polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 12:21pm:

I still identify as a socialist.

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 3:23pm:

Oh wow, so clever. I love how you think I'm ashamed of being a Socialist.

Karnal wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 11:18am:

Communism is not an alternative many want, but Soviet economics was never communism, merely state capitalism. We live in a dynasty of capitalism, with varying models. We cannot not live in capitalism - it's the way the human world has been structured since the Dutch East Indies Company sold the first company shares. But we need to make capitalism work for us, not Bill Gates, not Richard Branson and not Thommy Suharto.

Neither Gandalf nor Karnal would answer any more questions on this in the other threads.

Gandalf and Kiron - what sort of socialist are you? How far do you take the ideology?

Karnal, if not a socialist, what do you identify as? What do you mean by making capitalism work for us rather than rich people?

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/13/half-world-wealth-in-hands-population-inequality-report



Half of world's wealth now in hands of 1% of population –

report Inequality growing globally and in the UK, which has third most ‘ultra-high net worth individuals’, household wealth study finds.

Global inequality is growing, with half the world’s wealth now in the hands of just 1% of the population, according to a new report.

The middle classes have been squeezed at the expense of the very rich, according to research by Credit Suisse, which also finds that for the first time, there are more individuals in the middle classes in China – 109m – than the 92m in the US.

Tidjane Thiam, the chief executive of Credit Suisse, said: “Middle class wealth has grown at a slower pace than wealth at the top end. This has reversed the pre-crisis trend which saw the share of middle-class wealth remaining fairly stable over time.”

The report shows that a person needs only $3,210 (£2,100) to be in the wealthiest 50% of world citizens. About $68,800 secures a place in the top 10%, while the top 1% have more than $759,900. The report defines wealth as the value of assets including property and stock market investments, but excludes debt.

About 3.4 bn people – just over 70% of the global adult population – have wealth of less than $10,000. A further 1bn – a fifth of the world’s population – are in the $10,000-$100,000 range.

Each of the remaining 383m adults – 8% of the population – has wealth of more than $100,000. This number includes about 34m US dollar millionaires. About 123,800 individuals of these have more than $50m, and nearly 45,000 have more than $100m. The UK has the third-highest number of these “ultra-high net worth” individuals.

Thats how it should be Bobbie, just ask cods, Maria, Swaggie and any of the other RWNJ goofballs!

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 9:14am:

Thats how it should be Bobbie, just ask cods, Maria, Swaggie and any of the other RWNJ goofballs!

Yes - the rich think the world should be mostly for their benefit only.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 9:28am:

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 25th, 2015 at 9:14am: Thats how it should be Bobbie, just ask cods, Maria, Swaggie and any of the other RWNJ goofballs! Yes - the rich think the world should be mostly for their benefit only.

Stupidest statement on this thread so far.

Only somebody who hates success, and is obviously unsuccessful, would say that........tall poppy syndrome.....

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 8:58am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 12:21pm: I still identify as a socialist. Kiron22 wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 3:23pm: Oh wow, so clever. I love how you think I'm ashamed of being a Socialist. Karnal wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 11:18am: Communism is not an alternative many want, but Soviet economics was never communism, merely state capitalism. We live in a dynasty of capitalism, with varying models. We cannot not live in capitalism - it's the way the human world has been structured since the Dutch East Indies Company sold the first company shares. But we need to make capitalism work for us, not Bill Gates, not Richard Branson and not Thommy Suharto. Neither Gandalf nor Karnal would answer any more questions on this in the other threads. Gandalf and Kiron - what sort of socialist are you? How far do you take the ideology? Karnal, if not a socialist, what do you identify as? What do you mean by making capitalism work for us rather than rich people?

Asking me "how far do you take the socialism thing" wasn't particularly useful. What answer did you expect - a score out of 10?

I believe in redistributing wealth in society, and I believe government has a duty to take an active part in that. But I also believe in freedoms and democracy. And yes, there's probably a lot of clashes there. To be honest I haven't formulated a particularly coherent position on it. It would probably be more useful to clarify my position on an issue by issue basis The most helpful thing I can say broadly is that I find very little, if anything, I disagree with with the Greens.

Should everyone have an equal share of the wealth?

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 4:30pm:

Should everyone have an equal share of the wealth?

No

But all should have an equal share of political ears.

Bring on (CIR) Citizen Initiated Referendums in Australia

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 4:30pm:

Should everyone have an equal share of the wealth?

