[LINK] This makes me angry.

[Richard Chirgwin]

On 1/04/12 12:25 AM, Frank O'Connor wrote:
> The depths of your mind are yet to be plumbed, aren't they Thomas Peter?
The shallows haven't been plumbed, let alone the depths.
>
> On 31/03/2012, at 10:18 PM, TKoltai wrote:
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au
>>> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Craig Sanders
>>> Sent: Saturday, 31 March 2012 11:09 AM
>>> To: link at anu.edu.au
>>> Subject: Re: [LINK] This makes me angry.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 06:59:34PM +1000, TKoltai wrote:
>>>> I expect the man in the street not to get it, after all,
>>> he's there to
>>>> pay taxes, consume beer, buy cinema tickets and shop at
>>> Coles, not to
>>>> understand why he pays taxes....
>>>>
>>>> But when an organisation like Get-up [Can you spell Publicly Funded
>>>> Political Lobbyist] deliberately misleads the public... Then I get
>>>> angry under the collar.
>>> what deception? from what i can see, they're pointing out
>>> facts. fact1: mining companies ARE subsidised by the public
>>> to the tune of billions of dollars per year. fact2: budget
>>> cuts are being considered that will impact on public sector
>>> workers being able to do their jobs or even to keep their jobs.
>>>
>> Actually, the facts can be found at:
>> http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/stats-pubs/australia-trade-by-state-
>> and-territory-2010-11.pdf
>> And The authoritative compendium of statistics on merchandise exports
>> and imports, this publication analyses the growth, direction and
>> commodity breakdown of Australia's trade over the last five years. It
>> also includes individual reports showing the composition of trade with
>> over eighty of Australia's trading partners.
>> http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/stats-pubs/cot-fy-2010-11.pdf
>>
>> In case you might be unsure of how to read one of these, I have
>> extracted the two important numbers.
>>
>> Exports for 2010-2011
>> Total rural exports 36,114
>> Total mineral resources exports  179,233
>> Total commodity exports  211,815
>>
>> (I think those numbers speak pretty factually for themselves.
>>
>> The subsidies have nothing to do with the government prioritaisation of
>> funds for under privilidged persons.
> Now there's a big Truth.
>
>> Get-up is being used as a citizen funding political policy activitst
>> organisationunder the guise of helping the poor.
>>
> Right ... and the problem with citizen (volunteer)funding versus corporate or government or other public funding is?
>
> I mean, don't people have a right to spend their money on whatever they want to spend their money on? Donate whatever they want to donate to? Isn't a donor to Get Up just as morally entitled as a donor to the IPA or other ideologue based organisation.
>
>> In the USA, organisations like Get-up are forced to register as PAC's so
>> that their funders become a source of public knowledge.
>>
>>> if you don't like the implications of those facts, whinging
>>> about being informed of them is not a sensible response.
>>>
> Hey, 'think tanks' and other corporate/union/otherwise politically funded bodies in Australia don't have to disclose their funding ... so why should a body like Get-Up or whatever have to disclose its thousands of (comparatively small) donations? One rule for the rich again, Thomas Peter?
>
>> Well actually I advanced an alternative to increasing welfare and
>> altering well meaning and long established Government/Mining Company
>> relationship practices. Unfortunately you stopped reading before you got
>> there.
>>
>>
> No ... you advanced a corporate welfare scheme whereby these big corporates pay to fund small businesses across Australia (presumably with yourself waiting cap-in-hand for some of the benefits of their largesse). I'm guessing with the fate of previous enterprises you have mismanaged into decline, that a helping hand from corporate Australia to do the same with some others would be much appreciated.
>
>>>> Here is a excerpt of their latest advertisement:
>>>>
>>>> Quote/
>>>> [...]
>>>> /Quote
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand what the hell public sector workers have
>>> to do with
>>>> mining companies...
>>> it's about priorities.
>>>
>>> when there are limited resources (i.e. always) then
>>> expenditure has to prioritised.
>>>
>>> the implicit question in getup's ad is whether corporate
>>> welfare should be prioritised over public services.
>>>
>> Err, it would seem to be so. However I would suggest that it might also
>> havbe an element of political manouvering to establish the current
>> Government as being a strong ally of the people against the monolith
>> corporate country rapists.
