Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 10:04am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 9:58am: Can you explain WHY your beloved clean, efficient and harmless Global Fossil Fuel industry requires 1.4 trillion dollars EVERY YEAR from the tax payer? Hey I know we're getting ripped of with petrol prices and utilities, but how is the tax payer giving $1.4 trillion to the fossil fuel industry....??????

I don't know where Chimp is getting his figures from, but anyway.

Tax breaks for diesel to mining and farming, but no tax breaks for equivalent biofuel.  That's unfair subsidy. A present from you and me to big mining. That's what happens to our taxes.

http://www.acfonline.org.au/be-informed/climate-change/fossil-fuel-subsidies


Quote:

This equates to $182 per taxpayer  every year, and worth a staggering $9.4 billion over the next four years to some of the most profitable companies operating in this country. This is a much greater cost than the carbon price.

Do you think it's a good idea that your taxes go towards that?

Hey our treasonous governments should be held accountable for such things.

I'm totally against tax payer hand outs to big corporations.

Its the system we have today, I guess its Milton Friedman's system which wants all power to be handed over to the corporations.

If I was PM I would boot out the Rio Tintos, Woodside etc etc.

I (the government) would take over mining and oil & gas here in oz, also take back those cash cows we sold to the moguls.

That is our utilities, commonwealth bank, telecommunications, public transport etc etc.

How many billions of dollars could our government make if it owned all these which are naturally Australia's resources and services.

Imagine all that cash flow going to our governments and not a few elite moguls that cash in on our resources.

I would hang all governments from Bob Hawke onwards they sold us out big time.

We could have been one of the luckiest countries on Earth.

At the moment we are just a cash cow for a hand full of elite moguls,.

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 10:27am:

If I was PM I would boot out the Rio Tintos, Woodside etc etc. I (the government) would take over mining and oil & gas here in oz, also take back those cash cows we sold to the moguls. That is our utilities, commonwealth bank, telecommunications, public transport etc etc. How many billions of dollars could our government make if it owned all these which are naturally Australia's resources and services.

How many billions could it lose? You want to invest money that Australia doesn't have on mining?

You'd send the country broke. Keating's banana republic would become a reality. Truth be told, you'd probably be assassinated too.

muso wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 10:16am:

Ajax wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 10:04am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 9:58am: Can you explain WHY your beloved clean, efficient and harmless Global Fossil Fuel industry requires 1.4 trillion dollars EVERY YEAR from the tax payer? Hey I know we're getting ripped of with petrol prices and utilities, but how is the tax payer giving $1.4 trillion to the fossil fuel industry....?????? I don't know where Chimp is getting his figures from, but anyway. Tax breaks for diesel to mining and farming, but no tax breaks for equivalent biofuel.  That's unfair subsidy. A present from you and me to big mining. That's what happens to our taxes. http://www.acfonline.org.au/be-informed/climate-change/fossil-fuel-subsidies Quote: This equates to $182 per taxpayer  every year, and worth a staggering $9.4 billion over the next four years to some of the most profitable companies operating in this country. This is a much greater cost than the carbon price. Do you think it's a good idea that your taxes go towards that?

Could have come from here -
http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/DirtyThreeFossilFuelSubsidies.jpg

The IMF overall estimate is $1.4 trillion in global indirect fossil fuel subsidies per year.  The bulk of direct + indirect subisides goes to petroleum products ($879 billion per year, or 46%), followed by coal ($539 billion, 28%), natural gas ($299 billion, 16%), and electricity ($179 billion, 9%).

http://skepticalscience.com/IMF-fossil-fuel-subsidies-estimate.html
==========================================
The final figure going to direct & indirect subsidies, plus the direct & indirect Cost/benefit equation is probably impossible to accurately quantify, BUT IT WOULD MOST DEFINITELY BE HUGE!!!

muso wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

Ajax wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 10:27am: If I was PM I would boot out the Rio Tintos, Woodside etc etc. I (the government) would take over mining and oil & gas here in oz, also take back those cash cows we sold to the moguls. That is our utilities, commonwealth bank, telecommunications, public transport etc etc. How many billions of dollars could our government make if it owned all these which are naturally Australia's resources and services. How many billions could it lose? You want to invest money that Australia doesn't have on mining? You'd send the country broke. Keating's banana republic would become a reality. Truth be told, you'd probably be assassinated too.

