Quote:

THE science is settled – Islam is not a religion of peace. This is not the opinion of some mad, frothy-mouthed, swivelled-eye Islamophobe (although you will be labelled far worse for making any such similar observations), it is a simple statement of empirical evidence. (Note to younger readers – empirical evidence is that which you can actually observe, such as how many legs on a spider, as opposed to “facts” that you’re taught at school these days, such as “Tuvalu is about to disappear under the waves” or “heterosexuality is not the norm”). The reason it can be empirically observed that Islam is not a religion of peace is because that’s what the numbers tell us, and ultimately, science is merely a question of doing the maths. In all of the worst conflicts in the world – as measured by the number of fatalities last year, that being more than 10,000 – Islam was either attacking itself or being attacked by itself. That is to say, the forces on both sides identify themselves as adherents of Islam. In the second category of wars last year – deaths between 1000 and 10,000 – Islam was again at war with itself, with two exceptions: the Mexican drug wars, with more than 8000 dead, and the Ukraine war. When we get to the third category of seriousness of conflict, with deaths under 1000, we also see Islam at war with itself, along with being at war with Russia, China, India, the Philippines, Myanmar, Israel and Thailand. The exception is the Colombian drug wars. Now, you can argue as much as you like about the political and geographical history and causes of these wars, or indeed about the relevance of the religion of Islam to any particular conflict. For example, there are those who see the current stabbings and attacks against Israelis by Palestinians as merely an oppressed people rising up and nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, although this is hard to justify when those instructing the kids to “stab! stab! stab!” include imams brandishing knives in mosques. Iraqis inspect the damage caused by an alleged air raid by Iraqi forces in Mosul city, northern Iraq. Picture: EPA Equally, you can argue that it is not Islam’s fault that China oppresses the Muslim Uygurs of Xinjiang, or that Russia intends to hang on to the North Caucasus, or that the Thais, Burmese and Filipinos won’t agree to separate their Muslim populations from the rest. Or you can get all hot under the collar and blame the entire mess in the Middle East on either George W. Bush for going in, or Barack Obama for pulling out, or the Israelis for, er, building some blocks of flats. Nor does it mean that because Islam is involved in nearly all major global conflicts, that followers of Islam, as individuals, are anything other than wonderful human beings. You can be a religious, law-abiding, peace-loving, halal-munching, terrorism-hating, proud everyday Aussie Muslim and still acknowledge the empirical evidence – Islam is not a religion of peace. When Islamic forces or Islamic ideology are generating the greatest number of deaths in the greatest number of conflicts in the world, and the greatest number of victims are Muslims, there are only two possible conclusions: one, it has absolutely nothing to do with Islam at all, but is entirely the fault of (insert popular left-wing grievance), or two: Mecca, we have a problem. Egypt’s President el-Sisi says it’s the latter. None of which is really important to Australia, other than for one thing: our right to express an opinion about Islam or – dare I say it – to even criticise aspects of it. Currently, throughout the world, new laws are being introduced which make such criticism a criminal offence. A Palestinian protester throws stones at Israeli forces on February 19 in the West Bank village of Bilin to mark the 11th anniversary of their uprising against the building of Israel’s separation barrier and the construction of Israeli settlements. Picture: AFP This would be in places like Yemen or Somalia, you might think, but you’re wrong. It’s in Denmark and the United States. Last week, a Danish man was found guilty of “generalising statements ... insulting and demeaning towards adherents of Islam”. Along with comments comparing Islam to Nazism, he was prosecuted for breaching section 266b of Denmark’s criminal code because he wrote: “Islam wishes to abuse democracy in order to get rid of democracy.” Yet that is precisely the sentiment that any “radical” imam worth his hookah would proudly preach. In the US Congress, Democrats are sponsoring resolution 569 to make “hate speech” towards Islam (i.e. criticism of it) a crime.............

tbc

Quote:

..................In the US Congress, Democrats are sponsoring resolution 569 to make “hate speech” towards Islam (i.e. criticism of it) a crime. This will presumably go ahead if a Democrat becomes president, just as had Ed Miliband become Britain’s prime minister last year, “Islamophobia” would now be a crime. Here in Australia, in the Queensland University of Technology case, section 18C of our Racial Discrimination Act is being used to prosecute students for offending and insulting a person of a different “race” whom they disagreed with. This insidious clause must be urgently amended. Or will non-Muslim Australians in the future risk being prosecuted for “offending” the religion of peace? ........

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-the-numbers-have-it--islam-equates-with-violence/news-story/7701bb5db018015e1612c41aed7620eb

The author does realise science essentially involves references right?

Quote:

as opposed to “facts” that you’re taught at school these days, such as “Tuvalu is about to disappear under the waves”  or “heterosexuality is not the norm”

Stopped reading there.

His agenda is pretty clear.

SANITY shows that Islam is doomed.


Which Islamophobe said THIS????

“You can not reform a religion. If they are reformed, [the original meaning] is separated from it. Therefore, modern Muslims and a modern Islam is already impossible. If there is no separation between religion and state, there will be no democracy especially without equality for women. Then we will keep a theocratic system. So it will end.”

“Arabs have no more creative force. Islam does not contribute to intellectual life, it suggests no discussion. It is no longer thought. It produces no thinking, no art, no science, no vision that could change the world. This repetition is the sign of its end. The Arabs will continue to exist, but they will not make the world better.”

The remarks are in reference to the broader questions of how he sees the Middle East, and specifically his native Syria which has been in a state of civil war for years. [he] describes the totality of Islam in the life of people in the Islamic world saying Muslim society is “based on a totalitarian system. The religion dictates everything: How to run, how to go to the toilet, who one has to love…”
http://www.welt.de/kultur/literarischewelt/article152319848/Ein-moderner-Islam-ist-nicht-moeglich.html


Er..... the writer regarded as the greatest Arabic language poet alive today has said Islam cannot be modernised. Adunis Asbar, known by his pen name Adonis, is a Syrian-born writer often considered one of the greatest living poets of the Arabic language. He has come under criticism for comments he made recently about Islam before receiving the Erich Maria Remarque Peace Prize, named after the famous pacifist and author of the classic World War One novel ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’.



Gandy, you are on the losing side. It's Berlin, March 1945 for Islam. Get out while you can.

Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 7:20pm:

It's Berlin, March 1945 for Islam.

Good point S - Germany came out of the dark and became an economic superpower  ;)

Can you see that happening for any Muslim countries Gandalf?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 7:38pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 7:20pm: It's Berlin, March 1945 for Islam. Good point S - Germany came out of the dark and became an economic superpower  ;)

With the help of.....



What is it about you guys?? You want to be EVEN stupider and EVEN more dogma-bound than you have to? It just shows what a load oif imbeciles the regular mosque-going Muslims are if you are the brains, Gandy.

Pathetic, stupid, ridiculous.

Carry on. You are defending a dying, terminal case (Islam).


Your only hope is to bring back the dark ages - and you are working on it relentlessly.iAddress this, my evasive, dishonest, arse-coverimng little Musulman interlocutor:

“You can not reform a religion. If they are reformed, [the original meaning] is separated from it. Therefore, modern Muslims and a modern Islam is already impossible. If there is no separation between religion and state, there will be no democracy especially without equality for women. Then we will keep a theocratic system. So it will end.”