Half of world's wealth now in hands of 1% of population -

that's skewed too far in my opinion.

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 4:30pm:

Should everyone have an equal share of the wealth?

no. That would amount to seizing all private assets and property, make them state owned and distributing it to everyone equally. Thats communism.

Most socialists, including myself, understand the need for free enterprise and so forth - to allow for people to benefit and prosper through entrepreneurship. But there is also a social duty incumbent upon all individuals to contribute towards state-owned social services. And those who are the most well off should contribute the most (eg progressive tax system)

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 4:30pm:

Should everyone have an equal share of the wealth?

Of course - as long as everyone makes an equal contribution to generating it.

This is not just socialism, it’s the objective of all economic theories.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 9:28am:

.....the rich think the world should be mostly for their benefit only.

Whereas the lazy and profligate, believe that what the rich have, should at every turn, be transferred into their hands [for consuming].


Dictionary;
profligate = = recklessly extravagant or wasteful.       licentious; dissolute.




My own opinion is that;

Taking the property or wealth, that was created by another person, without their consent and full agreement, is still a crime.

It is called stealing.

And even when a government [of men] makes the claim that such [actual] theft is being done in a noble cause, such an act, is still stealing     [...i.e. confiscating other peoples property/wealth].


IMO, those who have lawfully created wealth [for themselves] and have the means [the excess] to do so, should be encouraged to help their fellow men,         ....but imo, it should remain the firm right [in law], of the person who created that wealth, to decide how and when he/she chooses to disperse that wealth [if they so choose to do].




.




Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
- Winston Churchill


"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher



If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it.
- Ronald Reagan



'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.'
- Ronald Reagan



'The taxpayer:
That's someone who works
For the federal government
But doesn't have to take the
Civil service examination.'
- Ronald Reagan



'Government is like a baby:
An alimentary canal with a
Big appetite at one end and
No sense of responsibility
At the other'
- Ronald Reagan



"Socialism only works
In two places:
Heaven where they don't
Need it and hell where they already have it."
-Ronald Reagan



.



Not related to the subject matter, but a damn fine quote!         :)

--------- >

'Here's my strategy on
The Cold War:
We win, they lose.'
- Ronald Reagan

Quote:

Most socialists, including myself, understand the need for free enterprise and so forth - to allow for people to benefit and prosper through entrepreneurship. But there is also a social duty incumbent upon all individuals to contribute towards state-owned social services. And those who are the most well off should contribute the most (eg progressive tax system)

So you are more of a status quo supporter than an actual socialist?


Quote:

Of course - as long as everyone makes an equal contribution to generating it. This is not just socialism, it’s the objective of all economic theories.

I always thought the objective was to capture the reality of economics. Where did you get this from?

Economics is about spreading the greatest good to the greatest number, FD. It tries to capture economic realities to do that.

You can use it for whatever you want Karnal. Not even the socialists demand that it's goal is an equal contribution from everyone and an equal share of the wealth for everyone.

freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2015 at 3:32pm:

You can use it for whatever you want Karnal. Not even the socialists demand that it's goal is an equal contribution from everyone and an equal share of the wealth for everyone.

That’s right, FD. Saint Simon never said from each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

His actual words were ban them, kill them, nuke tham.

Are you a socialist Karnal?

Should real socialists be able to afford computers/laptops/tablets/smart phones with wizz bang internet connections and be able to lounge around in chat rooms all day? Shouldn't you be out distributing bread and singing the 5th nationale?

freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2015 at 4:01pm:

Are you a socialist Karnal?

I’m not sure, FD. Am I?

the good ole boys wrote on Dec 27^th, 2015 at 8:23pm:

Should real socialists be able to afford computers/laptops/tablets/smart phones with wizz bang internet connections and be able to lounge around in chat rooms all day? Shouldn't you be out distributing bread and singing the 5th nationale?

Good point, Homo.

I don’t think I could be a socialist, FD. I don’t know the words to the Internationalle.

Do you?

It's OK to feel embarrassed about it Karnal.

Gandalf has gone from socialist to Greens supporter to well actually I like the existing arrangements, while you are staring at your navel mumbling that you don't know the answer.

freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2015 at 9:19pm:

It's OK to feel embarrassed about it Karnal. Gandalf has gone from socialist to Greens supporter to well actually I like the existing arrangements, while you are staring at your navel mumbling that you don't know the answer.

Thanks, FD. It’s good to know I’m free to express my innermost thoughts and feelings here.

