From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting.
Reply-To: yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:09:29 GMT

In article <996200254@peg.pegasus.oz.au> cwarren@peg.pegasus.oz.au writes:
>
>Reply to Daniel LAM
>
>
>Maybe you'd like to redraft your contribution for I can see little evidence
>of either thought or understanding.  No-one likes to be Goebbell'd by such
>ideological pap.

Very strong stuff here, of course your postings could not be classed
as being influenced by "ideological pap" and are always framed
in such a way as to indicate the amount of thought that has gone
into them. Please keep them up, they are the highlight of my day.

>Statements like "we have a mixed economy (with) extensive regulations
>shackling the free market" are just propaganda.  Australia may have some
>mixing in its economy between public and private enterprise, but for the
>most part, Government enterprise is becoming corporatised and operates on
>commercial principles.

I never was one to believe this "Australia is a mixed economy" thing
it amazes me that some people do, they are obviously tainted with
more of this "ideological pap" or are seriously brain-damaged.

>Some public enterprise, such as public transport, health services, and
>Parliament are subsidised and this is the way it should be, in a democratic
>society - capitalist or socialist.  You wouldn't want the rich to have more
>power then the poor, as in America, would you?

I find the notion of "rich" people, in a caring and sharing socialist
society abhorrent, I am beginning to get worried that you don't
understand socialism, what is happening to your normally consistent
argument?

>Whether or not a government shackles a market is a ridiculous irrelevancy.
>A government can shackle a market under socialism or capitalism.  A free
>market can exist under socialism OR capitalism.  I know drunken Young Libs

No, a free market breaks the "to each according to his needs" principle
of true socialism, we can't have that. Are you sure you are a socialist?
Ban all free markets!

>like to blather-on about government regulation and the rest, thinking in so
>doing they are somehow talking about capitalism but a free-market and
>capitalism are not the same thing.  Lam has understood the problem no better
>than a common liberal party drunk.

I do not associate with Liberal Party drunks, so I cannot verify
your line of reasoning here, but I am willing to believe that
your research has led you to drink with the enemy.


>We all know that Hong Kong and Singapore Asia have had significant economic
>success, ie their average annual growth rates, over 20 years are high
>according to World Bank data.  However their GDP per head is lousy.  Their
>living and working conditions are dispicable compared to other nations such
>as Australia.  Mixed economies like Australia have a much larger GDP per

Mixed economies like Australia???? Gasp! You have fallen into the
great propaganda trap! A great socialist mind like yours falling for this
"ideological pap", no no no!.

>head than any Asian free-market economy but lower average annual growth
>rates - so what I know where I would rather live.

Hmm, now back to reality ... enough of this socialist gibberish, you accuse Lam
but couldn't argue consistently within your own terms. Japan is a "free-market"
Asian economy when I looked last, and it has a higher per-capita GDP
than Australia. Australia's current GDP recognises it's exploitation
of commodity based resources for a long time, it also is attributable
to it's access to European and North American markets which has been
established for more than a century. Asian economies have only been actively
marketing into the world in the latter half of this century, thier economies
are coming from a lower base and can be expected to grow faster.
The problem for Australia is that they are growing faster in areas that
we want to become involved in, and that tend to have a larger value-added
component. We still have some advantages, with a well educated modernised
economy within a stable, largely free society. Some countries such
as Singapore and Malaysia, (while having some socio/political problems)
are catching up to us, and seem to be oriented more towards achievement
in the world market place.

>Japan which is in Asia, has had almost impregnable trade barriers (ie the

Thanks for the geography lesson.

>antithesis of free trade) but has more than double GDP per capita than Hong
>Kong or slumping Singapore.  Government regulation in Japan has contributed
>to its supremacy.  If Lam's free-market dogma held sway in Japan it would be
>no better off than South Korea.   Lam should name countries, give figures
>and present a full analysis.

Not proved by your statements, South Korea has trade barriers, Japan
just happened to start modernizing faster than other Asian countries
I think it started just before a little war they had in the 30's and 40's,
they have been "westernized" for far longer than any other country
in Asia (ignoring colonial exploitation). The wars may have slowed them down
but they were already on the road to becoming an industrial power, the
war helped them in some ways too!

>For instance when you look at world figures for Average Annual Growth Rate
>over twenty years (1965-87), Hong Kong and Singapore might look good to an
>Asian-chauvinist, but they only tip 6 and 7% respectively.  For the same
>period, Botswana averaged 8.9% and supposed champions of free-trade like the

So we compare the industrialisation of Hong Kong and Singapore,
and their huge increase in volumes to the value added marketplace
against a country that is only beginning down the road of
exploiting its natural resources (probably via a multi-national).
Ok, hands up all of you who have a product produced in Botswana,
or even know a shop that sells one.