“Arabs have no more creative force. Islam does not contribute to intellectual life, it suggests no discussion. It is no longer thought. It produces no thinking, no art, no science, no vision that could change the world. This repetition is the sign of its end. The Arabs will continue to exist, but they will not make the world better.”





Speak to the Muslim critic of your losing creed (no death threats, please).

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 7:42pm:

Can you see that happening for any Muslim countries Gandalf?

Its already happening FD, Indonesia will be in the top 10 economies in the next decade or so.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 8:23pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 7:42pm: Can you see that happening for any Muslim countries Gandalf? Its already happening FD, Indonesia will be in the top 10 economies in the next decade or so.

That sounds like AGW predictions - bollocks.  Indonesia is a backward and utterly corrupt place. They may be churning out cheap shite but that is only by the grace of corporations that owe no allegiance or anything else to Indonesia.   It is an illusion that Indonesia will be signifciant. There are plenty of other low-wage, corrupt and explotative countries around the world.

And Islam is going to be in the way of all this -  who the hell would want to put money in a country that is in the new for its ISIS affiliates??





You are out of your mind, Gandy. Too much Koran.

Indonesia is the 4th biggest country in the world, and you 'predict' it might make it into the top 10? If it made it to 4th position that would be on par with it's population. Australia has a higher GDP than Indonesia, with less than 1/10th of it's population, and I don't hear anyone calling Australia an economic superpower.

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 8:52pm:

Indonesia is the 4th biggest country in the world, and you 'predict' it might make it into the top 10? If it made it to 4th position that would be on par with it's population. Australia has a higher GDP than Indonesia, with less than 1/10th of it's population, and I don't hear anyone calling Australia an economic superpower.

But will they send us AID???

Soren wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 7:20pm:

SANITY shows that Islam is doomed. Which Islamophobe said THIS???? “You can not reform a religion. If they are reformed, [the original meaning] is separated from it. Therefore, modern Muslims and a modern Islam is already impossible. If there is no separation between religion and state, there will be no democracy especially without equality for women. Then we will keep a theocratic system. So it will end.” “Arabs have no more creative force. Islam does not contribute to intellectual life, it suggests no discussion. It is no longer thought. It produces no thinking, no art, no science, no vision that could change the world. This repetition is the sign of its end. The Arabs will continue to exist, but they will not make the world better.” The remarks are in reference to the broader questions of how he sees the Middle East, and specifically his native Syria which has been in a state of civil war for years. [he] describes the totality of Islam in the life of people in the Islamic world saying Muslim society is “based on a totalitarian system. The religion dictates everything: How to run, how to go to the toilet, who one has to love…” http://www.welt.de/kultur/literarischewelt/article152319848/Ein-moderner-Islam-ist-nicht-moeglich.html Er..... the writer regarded as the greatest Arabic language poet alive today has said Islam cannot be modernised. Adunis Asbar, known by his pen name Adonis, is a Syrian-born writer often considered one of the greatest living poets of the Arabic language. He has come under criticism for comments he made recently about Islam before receiving the Erich Maria Remarque Peace Prize, named after the famous pacifist and author of the classic World War One novel ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’. Gandy, you are on the losing side. It's Berlin, March 1945 for Islam. Get out while you can.

Sanity shows? That implies that those who defend and appease Islam are not sane. That is clearly untrue. You cannot say Obama is insane; misguided perhaps.

Nor can I agree that Gandalf is on the losing side. His "religion of peace" is making ground in Africa, Parramatta, and Paris. In fact, his cult of Mohamed worship cannot be opposed without loud accusations of insanity in the form of a phobia. At this rate, it is Western objectivity, pluralism, and secular values that are doomed.

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 8:52pm:

Indonesia is the 4th biggest country in the world, and you 'predict' it might make it into the top 10? If it made it to 4th position that would be on par with it's population. Australia has a higher GDP than Indonesia, with less than 1/10th of it's population, and I don't hear anyone calling Australia an economic superpower.

Nevertheless, its a tribute to Indonesia's stability and social and political cohesion. Yes it follows that a massive country should have massive economic output - but the real achievement is in having a massive country comprised of lots of different ethnicities and communities being able to remain united and prosper.

freediver wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 8:52pm:

Indonesia is the 4th biggest country in the world, and you 'predict' it might make it into the top 10? If it made it to 4th position that would be on par with it's population. Australia has a higher GDP than Indonesia, with less than 1/10th of it's population, and I don't hear anyone calling Australia an economic superpower.

Sorry, FD, did you just say population?

That's just the reason Indonesia will be listed in the top ten quite soon. The other surprising country?

Pakistan.

This is not based on nominal GDP, but economic growth. Indonesia is already in the G20. Watch it compete with Brazil, Pakistan and possibly even the Philippines for third prize.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 8:35am:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 8:52pm: Indonesia is the 4th biggest country in the world, and you 'predict' it might make it into the top 10? If it made it to 4th position that would be on par with it's population. Australia has a higher GDP than Indonesia, with less than 1/10th of it's population, and I don't hear anyone calling Australia an economic superpower. Nevertheless, its a tribute to Indonesia's stability and social and political cohesion.

Strangely enough, Indonesia appears to prove FD's democracy and economic growth thesis. For some reason, FD doesn't see this.

I'm curious. I wonder why this is.

issuevoter wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 9:29pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 7:20pm: SANITY shows that Islam is doomed. Which Islamophobe said THIS???? “You can not reform a religion. If they are reformed, [the original meaning] is separated from it. Therefore, modern Muslims and a modern Islam is already impossible. If there is no separation between religion and state, there will be no democracy especially without equality for women. Then we will keep a theocratic system. So it will end.” “Arabs have no more creative force. Islam does not contribute to intellectual life, it suggests no discussion. It is no longer thought. It produces no thinking, no art, no science, no vision that could change the world. This repetition is the sign of its end. The Arabs will continue to exist, but they will not make the world better.” The remarks are in reference to the broader questions of how he sees the Middle East, and specifically his native Syria which has been in a state of civil war for years. [he] describes the totality of Islam in the life of people in the Islamic world saying Muslim society is “based on a totalitarian system. The religion dictates everything: How to run, how to go to the toilet, who one has to love…” http://www.welt.de/kultur/literarischewelt/article152319848/Ein-moderner-Islam-ist-nicht-moeglich.html Er..... the writer regarded as the greatest Arabic language poet alive today has said Islam cannot be modernised. Adunis Asbar, known by his pen name Adonis, is a Syrian-born writer often considered one of the greatest living poets of the Arabic language. He has come under criticism for comments he made recently about Islam before receiving the Erich Maria Remarque Peace Prize, named after the famous pacifist and author of the classic World War One novel ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’. Gandy, you are on the losing side. It's Berlin, March 1945 for Islam. Get out while you can. Sanity shows? That implies that those who defend and appease Islam are not sane. That is clearly untrue. You cannot say Obama is insane; misguided perhaps.