Do you know that our commonwealth bank was making $5 billion dollar profit per annum when it got sold.

Or

That our telecommunications was making $7 billion dollars per annum when it was sold....???

Why sell them......???

What about our utilities.................?????

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

Do you know that our commonwealth bank was making $5 billion dollar profit per annum when it got sold. Or That our telecommunications was making $7 billion dollars per annum when it was sold....??? Why sell them......??? What about our utilities.................?????

On an after tax basis, which is THE criteria, I would suggest you are a little heavy on your Profit figures, BUT I understand where you're coming from.

Whilst there may be some valid instances, to sell off Public property, it is also quite likely that in the main the Pollies, from both major party's, have simply taken the easier, more short term fix, because it suits their Political aims/timetable & perhaps because it suits their own interests & those of their "supporters/backers".

It is also "interesting", to view the types of businesses that have been predominantly sold off.

A brief Federal list of privatisations in Australia over the past 20 years can be viewed here -
http://www.markmaldridge.com/GOVERNMENT-SELLING-OUR-FUTURE.html

With the Energy sector, Banks, insurer's & infrastructure being prominent and with various governments often NOT realizing full value, it does beg the questions of why sell & who made what?

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

muso wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 10:52am: Ajax wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 10:27am: If I was PM I would boot out the Rio Tintos, Woodside etc etc. I (the government) would take over mining and oil & gas here in oz, also take back those cash cows we sold to the moguls. That is our utilities, commonwealth bank, telecommunications, public transport etc etc. How many billions of dollars could our government make if it owned all these which are naturally Australia's resources and services. How many billions could it lose? You want to invest money that Australia doesn't have on mining? You'd send the country broke. Keating's banana republic would become a reality. Truth be told, you'd probably be assassinated too. Do you know that our commonwealth bank was making $5 billion dollar profit per annum when it got sold. Or That our telecommunications was making $7 billion dollars per annum when it was sold....??? Why sell them......??? What about our utilities.................?????

I would say they sold them as a short term fix.
However the real reason to tell these things is because the government is not a business, it never will be and can never handle trying to imitate one. Imo.

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

I would say they sold them as a short term fix. However the real reason to tell these things is because the government is not a business, it never will be and can never handle trying to imitate one. Imo.

I don't have anything to add to that and Perceptions' post, except that for the government to invest in mining would be suicidal.

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

I would say they sold them as a short term fix. However the real reason to tell these things is because the government is not a business, it never will be and can never handle trying to imitate one. Imo.

If they cannot run a business how on Earth can they run a country......?????

We were promised competition and lower rates to get us on side with their mentality.

But just think about....for a minute......?????

Where before hand we had one department running electricity, gas etc.

Now we have a whole lot of smaller energy suppliers...!!!!!

Each with their own CEO and upper management etc etc.

How can this be cheaper...................??????

Compared to one department and one CEO.....etc etc.

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 10:56am:

The IMF overall estimate is $1.4 trillion in global indirect fossil fuel subsidies per year.  The bulk of direct + indirect subisides goes to petroleum products ($879 billion per year, or 46%), followed by coal ($539 billion, 28%), natural gas ($299 billion, 16%), and electricity ($179 billion, 9%).

Yes, I thought it would have to be global.

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

On an after tax basis, which is THE criteria, I would suggest you are a little heavy on your Profit figures, BUT I understand where you're coming from. Whilst there may be some valid instances, to sell off Public property, it is also quite likely that in the main the Pollies, from both major party's, have simply taken the easier, more short term fix, because it suits their Political aims/timetable & perhaps because it suits their own interests & those of their "supporters/backers". It is also "interesting", to view the types of businesses that have been predominantly sold off. A brief Federal list of privatisations in Australia over the past 20 years can be viewed here http://www.markmaldridge.com/GOVERNMENT-SELLING-OUR-FUTURE.html With the Energy sector, Banks, insurer's & infrastructure being prominent and with various governments often NOT realizing full value, it does beg the questions of why sell & who made what?

Not exaggerating the profit margins....at the time that's what they where....!!!