Is that Freeeeeedom?

Yes Karnal, you are free to think before you post.

Yadda wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 5:06pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 25th, 2015 at 9:28am: .....the rich think the world should be mostly for their benefit only. Whereas the lazy and profligate, believe that what the rich have, should at every turn, be transferred into their hands [for consuming]. Dictionary; profligate = = recklessly extravagant or wasteful.       licentious; dissolute. My own opinion is that; Taking the property or wealth, that was created by another person, without their consent and full agreement, is still a crime. It is called stealing. And even when a government [of men] makes the claim that such [actual] theft is being done in a noble cause, such an act, is still stealing     [...i.e. confiscating other peoples property/wealth]. IMO, those who have lawfully created wealth [for themselves] and have the means [the excess] to do so, should be encouraged to help their fellow men,         ....but imo, it should remain the firm right [in law], of the person who created that wealth, to decide how and when he/she chooses to disperse that wealth [if they so choose to do]. . Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it. - Ronald Reagan 'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.' - Ronald Reagan 'The taxpayer: That's someone who works For the federal government But doesn't have to take the Civil service examination.' - Ronald Reagan 'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a Big appetite at one end and No sense of responsibility At the other' - Ronald Reagan "Socialism only works In two places: Heaven where they don't Need it and hell where they already have it." -Ronald Reagan . Not related to the subject matter, but a damn fine quote!         :) --------- > 'Here's my strategy on The Cold War: We win, they lose.' - Ronald Reagan

A whole lot of cheap one liners from the wealthy & privileged
who want things to stay the way they are:

exploiting poor people so they can never get ahead in life.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 27^th, 2015 at 10:31pm:

Yadda wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 5:06pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 25th, 2015 at 9:28am: .....the rich think the world should be mostly for their benefit only. Whereas the lazy and profligate, believe that what the rich have, should at every turn, be transferred into their hands [for consuming]. Dictionary; profligate = = recklessly extravagant or wasteful.       licentious; dissolute. My own opinion is that; Taking the property or wealth, that was created by another person, without their consent and full agreement, is still a crime. It is called stealing. And even when a government [of men] makes the claim that such [actual] theft is being done in a noble cause, such an act, is still stealing     [...i.e. confiscating other peoples property/wealth]. IMO, those who have lawfully created wealth [for themselves] and have the means [the excess] to do so, should be encouraged to help their fellow men,         ....but imo, it should remain the firm right [in law], of the person who created that wealth, to decide how and when he/she chooses to disperse that wealth [if they so choose to do]. . Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it. - Ronald Reagan 'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.' - Ronald Reagan 'The taxpayer: That's someone who works For the federal government But doesn't have to take the Civil service examination.' - Ronald Reagan 'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a Big appetite at one end and No sense of responsibility At the other' - Ronald Reagan "Socialism only works In two places: Heaven where they don't Need it and hell where they already have it." -Ronald Reagan . Not related to the subject matter, but a damn fine quote!         :) --------- > 'Here's my strategy on The Cold War: We win, they lose.' - Ronald Reagan A whole lot of cheap one liners from the wealthy & privileged who want things to stay the way they are: exploiting poor people so they can never get ahead in life.

Yes, bobby.

But surely you knew the consequence of life on planet earth, already......

......that, life's a bi tch,         ....and then we die!!!

That's right, eh, bobby !!!



42, bobby.

:)

freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

Yes Karnal, you are free to think before you post.

You didn’t answer the question, FD. Do you know the words to the Internationale?

Are you, or have you ever been - a socialist?

Ready,  Karnal... rise up workers from your slumber,  you have nothing to lose but your want...o.k that's all I know. The rest is something about relatively rich people trying to get relatively poor people to fight their battles for them.

Karnal and Gandalf normally have a lot to say about economics and capitalism. They remind me of undergraduate socialists who rant against the system but when you ask them what their alternative is you get a blank stare.

freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2015 at 8:44am:

Quote: Most socialists, including myself, understand the need for free enterprise and so forth - to allow for people to benefit and prosper through entrepreneurship. But there is also a social duty incumbent upon all individuals to contribute towards state-owned social services. And those who are the most well off should contribute the most (eg progressive tax system) So you are more of a status quo supporter than an actual socialist?

I would think this infers support for a more a balanced position, definitely not a status quo position in my view as the current position is far from a reasonable balance and quickly moving in the wrong direction.

