A champagne socialist reflects on Western culture and the Universe... and whilst gazing at his navel, he comes up with a lot of useless lint. It is the fruits of this navel-gazing that form the substance of this blog.

Just to clarify for American readers, Malcolm Fraser and Robert Menzies were 2 of Australia's most conservative Prime Ministers, as was John Howard.

Neo-liberalism and libertarianism are two fairly similar, radical economic theories that threaten the very fabric of our society in ways that are to the detriment of its members. Like liberal thinkers of the past, I believe that Government has a role to play in regulating our economy so that big businesses are not able to take advantage of the unequal power relationships that exist between them and individuals. Radical Governments like the Howard Government actually led to a less free society because they handed too much power to big business. I believe instead in a Government that collects taxes in order to provide services to those who are unable to afford them, in order to create a society that is freer for a larger portion of the population. In this, I include children and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, whose skills are not always valued by the Western capitalist system imposed on them.

“People who are free…resist efforts to circumscribe that freedom. To recognise this is not, of course, to maintain that completely unregulated and uncontrolled private enterprise is desirable…Various freedoms have to be balanced against each other and some have to be restricted in order that others can be sustained and enlarged. Even in the economic realm itself government has a role to play in maintaining the conditions of free competition and preventing monopoly” – Malcolm Fraser, 1980.

WorkChoices is an example of how the “choices” of neo-liberal philosophies are really no choices at all. Howard’s argument was that we should provide people with more flexibility and freedom to negotiate over their terms of employment. He maintained that people should be allowed to do things like sacrificing their holidays if they wanted to negotiate higher pay in return. It sounds reasonable at first.

The problem with it is that the relationship that exists between an employer and an employee is rarely equal. It is true that a business depends on its employees to function. However, there is always someone else who is prepared to work under bad conditions. Even after the American Civil War, some African Americans did not want their newfound emancipation. Big businesses like Coles and Woolworths are always able to find replacements for the people that have quit, in spite of their high turnover. This does not mean that it is reasonable that Coles and Woolworths make their checkout operators work without chairs, even though other countries’ supermarkets see chairs as a matter of course. However, what redress do employees have? They can complain to the boss, but Coles and Woolworths both know that they can always find someone else to replace them who will be perfectly willing to work under those conditions. This is why it is important to be able to combat a large organisation of employers with a large organisation of workers, namely a Union. Even, the power relationship is hardly equal because of the economic advantages held by the business.

The same applies to the negotiations over individual contracts that WorkChoices gave us. A big business always holds a much larger portion of the power when it says to an employee that they should sacrifice their holidays for a small increase in pay. The business can always find an employee willing to accept this condition ahead of unemployment. The employee however, can not always find another job. As is so often the case when a society makes progress to allow certain choices, it eventually becomes commonplace, and when it becomes commonplace, it becomes the standard, rather than something that is allowed for certain groups. That is to say that while there may be some benefits to some people in being able to negotiate away their holidays, there are disadvantages for other people. Yet because of the power a big business holds, it is able to demand this same standard of all its employees, and so there is no choice at all, just a change in the norm.

This in turn leads to the degradation of society, when we are no longer free to spend time with our families, but are instead left to the whims of our employers. Liberals maintain that we should not give the state unlimited power. Equally, we should not give employers and the free market unlimited power over us.

“Liberalism always emphasises the freedom of the individual and the absence of restraint. In its extreme form it becomes libertarianism and denies the need for or efficacy of any constraints on freedom. Conservatism on the other hand stresses the need for a framework of stability, continuity and order, not only as something desirable in itself but as a necessary condition for a free society. It believes that without that framework, the cohesion and predictability necessary for people to engage in meaningful free activity would be lacking.” – Malcolm Fraser, 1980.

Although Fraser does spend most of this speech arguing in favour of economic liberalism, he recognises that the complete adherence to free market capitalism as advocated by libertarians actually produces conditions that are less free. The current system of regulation provides predictability. Predictability allows us to make considered, rational decisions. Without that regulation, we are left with a much more anarchic system, which means that we would no longer be free to make considered, rational decisions, as we would have no way of predicting their outcome.

“We wish to build a country in which no consideration of wealth or privilege will determine the education of either child or man”. – Robert Menzies.

Without the taxation system, this is not possible. Menzies recognised this. Unlike his protégé (Howard), Menzies invested substantially in Australian Universities and the education system. When the state is not involved in providing education, people are not free to pursue a better education. They are only free to pursue the education they can afford. This is still true of the current system of course. However, if adults were again free not to send their children to school, what child would have the choice to contradict their parents’ ill-considered decisions? Indeed, what child would have the maturity to recognise the folly of their parents’ decision?

