Where is Australia’s balanced political commentary?

While Kelly notes that policy convergence between Labor and the Coaliton has reached its zenith given bipartisan support for a pro-market economic policy, and that “intellectuals tend to be suspicious of nationalism and romantic about internationalism”, it is precisely the difficulty of appeasing both national and international aspirations that will result in immense problems for Western nations if recent policy trends continue.

Kelly notes that inequality has been offset by Australian governments encouraging income redistribution via the tax-transfer system and retention of the social safety net, as child-related payments and assistance to help low-income families have increased from 60 per cent of the OECD average in 1980 to 160 per cent by 2001. But how much evidence does one need before admitting that ongoing economic reform towards lower taxation rates and labour market deregulation will reduce the purchasing power of workers through lower wages and higher user pay principles?

Australia’s simplistic Right have become so dogmatic that they appear incapable of offering balanced commentary.

Take a recent blog by Janet Albrechtsen in The Australian (August 20, 2008) when she attacked the trade unions as having little relevance given that they represent just 19 per cent of Australia’s workforce.

Is Albrechtsen part of the Right who will only be happy when the wealthy have complete control over the have-nots? Why else would she defend the wages of Australia’s corporate elite (The Australian, May 23, 2008), but mock the effort of public sector unions to get a 15 per cent pay rise over three years for Victorian teachers in May this year (The Australian, August 20, 2008).

What will Ms Albrechtsen have to say about my own trade union (the CFMEU) getting a 15 per cent rise over three years from 2009 for workers in Victoria’s building industry? After all, why should Australian businesses have to pay me $25 a hour (plus overtime rates and holiday pay) when corporations based in China can hire at least ten labourers for the same cost. After all, we should just buy cheap cars and televisions and marvel at non-democratic China’s incredible infastructure while we Westerners struggle along as best as we can to meet our many policy needs.

And if the trade unions are obliterated, Australians can look forward to building contractors reaping a greater share of profits while much work is passed onto workers at minimum wages, a possibility that, from my own observations, is already becoming evident.

Who cares if many young Australians face record home unaffordability, and that many pensioners struggle to meet their everyday needs as food prices, rent and utility prices go up at an alarming rate.

And dare I mention my own whinging given that the price for the same dental work on the same tooth at a dentist last week has gone up 40 per cent in just two years.

Maybe I should throw in the towel and accept the reality that lawyers, doctors and dentists should get more and pay less tax because they have utilised their talent, and that the less skilled or battlers should just accept their fate in this world of greater global competition.

But true supporters of capitalism (and liberalism) overseas appear light years ahead of Australia’s simplistic Right in recognising that the redistribution of wealth in Western societies is needed to both enhance equality of opportunity and consumption possibilities.

For instance, Morgan Stanley’s Stephen Roach (The Globalist, June 19, 2007), although stressing that greater protectionism will lead to significant economic and financial market turmoil, noted that a drift away from freer trade will occur in response to the “unfettered strain of capitalism and globalisation that has been so dominant over the past decade”. By 2006, the labour income share of the industrial world’s national income had reached a record low of 53.7 per cent while profits climbed to a record 15.6 per cent. Roach’s concern is also evident by real compensation per hour in the US for the non-farm business sector rising by just 1.4 per year from 2001 through 2005 compared to 3.1 per cent in terms of productivity growth.