Dictionary;
insane = =
1 in or relating to an unsound state of mind; seriously mentally ill.
2 extremely foolish; irrational.


QUESTION;
Is Barak Obama 'irrational', or simply a deceitful person who is [for his own purposes] telling everyone, what he wants/needs them to believe ?



Google;
obama, islam, 'tolerance and the dignity of all human beings'





Quote:

Obama’s quotes on Islam: 1. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” 2. “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer” 3. “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.” 4. “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.” 5. “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” 6. “Islam has always been part of America” 7. “we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities” 8. “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.” 9. “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” 10. “I made it clear that America is not – and will never be – at war with Islam.” 11. “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.” 12. “So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed” 13. “In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.” 14. “Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.” 15. “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality” 16. “The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’” 17. “I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.” 18. “We’ve seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants – farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe.” 19. “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” 20. “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

Google

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 8:35am:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 8:52pm: Indonesia is the 4th biggest country in the world, and you 'predict' it might make it into the top 10? If it made it to 4th position that would be on par with it's population. Australia has a higher GDP than Indonesia, with less than 1/10th of it's population, and I don't hear anyone calling Australia an economic superpower. Nevertheless, its a tribute to Indonesia's stability and social and political cohesion.

Sambas riots            1999      deaths    3,000      In the Sambas riots in 1999 Muslim Malays and Animist Dayaks joined together to massacre the Muslim Madurese during the Sambas conflict. Madurese were mutilated, raped, and killed by the Malays and Dayaks and 3,000 of them died in the massacres, with the Indonesian government doing little to stop the violence.[1]


May 1998 riots of Indonesia         4–8 and 12–15 May 1998      deaths    5,000      There were dozens of documented accounts of ethnic Chinese women being raped. Other sources note over 1,500 people were killed and over 468 (168 victims in Jakarta alone) were mass gang-raped in the riots. There is a possibility of 5000 dead. However, most of the people who died in the riots were the Javanese Indonesian looters who targeted the Chinese shops, not the Chinese themselves, since the looters were burnt to death in a massive fire.[4][5][6][7][8]




Indonesian killings of 1965–1966                 October 1965-March 1966       deaths    400,000 to 2 million            Transition to the New Order


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Indonesia

Yadda wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 9:45am:

Dictionary; insane = = 1 in or relating to an unsound state of mind; seriously mentally ill. 2 extremely foolish; irrational.

Thanks, Y.

Karnal wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 10:22am:

Yadda wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 9:45am: Dictionary; insane = = 1 in or relating to an unsound state of mind; seriously mentally ill. 2 extremely foolish; irrational. Thanks, Y.

You are welcome.

More from my Dictionary, for Karnal.

----------- >


Dictionary;
lie#2 = = an intentionally false statement.         a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression:



Dictionary;
sophistry = = the use of fallacious arguments, especially to deceive.       a fallacious argument.




.



MOSLEMS INTENTIONALLY LIE ABOUT, OR MISREPRESENT, THEIR 'FAITH'...
EXAMPLE #1;


Following the slaughter of Drummer Lee Rigby in 2013, on an English street,         ...a public statement was made by, The muslim council of Britain - the umbrella organisation representing all British muslims.

And that statement was published on The muslim council of Britain website.


Quote:

Rejecting Terror Thursday, 11 April 2013 Muslims everywhere consider all acts of terrorism that aims to murder and maim innocent human beings utterly reprehensible and abhorrent. There is no theological basis whatsoever for such acts in our faith. The very meaning of the word 'Islam' is peace. It [ISLAM] rejects terror and promotes peace and harmony.

http://www.mcb.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2307:mcbnewstemplate&catid=82:mcb-news

http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-656

dead links ?            those statements were posted on, The Muslim Council of Britain, website, in just 2013.
but those links are now dead.
but how could that be ???

You would have thought that the MCB would have been proud to continue to declare the truth about their faith, emanating from their www site ?



"And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is)."
Koran 2.42


"There is no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clearly from falsehood; whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And God is All-Hearing and All-Knowing."
Koran 2.256





Mr Moslem, on OzPol,

Is a person who does not obey the direct command of Allah, a moslem ?

Or is he a filthy infidel ?

Hot place !



.




MOSLEMS INTENTIONALLY LIE ABOUT, OR MISREPRESENT, THEIR 'FAITH'...
EXAMPLE #2;


Spokesmen for ISLAM will tell anyone who will listen;

THAT IT IS WRONG, AND THAT IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST ISLAMIC LAW,      TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.



Please watch this YT...
A UK moslem community leader, speaking in the wake of the London 7/7 bombing;


Quote:

YT KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE "...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems." "....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God." "...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God." "...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM." "...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does." "...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]" "...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

If you CHOOSE Islam in 2016, you are a psychopath.  Like Mohammed who invented it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 8:35am:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 8:52pm: Indonesia is the 4th biggest country in the world, and you 'predict' it might make it into the top 10? If it made it to 4th position that would be on par with it's population. Australia has a higher GDP than Indonesia, with less than 1/10th of it's population, and I don't hear anyone calling Australia an economic superpower. Nevertheless, its a tribute to Indonesia's stability and social and political cohesion. Yes it follows that a massive country should have massive economic output - but the real achievement is in having a massive country comprised of lots of different ethnicities and communities being able to remain united and prosper.

It prospers only insofar as it ignores and sidelines Islam.



The same goes for any other country without oil - you privilege Islam, you are a f Vcked. Islam is toxic.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 7:38pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 7:20pm: It's Berlin, March 1945 for Islam. Good point S - Germany came out of the dark and became an economic superpower  ;)

Not something you can say for any Muslim country......

Islam IS all about staying in the dark. Islam IS darkness. unquestioning submission to backward, primitive darkness.

Karnal wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 8:59am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:35am: freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 8:52pm: Indonesia is the 4th biggest country in the world, and you 'predict' it might make it into the top 10? If it made it to 4th position that would be on par with it's population. Australia has a higher GDP than Indonesia, with less than 1/10th of it's population, and I don't hear anyone calling Australia an economic superpower. Nevertheless, its a tribute to Indonesia's stability and social and political cohesion. Strangely enough, Indonesia appears to prove FD's democracy and economic growth thesis. For some reason, FD doesn't see this. I'm curious. I wonder why this is.

Yes it does support the thesis, but it does not have to become an economic superpower to do so, and the thesis should highlight some of the barriers the Indonesian economy is going to face.


Quote:

Yes it follows that a massive country should have massive economic output - but the real achievement is in having a massive country comprised of lots of different ethnicities and communities being able to remain united and prosper.

Except of course for East Timor. Who's next? Aceh? Won't that be a delightful place if it gains independence.