>USA, just scrapped 1.5% [see World Bank Development Report 1989, table 1, pg
>164]

So, you are saying that the USA only grew by an amount equivalent to
a quarter of Africa each year, now that is something to worry about.

>South Korea is another supposed great-growth success story at least
>according to government puppets.  South Korea over the period we are talking
>about achieved a respectable 6.4% average growth rate.  Unfortunately its
>GDP per head measured in 1988, was less than one third that of Hong Kong and
>approximately one tenth that of Australia, the mixed economy Lam hates so
>much.

On the basis of your figures (assuming the rates don't change much),
South Korea will have a greater per capita GDP greater than Australia
in 55 years. Hong Kong will pass us in 29 years. (I think you will find
that South Korea has growth more strongly in the last 10 years
and that 1988 was a Special sort of year for Australia ...).

>
>Next triviality of "Lam-logic" was this;
>
>Individual economic freedom (do I hear trumpets) has always brought (you
>mean promised) prosperity; governments have always detroyed it (deepen voice
>and wait for pause).  That's why socialist countries are so poor. (turn to
>camera and look sincere).
>
>Again wretched propaganda and government dogma.  The GDP between supposed
>'planned' Asian, East Europe, and other nations has been published by "The
>Economist".
>
>Eastern Europe out-performed Asia-Pacific and specifically, Asian planned
>economies out-performed South Asian economies.  "Yes Lam planned economies
>did do better".  All these economies outperformed the rest of the world not
>in OECD.

Oh, I get it, you take out Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore
you prove that planned asian economies did better than "free-market"
ones. Ok, how did planned economies do against stable democratic
mixed economies. How did Eastern Europe do against its neighbours
West Germany, Austria, Italy. How did North Korea fair against South Korea.
Please lets try to do apples against apples comparisons.

>The facts are clear and don't provide any basis for "Lam-logic".  The facts
>are; while socialist countries are poorer than OECD they are MORE successful
>than non-socialist countries in the same region. [see "The Economist Book of
>Vital World Statistics: A Complete Guide to the World in Figures",

I think that you probably have proof that planned economies, with their
associated totalitarian governments are better able to meet the needs
and organize their populations better than most military dictatorships
which tend to accumulate the wealth of a nation for the gain of a few.
Stable democracies of course outperform both and tend to have
a mixed economy which reflects the balance between private and public
economic involvement (+or- 10%) that the population wants.

better tha
>Hutchinson, UK, 1990. pg30].
>
>Most of remaining "Lam-logic" can be refuted by simple counter assertion.
>
>Such as - The US deficit is NOT caused, by definition, by excessive
>government spending.  In Australia, government revenue can be in surplus,

Last I looked it was a big factor ... though the US deficit is
only of the order of 10% of the US GDP, the Australian one is closer
to 30%.

>but the CAD gets worse.!  Only dogmatists link CAD with government
>expenditure so mechanically.

The US has a trade deficit, Australia does not, we have a current account
deficit based on net invisibles, i.e. money going overseas due to
dividends, insurance, shipping etc ....

>Great economic growth which idiots on the opposition benches twaddle on
>about is meaningless and does NOT mean a better life for the people unless
>firstly, GDP per head increases and secondly, the people actually get it,
>ie. real wages don't fall.

I think that most people (in the Australian context) associate sustained
economic growth with a raising of living standards, of course you
have discounted the fact that in the planned economies that you have
touted as being good performers, most of the GDP growth has been poured
into the building of armies.

>Much of what remains of Lam's lament in fact is just rubbish, such as:
>
>"Taxation is theft".
>Stupid.
>
>Or how about;
>
>"Capitalism causes earthquakes and AIDS".  A stupid Lam tactic of inventing
>meaningless provocations that only makes him look mega-stupid.

He has obviously touched a nerve with you, seems to me like
that doesn't make him "mega-stupid", just an effective debater able
to bait you into a response that made you address him personally
and produce a very inconsistent set of responses.

>If Lam continues with his stupid Asian-chauvinistic propaganda we'll have to
>examine social and working conditions in Asia, then we'll know just a little
>bit more about the real experience of slaving under capitalism in Asian
>capitalist sweat shops and corrupt capitalist societies.

Good, lets start with North Korea, after all you guys claim it
is a mutant form of Capitalism, rather than the stable state
that a "workers revolution" gravitates to, over time.

>Probably best if Lam went quiet for a while.
>
>
>
>CHRIS WARREN

I hope not, I haven't had so much fun in years.