I'm not a US citizen so I guess I don't get a vote. It strikes me though that, although my natural leaning is libertarian, that the LP make the same mistakes that the Greens make in Australia (on the extreme left instead) - dogmatic policies with no room for compromise, which means anytime they get near serious power it "scares the horses" and limits their vote. Lots of these are great ideas. But I do have some problems.

14. Keeping Guantanamo open
Close it, and do what exactly? No one has a good answer.

9. Skyrocketing federal spending and 10. Huge federal deficits

Sounds great, but say what you're going to cut. You won't achieve these huge cuts without means-testing or probably scrapping SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. And that's going to cause the biggest stink you can imagine. To say "we'll cut government spending" without any detail is just as clueless as Obama's "we'll continue to strengthen Social Security" (i.e. do nothing).

2, 11, 19 - Ending foreign wars
Are you also going to pull troops out of Japan, ROK, Germany? Like it or not, these things affect you. Major upheavals overseas are a big problem for a nation relying primarily on trade. I'll give a partial pass for Libya, which is mostly an African and European problem.

Most of the rest are reasonably sensible, at least to some extent.

Who listened to - or better yet - read the State of the Union address? Obama's philosophy was summed up by one aspect. Read this carefully: he wants to reduce government spending on tax deductions.

This reflects the fundamental mentality of his administration: All of your money belongs to the government - which may generously allow you to keep some of it. In Obama-Newspeak, he doesn't want to raise taxes, he wants to reduce "spending" by keeping more of your paycheck.

I am for all of the libertarian solutions. To answer Ltw:

14. Close it, just close it. Continuing to hold people prisoner without charges, without any hope of a trial, without any hope of release - this violates human rights, international treaties and domestic law. The government screwed up - it's time to bite the bullet and let these people go.

9./10. What are we going to cut? That very question is the essence of the problem - it's the wrong question to ask. Cut everything, and then ask: what to we have to put back?

2./11./19. What we agree with allies is a separate question. Aggressive (not defensive) intervention in foreign countries is the biggest problem, and should stop immediately. However, even allied commitments should be reviewed. As with 9./10., decide to pull the troops out everywhere, and then see where we genuinely need to put them back.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe they'll actually do much, if any of this list. Here's why:

1 - The cash for clunkers was a panic response to the oil crisis. It's easy to say things like this in hindsight.
3 - Leaving essential medical care in the hands of for-profit companies is horribly broken. I'd rather see this vastly simplified and fixed in some other manner than going hands off.
4 - There's no mail monopoly. The Post Office has competition via UPS/FedEx/DHL/etc. The postal service is struggling because people email and facebook each other these days instead of snail-mailing.
5 - Stimulus dollars were Bush's thing.
6 - Secrecy or not, as far as I know the president is still impeachable if he commits a crime.
7 - This one I really call bullshit on. Government meddling is responsible for the lack of jobs? It's a bit more complex than that, and going totally laissez-faire is not the answer.
8 - Okay, this one I can get behind. Who are they going to appoint, though? Can we get a better answer than "someone"?
15 - Really? You're seriously going to promise to completely end the federal reserve and go back to the gold/silver standard? rofl.
16 - From what I saw the crackdowns were targeting online fraud, not gambling itself. There are lots of casinos open in the US, and plenty of online sites still operating. Frankly though, gambling online with real money is kind of stupid.
20 - While I can definitely agree with legalizing marijuana, "completely ending the war on drugs" means legalizing meth, LSD, and heroin. Sorry, I can't support that.

2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 - Talk is incredibly cheap. Actually, these days it's free. Everything in those numbers are exactly the right things to say to get cheap brownie points with the average American. They're very easy to promise. Doesn't mean it's going to be true if we actually elect them. Especially since "lower spending" (9, 13) and "eliminate the deficit" (10) and by extended implication "lower taxes" has been promised by pretty much every politician ever. It's rarely actually been true.

