millions of people making billions of decisions based on self interest that collectively send signals to 'the market' that is populated by companies that allocate capital to make stuff that meets the needs of the millions of people.
Ahhh Ayn Rand. Like all of these philosophical types, a bit right and a lot wrong.
Wages are only one part of the overall problem, boys, and it says a lot about the limitations of the
self-interest principle that nobody looks at the larger issues.
Infrastructure is one such issue. Australia simply does not have a large enough population (and thus, will never have a large enough Aviation industry) to make airports economically viable - especially not in regional areas, but Bankstown and Jandakot's managers have found the same in capital cities.
So - should "the market" decide that there should only be access to the capital cities for the very few extremely rich?
The telecommunications network is the same - private enterprise can never make a big enough margin on the rural and regional services, so Telstra's city clients are subsidising the provision of services to their country cousins.
The "
Self Interest" brigade will turn around and say "stuff them, that's where they want to live, bad luck if there's no phone services."
Should "the market" decide that people in rural and regional Australia don't deserve telephone services?
"Economic Rationalism" is only rational if you live in a social and moral vacuum. "The Market" is a civilised term for
the law of the jungle.
I will be the first to stand up and say that Labor's first (and hopefully last) term has been a major disappointment (to say the least). But many of us - despite the economic success, or maybe because of it - felt that there were some areas where the Libs policy needed to be softened.
Are we an enlightened, civilised, educated society?
...or are we a pack of savages merely swapping
Cannibalism for purist
Capitalism?