Not only would children not be free to make these decisions, but many adults would simply make the decision not to send their children to school because of economic necessity. They may want their children to attend school, but shorter term economic goals would for many families have to prevail. Only through a proper system of taxation can we ensure that all children have access to a good quality education that will allow them a good opportunity of achieving whatever goals they set for themselves.

This argument can of course be applied across many services that Government provides. Government after all is simply an organised group of people we employ to organise certain things for us, like roads, schools and hospitals. If we do not like the way they are organising these things, under our democratic system we have the option of choosing new people to do the governing. It is fortunate that we have this mechanism. Without it, the only way of deciding which ideologies should prevail would be through violence.

Libertarians (and in fact, liberals) also often pre-suppose that our capitalist system produces a meritocracy. People are free to sell their skills and labour, and the people who do best at this will make the most profit. It is on the one hand one of the strengths of capitalism. It encourages us to make more effort by rewarding us for increased productivity.

However, it should be noted that there are many talents which people possess which are not valued by a capitalist system. This is particularly pertinent when there is an indigenous population, some of whom still have skills in ancient practices from their culture. There is very little of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island cultures that is valued by our capitalist system. That is not to say that it is not a great talent to be able to do many of the things highly valued by those societies. However, those skills are not valued by enough people from the group now considered the mainstream in order to make these activities financially productive. This is another reason I have an interest in advocating regulation of the capitalist system over the neo-liberal or libertarian approaches.

Not only that, but the freedoms of Aboriginal people (and indeed anyone else who wants to lead a lifestyle more akin to that of traditional Aboriginal people) are severely limited by the actions in the past and present of non-indigenous Australians. There has been so much destruction of the economic base of pre-contact Aboriginal societies (which of course was the bush) that it can no longer be depended on by Aboriginal people.

Some dismiss this as actions in the past. They are not. Your choice to continue to occupy the space where you are now is a decision not to hand the land back to the Yagera people (or Ngunnawal). We would not accept this decision if you were the descendant of a Nazi who had taken land or property from a Jew. Your decision to live where you do now is a continued act of colonisation (as is mine). That is not to say that I disagree with it. It would be impractical and unfair on us to hand over our houses to the Yagera people of today. However, our continued colonisation is an impediment to the freedom of Aboriginal people because it destroys the environment on which they relied and prevents the continuation of their economic system.

Not only this, but decisions are regularly being taken to further erode the land owned by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people. These decisions are taken for economic reasons. Companies recognise the benefit of land to them and enter into unequal relationships with indigenous people to dominate that land and use it for their purposes. It has only been through regulation that indigenous people have been able to achieve some control over their land and in some cases to maintain important parts of their culture. Once again, regulation has been important for redressing unequal power relationships.

Neo-liberalism and libertarianism are two fairly similar, untested, radical economic theories that are often prone to the same problems as radical theories like Communism. Its believers often have a similar fervour to the Communists of last Century and in many cases, they have similar good intentions. However, these theories are based on the basic premise that people can be trusted to do the right thing even when Government is not there to intervene. They fail because it is in many people’s nature to take advantage of the weaknesses of others for their own gain. It is in an employer’s nature to seek the best possible deal for themselves and to exploit the unequal power relationship that exists between them and their employee. This in turn leads to a less free society, as the bullies are given free rein in our economic system. Without taxation, individuals are simply condemned to follow the paths of their ancestors because they are not given access to the necessary institutions to give them choice over their own destiny. Regulated liberal capitalism or social democracy, such as that which exists in Australia and the UK is much better at ensuring that all citizens have a more equal chance of competing with each other fairly.


Comments
on Mar 20, 2010

Neo-liberalism and libertarianism are two fairly similar, radical economic theories that threaten the very fabric of our society in ways that are to the detriment of its members.

Please give two examples of societies that are less neo-liberal and libertarian than the US and have a remarkably better standard of living.

 

Like liberal thinkers of the past, I believe that Government has a role to play in regulating our economy

Which liberal thinkers believed that?

 

so that big businesses are not able to take advantage of the unequal power relationships that exist between them and individuals. 

"Big business" is just a term used to dehumanize those individuals that founded or work in companies. Please explain what the problem is without dehumanizing either party.

Also note that there exists an unequal power relationship between "big business" and government. What would you recommend we do to make sure that government cannot take advantage of that unequal power relationship?