I think a list like this preys on the frustration of the American people. Obama is doing a horrible job overall, and this list certainly takes advantage of that. They definitely hit all the right buzzwords to get people to blindly rally behind them. I'm going to say they can't possibly deliver on what they promise here, no matter how much they want to.

I might be interested if they promised to at least end the invasive pat-down rapes/porn scanning at airports, though! Skeptical, but interested. ;) Cause at least that one would be easy to do.

I'm going to say they can't possibly deliver on what they promise here, no matter how much they want to.

Nice response, Sarah. Like I said, extremist parties get to promise the world knowing they will never have to deliver. There's a lot of motherhood statements and not a lot of detail. I don't believe a word of it.

A_random_guy, you seriously want to address your deficit by "cut everything, and then ask: what to we have to put back?" Good luck running on that platform. There's lots to cut, I agree, but usually you say what exactly you are going to get rid of *before * the election. Come up with a sensible plan for phasing out SS for instance (at least a 20 year project if not 40, too many people have planned their retirement around it and you simply can't just cut them off) and then sell it. Have fun. Australia started this process in 1984 and we're not done yet.

I should say Sarah, I agreed with most of your response, not just the little bit I quoted. That sentence just struck me as particularly apt.

Thanks, LTW. And P.S. on the birther thing... It's really stupid. It kind of feels too stupid to be any sort of wag-the-dog conspiracy. Especially since most people these days are paying most of their attention to that royal wedding thing anyway. We'll never really know for sure one way or the other. I do agree, however, that there are much, much larger issues than the birth certificate thing, which is an unnecessary distraction.

The birther thing *is* just really stupid Sarah. For better or worse, Obama has been accepted as President. Anyone who thinks they can get him kicked out on those grounds needs their head read. It's no different to the "Bush stole the election" stuff that the loony left went on about after 2000. Obsessing for years over hanging chads and recounts, etc. That got them nowhere either.

Sarah,

I would vote for you if you ran! You cut out the BS!

The first thing that should be done is establishing TERM LIMITS for ALL CONGRESSPEOPLE.

Senators AND representatives alike. These career politicians are what's killing us! No MORE than 2 SIX YEAR terms. THAT'S IT. And then get your asses back to work like the rest of us! And NO MORE LIFETIME secret service. Ten years after you leave office at MOST. If no one guns you down before that, it's not going to happen. Done.
LIMITED PENSIONS to all congressmen, oh and NO MORE VOTING YOURSELVES RAISES. WE THE PEOPLE will do that, based on YOUR PERFORMANCE.

And there's HALF the deficit recovered right there.

I forgot healthcare. NO MORE FREE LIFETIME healthcare for you morons! You have to PAY FOR IT just like the REST of us.

Another third of the deficit recovered! Go me!

Here's just a few...

4. Freakin' Post Office - 'nuff said.

12. Assasination Doctrine - Is that a fancy way of saying "I'll do what I want to whoever I want?"

16. The War on Poker is inane.

19. Yep, getting out of Iraq should be a no-brainer.

20. Marijuana raids - I just had a "drug prohibition causes gang violence" conversation with a buddy of mine who is a Republican. *sigh*

* Today is the royal wedding and I am happy to say I am a proud republican.

Libertarians would never claim that the president can assassinate American citizens just because he personally believes them to be terrorists."

Can he do this? How did I miss this??

"4 - There's no mail monopoly. The Post Office has competition via UPS/FedEx/DHL/etc. The postal service is struggling because people email and facebook each other these days instead of snail-mailing."

No one but the USPS can deliver actual mail into your mail box. Others can deliver packages and large envelopes onto your porch-the safety of which is debatable at best. That's a monopoly to me.

Past that, what FLynne said.

Ltw asks: "A_random_guy, you seriously want to address your deficit by "cut everything, and then ask: what to we have to put back?" Good luck running on that platform. There's lots to cut, I agree, but usually you say what exactly you are going to get rid of *before * the election."

