Update on the deterioration of Australia

[Julie]

As for Australia, how they believe that weakening their labour protection laws will give anything more than a transient boost to the economy, I really don't know, but then again, the "robber barons" are always sniffing after a quick killing, and this'll provide them with the fodder for a few more Mercedes, I suppose.

Too true VP

 

[Julie]

Parsing words of political leaders is an old game. Being elected to four consecutive terms is a first for your country.

If the world is not lucky to have world leaders like Mr. Howard, what leaders around the world ARE we lucky to have?

Helen Clark (New Zealand's PM; not a former British or Australian PM )

 

[nino_savatte]

I see

Isn't he one of the brethren in that arms financing organisation with Dubya Senior?

Major is involved with The Carlyle Group along with other 'retired' politicos from Washington and London.
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html

It's a bit of a boys club for former 'statesmen'.

 

[nino_savatte]

Parsing words of political leaders is an old game. Being elected to four consecutive terms is a first for your country.

If the world is not lucky to have world leaders like Mr. Howard, what leaders around the world ARE we lucky to have?

If the world is unlucky to have warmongering macho men running about rattling sabres, what kind of world would we have if politicians got on with the business of looking after their constituents' interests rather than those of a corporation?

 

[ViolentPanda]

You can't argue with the numbers, personal insults aside. The Australian economy has grown and Australian unemployment has decreased under Mr. Howard.

..and yet, when we investigate those numbers, your paean of praise starts to show that it's foundations aren't solid.

Australia is an example of the success of free market economics. Britian, the US, Ireland, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, New Zealand and Canada are some other examples which highlight the success of the free market ideological movement.

No it isn't, it's an example of a particular economic situation at a particular moment in time. Claim it for your unfree "free market" if you wish, but those of us who don't base our understanding of economics around an adherence to particular ideological principles know how inaccurate your claim is.

By the way, prociaiming the virtues of the "tiger economies" years after they were shown to be paper tigers really does reveal the extent of your intellectual bankruptcy (unless of course you know better than those whomake economics their career).

 

[ViolentPanda]

I still don't know how to "break up" a post into quotes so I can respond to individual points made. Does anyone have a moment to show me how? A PM would suffice if such things are preferred that way. So, I'll c & p instead:

Check your PMs!

**************************

'I'm sure they do. The problem is that you've named (and I could probably add to that the large communities in Aus from Balkan countries) countries that have significant historical problems with Islam (and of course its' promulgators, the Ottoman empire). We still see this animosity peeping out fro the shadows occasionally in Britain, with friction between the Turkish and Greek communities.'

Too true. I shouldn't have specified races. That is racist, in my view. As such, I'm not at all happy with myself with the way I attempted to make that point I simply wanted to say I find animosity based on race completely nonsensical.

You specified those nationalities as examples of a trend rather than as a highlighting of their particular vociferousness, so I didn't read any racist intent in your message. It just so happened that you hit on two with pretty ancient enmities against Islam.

'People will always have fears, and the media (who are almost always politically partial, I believe that a vast majority of privately-owned news media in Aus is pro-Howard, is it not?) will play on and manipulate those fears to the advantage of whichever ideology they support. In this case they're able to put together a convenient package (much as Tony Blairs' New Labour are attempting to) which allows them to set those immigrants with brown and black skins as targets, and uses "radical" Islam as a "trigger" factor for propagating this fear.'

Yes, it is definitely true that the vast majority of privately-owned news media is pro-Howard. Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer own the bulk of said media who are conservative to the backbone. And yes, shock tactics in the form of language that evokes hysteria is their stock in trade. I must say though: When will people recognise they're being manipulated? While I completely agree that people will always have fears ('tis the nature of the human beast), I still struggle getting my head around how gullible so many can be.

I always try to bear in mind that there are probably a multitude of different factors that cause that "gullibility". Some make a rational and informed decision to "believe" the hype because it fits their ideological agenda, some believe in the innate benevolence of government, some are convinced by propaganda etc etc etc.
We're, as you say, "the human beast", and it is part of our instinct to fear "the other", often even when that "other" has proven their loyalty in ways we wouldn't countenance expecting fellow "natives" to undergo.
It's unfortunate that, even with so-called "newspapers of record", yellow journalism is what sells. Why be objective when you can start a witch-hunt instead?

