An economic history of Australia.
This was a reply that got so long I though it was worth a post, it's interesting enough. The "you" I'm referring to is madam_shapo
Firstly, I'm biased and I'll admit that. I'm a lefty, I like tolerance and diversity and all that faggy hippie shit. I'm also proud of my country's achievements, particularly in the realm of politics and economics. It is important, however, to acknowledge the fucked up and horrendous acts that have been committed, and continue to be committed on these shores (and our colonies offshore facilities). But just because we're a bunch of dumb, drunk, racists who inhabit the arse end of the world, it doesn't mean we occasionally don't get one or two things right. We're worth a look in to if you like politics, economics or history.
So here's my biased opinion of the economic history of Australia as a modern nation (20th century onwards). Feel free to correct my bias or get a better understanding of how we've wound up here, because as close to the US or UK as we are, we have (and continue to) walked very different paths.
Following is a brief (:P) economic history of Australia.
If you're into economics or politics then we're a great case study. In the 19th century we were the "social laboratory of the world". The secret ballot is the "Australian Ballot". Universal suffrage. 8 Hour Day. Union movement. These are all Australian inventions. If you're interested in seeing where Socialism actually worked it's Australia from about 1890 to 1945. Of course it was *very* racist. Like South Africa racist, we just didn't get the publicity, we had no Nelson Mandela (terrorist or global icon). Indigenous people were regulated under the Flora and Fauna act. There was no racism. Everyone was white and the black people were animals. So your point about the necessity of cultural homogeneity is well taken. As you'll see multiculturalism does coincide with the weakening of socialism, but I don't think there is necessarily a cause there, nor need there be. A good public education system is more important than ethnic homogeneity.
It's probably worth clarifying a few things a little. I'm not a socialists, I'm actually in favour of a mixed economy. I tend to hyperbolically go to socialist because socialist is a dirty word to conservatives who seem to think the only kind of capitalism is laissez faire capitalism. Australia was a proper socialist country (state owning means of production and all, although small enterprise was allowed) and it worked great for us for the first part of our history. We're a big nation (nearly the size of the US) with a tiny population (7 million in the 40s). What was needed to build that country was everyone working together. There was no point in having competition on things like building rail lines because we only needed one and it was never going to make a profit in itself, but it would boost economic activity across all sectors of the economy. You're right, we were very homogenous then. Indeed, in 1941 a full 98% of the country considered themselves "British" (that doesn't count aboriginals, they don't become actual people until '67). And it created a some inefficiencies in the economy; the public sector, for example, was bloated beyond belief. This was because it was used as a place to put all the people who couldn't get jobs in the public sector. The cost of welfare then was tiny, unemployment was 1%. If someone couldn't get a job they wound up working at Telecom. However, this allowed us to build things. It allowed us to present our goods and commodities to the world market in a united front. These are both very valid arguments for socialism in Australia today.
In the 50s, the right came to power firmly on the idea of a "mixed-economy"; they were still socialists, but they wanted more capitalism as well. To highlight their still socialist nature, they expanded government control and ownership in some areas. Mainly it was about starting to let the market do some more of that "price regulation" stuff it does so well. But all in all, this period is still decidedly socialist. If you wanted to fly here it was on the state airline. If you wanted to ship something from here it was on the state railway to the state ports and off on the state ships. All the utilities were state owned. Central planning was starting to go though, but higher tariffs were brought in to protect jobs. Very mixed.
The left came back in the 70s and with it the welfare state. This is arguably another key item of modern Socialism. Universal healthcare, free university education, sole parent pensions. After decades out of office, however, the left had no idea how to govern and were booted out after just three years; the welfare state stayed, however. Once back in office the right were happy to keep all those things the people loved and the high tax rates they were willing to pay for them. There is a consensus on the mixed economy social democratic welfare state. There was, however, a war going on between the miners and the unions.
The came the End of Certainty (the name of a book by Paul Kelly, if you read one book on Australian politics, make it this one). The left came to power on The Accord. In return for ending the strikes and freezing wages, the welfare state was to be expanded. That was to be the legacy of PM Bob Hawke, former union boss and yard glass drinking world record holder (seriously, our PM was in the Guinness book of records for beer drinking, our reputation has it's reasons ;). His treasurer, however, was Paul Keating. And Paul was a bit of a neo-lib, economically speaking. Socially, a true lefty; fought for the indigenous people, the gays, the arts, all that stuff. But he's the one who deregulates banking, floats the dollar and slashes tariffs. We are globalised. Inflation goes out of control. The stock market booms, then busts. Recession. Interest rates at 20%. The almost complete loss of the textiles and manufacturing industries (about 40% of the economy at that point). Unemployment at 20%. Eventually we borrow enough money and sell enough assets to buy the economy out of the hole it's in and the left is booted out.