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 7:22am:

Karnal and Gandalf normally have a lot to say about economics and capitalism. They remind me of undergraduate socialists who rant against the system but when you ask them what their alternative is you get a blank stare.

Seems a nice change from the myriad of D grade year 9 market capitalist opinion we have here.

I agree DNA. Although apart from forcibly appropriating capital from Gina Rinehardt and Warren Buffet what's the answer? Surely it's not financing the political class with higher taxes. I don't feel obliged to fund the lifestyles of reds like Bill Shorten, Bob Ellis, David Marr and Sarah Hansen-Young with my hard earned wages.

Quote:

I would think this infers support for a more a balanced position, definitely not a status quo position in my view as the current position is far from a reasonable balance and quickly moving in the wrong direction.

Don't worry, I am sure Gandalf will be along soon to clarify. Instead of trying to speak for him, why don't you give your own view? Which direction are we moving in? Where would you like to see it go?


Quote:

Seems a nice change from the myriad of D grade year 9 market capitalist opinion we have here.

Did you know that Gandalf blames capitalism for the British Empire's fall from power?

the good ole boys wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 2:19am:

Ready,  Karnal... rise up workers from your slumber,  you have nothing to lose but your want...o.k that's all I know. The rest is something about relatively rich people trying to get relatively poor people to fight their battles for them.

Thanks, Homo. Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, Piers Ackerman - all good socialists, no?

Karnal; good Muslim, no?

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 8:06am:

Quote: I would think this infers support for a more a balanced position, definitely not a status quo position in my view as the current position is far from a reasonable balance and quickly moving in the wrong direction. [quote]Seems a nice change from the myriad of D grade year 9 market capitalist opinion we have here.

Did you know that Gandalf blames capitalism for the British Empire's fall from power?[/quote]

Could be some truth in that.

Their imperialism model was somewhat inefficient, probably didn't compete well with new start ups like the US and later forced restructures.

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 8:06am:

Quote: I would think this infers support for a more a balanced position, definitely not a status quo position in my view as the current position is far from a reasonable balance and quickly moving in the wrong direction. Don't worry, I am sure Gandalf will be along soon to clarify. Instead of trying to speak for him, why don't you give your own view? Which direction are we moving in? Where would you like to see it go?

No concern about Gandalf at all.

The first part on my comment was my interpretation on what Gandalf had said the middle bit was my comment on your status quo statement and the third was my opinion on where we are going - further from
a reasonable balance.

Quote:

The first part on my comment was my interpretation on what Gandalf had said the middle bit was my comment on your status quo statement and the third was my opinion on where we are going - further from a reasonable balance.

Are we supposed to already know what you consider to be a reasonable balance and what direction you think we are going in?

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 3:01pm:

Quote: The first part on my comment was my interpretation on what Gandalf had said the middle bit was my comment on your status quo statement and the third was my opinion on where we are going - further from a reasonable balance. Are we supposed to already know what you consider to be a reasonable balance and what direction you think we are going in?

Are you a socialist?

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 3:01pm:

Quote: The first part on my comment was my interpretation on what Gandalf had said the middle bit was my comment on your status quo statement and the third was my opinion on where we are going - further from a reasonable balance. Are we supposed to already know what you consider to be a reasonable balance and what direction you think we are going in?

The reason I explained it.

Do you believe that privatising everything that isn't nailed down to be the right way to go.

Karnal wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 3:01pm: Quote: The first part on my comment was my interpretation on what Gandalf had said the middle bit was my comment on your status quo statement and the third was my opinion on where we are going - further from a reasonable balance. Are we supposed to already know what you consider to be a reasonable balance and what direction you think we are going in? Are you a socialist?

I always planned to claim socialist status if the girl friends husband found me under the bed.

the good ole boys wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 7:35am:

I agree DNA. Although apart from forcibly appropriating capital from Gina Rinehardt and Warren Buffet what's the answer? Surely it's not financing the political class with higher taxes. I don't feel obliged to fund the lifestyles of reds like Bill Shorten, Bob Ellis, David Marr and Sarah Hansen-Young with my hard earned wages.

Seems to be the conservatives pushing hard for higher taxes the only difference is that you end up financing the lifestyles of Turnbull, Abbott, Corman, Bishop and Morrison.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 4:45pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 4:15pm: freediver wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 3:01pm: Quote: The first part on my comment was my interpretation on what Gandalf had said the middle bit was my comment on your status quo statement and the third was my opinion on where we are going - further from a reasonable balance. Are we supposed to already know what you consider to be a reasonable balance and what direction you think we are going in? Are you a socialist? I always planned to claim socialist status if the girl friends husband found me under the bed.