'The problem IMHO is that Howard (like Blair, and like the interests Bush is a mouthpiece for) know that greed, racism, hate and fear are primal human emotions. If you appeal to them then you can in many cases circumvent or at least partially neutralise rational debate, so until their gambit can be demonstrated to be false, or at least that their fears are nowhere near as significant as they have claimed, then they'll be able to keep on pushing that button and making the likes of mears salivate.'

And here you have articulated, so well, my questions/concerns re: people's gullibility.

Thanks! Sadly enough, a poster on a UK politics thread reckons that my being able to articulate myself better than he can makes me a "stuck up twat"! .
Ah well, not my problem!

Great post VP

 

[mears]

..and yet, when we investigate those numbers, your paean of praise starts to show that it's foundations aren't solid.

No it isn't, it's an example of a particular economic situation at a particular moment in time. Claim it for your unfree "free market" if you wish, but those of us who don't base our understanding of economics around an adherence to particular ideological principles know how inaccurate your claim is.

By the way, prociaiming the virtues of the "tiger economies" years after they were shown to be paper tigers really does reveal the extent of your intellectual bankruptcy (unless of course you know better than those whomake economics their career).

Please, the tiger economies have made something from nothing. They rose from the ashes of opression and war to build solid economies. They lack natural resources, they are a testament to the success of capitalism.

I do believe in openess, free markets, curbing agricultural subsidies, private pensions, flat taxes, no estate tax, cutting red tape for foreign investment etc..

I think economies run best when the individual, not state is given the leading hand in society.

Yea, I do have those silly ideological principles. But you just make it up on the fly. This is the main reason you lack depth in your thinking.

 

[Sorry.]

Please, the tiger economies have made something from nothing. They rose from the ashes of opression and war to build solid economies. They lack natural resources, they are a testament to the success of capitalism.

I do believe in openess, free markets, curbing agricultural subsidies, private pensions, flat taxes, no estate tax, cutting red tape for foreign investment etc..

I think economies run best when the individual, not state is given the leading hand in society.

Yea, I do have those silly ideological principles. But you just make it up on the fly. This is the main reason you lack depth in your thinking.

It's all very well invoking your 'ideological principles' mears, but the fact you invoke the 'tiger economies' as fine examples of them in practice speaks volumes about the level of thought you've actually given them.

The tiger economies were built on protectionism, regulation of capital flows, state subsidies and high public spending (not to mention, in some instances, repressive dictatorships).

You want to see free-market fundamentalism in practice? Check Argentina (whoops fell apart in 2001/02), Bolivia (periodic insurrections against private water companies and hydrocarbon multinationals) and Chile (implementation by coup d'etat and dictatorship, still fell apart in the 1980s forcing even Pinochet to reverse course or face economic meltdown).

In any sensible world, neoliberalism would be as discredited as Marxist-Leninism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Please, the tiger economies have made something from nothing. They rose from the ashes of opression and war to build solid economies. They lack natural resources, they are a testament to the success of capitalism.

Even economists who are "soft" on capitalism like Krugman acknowledge that the tiger economies are built on sand, as for the natural resources claim, true of Japan, but not (off the top of my head) of Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, South Korea or Thailand. They're a testament to non-free market command capitalism. Every one of the "tiger economies" used national planning and public funding to stimulate and develop their economies.
About as far from "free market" capitalism as you can get.

I do believe in openess, free markets, curbing agricultural subsidies, private pensions, flat taxes, no estate tax, cutting red tape for foreign investment etc..

Your religious preferences are of no interest to me.

I think economies run best when the individual, not state is given the leading hand in society.

And yet you praise the "tiger economies" which utilised state planning, state control and state money to support those economies.

You're a hypocrite. Why not just admit that anything that makes you money is fine by you, as long as you don't have to do the sweating?

Yea, I do have those silly ideological principles. But you just make it up on the fly. This is the main reason you lack depth in your thinking.

Of course I do. There's not a proveable fact in any of my posts, is there?

Odd how it's you that's posted the bullshit on this thread though, isn't it? Is that a mark of "deep thinking", the ability to delude yourself?

I'd laugh at you, but that would be unnecessarily cruel.