These treasonous politicians should be jailed..........!!!

http://www.markmaldridge.com/GOVERNMENT-SELLING-OUR-FUTURE.html

Pathetic really pathetic..........????

When that bugger knuckle Keating floated our dollar this opened the doors for mutli nationals to waltz in and buy things up for half price.........!!!!!!!!!

They should all be in jail.....................!!!!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 1:33pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 1:18pm: I would say they sold them as a short term fix. However the real reason to tell these things is because the government is not a business, it never will be and can never handle trying to imitate one. Imo. If they cannot run a business how on Earth can they run a country......????? We were promised competition and lower rates to get us on side with their mentality. But just think about....for a minute......????? Where before hand we had one department running electricity, gas etc. Now we have a whole lot of smaller energy suppliers...!!!!! Each with their own CEO and upper management etc etc. How can this be cheaper...................?????? Compared to one department and one CEO.....etc etc.

Large states run from a central point are always inefficient. The state institutions are hindered by the government in waiting for funding and changes that take so long to be introduced, sometimes coming out when they are already outdated.

As far as multiple energy companies go, in a free society competition is necessary for innovation and price reduction. Though there are reasons why costs go up and I'm willing to bet 100% of the reasons are due to the actions of the governments around the world whether they be due to; war, regulation, intervention or any other state action.

Monopolies are never good for consumers, especially evident with Telstra, not even bothering to upgrade their services or offer a competitive price. Though now you have people trying to compete however they still own most of the lines. It seems especially difficult for a small business to form and be competitive in that environment.

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:17pm:

Large states run from a central point are always inefficient.

Says who Milton Freidmann....????


Quote:

The state institutions are hindered by the government in waiting for funding and changes that take so long to be introduced, sometimes coming out when they are already outdated.

I've lived under both government run and privately owned, my 2 cents I prefer government owned, at the very least the money stays in our country, rather than going to a hand full of elite moguls.


Quote:

As far as multiple energy companies go, in a free society competition is necessary for innovation and price reduction.

Yes I agree, so by selling our commonwealth bank which would have passed RBA interest cuts verbatim, forcing the other leaches to comply.

Now we have banks saying they cant afford to pass on the whole interest cut, where is the competition.

Ditto with all other government run departments.

The bench marks have been privatised...!!

Now we're at the mercy of corporations....!!!


Quote:

Though there are reasons why costs go up and I'm willing to bet 100% of the reasons are due to the actions of the governments around the world whether they be due to; war, regulation, intervention or any other state action.

Like I said now we have many energy providers each with their own CEO and upper management, how can this be cheaper....????


Quote:

Monopolies are never good for consumers,

And that is exactly what the ideologies of Milton Freidmann have given us today, where corporations have all the power.

Look at petrol prices, one day they go up 10 or 15 cents, within a few days they drop down again.....?????

The ideologies of Milton Freidmann are just as bad as the ideologies of Carl Marx, only we're conditioned to think otherwise.

If you think in terms of democracy todays situation is a bunch of bad apples, not one of them good.


Quote:

especially evident with Telstra, not even bothering to upgrade their services or offer a competitive price.

Fair enough but their are bigger fish to fry, for example the effects of the carbon tax on our standard of living.

Its only going to get worse.........?????


Quote:

Though now you have people trying to compete however they still own most of the lines. It seems especially difficult for a small business to form and be competitive in that environment.

Do you know what coles and wolliies are doing to our farmers......????

What about bankers..???... did you watch four corners last night......????

Where is the democracy in Australia...???

The constitution treats all citizens the same....????

I think Australia is no longer a democracy maybe an oligarchy full of corporatism....!!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 1:08pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 8:17pm: Large states run from a central point are always inefficient. Says who Milton Freidmann....???? Quote: The state institutions are hindered by the government in waiting for funding and changes that take so long to be introduced, sometimes coming out when they are already outdated. I've lived under both government run and privately owned, my 2 cents I prefer government owned, at the very least the money stays in our country, rather than going to a hand full of elite moguls. [quote]As far as multiple energy companies go, in a free society competition is necessary for innovation and price reduction.

Yes I agree, so by selling our commonwealth bank which would have passed RBA interest cuts verbatim, forcing the other leaches to comply.