I admit: this is not a realistic election strategy. However, it is what needs to happen. If it doesn't, I am personally convinced that the USA will suffer a major economic collapse within the next several years.

Look at the current strategy of the fed. Do you realize how much they have devalued the dollar in the past two years? This is now coming through to consumers - inflation is far higher than the government admits. Who has noticed just how many manufacturers have reduced package sizes in the past year (typically 10% to 30%) while keeping prices the same? How many ounces are in that package? How many were in it last year?

If the dollar continues to devalue, US bonds will be hard to sell. The rating agencies have warned the USA twice now - there won't be a third warning. The US will have to pay much higher interest rates, which will make the deficit worse, which will lead to more devaluation. This is an ugly spiral with a very ugly end.

So you're right: No one will get elected on a platform "cut everything". And that is a shame.

The only problem with closing Gitmo is that we are at war. You don't let POWs go in the middle of a war. They do not get civilian trials. They stay locked up until the war is over.

Technically, we could just shoot them as spies, since they were not in uniform when captured.

I am deliberately being simplistic, as are the folks who say give them a lawyer and bring them into court. This sort of idiocy is why the libertarian party will never amount to anything. Most of the platofrm is sensible, then they poison it by refusing to accept reality.

I agree with Sarah on everything...

"With the support of President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner, the Federal Reserve has continued its massive inflation of the money supply. Libertarians wouldn't allow it -- in fact, we would end the Fed."

What does Obama have to do with the Federal Reserve anyways??? Watch Zietgiest II to know more about how screwed up the monetary system is. It has NOTHING to do with Obama or the current administration. As a matter of fact, if every debt in the US was paid off tomorrow, there would not be 1$ left in circulation.

Go Flynne!!!

Reading this list was kind of fun, but there's something of the college dorm bull session to it, kind of like reading an article and associated comment thread in Reason. As everyone else above has said, it's one thing to tell everyone what's wrong, and another to actually develop a coherent policy that can be sold to the public. It's a lot easier to sit around and talk about how smart you are than it is to, as Ltw above suggests, be serious enough to get off your high horse and deal with reality.

1. Cash for Clunkers

Agreed. It's not the government's job to tell people what to buy.

2. War escalation in Afghanistan

Then what? Let the Taliban return and Afghanistan once again be a welcome home to terrorists? Certainly the situation should be better, but you forget why we're there. The Taliban did not attack us, but they sheltered those who did.

3. Giant government health care expansion bill

Agreed. It's not the government's job to tell people what to buy.

4. Post office loses money hand over fist

As already mentioned, there is no monopoly. I'm responding to this posting on the internet as opposed to mailing a letter to Miss Alkon. That is one less stamp purchase for the Post Office coffers.

5. Stimulus package

Agreed. Throwing money at a situation solves nothing.

6. Expansion of "state secrets" doctrine

There are legitimate necessities of secrecy for national security.

7. Big increase in unemployment

Government not demonizing big business is a step in the right direction, but businesses are hiring now. They just want people who already have a job.

8. "Bailout" Geithner as Treasury Secretary

Agreed

9. Skyrocketing federal spending

It's all well and good to say you'll cut spending. Hooray. The question is what funding do you cut? That's the problem. What you want cut others don't.

10. Huge federal deficits

Again, what gets cut?

11. War in Libya

Agreed we never should have gotten involved with Libya but unilateral withdrawal from everywhere isn't so cut and dry.

12. Assassination doctrine

I'm unfamiliar with the doctrine to comment.

13. Big-spending deals with Republicans

What gets cut?

14. Keeping Guantanamo open

Where do they go? Your backyard? Back home to continue terrorist attacks? They want to kill you!

15. Fed massively inflates fiat currency

I'm not an economics major to comment.

16. War on Poker

This is an issue for the Legislature to determine.

17. Patriot Act extensions

It is a lie to say this violates civil rights.

18. Sustaining warrantless wiretaps

Warrantless wiretaps are for communications happening right at the moment where waiting for the Judge means it's too late. They do not mean you talking to dad on your cell phone.