Ah. That’s an answer.

I feel less dirty being stolen from  by greedy capitalists than benevolent socialists.

the good ole boys wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 5:20pm:

I feel less dirty being stolen from  by greedy capitalists than benevolent socialists.

Easily fixed, Homo. Have a piece of the old boy’s stool.

It’s to die for.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 4:41pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 3:01pm: Quote: The first part on my comment was my interpretation on what Gandalf had said the middle bit was my comment on your status quo statement and the third was my opinion on where we are going - further from a reasonable balance. Are we supposed to already know what you consider to be a reasonable balance and what direction you think we are going in? The reason I explained it. Do you believe that privatising everything that isn't nailed down to be the right way to go.

I am not asking for the reason you hold the views you do. I am asking what those views are. It's a pretty simple question.

I think it makes sense for the government to maintain ownership, or at least control, of industries that are naturally stable monopolies. Roads are a good example. I oppose tolls and think we should use fuel taxes instead. But as far as it concerns current issues, I am mostly in favour of privatisation.

the good ole boys wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 5:20pm:

I feel less dirty being stolen from  by greedy capitalists than benevolent socialists.

Yes it is always more comfortable to give a stack of money to people who don't need it. Greed is good - hey.

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 8:17pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 4:41pm: freediver wrote on Dec 28th, 2015 at 3:01pm: Quote: The first part on my comment was my interpretation on what Gandalf had said the middle bit was my comment on your status quo statement and the third was my opinion on where we are going - further from a reasonable balance. Are we supposed to already know what you consider to be a reasonable balance and what direction you think we are going in? The reason I explained it. Do you believe that privatising everything that isn't nailed down to be the right way to go. I am not asking for the reason you hold the views you do. I am asking what those views are. It's a pretty simple question. I think it makes sense for the government to maintain ownership, or at least control, of industries that are naturally stable monopolies. Roads are a good example. I oppose tolls and think we should use fuel taxes instead. But as far as it concerns current issues, I am mostly in favour of privatisation.

I don't believe that essential services can be trusted to private operators.

Gas, Power, telecoms, hospitals etc.

There has been no privatisation success story for the community, failure after failure.

How would you judge success or failure?

How do you judge what is essential?

freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2015 at 8:44am:

Quote: Most socialists, including myself, understand the need for free enterprise and so forth - to allow for people to benefit and prosper through entrepreneurship. But there is also a social duty incumbent upon all individuals to contribute towards state-owned social services. And those who are the most well off should contribute the most (eg progressive tax system) So you are more of a status quo supporter than an actual socialist?

Thats a pretty ridiculous way to interpret my comments FD - I gave no specifics vis-a-vis the current system we have. In any case, whether what I advocate is or isn't the status quo is neither here nor there - I gave you the basics of my socialist beliefs. And like I said before, its more meaningful to explain things on a case by case basis - so if you hvae any question on specific issues, fire away. But one thing I can think of is a mining tax - we shouldn't have abolished it.

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2015 at 8:06am:

Did you know that Gandalf blames capitalism for the British Empire's fall from power?

Wow what an outrageous thing to think.

By the way, do you still think there was no British Empire during WWII - and that it had dissolved 100 years prior?

Quote:

Thats a pretty ridiculous way to interpret my comments FD - I gave no specifics vis-a-vis the current system we have.

Why not?


Quote:

In any case, whether what I advocate is or isn't the status quo is neither here nor there - I gave you the basics of my socialist beliefs.

They appear to exclude socialism. Do you think that is odd? Do you think Australia is socialist?


Quote:

And like I said before, its more meaningful to explain things on a case by case basis - so if you hvae any question on specific issues, fire away. But one thing I can think of is a mining tax - we shouldn't have abolished it.

So you are more in favour of the status quo from a few years ago? What about current income tax arrangements? Should they be more or less progressive?

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 3:38pm:

So you are more in favour of the status quo from a few years ago?

How many years ago? What are you talking about?


freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2016 at 3:38pm:

What about current income tax arrangements? Should they be more or less progressive?

Compare it to some European countries, our top tax bracket starts at much higher income. The trade-off is much more generous services like health and education. So I would support lowering the threshold for the top tax bracket if it can provide better health care and education etc.

Would you take it any further than those European countries?

depends.