Now we have banks saying they cant afford to pass on the whole interest cut, where is the competition.

Ditto with all other government run departments.

The bench marks have been privatised...!!

Now we're at the mercy of corporations....!!!


Quote:

Though there are reasons why costs go up and I'm willing to bet 100% of the reasons are due to the actions of the governments around the world whether they be due to; war, regulation, intervention or any other state action.

Like I said now we have many energy providers each with their own CEO and upper management, how can this be cheaper....????


Quote:

Monopolies are never good for consumers,

And that is exactly what the ideologies of Milton Freidmann have given us today, where corporations have all the power.

Look at petrol prices, one day they go up 10 or 15 cents, within a few days they drop down again.....?????

The ideologies of Milton Freidmann are just as bad as the ideologies of Carl Marx, only we're conditioned to think otherwise.

If you think in terms of democracy todays situation is a bunch of bad apples, not one of them good.


Quote:

especially evident with Telstra, not even bothering to upgrade their services or offer a competitive price.

Fair enough but their are bigger fish to fry, for example the effects of the carbon tax on our standard of living.

Its only going to get worse.........?????


Quote:

Though now you have people trying to compete however they still own most of the lines. It seems especially difficult for a small business to form and be competitive in that environment.

Do you know what coles and wolliies are doing to our farmers......????

What about bankers..???... did you watch four corners last night......????

Where is the democracy in Australia...???

The constitution treats all citizens the same....????

I think Australia is no longer a democracy maybe an oligarchy full of corporatism....!!!![/quote]
AFAIK Milton didn't advocate power to corporations. This I think is a misconception.
He advocated a free market, deregulation and almost nonexistent government intervention.

The state gives corporations their power and the state keeps small business from competing. Limited liability allows them to be reckless without repercussion and there are so many barriers stopping people from undercutting corporations. There is a reason all the big business lobbyists in the US/Aus/Europe advocate a larger nanny state.

Have you by any chance heard of Aussie farmers direct? A pretty great idea of home delivered groceries direct from farmers. I'm sure they're having issues with audits, licensing and many other government mandated barriers.

I agree though corporations are big issues for farmers and small business, but believe it or not the state is what gives them this power. In what way did Friedman advocate corporations? Imo he was more for small business, or business in general.

Also yes:
- Carbon tax is a big issue I agree
- The bankers are the ones being bailed out, when they are the cause of our GFC issues I agree it's BS
- It is a corporate Oligarchy of lobbyists and that's the issue with the state. People have given a group of humans the monopoly of force and violent coercion on a populace, in the hopes of "the right people" getting in power and being incorruptible. Obviously by the way the western world has gone this is a failed experiment.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 1:41pm:

AFAIK Milton didn't advocate power to corporations. This I think is a misconception. He advocated a free market, deregulation and almost nonexistent government intervention.

Isn't that what we have today.................??????


Quote:

The state gives corporations their power and the state keeps small business from competing.

The problem is the state has given corporations so much power they can no longer control them...?????


Quote:

Limited liability allows them to be reckless without repercussion and there are so many barriers stopping people from undercutting corporations.

Reckless is an underestimate...!!!

When have people EVER undercut corporations.....?????


Quote:

There is a reason all the big business lobbyists in the US/Aus/Europe advocate a larger nanny state.

Which parts of the nanny state are you refering to...??

Health...education......infrastructure....housing.....????


Quote:

Have you by any chance heard of Aussie farmers direct? A pretty great idea of home delivered groceries direct from farmers. I'm sure they're having issues with audits, licensing and many other government mandated barriers

.

Haven't heard of that one...??

Is it available in big cities....???


Quote:

I agree though corporations are big issues for farmers and small business, but believe it or not the state is what gives them this power.

like I said they have been given so much power the state can no longer control them.


Quote:

In what way did Friedman advocate corporations? Imo he was more for small business, or business in general.

You should do your homework.....????

Start here its ugly but its the truth......????

The Shock Doctrine
http://youtu.be/7iW1SHPgUAQ


Quote:

Also yes: - Carbon tax is a big issue I agree

Its only to get bigger, when the ETS starts heading up and up past the $30/tonne mark.

Greenies are calling for something like $80/tonne.

That means times all your energy bills by 2.5.