The 90s was "sell everything". We lost the airline, the ports, the shipping line, the railways, most of the utilities, the chemical labs and the bank. The bank is the best one. Sold in 1991-1996 for $8bn, it returned a profit last year of $8bn. Some of the assets were junk and were better off being sold, but for most assets privatisation and market deregulation has led to worse services at a higher cost. Rather than the nations best scientists running the telecommunications network, they now go overseas because there's no decent job for them here and the telecommunications is run by the lowest bidders at a profit. We once had the world's best, and I mean, world's best, telecommunications network in terms of coverage, quality and technology, now we'd struggle to get on the same page as many developing nations. 5 years ago a serious of bush fires killed hundreds of people and burnt half of a state the size of the UK. Most of those fires were caused by power lines now maintained by private companies. The state owned network would service the lines every 3 years. The private operators moved it to 5 years and pocketed the savings as "profit". Every one of the lines that caused a fire was between 3 and 5 years in it's maintenance schedule. Hundreds of lives. Hundreds of billions of dollars. They've copped a fine of a few billion... And that's just some, I could go on all day with stories like that.
The 2000s was the mining boom. We'd sold everything and paid off all the debt. Mining tax receipts were high so the budget was in surplus. Two options. 1. Do what Norway did, put the money in the bank and use the interest from it to pay for your welfare system FOREVER. or 2. Give tax cuts. We did the second. We're now the third lowest taxing nation in the OECD after the US and Mexico. Now the government is saying "we can't afford the welfare state" and "the age of entitlement is over", even though we're taxing at a level that is lower than we have in generations (like before things like "education" and "health care" were important). There's barely a consideration of increasing taxes. Just removing the last 3 of 8 years of consecutive income tax cuts would return the budget to surplus. TO SURPLUS. That must sound amazing to anyone in, I don't know, almost anywhere else in the world.
Capitalism has given us some great things. Capitalist market price regulation is great. The capitalists just need a government looking over their shoulder to stop them being immoral, greedy pricks. But for monopoly services and essential industries then there has to be state regulation and intervention because there is much more to consider, more at stake, than "profit motive". I care about whether or not people in my country after I die will have clean water to drink. That kind of thinking can't be trusted to a purely capitalist system. Unfortunately, when looked at from a species level, there is, I believe a minority of people, but still enough to fuck us all up to require that we have a collective force to be able to say "you know what, we're not OK with you just dumping your waste into our air/water" or "if you're going to sell food in this country then it had better be safe to eat". And if you need to run one railway to move freight around the country, and you *have* to have that railway or the country loses money, then that should be run by the country. If there is no natural competitor in a market that market should be 100% state owned and run (well, 51%).
Hopefully that makes my stance clear. Personally I believe the best political/economic system is a mixed economy social democratic welfare state. To be honest with you I can take or leave the constitutional monarchy thing. A republic would be nice, but there's some awfully good arguments for a Queen (or King), but that's another conversation ;)
Firstly, I'm biased and I'll admit that. I'm a lefty, I like tolerance and diversity and all that faggy hippie shit. I'm also proud of my country's achievements, particularly in the realm of politics and economics. It is important, however, to acknowledge the fucked up and horrendous acts that have been committed, and continue to be committed on these shores (and our colonies offshore facilities). But just because we're a bunch of dumb, drunk, racists who inhabit the arse end of the world, it doesn't mean we occasionally don't get one or two things right. We're worth a look in to if you like politics, economics or history.
So here's my biased opinion of the economic history of Australia as a modern nation (20th century onwards). Feel free to correct my bias or get a better understanding of how we've wound up here, because as close to the US or UK as we are, we have (and continue to) walked very different paths.
Following is a brief (:P) economic history of Australia.
If you're into economics or politics then we're a great case study. In the 19th century we were the "social laboratory of the world". The secret ballot is the "Australian Ballot". Universal suffrage. 8 Hour Day. Union movement. These are all Australian inventions. If you're interested in seeing where Socialism actually worked it's Australia from about 1890 to 1945. Of course it was *very* racist. Like South Africa racist, we just didn't get the publicity, we had no Nelson Mandela (terrorist or global icon). Indigenous people were regulated under the Flora and Fauna act. There was no racism. Everyone was white and the black people were animals. So your point about the necessity of cultural homogeneity is well taken. As you'll see multiculturalism does coincide with the weakening of socialism, but I don't think there is necessarily a cause there, nor need there be. A good public education system is more important than ethnic homogeneity.
It's probably worth clarifying a few things a little. I'm not a socialists, I'm actually in favour of a mixed economy. I tend to hyperbolically go to socialist because socialist is a dirty word to conservatives who seem to think the only kind of capitalism is laissez faire capitalism. Australia was a proper socialist country (state owning means of production and all, although small enterprise was allowed) and it worked great for us for the first part of our history. We're a big nation (nearly the size of the US) with a tiny population (7 million in the 40s). What was needed to build that country was everyone working together. There was no point in having competition on things like building rail lines because we only needed one and it was never going to make a profit in itself, but it would boost economic activity across all sectors of the economy. You're right, we were very homogenous then. Indeed, in 1941 a full 98% of the country considered themselves "British" (that doesn't count aboriginals, they don't become actual people until '67). And it created a some inefficiencies in the economy; the public sector, for example, was bloated beyond belief. This was because it was used as a place to put all the people who couldn't get jobs in the public sector. The cost of welfare then was tiny, unemployment was 1%. If someone couldn't get a job they wound up working at Telecom. However, this allowed us to build things. It allowed us to present our goods and commodities to the world market in a united front. These are both very valid arguments for socialism in Australia today.