Thats an absurdly overgeneralised thing to ask.

What about involuntary appropriation of capital from the very wealthy? The mining tax is only one step behind.

What does it depend on Gandalf?

Constructive conversations with FD.

Are you fumbling around like this because for once you can't troll me about Islam - and you feel completely lost?

Maybe you can work in the slaughter of 800 jews somehow - I'm sure you can manage it. At least it wouldn't look any more idiotic than your efforts thus far.

You have been attacking capitalism and liberal democracy as being propped up by exploitation for a few years now. At first I thought it was just you feeling compelled to criticise anything not inspired by Islam, but the socialism thing explains it a bit better.

You claim to be a socialist, but leave yourself a broad spectrum of positions between the status quo and true socialism, while criticising me for being both too specific and too vague. I would expect someone to put slightly more thought into it before proclaiming themselves a socialist.

I've never accused you of being too specific here FD.

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 1:48pm:

You have been attacking capitalism and liberal democracy as being propped up by exploitation for a few years now. At first I thought it was just you feeling compelled to criticise anything not inspired by Islam, but the socialism thing explains it a bit better. You claim to be a socialist, but leave yourself a broad spectrum of positions between the status quo and true socialism, while criticising me for being both too specific and too vague. I would expect someone to put slightly more thought into it before proclaiming themselves a socialist.

capitalism and liberal democracy are being propped up by exploitation

I don't think I have seen this problem put so well before but it is certainly a fact that the western manner of implementing or allowing capitalism is highly dependant on also allowing exploitation.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

freediver wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:48pm: You have been attacking capitalism and liberal democracy as being propped up by exploitation for a few years now. At first I thought it was just you feeling compelled to criticise anything not inspired by Islam, but the socialism thing explains it a bit better. You claim to be a socialist, but leave yourself a broad spectrum of positions between the status quo and true socialism, while criticising me for being both too specific and too vague. I would expect someone to put slightly more thought into it before proclaiming themselves a socialist. capitalism and liberal democracy are being propped up by exploitation I don't think I have seen this problem put so well before but it is certainly a fact that the western manner of implementing or allowing capitalism is highly dependant on also allowing exploitation.

So our economy would collapse without the basket weavers in Bali? Or is it the burger flippers at maccas not getting paid enough?

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 11:35am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 11:15am: freediver wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:48pm: You have been attacking capitalism and liberal democracy as being propped up by exploitation for a few years now. At first I thought it was just you feeling compelled to criticise anything not inspired by Islam, but the socialism thing explains it a bit better. You claim to be a socialist, but leave yourself a broad spectrum of positions between the status quo and true socialism, while criticising me for being both too specific and too vague. I would expect someone to put slightly more thought into it before proclaiming themselves a socialist. capitalism and liberal democracy are being propped up by exploitation I don't think I have seen this problem put so well before but it is certainly a fact that the western manner of implementing or allowing capitalism is highly dependant on also allowing exploitation. So our economy would collapse without the basket weavers in Bali? Or is it the burger flippers at maccas not getting paid enough?

Of course. Our economy depends on cheap foreign labour. The shelves of Ebay, David Jones and the two dollar shops would be empty without it.

China pays an average of less than eight dollars a day. India pays less. In the Philippines, it’s a little over two dollars - the minimum wage. And there is no minimum wage in Bangladesh, where our clothes are made. Workers there make as little as a dollar a day, for up to twelve hour shifts.

How much do you make, FD?

I loose count Karnal. Rest assured, it is quite a lot.

Would our economy collapse without the two dollar shops? How bad do you think it would be if we all had to buy locally made fords, or Japanese cars, instead of the Great Wall ones?

It seems to me like they depend on us more than the other way round.

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 5:39pm:

I loose count Karnal. Rest assured, it is quite a lot. Would our economy collapse without the two dollar shops? How bad do you think it would be if we all had to buy locally made fords, or Japanese cars, instead of the Great Wall ones? It seems to me like they depend on us more than the other way round.

The global economy is interdependent, FD. Labour requires capital, capital requires labour. Australians have one of the highest household debt levels in the world. Our terms of trade are slipping - badly.

If China stopped buying our resources and lending us money, we’d be sunk. And if we needed to produce our own cars, fridges and Ipads, we wouldn’t have the capital to re-establish manufacturing. Australia is a service economy. The developing world produces the goods. This is how the world works.

And if you don’t mind me saying, a jolly old world it is too. Better them on a dollar a day than us, no?