Quote:

- The bankers are the ones being bailed out, when they are the cause of our GFC issues I agree it's BS

Why are they being bailed out they are a business that went broke, have a look at what Iceland did

Matt Damon Inside job
http://archive.org/details/cpb20120505a


Quote:

- It is a corporate Oligarchy of lobbyists and that's the issue with the state. People have given a group of humans the monopoly of force and violent coercion on a populace, in the hopes of "the right people" getting in power and being incorruptible. Obviously by the way the western world has gone this is a failed experiment.

Nothing is ever by chance when it comes to human nature.

Quote:

However the real reason to sell these things is because the government is not a business, it never will be and can never handle trying to imitate one. Imo.

Government is responsible for national infrastructure. People who think like you would have the armed forces run as a business. It's in the national interest that telecommunications, education, roads, power and water supplies, medicare, timber and mining are all owned by the people and run with optimum efficiency.

There's really no need for taxes as such, just levies for medicare etc and a bit of cross pollenating, money from mining can go to education for instance.

Business is supposed to make as much profit for its owners as possible. That's not an appropriate model for all enterprises, a shoddy telecom loses money for every other business; the same applies to all infrastructural institutions.

A government that does nothing but bicker amongst its factions and involve the country in fights overseas isn't a government; it's a Royal family.

Ajax is on the money.

Quote:

Muso - You'd send the country broke. Keating's banana republic would become a reality. Truth be told, you'd probably be assassinated too.

Nobody ever got assasinated for nationalising an industry as far as i know. In anycase that's a game two for two or more players. How could anybody go broke selling ores to China? Or running a bank or...

The bottom line is you'd employ the same management team and if the CEO doesn't perform you'd hire another. Decisions a cabinet could make just as well as gina rheinhardt.

Ajax wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 2:08pm:

Isn't that what we have today.................??????

Today we have governments bailing out banks and failed business', regulating everything and not to mention the mass amounts of licensing and auditing we have, even more so than the US.


Quote:

The problem is the state has given corporations so much power they can no longer control them...?????

It's at the point I think, where the corporations and especially the bankers control the government, they put these people in power and they lobby for what serves them. You will never be able to elect the right people as corporations like you say can no longer be controlled. If there is a position of power capable of being corrupted and manipulated it will be.



Quote:

Which parts of the nanny state are you refering to...?? Health...education......infrastructure....housing.....????

.
My view is of <--less state or more state -->, whenever you get more state you get less economic and personal freedom.


Quote:

Haven't heard of that one...?? Is it available in big cities....???

They said they're available in quite a few places except Tasmania?
I'm in the Gold Coast and I know people who use them in Sydney and Brisbane.

Quote:

You should do your homework.....???? Start here its ugly but its the truth......????

I'm currently reading his books and I've watched all of his speeches, so I'll take a look at that video cheers.


Quote:

Why are they being bailed out they are a business that went broke, have a look at what Iceland did

I love what Iceland did, no business imo should be bailed out. Business that fail must be removed and make way for better run more efficient business'. It also comes down to the broken window fallacy, the workers, capital and investments could be used for something else which might be more important than say a failing car industry.

Quote:

Government is responsible for national infrastructure. People who think like you would have the armed forces run as a business. It's in the national interest that telecommunications, education, roads, power and water supplies, medicare, timber and mining are all owned by the people and run with optimum efficiency.

On the road to Anarchy you have small government/Minarchism. The debate over Minarchy/Anarchy in our view is one for the next generation. Our focus is on centralized state vs no centralized state or less centralized state.

Minarchists still believe having state run; police, courts and defense. The whole idea of having no state is that the centralized state uses violent coercion to enforce it's views on how you should live and spend your money on how it thinks it could be spent. What if instead of paying those taxes a community can voluntarily pool funds for something they need? There is no prerequisite that you need a central monopoly of power to steal in order to get certain things done in certain areas.