 

on Mar 20, 2010

Please give two examples of societies that are less neo-liberal and libertarian than the US and have a remarkably better standard of living.

If you would have asked this question in the 60's or 70's one would indeed be hard pressed to answer you.

However, things aint what they used to be.

The UN Human Development Index, which ranks nations based on overall life expectancy, education and GDP currently has the United States in 15th place.

This isn't to say that the U.S is a terrible place to live, but rather that there is a growing gap between the well-off and the not-so-well off. Detroit would be a glaring (well to be fair an extreme example) with some of the highest unemployment and under-employment in the country. To add a little insight, the utility company DTE shut off services to 221,000 homes in 2009 and yet managed to grow it's profits by 14% from the previous year. So, you have a situation in which lot's of people are having issues just keeping their homes warm (resulting in extremely tragic incidents where people have died in housefires) and yet on paper one would think if the company expanded it's profits that so too would it be serving more people, not denying them service.

Aynway, in answer to your question Norway ranked 1st in 2009 and Australia came in 2nd. Iceland, even with it's little banking meltdown somehow managed to keep the lights and heat on for it's folks and came in 3rd and Canada ranks 4th. W00t!1

Which liberal thinkers believed that?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe a fellow named John Maynard Keynes?

on Mar 20, 2010

If you would have asked this question in the 60's or 70's one would indeed be hard pressed to answer you.

However, things aint what they used to be.

The UN Human Development Index, which ranks nations based on overall life expectancy, education and GDP currently has the United States in 15th place.

The index has been criticised as merely comparing which country is the closest to a Scandinavian country. The numbers I find more impressive are immigration numbers. Where do people want to move? Is it everyone's dream to live in a "neo-liberal" country or do people flock to socialist paradises?

 

Aynway, in answer to your question Norway ranked 1st in 2009 and Australia came in 2nd. Iceland, even with it's little banking meltdown somehow managed to keep the lights and heat on for it's folks and came in 3rd and Canada ranks 4th. W00t!1

All of those countries have neo-liberal systems with a free market and little government control of the economy. While they are less "neo-liberal" than the US I find it hard to believe that that is what makes them wealthier.

Can you name something Norway does which is less neo-liberal than what the US does and which makes Norway richer?

 

This isn't to say that the U.S is a terrible place to live, but rather that there is a growing gap between the well-off and the not-so-well off. Detroit would be a glaring (well to be fair an extreme example) with some of the highest unemployment and under-employment in the country. To add a little insight, the utility company DTE shut off services to 221,000 homes in 2009 and yet managed to grow it's profits by 14% from the previous year. So, you have a situation in which lot's of people are having issues just keeping their homes warm (resulting in extremely tragic incidents where people have died in housefires) and yet on paper one would think if the company expanded it's profits that so too would it be serving more people, not denying them service.

So let's look at the extreme example or others like it. Who runs Detroit? Is it a proponent or opponent of neo-liberalism?

As for issues keeping the house warm, in my building the heating is only on at night between 6 PM and midnight and then again from 5 AM to 9 AM or so. But that never made me start a house fire. How would it?

 

Oh, I don't know. Maybe a fellow named John Maynard Keynes?

Shush! I wanted him to answer that.

 

on Mar 21, 2010

Well, Keynes is a pretty good example as he is quoted by Malcolm Fraser in the essay that prompted this rant. Fraser was a Liberal PM, so were Howard and Menzies (In Australia, the Liberal Party is what we call the right wing party. We have to use the terms small l liberal and big l liberal as a result. There is debate over how liberal they all were. I would argue that Menzies and Fraser were liberal, while Howard was neo-liberal). Fraser goes through a number of different thinkers including Locke, who I am quite a fan of. This article is hardly a defence of socialism, so I don't know why you brought that up. I'm arguing in favour of regulated capitalism. This is probably the most right wing article I've ever written.

I don't think the term "big business" dehumanises them at all. Here's a cup of concrete if the term upsets you.

I'm not sure if you're saying the relationship between big business and government is unequal because big business regularly bribes Government into doing things or because big business' members have the right to vote Governments out, but the reverse is not true.