Ban them.

Quote:

The global economy is interdependent, FD.

So, not parasitic, with the rich white people milking the poor third world slave labour?


Quote:

If China stopped buying our resources and lending us money, we’d be sunk.

How sunk? Would we have to buy a Hyundai instead of a Merc?

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 6:36pm:

Quote: The global economy is interdependent, FD. So, not parasitic, with the rich white people milking the poor third world slave labour? [quote]If China stopped buying our resources and lending us money, we’d be sunk.

How sunk? Would we have to buy a Hyundai instead of a Merc?[/quote]

You’d be lucky to afford a Hyundai made in Australia without subsidies, FD. You certainly couldn’t do it on a dollar a day.

In most of the world, a car is a luxury item. People in the developing world ride motor scooters or catch the bus.

The tinted races prefer it that way, just as they’re happy to work for a dollar. They’re simple little people, you know.

Keep an eye on them though. Better to be safe than sorry, I say.

So if China stopped buying our resources, we wouldn't even be able to afford a Hyundai? What was life like before China became such a big consumer?

If the government refrained from taking my money off me and putting it towards a car on my behalf, wouldn't I just pay the full cost directly? With a bit left over on account of the reduced bureaucracy and wastage?

Karnal,  does unsustainable population growth have ANY influence on the relative poverty of the tinted races or is it all the fault of their (your) colonial overlords?

Questions questions. What if we were all nice to each other and shared the spoils?

You and I both know that’ll never happen, FD.. It’s a fact as sure as the dearth of Australian manufacturing and the rise of Charlie Chan. The reality is we export raw materials to China, and they turn it into stuff most of them can’t afford - but we can.

How many Chinese own cars?

You can speculate about what if we did it this or that way. But we don’t. Yes, it would be really nice if we made our own stuff.

But we don’t. We buy it from others who earn a fraction of what we do. A foreign company comes in, digs up soil, and ships it off to the Chinks, who turn it into things we like to buy. This is the business model, and it doesn’t look like changing anytime soon.

But allow me to ask my own question, FD. Do you think this is fair?

And another - how long can an unfair system continue before people have enough?

There are twenty five million Aussies, and over a billion Chinky Chonks.

Forget fairness. How long can the current system last?

the good ole boys wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 9:38pm:

Karnal,  does unsustainable population growth have ANY influence on the relative poverty of the tinted races or is it all the fault of their (your) colonial overlords?

A very interesting question, Homo. I believe the aged pension was introduced in Australia early last century. We kept sending our boys off to foreign wars and they kept getting killed, so we thought we’d do something nice for the ones who survived. You know, health care, higher education, and all the spoils of the welfare state.

The tinted races do things a little differently. They have lots of kids who grow up to make some money, and that money helps mum and dad when they’re old.

This is the way developing economies work. A developing economy requires population growth, so people make more people. These people keep the machine chugging along. The machine grows. This is essentially the formula for economic growth - attract capital, add population and wait.

But when people get to a certain economic level, dare I say middle class, they stop producing population. Middle class people live in cities and value education. Their households are different. Even their apartments don’t have space for poor old mum and dad. One or two kids - at best. And a fortune in tuition.

The economy creates population, not the other way around. Our bodies are shaped to fit within economic roles. Reproduction - can I say sexuality? - reflects this.

This is why we import the tinted races, Homo. We don’t produce enough whites, you see. Once, we did - too many. They all got sent down here, to Australia. The industrial revolution that followed was a result of surplus population.Back then, machines required lots of people. Today, machines don’t need so many people, but economies do. Economies need people with money to buy things.

This is the stage of development China’s at. It now plans to shift to domestic, not foreign, demand. We’ll watch as China shapes its own version of a welfare state, and just as we did, experiences a drop in population.

FD predicted all this, he just got the timing wrong. He thinks China’s population dropped as a result of the one-child policy.

Alas, China’s population continued to grow for a bit. It is now starting to age. China has just relaxed its one-child policy. Population is predicted to stabilise by about 2025.

And who knows? Some time this century, immigration will probably be the other way around.

Thanks for;
a) giving me a definition of populate or perish (which I already knew) and
b) not answering the question.
At any rate I don't agree with your reasoning behind importing the tinteds. I believe the insane approach to immigration of the last 50 years is the Marxist idea of preventing even the slightest suggestion of nationalism. Divide and conquer demands you keep the population at each other's throats. No better way to keep your people in a constant state of conflict than by importing Muslims and Islanders.