There is nothing stopping a community, collection of communities or business interest from doing any of the above. (telecommunications, education, roads, power and water supplies, medicare,)

Well it looks as if government in the US is pretty small at the moment.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 3:39pm:

Quote: Government is responsible for national infrastructure. People who think like you would have the armed forces run as a business. It's in the national interest that telecommunications, education, roads, power and water supplies, medicare, timber and mining are all owned by the people and run with optimum efficiency. On the road to Anarchy you have small government/Minarchism. The debate over Minarchy/Anarchy in our view is one for the next generation. Our focus is on centralized state vs no centralized state or less centralized state. Minarchists still believe having state run; police, courts and defense. The whole idea of having no state is that the centralized state uses violent coercion to enforce it's views on how you should live and spend your money on how it thinks it could be spent. What if instead of paying those taxes a community can voluntarily pool funds for something they need? There is no prerequisite that you need a central monopoly of power to steal in order to get certain things done in certain areas. There is nothing stopping a community, collection of communities or business interest from doing any of the above. (telecommunications, education, roads, power and water supplies, medicare,)

If anybody wants to discuss Anarchism there's a thread here.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1364174580

Personally I think Anarchism has to start as a revolt against the gangsters who run all aspects of our lives right now. In particular the political gangs. It has to start at a community level and has to 'take' control of local government.

Ajax wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 2:08pm:

[quote author=Vuk11 link=1380242167/71#71 date=1380598900] Greenies are calling for something like $80/tonne. That means times all your energy bills by 2.5.

Spreading deception again I see Mr Ajax.

The Carbon tax applies at the point of power generation, not at the points of distribution and retail of power.

An $80/tonne Carbon price would increase the cost of power at the power plant from about its current level of 4.5 cents per kWhr to about 10 cents per kWhr.

In other words the average household or business would see an increase of about 6 cents per kWhr.

Incidentally, Norway has a carbon price of about $140 per tonne of carbon.  They also have an 80% tax on all oil extracted off shore - money which is placed in a National Fund for various critical projects etc. There is almost 600 billion in that fund Mr Ajax. Seems like you want lots of tax cake but don't want anybody to pay any tax.

So Mr Ajax, you are exposed once again for what you are - a AGW denialist web site spinster parrot

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:17pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 1:33pm: Vuk11 wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 1:18pm: I would say they sold them as a short term fix. However the real reason to tell these things is because the government is not a business, it never will be and can never handle trying to imitate one. Imo. If they cannot run a business how on Earth can they run a country......????? We were promised competition and lower rates to get us on side with their mentality. But just think about....for a minute......????? Where before hand we had one department running electricity, gas etc. Now we have a whole lot of smaller energy suppliers...!!!!! Each with their own CEO and upper management etc etc. How can this be cheaper...................?????? Compared to one department and one CEO.....etc etc. Large states run from a central point are always inefficient. The state institutions are hindered by the government in waiting for funding and changes that take so long to be introduced, sometimes coming out when they are already outdated. As far as multiple energy companies go, in a free society competition is necessary for innovation and price reduction. Though there are reasons why costs go up and I'm willing to bet 100% of the reasons are due to the actions of the governments around the world whether they be due to; war, regulation, intervention or any other state action. Monopolies are never good for consumers, especially evident with Telstra, not even bothering to upgrade their services or offer a competitive price. Though now you have people trying to compete however they still own most of the lines. It seems especially difficult for a small business to form and be competitive in that environment.

What utter sheeplike cr&p. Straight out of the Milton Freedman propaganda book.  This kind of propaganda only really started in the 90s when governments all over the world were pressured by the business elite to sell off the peoples assets  to them (the business elite) for a pittance. It was nothing short of theft and to justify it they mounted a huge propaganda campaign based on the lie that governments can't run businesses.  This is despite the fact that the businesses they wanted to get their hands on were incredibly profitable. Qantas (not a monopoly), Commonwealth bank (not a monopoly), Telstra, Australia post (not a monopoly when it was sold), Belconnan mall in Canberra sold by Hawks to his mate Lowy of Westfields (incredibly profitable _ that's why they wanted them so badly.  The other propaganda lie they pedaled was that by selling to private enterprise the former government businesses would deliver cheaper and more efficient services. If you think Telstra, delivers cheaper phone services you need your head read. Same with the commonwealth bank, the bank of NSW, the GIO (remember that one "Govt Insurance Office") More efficient service? Please!!!!! Also don't forget that sometimes governments run business because they deliver a service that private enterprise won't venture into. Eg Government railways. And only governments will say, we will deliver this service at a loss because its so important for everyone to  have access to that service, cheaply and to a high standard. Government hospitals and government schools have been running for centuries.