One of the reasons we didn't have nearly as much problem with the GFC as the USA is actually that we have a much better regulated economy. APRA is the envy of the world, as both our major parties will tell you (it was the invention of the conservative Liberal party). The other countries on the UN's list are all good examples. Life expectancy and GDP are pretty right wing measures of success. I think if you're scared of using that sort of a measure, it shows you're pretty much just conceding defeat. Those are usually the sorts of things conservatives and neo-liberals use as a way of showing how great capitalism is. All those countries are capitalist countries and are a pretty good example of how well it works when it's regulated.

on Mar 21, 2010

Life expectancy and GDP are pretty right wing measures of success. I think if you're scared of using that sort of a measure, it shows you're pretty much just conceding defeat.

Do you really want to use a measure of success that confirms that free markets create a wealthier society of longer-living individuals?

Look at the list of countries sorted by HDI, as per Wikipedia:

Norway 0.971 (▲ 1), Australia 0.970 (▲ 2), Iceland 0.969 (▼ 2), Canada 0.966 (▼ 1), Ireland 0.965 (▬), Netherlands 0.964 (▬), Sweden 0.963 (▬), France 0.961 (▲ 3), Switzerland 0.960 (▬), Japan 0.960 (▬), Luxembourg 0.960 (▼ 3), Finland 0.959 (▲ 1), United States 0.956 (▼ 1), Austria 0.955 (▲ 2), Spain 0.955 (▬), Denmark 0.955 (▼ 2), Belgium 0.953 (▬), Italy 0.951 (▲ 1), Liechtenstein 0.951 (▼ 1), New Zealand 0.950 (▬), United Kingdom 0.947 (▬), Germany 0.947 (▬), Singapore 0.944 (▲ 1), Hong Kong 0.944 (▼ 1), Greece 0.942 (▬), South Korea 0.937 (▬), Israel 0.935 (▲ 1), Andorra 0.934 (▼ 1), Slovenia 0.929 (▬), Brunei 0.920 (▬), Kuwait 0.916 (▬), Cyprus 0.914 (▬), Qatar 0.910 (▲ 1), Portugal 0.909 (▼ 1), United Arab Emirates 0.903 (▲ 2), Czech Republic 0.903 (▬), Barbados 0.903 (▲ 2), Malta 0.902 (▼ 3)

It's pretty close to a list of countries sorted by least government regulation of the economy. There are anomalies (for example Norway regulates more than the US) but in general you will find countries with more regulation closer to the bottom of the list.

One interesting case is Israel which is now consistently among the top countries but only since a dramatic move from very regulated economy to more free market capitalism finalised by Netanyahu in the late 90s. Before that the country was as socialist as you could imagine with the biggest trade union (the Histadruth) controlling everything. They said that the country was then just a part of the trade union.

I actually like the HDI because it appears that whatever institution compiles it might just be among the last few honest organisations the UN still have. But what I see in the list above is that countries with less regulation do better than countries with more regulation, with some adaptation due to amounts of natural resources and other needed expenses. For example, the US would probably do better than Canada if it didn't have to have such a huge military. Israel would do a lot better if it didn't have to spend so much money and manpower on defence. But without the IDF Israel would be overrun within days and without the US military lots of countries would be overrun within days. So those are expenses those countries have to pay somehow. Qatar does not have that problem and neither does Norway (few people hate tall white blond people enough to want to murder them all).

 

Those are usually the sorts of things conservatives and neo-liberals use as a way of showing how great capitalism is. All those countries are capitalist countries and are a pretty good example of how well it works when it's regulated.

It also shows that it works better if it's less regulated.

"Neo-liberal" is a word introduced to describe people that are "liberals" in the original meaning of the word, yes?

 

 

on Mar 22, 2010

INteresting Discussion, although having to get around the language difference between down under and the colonies requires careful reading.

I especially like Leauki's essay questions, which for the most part have not really been addressed (and I will leave that again to the OP).  But I would add one additional one.  You state:

However, these theories are based on the basic premise that people can be trusted to do the right thing even when Government is not there to intervene.

And then go on to say that people cannot be trusted.  So who can be?  What is government?  Some diviine creation blessed upon man by a supreme being?  Clearly I am confused.  If man cannot be trusted, then who can be? Or I guess more accurately, what can be?

And second (sorry, I lied before):

However, it should be noted that there are many talents which people possess which are not valued by a capitalist system. This is particularly pertinent when there is an indigenous population, some of whom still have skills in ancient practices from their culture.

Ok, so as a sopciety we do not value blacksmiths.  But then who does the valuing?  On what basis is the value set?  And what good is the valuing?  I guess I fail to see the logic in this statement.  Or I fail to see the cabal doing the valuing and what their nefarious purpose is.