19. Sustaining War in Iraq

The war is already over. Our troops there, though more active, are now like our troops in Korea and Germany. The Iraqi government still wants us there.

20. Medical Marijuana raids

Marijuana should remain illegal.

Are you also going to pull troops out of Japan, ROK, Germany?

Maybe, no, and yes. Whom exactly are we deterring by having troops in Germany? if you really want to deter Russia, you'd redeploy the troops in Germany to bases in Poland the Ukraine.

12. Assassination doctrine

When American citizens actively provide material aid and comfort in a foreign land to people who are seeking to kill as many other Americans as they can, can it be said that the American in question still retains citizenship?

There is precedent for saying no. Personally, if someone in a US uniform put ordinance on their location I'm not going to cry a lot about it. You mess with bull, you get the horn.

1 - The cash for clunkers was a panic response to the oil crisis. It's easy to say things like this in hindsight.

Stuff and nonsense. It was not a panic response to any oil crisis -- there wasn't an oil crisis in August 2009. Here is a graph with the price of oil. Select the 5 year view, and examine 2009. For the most part, oil ran at or below $75 a barrel (and usually below for much of the year).

However, it was a prop for Government Motors, to boost their sales. Sadly, it distorted the market by getting people to purchase during the CfC program instead of waiting. So the sales during the following months where "unexpectedly" low. And of course some (many??) of those sales went to Ford and foreign companies.

And because "clunkers" traded in at this time were destroyed - abrasive powder was placed in the oil, and the engines run until failure and the rest stripped for parts or scrapped - caused the used car market to increase in price.

And lots of people, including myself, saw the CfC being foolishness. But then again, I went to a land grant university and not an Ivy League school, so what do I know? too bad that Government Motors is busy churning out, what was the number? 9 of the top 10 worst cars? awesome!

The US cannot afford to be the world's policeman. Moreover, query whether it is wise to pursue such a policy even if the US could afford it. Regardless, it is beyond absurd to leave cuts in defense spending off the table when the budget deficit is $1.5 trillion.

The US has troops in 140 countries. Admittedly many of those are small operations. However, why should the US be meddling in the affairs of those countries in the first place?

The US has 150,000 troops in Europe and Asia. Why? The cold war is over, the odds Europe will be invaded by Russia close to zero, and even if the odds are higher, why should it be US troops and US expense protecting Europe?

Yes, if they weren't wimps, the libertarians would have some good points.

How about 3 million federal employees in the Department of Defense, another 250,000 in Homeland Security, and another 300,000 in the VA. And 110,000 in the USDA?

How about we radically scale back a parasitic military, eliminate Homeland Security and wipe out the USDA and voucherize the VA?

The problem is that Reason Fagazine can't quite stand up for real libertarian principles.

"It's a lot easier to sit around and talk about how smart you are than it is to, as Ltw above suggests, be serious enough to get off your high horse and deal with reality."

Deal with reality? You mean like the Democrats and Republicans do?

@Sarah

3 - Leaving essential medical care in the hands of for-profit companies is horribly broken. I'd rather see this vastly simplified and fixed in some other manner than going hands off.
Had the government not gone hands on it wouldnt have been such a mess.

4 - There's no mail monopoly. The Post Office has competition via UPS/FedEx/DHL/etc. The postal service is struggling because people email and facebook each other these days instead of snail-mailing.
It is illegal for the USPS's competition to offer 1t class mail service. In fact the only reason the USPS is still around and it doesnt cost $5 or a first class stamp it that corperations pay the USPS to stuff your ailbox with their junk mail fliers. Close the USPS and be done with it - there may have been a need for it over 100yrs ago, there is not a need for it today.