Aceh supports my theory that the liberalism of eastern Muslims reflects the shorter history of Islam. Aceh was one of the first Islamic centres in Indonesia. Today it is one of the most religiously conservative areas, has the highest proportion of Muslims, and the people live "according to shariah laws and customs". How they had the foresight to stick on on a big oil and gas reserve is anyone's guess....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aceh


Karnal wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 8:57am:

freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 8:52pm: Indonesia is the 4th biggest country in the world, and you 'predict' it might make it into the top 10? If it made it to 4th position that would be on par with it's population. Australia has a higher GDP than Indonesia, with less than 1/10th of it's population, and I don't hear anyone calling Australia an economic superpower. Sorry, FD, did you just say population? That's just the reason Indonesia will be listed in the top ten quite soon. The other surprising country? Pakistan. This is not based on nominal GDP, but economic growth. Indonesia is already in the G20. Watch it compete with Brazil, Pakistan and possibly even the Philippines for third prize.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves Karnal. It is currently competing for 15th spot. Pakistan is in the 40s, with the 6th largest population. All these countries have to do to improve at the moment is not actively stifle their economies.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:33am:

Aceh supports my theory that the liberalism of eastern Muslims reflects the shorter history of Islam.

It also destroys your theory of Islam spreading by the sword.

Perhaps you can invent another one of your 'elaborate sex-slave breeding program' theories to explain the spread of Islam in SE Asia.

This is true, but I have never argued that Islam conquered the far eastern extent of it's coverage by following Muhammed's lead. It is kind of difficult to argue that Islam in the east was more tolerant and peaceful at first and then became more conservative and traditional with time while also arguing it arrived by the sword, don't you think Gandalf?

It was the Sufi's who originally brought Islam to Indonesia. Traditional Islam eventually followed. I hope you appreciate the irony here Gandalf.

Sufi Muslims Feel the Heat of Indonesia’s Rising Intolerance

https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/15/sufi-muslims-feel-heat-indonesias-rising-intolerance

The plight of the Al-Mujahadah Foundation madrassa in southern Aceh illustrates the perils of rising religious intolerance for Indonesia’s religious minorities. The school, a private institution that instructed dozens of students 8 to 25 years of age in the principles of Sufism — devotion to more mystical interpretations of Islam — lost its dormitory on July 5 due to an apparent arson attack. Less than a month later, on Aug. 1, the wall surrounding the school compound was destroyed in what the school authorities believe was an act of vandalism. Police are investigating the alleged arson attack, but say the school’s wall collapsed due to faulty construction.

Suspicions that the school has been singled out for harassment and intimidation aren’t unwarranted. In February, Aceh’s Ulama Consultative Council (MPU), a government entity that advises the government on Islamic affairs, demanded the school’s closure on the basis that it was “strange” and its teachings “false and misleading.”

Looks like a microcosm of Islam's current spread into the far more powerful non-Muslim nations don't you think?

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:33am:

[quote author=Karnal link=1456110277/15#15 date=1456181962] Let's not get ahead of ourselves Karnal. It is currently competing for 15th spot. Pakistan is in the 40s, with the 6th largest population. All these countries have to do to improve at the moment is not actively stifle their economies.

I beg to differ, FD. What those countries have to do is clean up their economies. In Indonesia, there's a huge popular campaign to stop corruption. Most areas of the Indonesian economy are sold off as monopolies to the generals' friends, largely foreign investors and ethnic Chinese cronies.

The other problem they need to resolve is wealth distribution. Indonesia and Pakistan have two of the highest wealth disparities in the world. This leads to all sorts of social problems. Jakarta's a city of shanty towns and condominiums. Either/or. Pakistan's fastest growing city and the world's latest IT zone, Karachi, is controlled by ethnic gangs.

It would be nice to think that all you have to do is leave the economy alone to sort this out, but doing this will only lead to more monopolies and wealth going into fewer hands. To create a society - and, dare is say, a functioning economy - you need money spread around. Without this, you get the sort of lawlessness, gangs and warlords inherent to Pakistan. Not only that, Karachi is the port city of Central Asia. Those gangs and warlords are able to get anything they like in and out of Pakistan and the region. They do too. 

Forget the invisible hand of the marketplace, FD, Indonesia and Pakistan need to eradicate corruption and monopolies.

Quote:

Most areas of the Indonesian economy are sold off as monopolies to the generals' friends

Quote:

It would be nice to think that all you have to do is leave the economy alone to sort this out, but doing this will only lead to more monopolies and wealth going into fewer hands.

Quote:

Forget the invisible hand of the marketplace, FD, Indonesia and Pakistan need to eradicate corruption and monopolies.

Karnal, "selling monpolies off to the general's friends" requires the government to actively support those monopolies somehow - ie laws that effectively state (and enforce) that they are the only operator allowed. Very few of them would be natural monopolies. Removing those laws would be letting the invisible hand do it's thing.

If that is how Indonesia does things, what makes you think they are on their way to the top?

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 4:16pm:

Quote: Most areas of the Indonesian economy are sold off as monopolies to the generals' friends [quote]It would be nice to think that all you have to do is leave the economy alone to sort this out, but doing this will only lead to more monopolies and wealth going into fewer hands.

Quote:

Forget the invisible hand of the marketplace, FD, Indonesia and Pakistan need to eradicate corruption and monopolies.

Karnal, "selling monpolies off to the general's friends" requires the government to actively support those monopolies somehow - ie laws that effectively state (and enforce) that they are the only operator allowed. Very few of them would be natural monopolies. Removing those laws would be letting the invisible hand do it's thing.

If that is how Indonesia does things, what makes you think they are on their way to the top?[/quote]

Actually, liberalizing an economy requires laws. We have the ACCC. We have laws on disclosure, cartels, insider trading, price fixing.and money laundering. These are all regulations.

Indonesia is on its way up because of its population and resources. This doesn’t mean it shares the spoils - unlike the rich oil states (Brunei, Saudi Arabia, etc). It’s quite possible for one billionaire to own an oil or gas pipeline and keep all that money to himself - particularly if he’s a foreigner. One thing about Indonesia - it’s very nice to foreigners who have money.

I’ve heard Pakistan is not so nice.

Quote:

Actually, liberalizing an economy requires laws. We have the ACCC. We have laws on disclosure, cartels, insider trading, price fixing.and money laundering. These are all regulations.

They are important, but they are a distant second to not imposing monopolies on the economy.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 6:19pm:

Quote: Actually, liberalizing an economy requires laws. We have the ACCC. We have laws on disclosure, cartels, insider trading, price fixing.and money laundering. These are all regulations. They are important, but they are a distant second to not imposing monopolies on the economy.

I agree, but the importance of these things in a fair marketplace is not distant.

Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies. We did it, Uncle and Mother did it, and Suharto definitely did it.

All monopolies are imposed. I can’t think of one that isn’t. Can you?

Karnal wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 7:09pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 6:19pm: Quote: Actually, liberalizing an economy requires laws. We have the ACCC. We have laws on disclosure, cartels, insider trading, price fixing.and money laundering. These are all regulations. They are important, but they are a distant second to not imposing monopolies on the economy. I agree, but the importance of these things in a fair marketplace is not distant. Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies. We did it, Uncle and Mother did it, and Suharto definitely did it. All monopolies are imposed. I can’t think of one that isn’t. Can you?

Coles and Woolies?

Quote:

Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies.

Very corrupt governments and dictatorships impose monopolies, as a mechanism of maintaining power. Such countries are unlikely to 'develop' further, and the effort to cling to power by this method can drive a country backwards economically.