I can see the author is a very idealistic person that has a heart as big as they come, but has left a lot of questions to his assertions.  And I guess it is the questions that have me perplexed.

on Mar 22, 2010

Thanks Dr Guy. I was explaining to someone yesterday how after a few years of throwing insults at someone in online political debates, you actually end up with a certain kind of affection (if that's the right word) for them because they at least have the guts to follow through their argument. You're right that our small l liberal big l liberal thing makes things very confusing. Bllody right wingers caling themselves liberal

Australia is an interesting example there Leauki. What Obama did today in health is something we did decades ago and went further. Over here it's considered normal and an area no one will touch. Abolising Medicare would be highly controversial and unpopular. Over there, it's compared to Communism. APRA as I said is another example of how we have a much more regulated economy than the US.

I don't agree that neo-liberalism and liberalism are the same at all. In fact I spend a lot of this article agreeing with liberalism. Neo-liberalism takes things to a much further extreme.

Dr Guy, re government being people, that is a very good point. Well played. However, perhaps it is like how we can't trust criminals, we need police. Not that big business people are quite criminals, but without the regulatory authorities, they are likely to do things that hurt other people.

The indigenous point is a tricky one. I think it's incumbent on us to try to help white people find a financially viable vocation through good training programs. When it comes to indigenous people, my argument is that I think that given that the only reason for traditional indigenous skills not being financially viable is that we are doing things to prevent them from using those skills, that it is incumbent on us to help find ways to make their lives financially viable. This is quite a different argument from the welfare argument, which has led in some awful cases to passive welfare, which has caused severe problems. I'm arguing simply for Government to be involved in creating job opportunities and in forking out the extra expense that comes from delivering health to a remote area.

I wasn't aware I skipped any questions. I'll look.

2 countries less neo-liberal: Australia and Norway.

Liberal thinkers: Keynes, Fraser, Menzies, Locke.

Government taking advantage of power: I answered facetiously, but my point was that I don't think Government has the balance of the power.

Dehumanising: I provided a recepticle for cement because I disagree that it was a dehumanising comment. Business is made up of people. Those people take advantage of other people because they wield a great deal of economic power.

Did I miss anything?

on Mar 22, 2010

Bllody right wingers caling themselves liberal

Somebody had to I guess.  Here in the colonies, the liberals do not call themselves liberals any longer, but "progressives".

Dr Guy, re government being people, that is a very good point. Well played. However, perhaps it is like how we can't trust criminals, we need police. Not that big business people are quite criminals, but without the regulatory authorities, they are likely to do things that hurt other people.

And he makes a great save!  really, good point.  And I will not take your analogy to mean that all BB is evil.  Many do look to government to be some altruistic arbiter. and in theory that is what it is supposed to be.   But as we see all too often the only difference between Gates/Murdoch and Emmanuel/Gilliard is their intention.  Clearly all are human.  But the origin of their power is what is different.  So we can look at the latter pair today and say "thank god!", but what about tomorrow?  When we cede power to anyone or any body, we have only promises to go on.  And those promises are as transitory as the officeholder.  So we look for a way to revoke that power, and therein lies the problem.

The difference is when you cede power to Gates/Murdoch, you do so through a willing contribution to their product.  So when you lose faith in them or their product, you take your power to the next guy/company.  But the power ceded to government is never returned.  it is just added on and accumulated.  No matter who is weilding the power, or what their views are.  The end result is that today we celebrate, tomorrow we demonstrate.  Over what is essentially what we said they could do.

The indigenous point is a tricky one. I think it's incumbent on us to try to help white people find a financially viable vocation through good training programs. When it comes to indigenous people, my argument is that I think that given that the only reason for traditional indigenous skills not being financially viable is that we are doing things to prevent them from using those skills, that it is incumbent on us to help find ways to make their lives financially viable. This is quite a different argument from the welfare argument, which has led in some awful cases to passive welfare, which has caused severe problems. I'm arguing simply for Government to be involved in creating job opportunities and in forking out the extra expense that comes from delivering health to a remote area.

This one I cannot be so generous on as it still evades the ultimate question.  If you are going to support their skills, then you are duty bound to buy their product.  A product that no one wants, or uses.  Yes, many skills of "whites" have long gone by the way side (remember IRQ conflicts?  I was an ace in those 20+ years ago).  In other words, we get junk.  A product that no one wants, but that is being made because instead of training/educating them to create a product that people want and use, they continue to create a product that no one wants or uses.  They are people first, and we are duty bound to assist them at being productive and useful.  Subsidizing skills no longer in demand is a form of welfare, only worse.  It ensures they have no way to escape it, no matter their drive or intelligence.

on Mar 22, 2010

2 countries less neo-liberal: Australia and Norway.