> Didn't see that in there at all.
>
>>> how you answer that is up to your own judgment. there isn't a
>>> right answer. but AFAICT, you're pissed off because you don't
>>> want to even consider the question, you'd rather just ignore
>>> it. fine, stick your head in the sand if that's what you
>>> choose to do, but quit whinging about getup - or anyone else
>>> - trying to get the public to at least thing about something.
>>>
>> Well then it's a shame you didn’t read the end of my last email as it
>> had a pretty damned fine idea on how to fix the unemployment problem and
>> involve the mining companies in a meaningful useful manner in
>> resuscitating Australians economy woithout picking the richest person in
>> the room to main and would so that their wallet can be picked.
> Every half baked scheme you advance is a 'fine idea' in your eyes ... but what else can one expect from someone who previously stated in another wild and wooly missive:
>
> "In the immortal words of the wise one....
> "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they say.""
>
> Talk about delusions of grandeur! (And you misquoted from the Good Book.)
>
>>> what makes me angry is the mindless adoption of libertarian
>>> values (i.e. unregulated capitalism) that automatically
>>> forgive any business for any transgression or hypocrisy, yet
>>> hold the public sector and individuals accountable for even
>>> the most trivial.
>>>
>>> "free market" businesses can suck at the socialist teat as
>>> much as they want to, but individuals are worthless thieving
>>> scum if they do, and the government is evil for allowing them to.
>>>
>>> individuals *deserve* to starve if they can't get a job and
>>> poor people are poor *because* of their own moral failings,
>>> but it would be an appalling tragedy that *must* be averted
>>> if a big enough business were to fail due to incompetence,
>>> bad planning, obsolescence or any other reason.
>>>
>> I don’t think I said that.
> Yes you did ... but, as always, you conveniently forget what you said in prior missives every time you get called on it.
>
>>>> Who does Get-up believe is leading the charge in Australian
>>> Economic
>>>> Stability...
>>>>
>>>> Is it those public sector workers ?
>>>> Could it be Wayne Swan ?
>>>> Would it be well thought out and long term sound economic
>>> Government
>>>> policies ?
>>>>
>>>> or would it be the Mining Industry ?
>>> certainly not the latter.
>>>
>>> i'd say it was largely due to the reasonably good (but by no means
>>> perfect) regulation of business and especially banking and
>>> finance in this country that prevented OUR greedy-bastard
>>> bankers and executive and investment classes from getting
>>> away with the same level of fraud and scamming and outright
>>> theft that they were allowed in the U.S.
>>>
>> I presume in that statement that you have made exceptional allowances
>> for the Australian banks that lined up for the free multi-billion dollar
>> handouts from the US Federal Reserve in 2009, saving the Australian
>> Government from having to do it...
> Which they got through the AIG and other indemnities that the US government made to rescue their own, that was redeemed by said Australian banks when certain derivatives and the like bit the dust? Or the guarantee (that still pertains by the way) of deposits up to $1,000,000 that supported the Big 4? Or the support our banks got when basel reared its ugly head again, so that they were deemed not to have to provide the reserves other banks around the world had imposed on them?
>
> Our banks are hardly 'best of breed' ... they are tightly controlled in a non-competitive market in which they hold their clientele hostage to a lack of competitive trading that is viewed with amazement in the US and Europe. They are a cartel. It was simple luck that those tight controls ensured a profitability from normal banking (rather than merchant banking) activities that meant they either weren't allowed or didn't need to take the risks the overseas banks did to return a profit to shareholders. (Their customers were and are basically milked dry with interest and a multitude of charges ... with no need to package debt and enter into more exotic and risky transactions to make a quid.) That said, the current downturn is probably causing some concern in banking central, as profitable bread and butter banking transactions (home loans, small business loans etc) are drying up in the current environment.
>
> Still if it hits the fan, they'll simply do what they did in 1987, in the mid 90's, in the early Noughties and in any previous crisis ... ensure that their customers pay for the ensuing losses via increases in interest and their miasma of charges. and ride the puppy out.
>
> They are not brilliant all seeing economic geniuses ... they dimply deal in a commodity called money.
