Quote:

In Brexit and Trump, neoliberalism has reached its natural conclusion. What now? Elizabeth Farrelly I knew an unemployed artist who found work with a registered training organisation. Not teaching art. Teaching forklift drivers. "You ever drive a forklift?" I asked in surprise. He said no, unnecessary. He'd done a short course (not in forklift driving). He'd ticked the VET boxes for the TAE certificate from the RTO. All good. To me it made no sense, even sans the alphabet soup. Still doesn't. But this is what we have now instead of an education system: a market. Caveat emptor. It has to end. Neoliberalism was always based on a fundamental failure of self-knowledge. Now surely it has run its course. For decades, belief in The Market as divine presence – guaranteeing fairness and quality and providing a universal template for everything from museums to democracy to prisons – has been sewn like a nasty neoliberal pellet under our social skin. Gradually, as it released its low-dose toxicity into our bloodstream, we've deprived and debilitated our health system, our vocational education, our universities, our ports, our public service, our postal system, our electricity provision, our public assets, our parks and institutions, our public housing, our super, our correctional system, our building regulation and our motorways. As the rich get richer and the fragile vanish from the conversation, the world starts to feel like that scene in The Lion King where Scar takes control and the Pride Lands become the deathlands, tided in misery. Now, at last, this is starting to reverse. The jasmine is flowering and a sweetness tinges the air. People are shaking off the "greed is good" corset. More and more young people, recognising that altruism is not a chore but a pleasure, are self-styled "social entrepreneurs". I feel it. Simba is gathering courage. Inside 10 years we'll be reverting to some kind of neo-Galbraithianism. Just hope there's something left when it happens. This is not lefty claptrap. An International Monetary Fund paper argued in June that neoliberalism "increases inequality". Australian Competition and Consumer Commission boss Rod Sims said in July that privatisation has increased prices to consumers. Yes, their moral tone was a surprise. We don't associate economists with morality. Neoliberalism in particular has conditioned us to expect all public utterance to hover between the emotionally absent and downright morally bankrupt. Somehow we've become OK with this. But neither the IMF nor the ACCC were making moral points. Both were saying "and so it cannot work". Economically. Not possible. Too much inequality, says the IMF, renders growth unsustainable. Neoliberalism's spiralling prices, says the ACCC, diminish productivity. Even in its own, strictly utilitarian terms, neoliberalism has failed us. "I am now at the point of almost opposing privatisation," concluded Sims, as though he'd just woken from a dream and was kinda surprised to hear himself saying it. Neoliberalism, as defined in 1938 by Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, (with whom Margaret Thatcher corresponded personally for years and to whom she credited "our ultimate victory"), springs from two principles. Market freedom and small government. These bring Darwinian competition in all things, and government conceived not as provider of essential services but merely as regulator of those who do. Yet it has failed, for many reasons, all blindingly obvious. One, because neoliberalism, as modified by Milton Friedman (and adopted by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher) did a major u-turn, from opposing monopoly to approving of it as proof of "merit". Hence, for example, Rupert Murdoch. So the market's role as magical guardian of diversity and choice vanished, just like that. Second. Universal competition – between universities or schools or cities – needs universal definition, quantification, regulation and, especially, enforcement. This produces a massive bureaucracy, directly contradicting "small government". Third, competition as a guarantor of excellence (and therefore consumer satisfaction) works if – but only if – the consumer can assess and compare products. This is possible in, say, restaurants but not in master of philosophy degrees or breast surgeries. Or forklift courses. In most things that matter, product quality is not discernible until it's way too late to change, and often not even then. Fourth, governments are not corporations, and the effort to behave that way renders them permanently third rate. Government and commerce are fundamentally different and opposed, since one seeks to benefit the people and the other seeks to exploit them. Fifth is this: economics isn't really about economics. We're not really driven by yields and profits and internal rates of return. Economics is really about desire. Suddenly you're interested, right? Desire means chocolate, fast cars, sunshine, sex – not necessarily in that order. Desire makes us human. It makes us think, yearn, scheme, invent and create. It makes us motile. But it's not really about dollars. We want money, of course, because money – after food and shelter – brings status and power and beauty and freedom and perhaps even love.

