Yesterday's man, page-21

My longer version went into more detail about the change in conditions and the shift ( I get the typo in the previous post) in perspectives. I think that you’ve highlighted precisely my point. keating’s policies were necessary and appropriate to an extent that the previous policy set were no longer delivering the the right economic outcomes. That was because social and economic conditions changed. The baby boomers had grown up in an era of relative prosperity and their parents had tried to give them opportunities they had not had. Emergence of effective birth control, finding of power through political activism, and higher levels of education led to a generation that expected much. Globalisation had started. By the early 1990s American influence on our business systems and management approach had emerged (and I could write screeds on that as well as I was working with some of Australia’s most iconic businesses at that time)

absolutely the appearance of the internet had (again) unintended but entirely predictable outcomes. The changes in censorship (a 1970s movement( also altered what was available. The economic imperialism of America played its part in changing cultural values and personal expectations and our culture shifted substantially as a result. We started outsourcing to China and killed off our own manufacturing capability in pursuit of lower input costs and in the end we were never going to be able to compete with mass production products because they were prepared to sacrifice their own people in pursuit of economic growth a country prosperity. Superannuation as it operates, with the changes to the pension and its meanness, have also meant endless investors judging companies not on normal growth and profit but on super profits who are less inclined to managing inputs in a responsible way but rather on price gouging. And we as superannuitants or those looking at their fund growth are guilty of driving the wrong business behaviour. We rewarded traders in a way that is obscene while they gamble with our money. These are unintended consequences of a thoroughly good system

despite these changes we persisted with the economic policies and perspectives put in train by Keating and have utterly failed to realise that they don’t suit current conditions. Keating somewhat understands this but I think his solutions may well make things worse. Others don’t even see the consequences of pursuing the same path.

in a 2017 speech he refers to businesses, politicians and policy makers and criticises them rightly for referencing hose early days but points out firstly that these sane entities fought the reforms and secondly that they continue to be short sighted and narrow minded. And he is right

if we are to get out of the deep hole that has been created in the process of deregulation, open markets and fluid borders we need a radical rethink. We need to reconsider what is properly private business and what is public business and where the private sector delivers government services it needs to be far better thought through so that the community is the true beneficiary

that does not mean , as many might think, a communist style approach to the economy but a radical reappraisal of how capitalism works and thinking far more about social capital and creation of harmonious, functional and useful communities. It requires a much deeper understanding of human behaviour and far more willingness to consider unintended consequences. It also requires far more courage than any of today’s politicians. I out albanese into the category of one of our more inadequate politicians - less suited to the shifts in the environment that us good for us. And I put Dutton into the scary zone