In which ways are the less neo-liberal than the US and how did those differences directly (or indirectly) affect or effect their better standing in this comparison?

 

Liberal thinkers: Keynes, Fraser, Menzies, Locke.

I don't think Locke would really agree with the idea that government should interfere with the economy in the ways you propose, although I agree that Locke can be used to justify some government interference via the two provisos.

I found Robert Nozick's to be an excellent continuation of Locke's philosophy.

 

Government taking advantage of power: I answered facetiously, but my point was that I don't think Government has the balance of the power.

But that doesn't matter. For an argument you would have to explain how governments cannot abuse their power over corporations, not explain that you don't think that governments have such power or wouldn't abuse it if they did.

Otherwise you couldn't make the same points about corporations and their power over, apparently, their customers.

 

Dehumanising: I provided a recepticle for cement because I disagree that it was a dehumanising comment. Business is made up of people. Those people take advantage of other people because they wield a great deal of economic power.

Then call them "people".

And yes, they wield a great deal of economic power. But the question is, why shouldn't they?

If people cooperate and/or work hard and thus wield greater economic power than others, why isn't that exactly what should happen?

You can claim that corporations ("big business" or whatever you want to call it) is not the result of good cooperation and/or hard work BUT then you would have to prove that it never can be. As long as there is a possible way for individuals or groups to wield more economic power than others that doesn't violate anybody's rights, you CANNOT argue that such economic power is unjust and has to be controlled by a third party (the government).

What you are doing is watching at the end result of a football game when one team has won (and thus has a clear advantage over the other team) and shouting that this is unjust. But since there was a fair and just way for the winning team to gain that advantage, your shouts are the real injustice because you are shouting against people playing the game according to the rules and winning (which is possible).

 

Did I miss anything?

Yes:

Part 2 of my question about who is more successful and less neo-liberal. I wanted you to explain why they are more successfil because they are less neo-liberal and you didn't.

An argument for why people cannot justly wield more economic power than others. You just argued that they do and that hence we must act against them. But you didn't provide an argument for why. Using your logic we could use government against people who buy red cars on the basis that I don't like red cars.

 

on Mar 22, 2010

All of those countries have neo-liberal systems with a free market and little government control of the economy. While they are less "neo-liberal" than the US I find it hard to believe that that is what makes them wealthier. Can you name something Norway does which is less neo-liberal than what the US does and which makes Norway richer?

That's not the question you asked earlier Leauki. Earlier you asked me to give you two examples of countries that are LESS neoliberal and LESS libertarian than the U.S and who have a better standard of living (not two countries that are richer)

I provided that example (in fact, 14 if you look at the list!)

Can you name something Norway does which is less neo-liberal than what the US does and which makes Norway richer?

That's an easy one! They have universal healthcare and offer better public education options...a graduate of post-secondary education in Norway won't have near the 50, 60 or 70 thousand dollar debt a post-secondary grad would in the states. This means you have a population that is healthier, less in debt, more educated and overall happier, meaning more productivity with less down time.

Also, you said that all of these nations have little government control of the economy. On what do you base that position? In Canada the government has much, much more control over the economy than the United States. Yes, we have a free market but in comparison to the U.S we're all a bunch of stark-raving mad socialists!

As for issues keeping the house warm, in my building the heating is only on at night between 6 PM and midnight and then again from 5 AM to 9 AM or so. But that never made me start a house fire. How would it?

Hmmm, what part did you not understand earlier about the utility company shutting off services? I'm  not talking for a few  hours, I'm talking permanently cutting off the heat for non-payment, period, end of sentence. This means that in order to stay warm people have resorted to burning things or running electrical heaters constantly off of pirated electricity. Saddly, people have died in resulting housefires, and as tends to be the tragic case the victims tend to be those least able to deal with it- the old, infirm and the very young

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/inqu-m22.shtml

on Mar 22, 2010

That's not the question you asked earlier Leauki. Earlier you asked me to give you two examples of countries that are LESS neoliberal and LESS libertarian than the U.S and who have a better standard of living (not two countries that are richer)

Yes, but I then asked what it was that these countries did which is less neo-liberal than the US and how it made the country better off.

 

That's an easy one! They have universal healthcare and offer better public education options...a graduate of post-secondary education in Norway won't have near the 50, 60 or 70 thousand dollar debt a post-secondary grad would in the states. This means you have a population that is healthier, less in debt, more educated and overall happier, meaning more productivity with less down time.