5 - Stimulus dollars were Bush's thing.
Bush gave us one, countng all the bailouts Obama gave us nearly a dozen

7 - This one I really call bullshit on. Government meddling is responsible for the lack of jobs? It's a bit more complex than that, and going totally laissez-faire is not the answer.
Expalin its complexity then

20 - While I can definitely agree with legalizing marijuana, "completely ending the war on drugs" means legalizing meth, LSD, and heroin. Sorry, I can't support that.
Why not? Legalization does not equate an increase in use, studies show it acctually decreases use. Besideds more people lives are destroyed by alchol which is entierly legal

"Deal with reality? You mean like the Democrats and Republicans do?"

Well yeah! Oh, wait...

"This one I really call bullshit on. Government meddling is responsible for the lack of jobs?"

Jobs that would otherwise exist are never created because employers are prevented by the government from paying people what it's worth to do them.

Wouldn't that (interfering with prospective employers and employees freely agreeing on terms of employment) be considered meddling? I'd think so.

The big 'L' Libertarians have a problem realizing that whether or not we engage in the outside world, the outside world will engage with us. Particularly our trade. As far as The War on Terror, I can't say it's well run, but what are they going to do about the people who murdered 3,000 people on our soil and state they want to destroy us as we are? Leave Europe - yes, except where our military deems a base supports our worldwide efforts. (As in the medical facilities in Germany I always hear about.)

Domestically, yes, we have to start giving up on probably most of our entitlement programs. We don't have time to scale them all back in 30 or 40 years. Some should be chopped immediately. (I'm looking at you Prescription Plan. Last in first out.) Others head to a quick elimination. Since SS is supposed to be separate, try to push back the benefit eligibility to the original expectation - 5 years after the average lifespan. Eliminate anyone getting SS that isn't under the retirement rules. If Congress thinks it is important these people get paid taxpayer money we don't have, let them justify it separately.

Other comments sound nice to do, but as stated earlier, the devil is in the details.

Come up with a sensible plan for phasing out SS for instance (at least a 20 year project if not 40, too many people have planned their retirement around it and you simply can't just cut them off)

The hell you can't. Why should their unrealistic expectations be my problem? I don't feel the least bit sorry for the Silent and Boomer generations. They sat around sucking their thumbs while the trust fund was raided. They sat around with their heads up their asses while we were taken off the gold standard. And during all those decades, lifespans got longer and longer. What did these dimwits do every time it was suggested that the retirement age be aligned with average life expectancy? Screamed bloody murder. You could stand on top of the Rocky Mountains and hear, 'Don't touch my Social Security!' echoing throughout the land. It was okay to touch someone ELSE's Social Security, just not theirs.

You will hear them all say that they were forced to pay into these programs their entire lives, so they "want out what they paid into it." But the Silents and Boomers have ALREADY gotten out of it what they paid into it, because they elected people who spent the money - on other things for them - just as fast as it came in. If I put money into my savings account each month, but take it right back out every month to make a car payment, whose fault is it that I have no money left in savings when it's time to retire?

These selfish, clueless people turned a blind eye because they benefitted so much from the status quo. It's as though they had children just so they could cannibalize them.

I will absolutely NOT support any plan that DOESN'T cut these assholes off at the knee. Why should the people uner 55 get screwed? That's just dumping the entire clean-up on the people (Gen X and Gen Y) who had NOTHING to do with making the mess in the first place. We will get screwed too, but I would love to see those receiving SS benefits get a 50% reduction in payments. And change the retirement age to 70 tomorrow, I don't care if you turn 65 tomorrow and "planned" your retirement around getting it. Guess you should have planned better.

When I said you can't cut people off Pirate Jo, I meant for political reasons, not moral ones. You just won't get your solution through, as attractive as it sounds. I'm Gen X too, and although Australia doesn't have anywhere near the same problems, there will still be a huge hit getting the boomers through retirement and medical care. Plus if you do cut off the current recipients, who will carry the load? Their kids of course, just more directly.

Any plan that doesn't address this will not get up, period. The debt is there, it's too late to worry about who did it. How to unwind it in a reasonably orderly fashion is the job at hand.