Quote:

All monopolies are imposed. I can’t think of one that isn’t. Can you?

Plenty of industries are natural monopolies. The government tends to hang on to a lot of them - eg utilities, roads, airports etc. These would still be monopolies without government control. Some not - eg software. Microsoft windows is a good example. All you have to do is make software that does something unique and you have a monopoly. You can set the price to milk as much as possible from your customers, and anyone considering investing in setting up a competing product risks the liklihood that you will just set your price lower and send them bankrupt. Your marginal cost of production is close enough to zero.

Introductory microeconomic theory goes through all the causes of natural monopolies - often framed as the requirements or assumptions behind a free competitive market place.


Quote:

Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies. We did it, Uncle and Mother did it, and Suharto definitely did it.

When was the last time 'we' did it?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:09pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 6:19pm: Quote: Actually, liberalizing an economy requires laws. We have the ACCC. We have laws on disclosure, cartels, insider trading, price fixing.and money laundering. These are all regulations. They are important, but they are a distant second to not imposing monopolies on the economy. I agree, but the importance of these things in a fair marketplace is not distant. Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies. We did it, Uncle and Mother did it, and Suharto definitely did it. All monopolies are imposed. I can’t think of one that isn’t. Can you? Coles and Woolies?

A good example. I wonder if legislation has helped to shape this monopoly - the same way it did for Packer and Murdoch - but I’m not sure.

You may have found an exception to my little rule.

Your little rule is straight from the socialist alliance website and has little regard for reality.

Science shows Islam is violent - let's discuss grocery duopolies.


No Islam to see THERE.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 7:30pm:

Quote: All monopolies are imposed. I can’t think of one that isn’t. Can you? Plenty of industries are natural monopolies. The government tends to hang on to a lot of them - eg utilities, roads, airports etc. These would still be monopolies without government control. Some not - eg software. Microsoft windows is a good example. All you have to do is make software that does something unique and you have a monopoly. You can set the price to milk as much as possible from your customers, and anyone considering investing in setting up a competing product risks the liklihood that you will just set your price lower and send them bankrupt. Your marginal cost of production is close enough to zero. Introductory microeconomic theory goes through all the causes of natural monopolies - often framed as the requirements or assumptions behind a free competitive market place. [quote]Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies. We did it, Uncle and Mother did it, and Suharto definitely did it.

When was the last time 'we' did it?[/quote]

See above. Governments shape "natural" monopolies all the time. If I remember riggtly, it was a government contract thatgave Microsoft its leg up to establish a monopoly.

The most common way, however, is political donations and lobbying for legislation or contracts.

Look at the way Clubs Australia and the AHA kept their cushy pokie deal.  Or the way Packer got the license for Lotto. Or the taxi industry fought to keep out Uber.

Only one of these is a real monopoly, but these are all ways people establish a hold over their market share.

Most of the time, it never makes the news.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 7:35pm:

Your little rule is straight from the socialist alliance website and has little regard for reality.

I haven’t been to this website, FD. I don’t even know what they stand for.

Do you?

Karnal wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 7:46pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:30pm: Quote: All monopolies are imposed. I can’t think of one that isn’t. Can you? Plenty of industries are natural monopolies. The government tends to hang on to a lot of them - eg utilities, roads, airports etc. These would still be monopolies without government control. Some not - eg software. Microsoft windows is a good example. All you have to do is make software that does something unique and you have a monopoly. You can set the price to milk as much as possible from your customers, and anyone considering investing in setting up a competing product risks the liklihood that you will just set your price lower and send them bankrupt. Your marginal cost of production is close enough to zero. Introductory microeconomic theory goes through all the causes of natural monopolies - often framed as the requirements or assumptions behind a free competitive market place. [quote]Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies. We did it, Uncle and Mother did it, and Suharto definitely did it. When was the last time 'we' did it?

See above. Governments shape "natural" monopolies all the time. If I remember riggtly, it was a government contract thatgave Microsoft its leg up to establish a monopoly.

The most common way, however, is political donations and lobbying for legislation or contracts.

Look at the way Clubs Australia and the AHA kept their cushy pokie deal.  Or the way Packer got the license for Lotto. Or the taxi industry fought to keep out Uber.

Only one of these is a real monopoly, but these are all ways people establish a hold over their market share.

Most of the time, it never makes the news. [/quote]
What's Islam's and Muslims' monopoly??


Not to be criticised or mocked - or there will be blood?


Economy of violence and intimidation, innit??

Soren wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 7:55pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:46pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:30pm: Quote: All monopolies are imposed. I can’t think of one that isn’t. Can you? Plenty of industries are natural monopolies. The government tends to hang on to a lot of them - eg utilities, roads, airports etc. These would still be monopolies without government control. Some not - eg software. Microsoft windows is a good example. All you have to do is make software that does something unique and you have a monopoly. You can set the price to milk as much as possible from your customers, and anyone considering investing in setting up a competing product risks the liklihood that you will just set your price lower and send them bankrupt. Your marginal cost of production is close enough to zero. Introductory microeconomic theory goes through all the causes of natural monopolies - often framed as the requirements or assumptions behind a free competitive market place. [quote]Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies. We did it, Uncle and Mother did it, and Suharto definitely did it. When was the last time 'we' did it? See above. Governments shape "natural" monopolies all the time. If I remember riggtly, it was a government contract thatgave Microsoft its leg up to establish a monopoly. The most common way, however, is political donations and lobbying for legislation or contracts. Look at the way Clubs Australia and the AHA kept their cushy pokie deal.  Or the way Packer got the license for Lotto. Or the taxi industry fought to keep out Uber. Only one of these is a real monopoly, but these are all ways people establish a hold over their market share. Most of the time, it never makes the news.

What's Islam's and Muslims' monopoly??


Not to be criticised or mocked - or there will be blood?


Economy of violence and intimidation, innit??


[/quote]

Exactly. Them, and your good self. No one has the right to not be offended, no?

Except yourself, dear chap.

Karnal wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 7:46pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:30pm: Quote: All monopolies are imposed. I can’t think of one that isn’t. Can you? Plenty of industries are natural monopolies. The government tends to hang on to a lot of them - eg utilities, roads, airports etc. These would still be monopolies without government control. Some not - eg software. Microsoft windows is a good example. All you have to do is make software that does something unique and you have a monopoly. You can set the price to milk as much as possible from your customers, and anyone considering investing in setting up a competing product risks the liklihood that you will just set your price lower and send them bankrupt. Your marginal cost of production is close enough to zero. Introductory microeconomic theory goes through all the causes of natural monopolies - often framed as the requirements or assumptions behind a free competitive market place. [quote]Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies. We did it, Uncle and Mother did it, and Suharto definitely did it. When was the last time 'we' did it?

See above. Governments shape "natural" monopolies all the time. If I remember riggtly, it was a government contract thatgave Microsoft its leg up to establish a monopoly.

The most common way, however, is political donations and lobbying for legislation or contracts.

Look at the way Clubs Australia and the AHA kept their cushy pokie deal.  Or the way Packer got the license for Lotto. Or the taxi industry fought to keep out Uber.

Only one of these is a real monopoly, but these are all ways people establish a hold over their market share.