>
>>> so that would be Government policies.  And legislation. and a
>>> willingness to enforce the law against the rich and powerful.
>>>
>> Hmmm. From where I'm sitting, I have observed that the only law that is
>> enforced in our justice system would seem to be on the side of he/(she)
>> that can afford the most expensive representation.
>>
>>>> A paltry 3 billion in subsidies to provide direct jobs for how many
>>>> Australians ? A paltry 3 billion in subsidies to provide how much
>>>> percentage of Australia's export earnings ?
>>> funny how 3 billion is "paltry" when it's a handout for the
>>> already-rich.
>>>
>>>> Politicians are almost never about assisting the economy.
>>> if you think a politician's job or the government's job is
>>> solely (or even largely) about the economy then you have lost
>>> the plot, you have been suckered by the relentless
>>> neo-liberal propaganda that there is no such thing as
>>> society, that only the economy matters.
>>>
>>> the economy is not an end, it is a means.
>>>
>> No Craig, in a court case, divorce, education choices, shopping choices,
>> it is almost never about the society, it is always the money. Ask any
>> Sap that has been the recipient of the Australian/Foreign Brides 2 year
>> Automatic Restraining Order scam.
> Again, you reveal hidden depths, Thomas Peter ... I didn't know you'd imported a Foreign Bride.
>
>>>> Politicians are about assisting politicians.
>>> mindless libertarian sloganeering.  "govt is bad. biz is
>>> good. rah rah rah."
>>>
>> Well actually, before Government, there was either an oligarchy or a
>> Dictatorship, often assisted or at war with  the Holy Mother Church
>> (another Oligarchy) yet business still carried on and provided for the
>> benefit of the community.
>>
> Yeah, in Hungary ... right up until 1918. Most of the rest of the world had abandoned that crap two centuries beforehand, but your homeland was Hapsburg Central wasn't it? Probably accounts for a lot of your dysfunctional viewpoints ... Divine Right, Born to Rule, Lords of the Manor ... you're simply not culturally equipped to deal with democracy.
>
>> What Government did achieve was in the area of Health Care Reform with
>> free hospitals being made available to all, regardless of financial
>> means.
>>
>> But it would seem that has been regulated out of existence by your
>> government.
> Really, ... how? (Another hugely unsupported statement there, Thomas Peter.)
>
> Public hospitals still work for me ... even though I do have private health insurance.
>
> You perhaps want a scheme like the American one (which costs three times more per procedure, is almost fully private and the major cause of bankruptcy action in the States, and which you only have a slim hope of accessing if you're poor or in other financial straights, and in which your major enemy is the private health fund you elect to insure with. Hell, 'prescription tourists' are a major part of the Canadian and Mexican tourist industries ... you ought to walk through downtown Guadelajara nowadays, every second shop is a pharmacy selling to Americans.)
>
>> Another positive aspect of Government in the last century was Education
>> reform where all children were given a free education.
>> In this regard, universities now charge fees for their educational
>> services with the majority of the benefits going to the only people that
>> can afford to attend, foreign students.
> Right ... and that change (from scholarships in the 60's, to free public education in the 70's to HECS and a debt on every student in the 90's) was made by whom? Give you a hint, Thomas Peter ... it wasn't the current government.
>
> Foreign students ... no big issue, unless you're prejudiced. Fees for locals, big issue ... what do we pay our tax dollars for nowadays? Corporate welfare. Middle class welfare. Child support.
>
> All the old subsidised things governments used to provide ... public transport, power, water, roads, hospitals, university education etc. have been sold off or privatised. So, what exactly does a single bloke like me get from the government? Nothing. Nada. Zip. What do our young get? Nothing. Nada. Zip.
>
> And given how industrial relations has gone over the last few years ... everybody is either a sub-contractor, or agent, with little or nothing in the way of stability or financial security. And given that everything is now user-pays, and you still have to pay the tax the government levies on you, how can the great mass of our young afford to buy goods, services, real estate and stocks,  ... the turnover of which keeps our real economy going?
>
>> Another excellent evidentiary element of Government Regulation,
>> insisting that Universities charge for education. Well done the
>> Government.
>>
> I agree ... it's getting so you get less and less for your tax dollar nowadays.