Some combination of means-testing, slow rises in the eligibility age, and hopefully moving to contributions to private accounts and winding down SS is most likely what will happen once everyone pulls their heads out of their collective asses.

Even Paul Ryan with his "radical" plan was only expecting a return to budget surplus (let alone paying down debt) by 2040. The hole really is that deep. And this is why I don't take the Libertarians seriously.

I see what you mean now, Ltw - I actually agree with you.

What I'm skeptical of is the idea that everyone will "pull their heads out of their collective asses." I'm not sure how things are going in Australia, but here in the Fascist States of America, everyone is just trying to be the one to scream the loudest about not having their own free shit taken away. The ones doing the loudest screaming are the ones who created this mess.

I'm afraid that, due to politics, we'll just keep the printing presses fired up and keep sending the checks out the door, and our debt will continue to skyrocket every year until the USD loses its world reserve currency status and becomes worthless. Maybe Aussie dollars will be the next one, hard to say.

This isn't to say that my generation (X) hasn't seen some bad things happen that will also make life miserable for future generations - they fall more along the lines of TSA abuses and the Patriot Act. But then, there are people trying to fight back against these problems and I help them however I can. I asked my mom if she remembers anyone throwing a fuss when we were taken off the gold standard, or when the Social Security trust fund was raided, and she said nobody really cared. It irritated me. I was reminded that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" and that "the only way evil can thrive is for good men to do nothing." She seems to be really proud of the fact that she didn't pay any attention to these things, and I had to bite my tongue to keep from telling her she was part of the problem.

Speaking of currency collapses, I read this recently by Jens O. Parson, via the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He refers to a similar situation in Germany, in the early 1920s:

"At bottom, it was the unsuspecting middle class who were Germany's savers, pensioners, purchasers of lifeinsurance, including everyone from workers who saved to the modestly well-off, who not only suffered the worst of the agony while the inflation lasted but also were left after it was over with the most staggering permanent loss in relation to their whole substance. This class paid the piper for all of Germany. Great
numbers of pensioners were left totally impoverished and forced back into the work gang to end their days there. The encouragement to thrift, an old German weakness, turned out to have been a complete swindle. Instead of a levy on all the Germans to pay for Germany's indulgences, a levy which might have been heavy
but could have been fair, Germany left the levy to fall on those who were too innocent to evade it, and from them it took everything they owned. In any case, it was not the piper who went unpaid."

Your fears are pretty justified Pirate Jo - the politics of all this will block any real plan to work out from under it. I'm not sure that I can see a way out of for the US other than partial default of debt, which since no one is in a position to bail you out, will mean a massive loss of confidence round the whole world. The damage has been done and it's going to be really hard to fix. I understand your anger, it's been obvious for so long that the day of reckoning would come.

I'll guarantee you it won't be the Aussie dollar that takes over as reserve currency :) our *total* GDP is a shade over a trillion a year, or to put it another way, about 2/3rds of Obama's predicted federal government deficit. California alone is a much larger economy than us.

But we're in reasonable shape. Privatisation of pensions started, as I said, in 1984. A percentage of income is diverted to a personally owned account which you can't access till a certain age. Tax incentives encourage to people make extra voluntary contributions. The money gets invested for you, by regulated but private companies (you have numerous options for how or who, or you can even do it yourself if you want to, although it's only worth it if you have a lot more money than me). This has two effects - increasingly, since it's been in place 27 years, people have the funds to manage their own retirement, and since it's a defined contribution plan people are much more resistant to anti business measures - when it's going to hit you personally you're a lot more hesitant to stick it to the "evil corporations" (not everyone of course, there are always idiots). The big problem with SS, apart from there being no real assets being bought with all that money, is that the incentives of the companies that pay it and the people who receive it are not aligned. Retirees have no reason to defend business against government because they're no longer looking for jobs and their payouts are 'guaranteed' by the government. We still have a safety net old age pension but it's very low (subsistence level) and severely means tested.

Our position on health care is a bit more mixed - essentially it's a hybrid public/private system. not great, but workable.