Most of the time, it never makes the news. [/quote]

Let me guess, the government bought a bunch of computers and/or software from microsoft, therefor their monopoly is unnatural?

Karnal wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:04pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:55pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:46pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:30pm: Quote: All monopolies are imposed. I can’t think of one that isn’t. Can you? Plenty of industries are natural monopolies. The government tends to hang on to a lot of them - eg utilities, roads, airports etc. These would still be monopolies without government control. Some not - eg software. Microsoft windows is a good example. All you have to do is make software that does something unique and you have a monopoly. You can set the price to milk as much as possible from your customers, and anyone considering investing in setting up a competing product risks the liklihood that you will just set your price lower and send them bankrupt. Your marginal cost of production is close enough to zero. Introductory microeconomic theory goes through all the causes of natural monopolies - often framed as the requirements or assumptions behind a free competitive market place. [quote]Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies. We did it, Uncle and Mother did it, and Suharto definitely did it. When was the last time 'we' did it? See above. Governments shape "natural" monopolies all the time. If I remember riggtly, it was a government contract thatgave Microsoft its leg up to establish a monopoly. The most common way, however, is political donations and lobbying for legislation or contracts. Look at the way Clubs Australia and the AHA kept their cushy pokie deal.  Or the way Packer got the license for Lotto. Or the taxi industry fought to keep out Uber. Only one of these is a real monopoly, but these are all ways people establish a hold over their market share. Most of the time, it never makes the news. What's Islam's and Muslims' monopoly?? Not to be criticised or mocked - or there will be blood? Economy of violence and intimidation, innit??

Exactly. Them, and your good self. No one has the right to not be offended, no?

Except yourself, dear chap. [/quote]
Don't be such a Greens_Win queen, PB.

When was the last time I shot up your premises for criticisng me?


You are supposed to be intelligent (you are as thick as any number of fire doors but other fire doors think you are the best of their bunch -(discuss, if you must)) - so don't act like some knuckle dragging, bearded,  spittle-spewing Muslim prog.  You want to, you can't resist - but try anyway.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:10pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:46pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:30pm: Quote: All monopolies are imposed. I can’t think of one that isn’t. Can you? Plenty of industries are natural monopolies. The government tends to hang on to a lot of them - eg utilities, roads, airports etc. These would still be monopolies without government control. Some not - eg software. Microsoft windows is a good example. All you have to do is make software that does something unique and you have a monopoly. You can set the price to milk as much as possible from your customers, and anyone considering investing in setting up a competing product risks the liklihood that you will just set your price lower and send them bankrupt. Your marginal cost of production is close enough to zero. Introductory microeconomic theory goes through all the causes of natural monopolies - often framed as the requirements or assumptions behind a free competitive market place. [quote]Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies. We did it, Uncle and Mother did it, and Suharto definitely did it. When was the last time 'we' did it? See above. Governments shape "natural" monopolies all the time. If I remember riggtly, it was a government contract thatgave Microsoft its leg up to establish a monopoly. The most common way, however, is political donations and lobbying for legislation or contracts. Look at the way Clubs Australia and the AHA kept their cushy pokie deal.  Or the way Packer got the license for Lotto. Or the taxi industry fought to keep out Uber. Only one of these is a real monopoly, but these are all ways people establish a hold over their market share. Most of the time, it never makes the news.

Let me guess, the government bought a bunch of computers and/or software from microsoft, therefor their monopoly is unnatural?[/quote]

Let me guess, you don’t have the ability to think creatively and respond (like G above), so you rely on textbook headings like Socialist to reference views you don’t even disagree with.

Soren wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:04pm: Soren wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:55pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:46pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:30pm: Quote: All monopolies are imposed. I can’t think of one that isn’t. Can you? Plenty of industries are natural monopolies. The government tends to hang on to a lot of them - eg utilities, roads, airports etc. These would still be monopolies without government control. Some not - eg software. Microsoft windows is a good example. All you have to do is make software that does something unique and you have a monopoly. You can set the price to milk as much as possible from your customers, and anyone considering investing in setting up a competing product risks the liklihood that you will just set your price lower and send them bankrupt. Your marginal cost of production is close enough to zero. Introductory microeconomic theory goes through all the causes of natural monopolies - often framed as the requirements or assumptions behind a free competitive market place. [quote]Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies. We did it, Uncle and Mother did it, and Suharto definitely did it. When was the last time 'we' did it? See above. Governments shape "natural" monopolies all the time. If I remember riggtly, it was a government contract thatgave Microsoft its leg up to establish a monopoly. The most common way, however, is political donations and lobbying for legislation or contracts. Look at the way Clubs Australia and the AHA kept their cushy pokie deal.  Or the way Packer got the license for Lotto. Or the taxi industry fought to keep out Uber. Only one of these is a real monopoly, but these are all ways people establish a hold over their market share. Most of the time, it never makes the news. What's Islam's and Muslims' monopoly?? Not to be criticised or mocked - or there will be blood? Economy of violence and intimidation, innit?? Exactly. Them, and your good self. No one has the right to not be offended, no? Except yourself, dear chap.

Don't be such a Greens_Win queen, PB.

When was the last time I shot up your premises for criticisng me?


You are supposed to be intelligent (you are as thick as any number of fire doors but other fire doors think you are the best of their bunch -(discuss, if you must)) - so don't act like some knuckle dragging, bearded,  spittle-spewing Muslim prog.  You want to, you can't resist - but try anyway.

[/quote]

Sorry, dear boy, I’m.confused.

Is this you saying you do have the right to be offended?

That’s what I said.

Karnal wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:22pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:10pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:46pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:30pm: Quote: All monopolies are imposed. I can’t think of one that isn’t. Can you? Plenty of industries are natural monopolies. The government tends to hang on to a lot of them - eg utilities, roads, airports etc. These would still be monopolies without government control. Some not - eg software. Microsoft windows is a good example. All you have to do is make software that does something unique and you have a monopoly. You can set the price to milk as much as possible from your customers, and anyone considering investing in setting up a competing product risks the liklihood that you will just set your price lower and send them bankrupt. Your marginal cost of production is close enough to zero. Introductory microeconomic theory goes through all the causes of natural monopolies - often framed as the requirements or assumptions behind a free competitive market place. [quote]Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies. We did it, Uncle and Mother did it, and Suharto definitely did it. When was the last time 'we' did it? See above. Governments shape "natural" monopolies all the time. If I remember riggtly, it was a government contract thatgave Microsoft its leg up to establish a monopoly. The most common way, however, is political donations and lobbying for legislation or contracts. Look at the way Clubs Australia and the AHA kept their cushy pokie deal.  Or the way Packer got the license for Lotto. Or the taxi industry fought to keep out Uber. Only one of these is a real monopoly, but these are all ways people establish a hold over their market share. Most of the time, it never makes the news. Let me guess, the government bought a bunch of computers and/or software from microsoft, therefor their monopoly is unnatural?

Let me guess, you don’t have the ability to think creatively and respond (like G above), so you rely on textbook headings like Socialist to reference views you don’t even disagree with. [/quote]

This is introductory textbook microeconomics Karnal. You appear to be completely unfamiliar with it. If it is something other than socialism that is motivating you, feel free to elaborate.