And lastly, please do some research on the net on the Snowy Mountains scheme. Totally government initiated, government funded, and government run. Public servants right down to the CEO. Not only was this massive undertaking delivered on time and under budget it was and still is highly profitable and for its day the government delivered one of the great wonders of the world.  And how often were governments doing this successfully and under budget. The harbour bridge, the opera house. In America under the New Deal. The Hoover Dam. What's the deal on NASA, anyone know. They seem to contract a lot of stuff out but the program itself is run by government I believe. A government run enterprise put the first man on the moon. So you know what you can do with you bullsh!t propaganda.

So I tell you what Mr Vuk sonny, before you resume spreading you baaarrrr, baaaaarrrr, baaaarrrr propaganda do a bit of research and your own thinking instead of repeating this tripe.

Ajax I think your justified distaste for politicians and our political system has clouded your judgment about global warming. Sure we've been lied to many times but scientists first started warning us about this in the 60s (when there was still a bit of innocence left in our politicians and political system) and the scientific community has only gradually come to relative consensus on the issue after many decades. Sure the could be wrong but frankly anyone who would be convinced by your unqualified nonsensical rants over the word of climate scientists would have to be a complete fool.  It would be like accepting the view of a first aid assistant over a surgeon on whether to perform brain surgery. And for you to think that you can second guess the climate scientists shows a decided lack of basic judgment and total lack of any adult sense of responsibility.  In view of what's at stake even if I, the first aid assistant, had misgivings about the surgeons advice I would never try and convince the patient to ignore it because I'm a 1000 times more likely to be wrong then he is. Grow up. Have a rethink about this subject because your putting a lot of lives in jeopardy on a call your not qualified to make.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 7:31am:

Sure the could be wrong but frankly anyone who would be convinced by your unqualified nonsensical rants over the word of climate scientists would have to be a complete fool.  It would be like accepting the view of a first aid assistant over a surgeon on whether to perform brain surgery. And for you to think that you can second guess the climate scientists shows a decided lack of basic judgment and total lack of any adult sense of responsibility.  In view of what's at stake even if I, the first aid assistant, had misgivings about the surgeons advice I would never try and convince the patient to ignore it because I'm a 1000 times more likely to be wrong then he is. Grow up. Have a rethink about this subject because your putting a lot of lives in jeopardy on a call your not qualified to make.

Well to use the terminology, you might also say that it's very likely that the surgeon could give better advice than the first aid assistant, with a confidence level of >90%.

Then the denialists would come up with all kinds of studies showing how many patients die on the operating table... in Equatorial Guniea of course.  We have to make the cherry picking most effective. Then it would be:

"Ooh err, so only 90% certain? Well I think I'll choose that First Aid assistant to perform my brain surgery, "

---

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 9:05pm:

What utter sheeplike cr&p. Straight out of the Milton Freedman propaganda book.

Quote:

So I tell you what Mr Vuk sonny, before you resume spreading you baaarrrr, baaaaarrrr, baaaarrrr propaganda do a bit of research and your own thinking instead of repeating this tripe.

I love the assumptions.
You really have it out for some people don't you?
Never really engaging in logical discourse besides the example you post above. Thank you for the examples of government run institutions. I will look forward to your input about why the state is necessary and moral in another thread, it will be interesting.

In this day and age, nobody in their right mind is talking about pegging the dollar again and going back to pre 1983 - the pre-float era.  I'm amazed that anybody still thinks in these terms.

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 10:57am: muso wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 10:52am: Ajax wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 10:27am: If I was PM I would boot out the Rio Tintos, Woodside etc etc. I (the government) would take over mining and oil & gas here in oz, also take back those cash cows we sold to the moguls. That is our utilities, commonwealth bank, telecommunications, public transport etc etc. How many billions of dollars could our government make if it owned all these which are naturally Australia's resources and services. How many billions could it lose? You want to invest money that Australia doesn't have on mining? You'd send the country broke. Keating's banana republic would become a reality. Truth be told, you'd probably be assassinated too. Do you know that our commonwealth bank was making $5 billion dollar profit per annum when it got sold. Or That our telecommunications was making $7 billion dollars per annum when it was sold....??? Why sell them......??? What about our utilities.................????? I would say they sold them as a short term fix. However the real reason to tell these things is because the government is not a business, it never will be and can never handle trying to imitate one. Imo.