In the 50s, the right came to power firmly on the idea of a "mixed-economy"; they were still socialists, but they wanted more capitalism as well. To highlight their still socialist nature, they expanded government control and ownership in some areas. Mainly it was about starting to let the market do some more of that "price regulation" stuff it does so well. But all in all, this period is still decidedly socialist. If you wanted to fly here it was on the state airline. If you wanted to ship something from here it was on the state railway to the state ports and off on the state ships. All the utilities were state owned. Central planning was starting to go though, but higher tariffs were brought in to protect jobs. Very mixed.
The left came back in the 70s and with it the welfare state. This is arguably another key item of modern Socialism. Universal healthcare, free university education, sole parent pensions. After decades out of office, however, the left had no idea how to govern and were booted out after just three years; the welfare state stayed, however. Once back in office the right were happy to keep all those things the people loved and the high tax rates they were willing to pay for them. There is a consensus on the mixed economy social democratic welfare state. There was, however, a war going on between the miners and the unions.
The came the End of Certainty (the name of a book by Paul Kelly, if you read one book on Australian politics, make it this one). The left came to power on The Accord. In return for ending the strikes and freezing wages, the welfare state was to be expanded. That was to be the legacy of PM Bob Hawke, former union boss and yard glass drinking world record holder (seriously, our PM was in the Guinness book of records for beer drinking, our reputation has it's reasons ;). His treasurer, however, was Paul Keating. And Paul was a bit of a neo-lib, economically speaking. Socially, a true lefty; fought for the indigenous people, the gays, the arts, all that stuff. But he's the one who deregulates banking, floats the dollar and slashes tariffs. We are globalised. Inflation goes out of control. The stock market booms, then busts. Recession. Interest rates at 20%. The almost complete loss of the textiles and manufacturing industries (about 40% of the economy at that point). Unemployment at 20%. Eventually we borrow enough money and sell enough assets to buy the economy out of the hole it's in and the left is booted out.
The 90s was "sell everything". We lost the airline, the ports, the shipping line, the railways, most of the utilities, the chemical labs and the bank. The bank is the best one. Sold in 1991-1996 for $8bn, it returned a profit last year of $8bn. Some of the assets were junk and were better off being sold, but for most assets privatisation and market deregulation has led to worse services at a higher cost. Rather than the nations best scientists running the telecommunications network, they now go overseas because there's no decent job for them here and the telecommunications is run by the lowest bidders at a profit. We once had the world's best, and I mean, world's best, telecommunications network in terms of coverage, quality and technology, now we'd struggle to get on the same page as many developing nations. 5 years ago a serious of bush fires killed hundreds of people and burnt half of a state the size of the UK. Most of those fires were caused by power lines now maintained by private companies. The state owned network would service the lines every 3 years. The private operators moved it to 5 years and pocketed the savings as "profit". Every one of the lines that caused a fire was between 3 and 5 years in it's maintenance schedule. Hundreds of lives. Hundreds of billions of dollars. They've copped a fine of a few billion... And that's just some, I could go on all day with stories like that.
The 2000s was the mining boom. We'd sold everything and paid off all the debt. Mining tax receipts were high so the budget was in surplus. Two options. 1. Do what Norway did, put the money in the bank and use the interest from it to pay for your welfare system FOREVER. or 2. Give tax cuts. We did the second. We're now the third lowest taxing nation in the OECD after the US and Mexico. Now the government is saying "we can't afford the welfare state" and "the age of entitlement is over", even though we're taxing at a level that is lower than we have in generations (like before things like "education" and "health care" were important). There's barely a consideration of increasing taxes. Just removing the last 3 of 8 years of consecutive income tax cuts would return the budget to surplus. TO SURPLUS. That must sound amazing to anyone in, I don't know, almost anywhere else in the world.
Capitalism has given us some great things. Capitalist market price regulation is great. The capitalists just need a government looking over their shoulder to stop them being immoral, greedy pricks. But for monopoly services and essential industries then there has to be state regulation and intervention because there is much more to consider, more at stake, than "profit motive". I care about whether or not people in my country after I die will have clean water to drink. That kind of thinking can't be trusted to a purely capitalist system. Unfortunately, when looked at from a species level, there is, I believe a minority of people, but still enough to fuck us all up to require that we have a collective force to be able to say "you know what, we're not OK with you just dumping your waste into our air/water" or "if you're going to sell food in this country then it had better be safe to eat". And if you need to run one railway to move freight around the country, and you *have* to have that railway or the country loses money, then that should be run by the country. If there is no natural competitor in a market that market should be 100% state owned and run (well, 51%).
Hopefully that makes my stance clear. Personally I believe the best political/economic system is a mixed economy social democratic welfare state. To be honest with you I can take or leave the constitutional monarchy thing. A republic would be nice, but there's some awfully good arguments for a Queen (or King), but that's another conversation ;)