The main thing is the previous government paid down *all* federal debt over a period of about 11 years. They actually had to lower tax rates because it was getting embarrassing trying to work out what to do with the surpluses. And local bond traders complained that the market in government debt was so small it was illiquid and not functioning, not that anyone felt sorry for them. The incumbents (Labor Party, equivalent of the Democrats) have managed to screw that up with a massive stimulus package and other stupid spending of course, but really it's not that bad. Total public sector debt is less than 10% GDP if I recall.

So that's what I meant by it taking a minimum 20 year plan to work through these things. Believe me, it wasn't a fun debate here either, but ultimately, in fits and starts, we got to a reasonable position without being heartless. We're not out of the woods (we're very dependent on commodity prices, particularly coal and iron exports to China) but much better off than most of Europe.

And yes, Germany in the 20s is a very instructive example.

Ltw, can I move in with you for six months, while I find a job and a place to live in Australia?

Jesus jumped-up fiddlin christ. How on earth did you manage to win the day? Did all this crap happen to your country an entire generation before it hit us?

The Aussie plan makes so much sense - Social Security only as a "safety net old age pension but it's very low (subsistence level) and severely means tested" - Precisely! That's what ours was intented for, until a bunch of greedy people decided to turn it into a grabfest.

And as far as actual retirement, this is what I've been saying! In the FSofA, the product you would purchase in the private markets is called a deferred annuity with a lifetime benefit rider. Shit, I looked into pricing, and it "guarantees" (I use quote-marks given the current economy) a return of 7% a year. This shields you from the stock market's plunges, but doesn't let you fully share in its highs, since the insurance company takes the risk of smoothing that out. Also, you may live less than the average life expectancy, or you may live longer - you will still get your payment, because the insurance company smooths all that out, too, through risk-sharing.

And this is a good reason not to put ALL your eggs in an annuity basket. (Have a little pile of dry powder, to invest wisely, and enjoy someof those market returns yourself.) But every person should purchase insurance against outliving their money and their ability to work.

This makes so much sense! The only reason I haven't bought one of these things yet is that our real rate of inflation (not measured by the Consumer Price Index, which is artificially reducing the inflation rate due to dropping real estate values) is between 8-9%. There is no reason for me to get excited about a 7% rate of return when I am still losing purchasing power. I really want to provide for myself in my old age but am not sure what I can do. At least I am only 41 and have time to see how this thing shakes out. (I hope.)

Did all this crap happen to your country an entire generation before it hit us?

Exactly that. We got very close Pirate Jo, in the late 70s and early 80s, to complete bankruptcy. Massive protectionism in the form of tariffs and import quotas, fixed exchange rate currency, inflation, huge debt, unions striking constantly, the friggin Treasurer for crying out loud saying openly "we have to do something or we'll become a banana republic". Talk of the IMF having to intervene, which at the time was unheard of for a first world country.

Hell, at one point the wool industry had a single desk government buyer that set a floor price that they would buy from growers at no matter what the world price was. Predictably, when the world price tanked they kept buying and stockpiling the product. Huge warehouses full of it. Unwinding *that* was no fun. And that's just one example. Remind you of the farm lobby at all?

Getting out of all this took a lot of painful decisions, and quite a few politicians - from both sides - saw their careers torched over them. But it seems to have worked out better than expected. Still lots of problems, but by comparison...

And of course you'd be welcome if you could cope with my decaying house :) It wouldn't take anything like six months to get a job here though if you have any skills at all, unemployment is about 5%, pretty much the natural minimum. Anyone willing to work will find something.

Ltw, thanks for continuing to scroll down to this post and explain the Aussie situation to me.

No problem at all PJ. It annoys the hell out me that people here complain constantly about doom and gloom on the horizon when an awful lot of the hard work has been done. Now if we can just knock this proposed carbon tax on the head...

My perspective is a bit biased perhaps, although I try to be fair. I'm sure you could find plenty of people who disagree with me!