 

[mears]

Even economists who are "soft" on capitalism like Krugman acknowledge that the tiger economies are built on sand, as for the natural resources claim, true of Japan, but not (off the top of my head) of Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, South Korea or Thailand. They're a testament to non-free market command capitalism. Every one of the "tiger economies" used national planning and public funding to stimulate and develop their economies.
About as far from "free market" capitalism as you can get.

Your religious preferences are of no interest to me.

And yet you praise the "tiger economies" which utilised state planning, state control and state money to support those economies.
You're a hypocrite. Why not just admit that anything that makes you money is fine by you, as long as you don't have to do the sweating?

Of course I do. There's not a proveable fact in any of my posts, is there?

Odd how it's you that's posted the bullshit on this thread though, isn't it? Is that a mark of "deep thinking", the ability to delude yourself?

I'd laugh at you, but that would be unnecessarily cruel.

Where do you get this "non-free market command capitalism". Do you just make this stuff up? How can a command economy be capitalist at the same time. Its a contridiction in terms. It doesn't exist.

Taiwan, Japan, South Korea lack in natural resources and have prospered. I'm not sure you would classify Indonesia, Malaysa or the Philipines as tiger economies.

You economics beliefs I can only guess at. I will say some Europeans that talk about the evils of Anglo-American capitalism are the ultimate selfish hyprocrites out there. Those who have the 35 hour a week jobs, 4 to 6 weeks paid vacation, generous pension plans fully backed by the government etc...

These benefits make hiring new workers very expensive. But what do they care? They do have those jobs, and dammit, they don't want a change in their benefits. Oh and by the way, tidy government assistance at retirement.

So where is their sacrifice? Maybe two to three weeks paid time off and maybe a 40 hour work week? Dail up the labour unions, they want to practice that fucking Anglo-American capitalism.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Certainly capitalism can't exist without a disciplinary system enforcing work. Your words are closely echoing the arguments of people like Pollexfen and Bentham mears. Holidays after all, are depriving the owners of the means of production of profits, which will never do. The harshest discipline is justified.

There's another blade to those scissors though, which is how you get people who were quite content (and sustainable) producing food and the necessities of life in a traditional society to abandon that society for capital's sweatshops.

The history of how this was accomplished in what we are pleased to call the developed world drips blood from every pore, and the process continues today, with the added dimensions of soil erosion, deforestation and other forms of ecological destruction.

A process which threatens our life support.

I understand what you are arguing for, I just don't see it as being a good thing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Where do you get this "non-free market command capitalism". Do you just make this stuff up? How can a command economy be capitalist at the same time. Its a contridiction in terms. It doesn't exist.

Um, so the economic principles under which Britain was governed "don't exist"?
Many of the "tiger economies" specifically used state planning (as did Britain) to boost specific economic sectors, and supported it with state funding and subsidy.
Do a bit of reading, boy. You're embarassing yourself.

Oh, and please don't insinuate that I make things up. Someone such as yourself who throws around accusations of plagiarism that they can't support is in no position to do that.

Taiwan, Japan, South Korea lack in natural resources and have prospered. I'm not sure you would classify Indonesia, Malaysa or the Philipines as tiger economies.

That'd be you and no one else, least of all most economists, then.

You economics beliefs I can only guess at. I will say some Europeans that talk about the evils of Anglo-American capitalism are the ultimate selfish hyprocrites out there. Those who have the 35 hour a week jobs, 4 to 6 weeks paid vacation, generous pension plans fully backed by the government etc...

Blah blah blah, heard it all before. Whenever a point gets put to you that you can't handle you roll out the sweeping inaccurate generalisations and your prejudices for all to see.

These benefits make hiring new workers very expensive. But what do they care? They do have those jobs, and dammit, they don't want a change in their benefits. Oh and by the way, tidy government assistance at retirement.

"Government assistance"? You say that as if "the government" has money rather than merely being the guardian of the money remitted to it through taxation etc which it is obliged to disburse.
I'm guessing that what you're actually whining about is the idea of that damn government still having anything to do with social welfare?

So where is their sacrifice? Maybe two to three weeks paid time off and maybe a 40 hour work week? Dail up the labour unions, they want to practice that fucking Anglo-American capitalism.