Can you explain how some government contract makes microsoft's monopoly unnatural?

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:34pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:22pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:10pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:46pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:30pm: Quote: All monopolies are imposed. I can’t think of one that isn’t. Can you? Plenty of industries are natural monopolies. The government tends to hang on to a lot of them - eg utilities, roads, airports etc. These would still be monopolies without government control. Some not - eg software. Microsoft windows is a good example. All you have to do is make software that does something unique and you have a monopoly. You can set the price to milk as much as possible from your customers, and anyone considering investing in setting up a competing product risks the liklihood that you will just set your price lower and send them bankrupt. Your marginal cost of production is close enough to zero. Introductory microeconomic theory goes through all the causes of natural monopolies - often framed as the requirements or assumptions behind a free competitive market place. [quote]Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies. We did it, Uncle and Mother did it, and Suharto definitely did it. When was the last time 'we' did it? See above. Governments shape "natural" monopolies all the time. If I remember riggtly, it was a government contract thatgave Microsoft its leg up to establish a monopoly. The most common way, however, is political donations and lobbying for legislation or contracts. Look at the way Clubs Australia and the AHA kept their cushy pokie deal.  Or the way Packer got the license for Lotto. Or the taxi industry fought to keep out Uber. Only one of these is a real monopoly, but these are all ways people establish a hold over their market share. Most of the time, it never makes the news. Let me guess, the government bought a bunch of computers and/or software from microsoft, therefor their monopoly is unnatural? Let me guess, you don’t have the ability to think creatively and respond (like G above), so you rely on textbook headings like Socialist to reference views you don’t even disagree with.

This is introductory textbook microeconomics Karnal. You appear to be completely unfamiliar with it. If it is something other than socialism that is motivating you, feel free to elaborate.

Can you explain how some government contract makes microsoft's monopoly unnatural?[/quote]

Am I aware of it? You’ve even referenced the textbook.

Given you’ve read it, would you like to explain how governments influence Monopolies, using your example of Microsoft?

It’s in the textbook, so it shouldn’t be too hard.

When you’ve answered that, feel free to come up.with another question.

I think it is a natural monopoly, due mostly due to the low marginal cost of production, and hence relatively high entry cost that effectively becomes a barrier to entry. The government contracts are symptom of this, not a cause. Software is full of monopolies.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 9:41pm:

I think it is a natural monopoly, due mostly due to the low marginal cost of production, and hence relatively high entry cost that effectively becomes a barrier to entry. The government contracts are symptom of this, not a cause. Software is full of monopolies.

And I do too.

There. We agree.

Are there any Australian monopolies that you think are not natural?

When was the last time our government created a monopoly?

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:12pm:

Are there any Australian monopolies that you think are not natural? When was the last time our government created a monopoly?

I’m not sure, but the first example that springs to mind is the NBN. But for me, the most glaring example was Keating’s pay TV policy that blocked the introduction of microwave TV and kept small players out in favour of Murdoch and Packer’s joint ventures.

This is just one industry: telecommunications. I’m sure that if we went down the list into agriculture (Graincorp), mining (the mining tax deal).and many others, we’d find the same political deals at the federal and state levels.

I’d say one reason Australia has changed so much since the 1980s is the introduction of competition, but only up to a point. A visit to other countries, even small countries like Israel or Singapore, and you see the variety of choices on offer. In the media, Australia is highly monopolised. There are few reasons for this other than political deals, along with a lack of investment. Countries (and investors) with more capital are prepared to take more risks, but this too has to do with government incentives.

Australia has liberalised a good deal since the slumber of its early years, but it’s hardly the Bangalore, Silicon Valley or Tel Aviv it has aspirations of becoming.

Or did during Turnbull’s brief Winter of discontent, before he gave way to realpolitik.

It is my understanding that government policy is actually preventing monopolisation of the media. There are specific policies in place. If they were not there, we would have fewer, larger players.

Regional news centres are being closed down. This is not because of government policy. It is because of a changing market.

All of this of course gets pretty meaningless when you throw the internet into the mix.

Back to Indonesia, is the current growth happening because of economic liberalisation, or despite it?

I’m not sure of economic growth in Indonesia, FD, but I believe it’s driven by foreign investment and cheap labour.

Is this liberalization or selling Indonesia out?

The answer to this, I imagine,  depends on where you stand.

Karnal wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:25pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:11pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:04pm: Soren wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:55pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:46pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:30pm: Quote: All monopolies are imposed. I can’t think of one that isn’t. Can you? Plenty of industries are natural monopolies. The government tends to hang on to a lot of them - eg utilities, roads, airports etc. These would still be monopolies without government control. Some not - eg software. Microsoft windows is a good example. All you have to do is make software that does something unique and you have a monopoly. You can set the price to milk as much as possible from your customers, and anyone considering investing in setting up a competing product risks the liklihood that you will just set your price lower and send them bankrupt. Your marginal cost of production is close enough to zero. Introductory microeconomic theory goes through all the causes of natural monopolies - often framed as the requirements or assumptions behind a free competitive market place. [quote]Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies. We did it, Uncle and Mother did it, and Suharto definitely did it. When was the last time 'we' did it? See above. Governments shape "natural" monopolies all the time. If I remember riggtly, it was a government contract thatgave Microsoft its leg up to establish a monopoly. The most common way, however, is political donations and lobbying for legislation or contracts. Look at the way Clubs Australia and the AHA kept their cushy pokie deal.  Or the way Packer got the license for Lotto. Or the taxi industry fought to keep out Uber. Only one of these is a real monopoly, but these are all ways people establish a hold over their market share. Most of the time, it never makes the news. What's Islam's and Muslims' monopoly?? Not to be criticised or mocked - or there will be blood? Economy of violence and intimidation, innit?? Exactly. Them, and your good self. No one has the right to not be offended, no? Except yourself, dear chap. Don't be such a Greens_Win queen, PB. When was the last time I shot up your premises for criticisng me? You are supposed to be intelligent (you are as thick as any number of fire doors but other fire doors think you are the best of their bunch -(discuss, if you must)) - so don't act like some knuckle dragging, bearded,  spittle-spewing Muslim prog.  You want to, you can't resist - but try anyway.

Sorry, dear boy, I’m.confused.

Is this you saying you do have the right to be offended?


[/quote]
No, it's my way of telling you not to be a Greens_Win queen, PB.