>
> It's all blown on mining companies, car companies, and other major corporates ... most of whom, thanks to the magic of transfer pricing, re-patriating profits to tax havens, and disbursing to their majority foreign shareholders don't even make the pretence of paying taxes or sharing profits inside Australia. Every lobbyist for every industry seeks a sweetheart deal from the government(s) of Australia, to extract, make, distribute or otherwise transact a profitable arrangement at government expense.
>
> Still, this is what passes for 'private industry' nowadays.
>
> In my mind, the only true capitalists left are small businessmen ... and even they are in the hands of associations and the like manipulated by bigger business by the threat of turing off the 'trickle down' effects that they rely on to stay in business.
>
>>> the percentage of business-people who are motivated only by
>>> self-interest is far higher than the percentage of
>>> politicians so motivated. at all levels of business - but far
>>> more so at the big end of town.
>>
>> No, I'm afraid you are wrong.
>> My father taught me at a very young age that the only difference between
>> a rich man and a poor man was the amount of zeroes on the transaction
>> amounts.
>>
> And there lies the fundamentals of your ethical framework. Good to know.
>
>> The motivations of all entrepreneurial folk from the lowliest 711 store
>> owner to Solomon Lew are pretty much... "God please send me more
>> shoppers and help me increase my profits."
>>
> "and let me pay as little as I can for stock, and labour, and to other suppliers and services, and let me offer as little service as I possibly can to my customers."
>
> Worked for Harvey Norman .... No reason it shouldn't work for you.
>
> Problem with that state of play is that it leaves Joe Public with no alternative but to go into debt to partake of the good life that is advertised ... which results in boom and bust like you wouldn't believe. In the US for example the average wage has not increased since 1980 (adjusted for inflation) ... so consumerism and capitalism itself is very unstable in such an environment.
>
>> For the small stall holder it would end with a "so I can afford to pay
>> me rent" and for Coles it would be, "so that we can afford to offer a
>> bigger dividend to shareholders this year so that the share price goes
>> up a bit higher."
>>
>>>> Australians need to be aware that a mining company is no different
>>>> from any kind of organisation. If you pull out the
>>> financial rug from
>>>> underneath it, it will lay off staff, maybe not today, or even
>>>> tomorrow, but there will be a long term negative knock-on effect.
>>>> Anyone that doesn't get this needs to stop pretending to play at
>>>> politics.
>>> "too big to fail".  now where have i heard that before?
>> Err, the same place that says that 97% of all (real GDP) generating
>> employment in Australia is provided by private enterprise.
> BEEEEEP. Wrong.
>
> About 75% is provided directly by private enterprise, and 25% by government ... and most of the infrastructure things supporting the private enterprise are provided by government. The fact that much of that infrastructure has been on-sold to companies (many of which are now falling on hard times ... Toll Holdings, the suburban railway networks, etc etc) or privatised by sale to your (much despised) general public (Telstra, Qantas, CSL etc) doesn't alter the fact that the government created them ... and probably disposed of same for much less than they were worth.
>
>>>> Whilst I'm a strong believer in social services, I'm also a
>>> believer
>>>> in a fair, equitably and balanced approach to funding a
>>> welfare state.
>>>> Leaning too far to the left ensures that our young fairer sex will
>>>> find reasons to emulate their UK peers where the average
>>> house mother
>>>> has five kids by the time she's thirty to ensure her
>>> financial future.
>>>
>>> i stopped reading here.  i couldn't stomach any more of your
>>> net-kookery.
>>>
>>> craig
>>>
>> Sorry to offend with my net-kookery and as always, you are welcome to
>> your opinon. However my statements were formed based on voluminous
>> material submitted by literally hundreds of UK researchers into the UK
>> becoming a Social Welfare state and the permanent damage that has done
>> to the economy, the social interaction between the people and the
>> resulting lack of interest in finding jobs by people that are
>> thirty-five years old and have never had a job or are even desirous of
>> finding one.
>>
> Again with the quoting ... and very little in the way of understanding. Cherry picking without knowing the substance of what you are picking ...
>
> Exactly what are you academically qualified at, Thomas Peter?
>
> As I've said before ... you're no good at being a Contrarian. Hitchens at least had wit on his side ... but you ... well ... (Sigh)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>