:D :D :D :D :D Government is much more important than business!  :D :D :D :D

Grey wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 6:33pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 1st, 2013 at 3:39pm: Quote: Government is responsible for national infrastructure. People who think like you would have the armed forces run as a business. It's in the national interest that telecommunications, education, roads, power and water supplies, medicare, timber and mining are all owned by the people and run with optimum efficiency. On the road to Anarchy you have small government/Minarchism. The debate over Minarchy/Anarchy in our view is one for the next generation. Our focus is on centralized state vs no centralized state or less centralized state. Minarchists still believe having state run; police, courts and defense. The whole idea of having no state is that the centralized state uses violent coercion to enforce it's views on how you should live and spend your money on how it thinks it could be spent. What if instead of paying those taxes a community can voluntarily pool funds for something they need? There is no prerequisite that you need a central monopoly of power to steal in order to get certain things done in certain areas. There is nothing stopping a community, collection of communities or business interest from doing any of the above. (telecommunications, education, roads, power and water supplies, medicare,) If anybody wants to discuss Anarchism there's a thread here. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1364174580 Personally I think Anarchism has to start as a revolt against the gangsters who run all aspects of our lives right now. In particular the political gangs. It has to start at a community level and has to 'take' control of local government.

Anarchy starts with you!

Indeed, anarchy is you: to try and co-opt others would be trying to co-opt others!

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 3:25pm:

In this day and age, nobody in their right mind is talking about pegging the dollar again and going back to pre 1983 - the pre-float era.  I'm amazed that anybody still thinks in these terms.

Not sure I follow. Has anyone actually proposed this on this thread?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 9:07pm:

muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:25pm: In this day and age, nobody in their right mind is talking about pegging the dollar again and going back to pre 1983 - the pre-float era.  I'm amazed that anybody still thinks in these terms. Not sure I follow. Has anyone actually proposed this on this thread?

Ajax was going on about the travesty of floating the dollar. It might have been on another thread.

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 8:17pm:

... Monopolies are never good for consumers, ...

So there should always be more than one of everything?

How many power lines are you prepared to pay to have connected to your house? How many water pipes? How many sewer pipes? How many telecommunications cables?

Clearly, some things are natural monopolies. Should those things be owned by the public or by private entities?

In the example of Telstra, the mind-boggling blunder lay in selling off the natural monopoly "last mile" - the only set of telecommunications wires entering most premises. For that, John Howard deserves to be hung, drawn and quartered.

None of which has much to do with the environment, except that private enterprise seems to have the shortest vision these days (it was not always thus), so governments need to control them firmly to minimise the damage.

Ajax wrote on Sep 30^th, 2013 at 1:33pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 30th, 2013 at 1:18pm: ... the government is not a business, it never will be and can never handle trying to imitate one. Imo. If they cannot run a business how on Earth can they run a country......????? ...

The two are not the same. In fact, as business vision grows more and more short-term, the differences grow.

Government is at its worst when its vision is as short-term as that of business.

Government is more important than business!!

What's going to kill you first?? Lack of government, not lack of business!

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:43am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 9:07pm: muso wrote on Oct 2nd, 2013 at 3:25pm: In this day and age, nobody in their right mind is talking about pegging the dollar again and going back to pre 1983 - the pre-float era.  I'm amazed that anybody still thinks in these terms. Not sure I follow. Has anyone actually proposed this on this thread? Ajax was going on about the travesty of floating the dollar. It might have been on another thread.

Don't you remember muso,

Keating floated our dollar and it was devalued to about 60 cents to the greenback maybe more not sure.

Then all these elite moguls come into Australia and bought up all her CASH COWS for about half price.

Are we smacking stupid or something to let that happen....??

If this was Europe there would have been anarchy in the streets.....????

Like when France (2002...??) lifted the age pensions from 60 to 62, there where riots on the streets, the people where not happy and demonstrated.

When Swan lifted the age pension from 65 to 67 not one person here in Australia said BOO.......!!!!!!!