Quote:

Questions questions. What if we were all nice to each other and shared the spoils?

We'd be dirt poor communists?


Quote:

You and I both know that’ll never happen, FD.

I hope not.


Quote:

Yes, it would be really nice if we made our own stuff.

You don't like giving the poor chinese people a job?


Quote:

But allow me to ask my own question, FD. Do you think this is fair?

I think it is great. Everyone benefits. Fairness seems kind of arbitrary to me, like the sort of thing a communist would try to impose. Does fair mean everyone is on the same wage, or everyone's wage matches their contribution? Or their effort?


Quote:

And another - how long can an unfair system continue before people have enough?

This is a good example.


Quote:

Forget fairness. How long can the current system last?

It will last forever. What will change is the relative wealth. You confuse the the product of the system with the system itself.


Quote:

The tinted races do things a little differently. They have lots of kids who grow up to make some money, and that money helps mum and dad when they’re old. This is the way developing economies work.

Except China of course.


Quote:

A developing economy requires population growth

Why? To grow the population?


Quote:

This is essentially the formula for economic growth - attract capital, add population and wait.

That is the strawman madel invented by deluded hippies.


Quote:

This is why we import the tinted races, Homo. We don’t produce enough whites, you see. Once, we did - too many. They all got sent down here, to Australia. The industrial revolution that followed was a result of surplus population.

The industrial revolution came after they sent people to Australia?

Most sensible economic historians credit reductions in the population.

Thanks for the reply, Homo.

FD, what do you think of Homo’s analysis above? Do you concur?

I’m really curious.

I don;t keep up with your nicknames Karnal.


Karnal wrote on Jan 17^th, 2016 at 12:19pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 17th, 2016 at 9:03am: I think it is great that KMart and Target are supporting these desperate Bangladeshis. They’re supporting sustainability, FD. The more of these tinted races we kill off through fires and exhaustion, the better off we’ll be. Survival of the fittest, innit.

Are you a communist?

An interesting article in The Guardian, which describes the Chinese Markets as a Ponzi Scheme.

I'm not sure if I agree with the blueprint for a brave new world, but I can see how the Chinese Economy will probably collapse like a house made of cars.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/17/china-economic-crisis-world-economy-global-capitalism


Quote:

The country that has taken this further than any other is China. The Chinese economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. Tens of trillions of dollars are owed to essentially bankrupt banks – and worse, bankrupt near-banks that operate in the murky shadowlands of a deeply dysfunctional mix of Leninism and rapacious capitalism. The Chinese Communist party has bought itself temporary legitimacy by its shameless willingness to direct state-owned banks to lend to consumers and businesses with little attention to their creditworthiness. Thus it has lifted growth and created millions of jobs. It is an edifice waiting to implode. Chinese business habitually bribes Communist officials to put pressure on their bankers to forgive loans or commute interest; most loans only receive interest payments haphazardly or not at all. If the losses were crystallised, the banking system would be bust overnight. On top, huge loans have been made to China’s vast oil, gas and chemical industries on the basis of oil being above $60 a barrel, so more losses are in prospect.

China's economy is booming because it is liberalising. If it continues liberalising, it will continue booming. I think they'd have trouble reigning it in now. There is no way the people would accept a shift back towards communism with the famines still a bitter memory. If you get hung up on the bumps along the way, it is because you cannot see the wood for the trees, like people who insist the sky is falling every time we have a recession.

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2016 at 7:02pm:

China's economy is booming because it is liberalising. If it continues liberalising, it will continue booming. I think they'd have trouble reigning it in now. There is no way the people would accept a shift back towards communism with the famines still a bitter memory. If you get hung up on the bumps along the way, it is because you cannot see the wood for the trees, like people who insist the sky is falling every time we have a recession.

In fact, the Chinese & Global Economy is Slowing & has been for some time!

The reasons, for that slowing , so far, will also ensure the Chinese & Global Economy will continue to slow for quite some time!

It is very likely that the effects of this Economic slowing, will likely prompt what may be called GFC2, which I suspect is already starting & which will become more apparent during 2016!

This GFC2, may well become a more severe Economic Decline, than was the case in the original GFC!

I think the danger for China is that political freedom will start to be controlled by the burgeoning opulent class.

China has 213 billionaires, second only to the US. Wang Jianlin, the richest man in China has three times the net worth of our Gina Rinehart.

I think it will be the communist party doing the controlling.

What do you mean "start"?