Nah, you'll find that what most people want in the Pacific Rim, and what a lot of them don't get except in Japan and Australia, is the right to organise at all, so please don't whine at me about how people want capitalism when what most of them want is fair remuneration and conditions, not the fucking moon.

You use the word "sacrifice", but I doubt you have much inkling of what it means.

 

[pommie]

John Howard was the target for the best anti-war placard I came across, at the Sydney demonstration in Feb 2003. It simply said: "John Hunt is a Coward".

 

[Sorry.]

Where do you get this "non-free market command capitalism". Do you just make this stuff up? How can a command economy be capitalist at the same time. Its a contridiction in terms. It doesn't exist.

Taiwan, Japan, South Korea lack in natural resources and have prospered. I'm not sure you would classify Indonesia, Malaysa or the Philipines as tiger economies.

How can you actually have the audacity to claim any kind of 'economic logic' to any of your thought, when you don't even have enough basic knowledge to pass a high school economics class?

NEWSFLASH, mears: not all forms of capitalism are precisely the same, and not all forms of capitalism produce the same effects. Not all of them are predicated on the same economic principles.

 

[butchersapron]

What's capitalism mears?

(apols to other posters on the thread - broke the golden rule)

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Hey pg

Yes, unfortunately he was voted back in, so you're absolutely right, we've got a couple more years of the sociopath.

It's truly disturbing what's going on in Australia right now.

What's Howard doing in terms of environmental policy? I read some stuff about Australian sustainability issues a while back and it was fairly scary. I get the idea that there would be very serious problems in the event of an oil crisis.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How can you actually have the audacity to claim any kind of 'economic logic' to any of your thought, when you don't even have enough basic knowledge to pass a high school economics class?

NEWSFLASH, mears: not all forms of capitalism are precisely the same, and not all forms of capitalism produce the same effects. Not all of them are predicated on the same economic principles.

Are you sure about that? Are you sure you're not (as I apparently did) just making it up?

The ignorance (or perhaps it is arrogance) evident in mears' little diatribe and accusation had me laughing so much I almost cried.

 

[mears]

Um, so the economic principles under which Britain was governed "don't exist"?
Many of the "tiger economies" specifically used state planning (as did Britain) to boost specific economic sectors, and supported it with state funding and subsidy.
Do a bit of reading, boy. You're embarassing yourself.

Oh, and please don't insinuate that I make things up. Someone such as yourself who throws around accusations of plagiarism that they can't support is in no position to do that.

That'd be you and no one else, least of all most economists, then.

Blah blah blah, heard it all before. Whenever a point gets put to you that you can't handle you roll out the sweeping inaccurate generalisations and your prejudices for all to see.

"Government assistance"? You say that as if "the government" has money rather than merely being the guardian of the money remitted to it through taxation etc which it is obliged to disburse.
I'm guessing that what you're actually whining about is the idea of that damn government still having anything to do with social welfare?

Nah, you'll find that what most people want in the Pacific Rim, and what a lot of them don't get except in Japan and Australia, is the right to organise at all, so please don't whine at me about how people want capitalism when what most of them want is fair remuneration and conditions, not the fucking moon.

You use the word "sacrifice", but I doubt you have much inkling of what it means.

Talk about sweeping generalisations. Where do you get this "non-free market command capitalism". Did you make it up, read it somewhere? It so dumb and out there I was just wondering.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

How can you have capitalism without a state to enforce it?

Are there any historical examples of capitalism happening without state intervention to enforce it?

 

[mears]

How can you actually have the audacity to claim any kind of 'economic logic' to any of your thought, when you don't even have enough basic knowledge to pass a high school economics class?

NEWSFLASH, mears: not all forms of capitalism are precisely the same, and not all forms of capitalism produce the same effects. Not all of them are predicated on the same economic principles.

I did pass an economics class in college, but barely. No, I am no economist. But neither are you.

Where did I say all forms of capitalism are the same thing? The form practiced on the European continent is different than that practiced in the US. I think I have made that very clear.

The one practiced on the European continent refuses to tweak labour laws to lessen the cost of private business to hire workers.

And really why should they! Who doesn't want a 35 hour work day and 4 to 6 weeks paid vacation? Why would you want the labour market changed when there is 11% unemployment in Germany, or minority youth in France that can't find any jobs.

