I would like to try a little experiment with you, dear readers, if I may. Occasionally some comments filter through about this and that, but really they are pretty minimal, which for me suggests that a door should be opened, into which you should feel comfortable enough to tread. In your hip pocket, I would just request that you carry your ideas for the future.

See, politics is relentless. Every week I scour and scan story after story, discuss issues, keep my eye on what’s happening, but at the end of the day, it’s really all about how our lives are being run according to certain guidelines made by others.

One of those guidelines I would like to talk with you about today, and then afterwards, I would like very much to open the floor for some discussion. I’m not too bothered about whether you are going to agree with what I have said, but I would like to see if there is anyone out there who has an alternative plan for the world we live in. That might be an alternative political system, social system, health, education or beer drinking system: today, I would like to talk about economics.

Yay!!

Now, before you groan and switch over to the next column, let’s consider this point: without any knowledge of how economics works, you will never have a hope in hell of reforming didly squat. So, has anyone thought about the pros and cons of each economic system (without prejudice, that is)?

Well I, for one, am convinced that liberalism will be the downfall of the human race, but I will try to look at it without my bias, just for this exercise. In theory, liberalism is all about buying and selling fairly and equally. No tariffs, no government interference, no subsidies to undercut other nations’ products, etc, etc. One of the biggest supporters of this system is of course the US, but on closer inspection, it is easy to see that what is being said on one hand is largely being ignored in practice. The government and business actually work very close together to create new business – the proof is in all of those nice no-bid contracts going cheap in Iraq. The Iraqi’s, on the other hand, have just about lost control of their own natural resources; instead they have been opened up for private enterprise.

Of course, domestically, liberalism had had a deep impact upon the social structure of most developed nations already. Healthcare, education, welfare, correctional facilities and more are now largely, if not wholly in some cases, under the jurisdiction of private enterprise. What that means for the baby boomers who are now at retiring age will be only a drop in the bucket for what Generation X will face after they are done with a life of work. One thing that is certain, however, is that the privatisation of social services is largely untested on a retiring generation. Generation X had better be paying some attention to the baby boomers right now if they want to see just a slice of what they’re in for when it’s their turn to hang up the work belt.

For developing countries, liberalism has not really been the answer (as was clearly stated by many speakers in the latest World Bank ABCDE Conference in Tokyo recently, where is was largely acknowledged that liberalism has had a negative effect on the economies of developing countries in the short term. There is now much analysis going on to ascertain whether the long-term outlook will see them fare any better). So, what is the answer for developing countries?

A look at the recent shift in attitude towards natural resources gives us some clue. Resource security is THE most important issue of our times, and developing nations who nationalise their resources, particularly those that generate power, such as oil and gas, will be leaps ahead in the next 10 to 20 years. Owning their own resources will help to get them out of debt, which most developing nations have been struggling with since the inception of the IMF, the World Bank and, later, the trade policies of the WTO.

This should not, however, leave the door open for a small group of people (i.e., the politicians and their cronies) to skim the cream off the people’s wealth. Like any economic system, State interventionist policies must have clear checks and balances to achieve what they should set out to do: underwrite the social development of a nation.

There are more economic theories out there, but for now, I will leave you with the debate underway, and I hope that this discussion can be continued over the next few weeks. So, I will leave you with this:

Q. You have just been assigned to office in a landslide win, your campaign based on policies of government funded education, healthcare and retirement, invalid and parenting pensions. You encourage women in the workforce by creating more equitable working agreements for both men and women to become shared care givers of their children. You encourage new business by investing in the international competitiveness of your nation’s scientists, scholars and corporations. Lastly, you instigate tough measures to protect the environment, but do so by creating open forums between scientists, environmentalists and the economic community.

What economic system would you use? (You can make up your own – oh, and you can make up your won campaign policies too! I know mine are very ideal).

I look forward to hearing form you all!

Cheers…