Soren wrote on Feb 26^th, 2016 at 8:23am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:25pm: Soren wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:11pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:04pm: Soren wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:55pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:46pm: freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 7:30pm: Quote: All monopolies are imposed. I can’t think of one that isn’t. Can you? Plenty of industries are natural monopolies. The government tends to hang on to a lot of them - eg utilities, roads, airports etc. These would still be monopolies without government control. Some not - eg software. Microsoft windows is a good example. All you have to do is make software that does something unique and you have a monopoly. You can set the price to milk as much as possible from your customers, and anyone considering investing in setting up a competing product risks the liklihood that you will just set your price lower and send them bankrupt. Your marginal cost of production is close enough to zero. Introductory microeconomic theory goes through all the causes of natural monopolies - often framed as the requirements or assumptions behind a free competitive market place. [quote]Governments in developing economies all impose monopolies. We did it, Uncle and Mother did it, and Suharto definitely did it. When was the last time 'we' did it? See above. Governments shape "natural" monopolies all the time. If I remember riggtly, it was a government contract thatgave Microsoft its leg up to establish a monopoly. The most common way, however, is political donations and lobbying for legislation or contracts. Look at the way Clubs Australia and the AHA kept their cushy pokie deal.  Or the way Packer got the license for Lotto. Or the taxi industry fought to keep out Uber. Only one of these is a real monopoly, but these are all ways people establish a hold over their market share. Most of the time, it never makes the news. What's Islam's and Muslims' monopoly?? Not to be criticised or mocked - or there will be blood? Economy of violence and intimidation, innit?? Exactly. Them, and your good self. No one has the right to not be offended, no? Except yourself, dear chap. Don't be such a Greens_Win queen, PB. When was the last time I shot up your premises for criticisng me? You are supposed to be intelligent (you are as thick as any number of fire doors but other fire doors think you are the best of their bunch -(discuss, if you must)) - so don't act like some knuckle dragging, bearded,  spittle-spewing Muslim prog.  You want to, you can't resist - but try anyway. Sorry, dear boy, I’m.confused. Is this you saying you do have the right to be offended?

No, it's my way of telling you not to be a Greens_Win queen, PB.[/quote]

Offends you, does it?

There there. We understand.

You may not agree with what we have to say, but you’ll fight to the death for your right to be offended by it.

Karnal wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 9:46pm:

I’m not sure of economic growth in Indonesia, FD, but I believe it’s driven by foreign investment and cheap labour. Is this liberalization or selling Indonesia out? The answer to this, I imagine,  depends on where you stand.

I doubt the Indonesians are complaining. I think only rich bogans get wound up about that sort of thing.

So basically this growth that Gandalf thinks will make them an economic superpower is driven primarily by the bad condition of their economy, making their labour cheap on the international market.

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2016 at 7:25pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 25th, 2016 at 9:46pm: I’m not sure of economic growth in Indonesia, FD, but I believe it’s driven by foreign investment and cheap labour. Is this liberalization or selling Indonesia out? The answer to this, I imagine,  depends on where you stand. I doubt the Indonesians are complaining. I think only rich bogans get wound up about that sort of thing. So basically this growth that Gandalf thinks will make them an economic superpower is driven primarily by the bad condition of their economy, making their labour cheap on the international market.

They aren’t complaining?

If I may ask, FD, when did  you last visit Indonesia? Read an article? View a news report? Dare I say, speak to an Indonesian about Indonesian politics?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2016 at 7:25pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 25th, 2016 at 9:46pm: I’m not sure of economic growth in Indonesia, FD, but I believe it’s driven by foreign investment and cheap labour. Is this liberalization or selling Indonesia out? The answer to this, I imagine,  depends on where you stand. I doubt the Indonesians are complaining. I

No, they generally arent. The Suharto years kept the elite in riches but everyone else stayed poor  The new middle class are quite happy to have more money and a higher standard of living regardless of where its coming from.  Amazingly enough, just like most Australians.

ian wrote on Feb 26^th, 2016 at 10:47pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 26th, 2016 at 7:25pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 25th, 2016 at 9:46pm: I’m not sure of economic growth in Indonesia, FD, but I believe it’s driven by foreign investment and cheap labour. Is this liberalization or selling Indonesia out? The answer to this, I imagine,  depends on where you stand. I doubt the Indonesians are complaining. I No, they generally arent. The Suharto years kept the elite in riches but everyone else stayed poor  The new middle class are quite happy to have more money and a higher standard of living regardless of where its coming from.  Amazingly enough, just like most Australians.

The Indonesians have come to distrust their politicians more than ever before. Social media, cable TV and a much more critical press have seen a major shift in politics. There is a huge popular discontent - nothing like the Asian Financial Crisis, but a seething resentment towards the elites.

In some ways, this has been there since Sukarno. It’s quite old. In others, it’s finding new expression. Indonesia is developing rapidly, and this is never easy. Millions are left behind, and millions regret the loss of a simpler life that,in reality may have never existed, but they dwell on like some painful memory.

Karnal wrote on Feb 26^th, 2016 at 11:28pm:

ian wrote on Feb 26th, 2016 at 10:47pm: freediver wrote on Feb 26th, 2016 at 7:25pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 25th, 2016 at 9:46pm: I’m not sure of economic growth in Indonesia, FD, but I believe it’s driven by foreign investment and cheap labour. Is this liberalization or selling Indonesia out? The answer to this, I imagine,  depends on where you stand. I doubt the Indonesians are complaining. I No, they generally arent. The Suharto years kept the elite in riches but everyone else stayed poor  The new middle class are quite happy to have more money and a higher standard of living regardless of where its coming from.  Amazingly enough, just like most Australians. The Indonesians have come to distrust their politicians more than ever before. Social media, cable TV and a much more critical press have seen a major shift in politics. There is a huge popular discontent - nothing like the Asian Financial Crisis, but a seething resentment towards the elites. In some ways, this has been there since Sukarno. It’s quite old. In others, it’s finding new expression. Indonesia is developing rapidly, and this is never easy. Millions are left behind, and millions regret the loss of a simpler life that,in reality may have never existed, but they dwell on like some painful memory.

nah, bullsh!te. this sounds like something g you would want to believe.

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:43am:

This is true, but I have never argued that Islam conquered the far eastern extent of it's coverage by following Muhammed's lead. It is kind of difficult to argue that Islam in the east was more tolerant and peaceful at first and then became more conservative and traditional with time while also arguing it arrived by the sword, don't you think Gandalf? It was the Sufi's who originally brought Islam to Indonesia. Traditional Islam eventually followed. I hope you appreciate the irony here Gandalf. Sufi Muslims Feel the Heat of Indonesia’s Rising Intolerance https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/15/sufi-muslims-feel-heat-indonesias-rising-intolerance The plight of the Al-Mujahadah Foundation madrassa in southern Aceh illustrates the perils of rising religious intolerance for Indonesia’s religious minorities. The school, a private institution that instructed dozens of students 8 to 25 years of age in the principles of Sufism — devotion to more mystical interpretations of Islam — lost its dormitory on July 5 due to an apparent arson attack. Less than a month later, on Aug. 1, the wall surrounding the school compound was destroyed in what the school authorities believe was an act of vandalism. Police are investigating the alleged arson attack, but say the school’s wall collapsed due to faulty construction. Suspicions that the school has been singled out for harassment and intimidation aren’t unwarranted. In February, Aceh’s Ulama Consultative Council (MPU), a government entity that advises the government on Islamic affairs, demanded the school’s closure on the basis that it was “strange” and its teachings “false and misleading.” Looks like a microcosm of Islam's current spread into the far more powerful non-Muslim nations don't you think?

I have updated the wiki article on faith ratchets with this example.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet#Aceh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCMvmhWTivs

Artificial terrorism: FBI behind terrorist attacks