It's not so easy after all. The costs of 70 thousands dollars are incurred anyway, it's just that somebody else pays them. You would have to explain why it is more efficient for society to have somebody else (workers) pay for the education of those who spend ten years studying rather than working. But you haven't done that.

Using money paid by other people as profit is a common strategy of liberals, but we are looking at the entire economy here, not the situation of students.

This is like "free healthcare". It's only "free" if you book all the money it really costs as profit despite the fact that it is a loss.

 

Also, you said that all of these nations have little government control of the economy. On what do you base that position? In Canada the government has much, much more control over the economy than the United States. Yes, we have a free market but in comparison to the U.S we're all a bunch of stark-raving mad socialists!

As I said above, take into consideration special expenses. Canada has a much cheaper military and, I understand, not quite as excellent a space program as the US. I also simply don't know how much money Canada spends on foreign aid.

How far ahead is Canada with its excellent more-controlled economy if it had to pay for all of these things (per capita, of course)?

 

 

on Mar 23, 2010

 

Somebody had to I guess. Here in the colonies, the liberals do not call themselves liberals any longer, but "progressives

But which ones are the liberals who call themselves progressives????

And he makes a great save! really, good point. And I will not take your analogy to mean that all BB is evil.

Thankyou. I was worried for a sec.

So we look for a way to revoke that power, and therein lies the problem.

Yeah, fair point I guess. To some extent it comes down to who you want to trust. Both are fairly untrustworthy in a lot of ways.

A product that no one wants, or uses.

If this were true, your point would be relatively valid, but it's not. The native food industry in Australia, which is in some cases a fantastic employer of indigenous Australians, is one of the fastest growing in the country. Maori tourism in New Zealand is so popular, it's become tacky and cliched in some parts of the country. Indigenous Australians are involved in businesses like producing tea tree oil based on traditional knowledge about tea tree production. Scientists are slowly discovering that a number of Aboriginal medicines work because there actually is an active ingredient in Australian native plants. The kangaroo meat industry is one I believe the Government should be heavily backing as an environmental measure and I think this could be an excellent oppirtunity for indigenous Australians. It just needs some help getting off the ground.

In which ways are the less neo-liberal than the US and how did those differences directly (or indirectly) affect or effect their better standing in this comparison?

Our industrial relations system is certainly more regulated than the US' for a start. So is our banking industry and lending industry (do I need to mention APRA again? I really don't like giving credit to Costello over and over again). We have a health care system that you would consider Communist, but which even our neo-liberals won't quite destroy because they can see that far more people get treated in our health care system. For IR, we don't have a working poor and still maintain a very low unemployment rate. In banking and lending we have AAA rated banks and weathered the GFC best, partly because we didn't too badly on the lending front (Fannie Mae ain';t Aussie).

you would have to explain how governments cannot abuse their power over corporations

Sorry, what I meant was that I think the businesses have more power than the Government because they fund the election campaigns.

I found Robert Nozick's to be an excellent continuation of Locke's philosophy.

I'll have to look him up. Thanks.

Then call them "people".
 

Sorry, people with a big business impairment have more power than people with a Govern-mental illness.

If people cooperate and/or work hard and thus wield greater economic power than others, why isn't that exactly what should happen?

I thought I made that point. I don't think they got there through a meritocratic system.I know you disagree, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere on this point because it's a question of values, not lack of logic on either of our parts.

What you are doing is watching at the end result of a football game when one team has won (and thus has a clear advantage over the other team) and shouting that this is unjust. But since there was a fair and just way for the winning team to gain that advantage, your shouts are the real injustice because you are shouting against people playing the game according to the rules and winning (which is possible).

This, this was very funny.

Using your logic we could use government against people who buy red cars on the basis that I don't like red cars.
[

This too. I think I've answered your questions now right?

This is like "free healthcare". It's only "free" if you book all the money it really costs as profit despite the fact that it is a loss.

Again, question of values. I prefer the more widespread healthcare we enjoy in Australia. You regularly hear the phrase in Australia (from people of both persuasions) "we don't want to end up with a healthcare system like in the US".

The costs of 70 thousands dollars are incurred anyway, it's just that somebody else pays them. You would have to explain why it is more efficient for society to have somebody else (workers) pay for the education of those who spend ten years studying rather than working. But you haven't done that.

