the business, nationalizing it, and not being driven by a profit-motive, must increase taxes to pay for the nationalization. Hence such high taxes as a portion of per capita GDP.

As Larry Elison, the 3rd ranked philanthropist in the world said: "I dont like to give money to charity, who did more for America? The Ford Foundation or the Ford Motor Company?" You be the judge.

It's always ironic when someone sits back talking about the evils of capitalism on their personal computer that transmits their complaints all over the world via the Internet to milliosn of others who are also reading it on their personal computers.

Amazing that the Internet was not the work of private enterprise, it was actually a government project for the military (DARPA). No profit it in it supposedly. How long has it been exactly that the corporations of the world have ridden on the back of public works?

Marco

Marco:

Many public works have been riddin on, hence the "free rider" complex. Whenever Government is involved it generally creates free riders.

Example:

National Defense: Illegal immigrants get benefits of national defense yet dont pay a dime in taxes.