We still got our benefits

 

[Julie]

Major is involved with The Carlyle Group along with other 'retired' politicos from Washington and London.
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html

It's a bit of a boys club for former 'statesmen'.

That's it! The Carlyle Group. Thanks nino

I remember someone here at urban posted a link to a documentary that I watched online about this organisation. Do you, or anybody here, know the URL?

My parents, brother and a couple of friends want to see it. And I'd like to see it again myself.

If it can't be located, that's fine.

 

[butchersapron]

Apparently it's availible here, but this is a conspiracy site - i have downloaded and checked the linked file on my own pc though and it was fine.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm

 

[Julie]

What's Howard doing in terms of environmental policy? I read some stuff about Australian sustainability issues a while back and it was fairly scary. I get the idea that there would be very serious problems in the event of an oil crisis.

I'm embarrassed to admit I'm not especially cognisant of environmental issues Bernie.

Although this disturbs me: http://www.greens.org.au/mediacentre/mediareleases/senatorsiewert/091105a

As does this: http://www.greens.org.au/mediacentre/mediareleases/senatorsiewert/081105a

I'm guessing the following article briefly outlines what you asked me about: http://www.greens.org.au/mediacentre/mediareleases/senatormilne/091105a

 

[Julie]

Check your PMs!

Thank you

You specified those nationalities as examples of a trend rather than as a highlighting of their particular vociferousness, so I didn't read any racist intent in your message. It just so happened that you hit on two with pretty ancient enmities against Islam.

I wasn't aware of this. I'm not much of a history buff

I always try to bear in mind that there are probably a multitude of different factors that cause that "gullibility". Some make a rational and informed decision to "believe" the hype because it fits their ideological agenda, some believe in the innate benevolence of government, some are convinced by propaganda etc etc etc.

Very true. I need to learn to be more broadminded about the reasons why people choose to believe tabloid-type news.

We're, as you say, "the human beast", and it is part of our instinct to fear "the other", often even when that "other" has proven their loyalty in ways we wouldn't countenance expecting fellow "natives" to undergo. It's unfortunate that, even with so-called "newspapers of record", yellow journalism is what sells. Why be objective when you can start a witch-hunt instead?

I know! It's all about making money for these news moguls. But blimey.... when is enough money ever enough? Hmm... I think I've just answered my own question in as much as my thoughts immediately veered towards, "It's not only about money - it's about being power mad as well." I mean Murdoch would no doubt have Bush, Blair and Howard on speed dial. As such, we're fed conservative-favoured politics all day, every day. I guess even the brightest and most discerning can be indoctrinated.

Thanks! Sadly enough, a poster on a UK politics thread reckons that my being able to articulate myself better than he can makes me a "stuck up twat"! .

Ah well, not my problem!

No, it's not your problem at all. He sounds like a charmer though

 

[Julie]

John Howard was the target for the best anti-war placard I came across, at the Sydney demonstration in Feb 2003. It simply said: "John Hunt is a Coward".

I was at that demonstration. I don't remember that placard, but it's gold

 

[Julie]

What's capitalism mears?

(apols to other posters on the thread - broke the golden rule)

What golden rule?

 

[Julie]

Apparently it's availible here, but this is a conspiracy site - i have downloaded and checked the linked file on my own pc though and it was fine.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm

Thanks butchers

But does this mean the doco is crap or exaggerated or something?

 

[butchersapron]

What golden rule?

Not to reply to mears.

I've no ida about the doco. If i've a spare hour i'll watch it as work and get back to you

 

[Julie]

Not to reply to mears.

I've no ida about the doco. If i've a spare hour i'll watch it as work and get back to you

I wouldn't want you to go to that trouble! I'd feel dreadful.

Thank you though

 

[ViolentPanda]

Talk about sweeping generalisations. Where do you get this "non-free market command capitalism". Did you make it up, read it somewhere? It so dumb and out there I was just wondering.

I'll break it down for you then:

"non-free market"; operates a system that utilises protectionism through tariffs and other modes of conduct that are supposedly anathema to "the free market".
"command capitalism"; the system used by many nations to set economic goals in specific fields of research and production.

Not "dumb, not "out there", and very much meant to be a sweeping generalisat"ion. but hey, if you can't even get your head arouns a "sweeping generalisation"...

Please keep up the petty insults though, they're hugely entertaining!