That is a fair point. I would argue that society benefits from having a portion of people well educated because of what they do with it. Also, as I said in the article, I think there are good reasons for providing good education to all, regardless of financial position. Both for themselves and society, who could miss out on some great workers.

on Mar 23, 2010

Our industrial relations system is certainly more regulated than the US' for a start. So is our banking industry and lending industry (do I need to mention APRA again? I really don't like giving credit to Costello over and over again).

Excellent examples!

Now explain how this helps the country's economic situation.

 

Again, question of values. I prefer the more widespread healthcare we enjoy in Australia. You regularly hear the phrase in Australia (from people of both persuasions) "we don't want to end up with a healthcare system like in the US".

No, it's not a question of values. It's a question of maths.

And I am sure that phrase is said referring to what people THINK the American healthcare system is, it doesn't really refer to the actual American healthcare system. (Which healthcare system has better results and how do you measure this?)

 

That is a fair point. I would argue that society benefits from having a portion of people well educated because of what they do with it.

That assumes that a "free" education system really does create more educated people. I myself doubt this.

I myself have studied for four years in Germany, where it is "free" (to the student) and because of that I had nothing to lose and was extremely lazy. Then I moved to Ireland and studied here, at a private school for lots of money. Suddenly I had to be good in order to get something back from the service _I_ (not somebody else) paid for.

You are arguing that between X and Y X is better because [true statement]. But you haven't actually connected X with that statement.

 

Also, as I said in the article, I think there are good reasons for providing good education to all, regardless of financial position. Both for themselves and society, who could miss out on some great workers.

There are also good and, as I find, better reasons to provide good education primarily to those willing to pay for it. I don't see how it harms society to have people first work for a year or two before they continue school after their secondary education.

If you look at countries like Germany that pay for everybody's education you will find that many students study forever, and you have people in the early 30s who are still students. And while many of those study humanities (which means that we are perhaps not really missing out on some "great workers"), other countries, with less "free" education have become more productive.

And in an international comparison I believe you will find that the best and most famous universities as well as the most discoveries per capita happen in the USA, not in countries with a "free" education system at all.

 

This too. I think I've answered your questions now right?

Partly yes.

But this is important:

I thought I made that point. I don't think they got there through a meritocratic system.I know you disagree, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere on this point because it's a question of values, not lack of logic on either of our parts.

You don't believe that they got to their positions of power through a meritocratic system. That's fine. It also doesn't matter.

If you want to argue that something should be done about it, you have to prove that they cannot have become as powerful as they are on the basis of merit. Whether you believe that they haven't is immaterial.

I am assuming that when in doubt, we judge the accused as innocent. You have to prove that something is wrong in order to change things, not just declare publicly that you don't think things are right.

And if you disagree with that I wouldn't want to live in a society where you can be in a jury.

 

on Mar 23, 2010

If this were true, your point would be relatively valid, but it's not. The native food industry in Australia, which is in some cases a fantastic employer of indigenous Australians, is one of the fastest growing in the country. Maori tourism in New Zealand is so popular, it's become tacky and cliched in some parts of the country. Indigenous Australians are involved in businesses like producing tea tree oil based on traditional knowledge about tea tree production. Scientists are slowly discovering that a number of Aboriginal medicines work because there actually is an active ingredient in Australian native plants. The kangaroo meat industry is one I believe the Government should be heavily backing as an environmental measure and I think this could be an excellent oppirtunity for indigenous Australians. It just needs some help getting off the ground.

If what you say is true, then they do not need to be subsidized.  The foods and tourism are a business in itself and apparently can stand on its own.  Now "getting started" is different than being subsidized.  Venture capital is not bad, but it becomes bad if it becomes a permanent fixture (then it is not venture capital).  I have no problem with government offering "small Business loans".  And that is what it sounds like they need.

But which ones are the liberals who call themselves progressives????

Just about all the ones in politics do.  Some of the electorate still calls themselves liberal, but Clinton, Obama, et. al. call themselves progressive.

Sorry, what I meant was that I think the businesses have more power than the Government because they fund the election campaigns.

I would say that Obama just torpedoed that argument.  Big insurance was one of his best contributors and they just got the shaft.  Yes, BB has lots of money, but politicians just do not stay bought these days.

 

on Mar 23, 2010

I would say that Obama just torpedoed that argument.  Big insurance was one of his best contributors and they just got the shaft.  Yes, BB has lots of money, but politicians just do not stay bought these days.

Just can't trust them any more.

As far as I can tell from the history of Eastern Europe government is a lot worse if not bought and controlled by big business.

The only ones I trust in Russia are the oligarchs, seriously.