Post 1971, the moral question in economics has been abandoned. Individual interest has been the driver of economic policy to achieve growth, income and employment.
The RET has an even greater impact than the carbon tax on the bottom line, reducing our living standards and the competitiveness of our entire economy.
It is often the reflexive response of government to crack down on things which are new or untested. This tendency is only exaggerated when innovations challenge large established interests like the taxi and hotel industries.
In Australia, the Henry Tax Review was not whistling 'Dixie' in 2008 when it claimed: 'economic growth would be higher if governments raised more revenue from land and less revenue from other tax bases'.
History tells us that having a strategic vision and intent to achieve economic outcomes is just the starting point. Closer attention needs to be focused on institutional and budgetary constraints.
A moral reason for a basic income is that the wealth of anyone is much more the result of our forebears' endeavours than our own.
Joe Hockey's gaffe last week on the Government's plan to restore fuel excise indexation highlights the need to address the low incomes of many Australians rather than oppose a sound policy initiative.
The 'City of Churches' is in dire straits as the economy faces massive job losses.
I have a warning for my Liberal and National Party colleagues: speculating on increasing the revenue take from the GST is playing with fire.
Joe and me - close, but no rose, and maybe he was just being polite.
All Russia has to do is threaten to charge Ukraine the same as everyone else would charge Ukraine, and Ukraine is in trouble.
In what other industry are holders of crucial natural resources allowed to drip feed these building blocks of life to the market in order to push prices ever higher?