Continued...

Quote:

Those things we want. So to sacrifice them for money is deeply counter-productive. Neoliberalism has failed because its ruthless pursuit of money as the sole human good generates an equally ruthless race to the cruel and sludgy bottom. Trump and Brexit are simply Reagan and Thatcher's pigeons, home to roost. This is not a plea for the return of Labor. Jimmy Carter's US government and Jim Callaghan's in Britain were first to embrace neoliberal monetarism. In New Zealand and Australia it was the "right-wing Labor" governments of David Lange and Paul Keating that instituted neoliberal social policies, destroying especially free university education, which cannot be forgiven. J.K. Galbraith famously defined conservatism as "the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness". But even selfishness, properly defined, requires a functional ecosystem. You can't run the Pride Lands for long feeding only the hyenas. In the end, the ostriches and warthogs must also be happy. Weirdly, neoliberalism and communism both failed for a reluctance to understand humans. Profit is not our only motive. Putting it at the wheel of prisons or schools or breast surgery then relying on "competition" and regulation to ensure quality was always doomed to substitute box-ticking for substance. Sooner or later, you need people who can actually drive forklifts.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/in-brexit-and-trump-neoliberalism-has-reached-its-natural-conclusion-what-now-20160811-gqq012.html

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/theatermove.gif

brilliant

I agree.  And another mantra which is just as yesterday.
Islam is the religion of peace.

John Smith wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 9:50pm:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/theatermove.gif brilliant

It's still worth having a debate over which services are best delivered by government, and which are best in the private sector.

A problem with monopolies is not everyone gets access. I studied acting once, many careers ago. The government provided a handful of acting degrees in the old universities in the capital cities. Only a tiny number got a position. Try auditioning for NIDA - I never even bothered.

I got a scholarship at a small private college. The teachers were NIDA trained. It had the same curriculum. It was a good little school.

Without colleges like this, most wouldn't have received that training. I remember going to the Actor's Equity sign-up after graduation - maybe 200 students from all those schools met in a big hall, along with NIDA and WAPA. They vastly outnumbered the public universities, who were seen as the "elites".

In the end, most of us got no work. Most of us ended up getting jobs and dropping out. Who knows? Perhaps the 20-odd places offered by the government colleges makes more sense. Does the Australian economy need 200 newly-trained actors a year?

But an acting degree is also a liberal-arts education. We learned a lot about literature, human motivation and the interface between them: performing. It was probably the most useful training I've ever had.

I had a couple of agents. I never got a job. But I learned things about people.

Neoliberalism has seen education become no more than accreditation. This is good, perhaps, for getting a forklift license.

But it's not a good way to learn, and understand your place in a society.

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 10:21pm:

It's still worth having a debate over which services are best delivered by government, and which are best in the private sector.

all essential services should be govt, as well as all police, jails, and defense forces. In a country the size of Australia, with such a low population, then that includes internet and communications infrastructure. All roads, airports and ports. I'd also suggest one govt. bank with competition from the private sector. Then lets see if they refuse to drop interest rates when the reserve bank does.

I'll add: health and education should be provided by govt. (but not restricted to).

That's a rather elaborate strawman Karnal.

John Smith wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 10:27pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:21pm: It's still worth having a debate over which services are best delivered by government, and which are best in the private sector. all essential services should be govt, as well as all police, jails, and defense forces. In a country the size of Australia, with such a low population, then that includes internet and communications infrastructure. All roads, airports and ports. I'd also suggest one govt. bank with competition from the private sector. Then lets see if they refuse to drop interest rates when the reserve bank does. I'll add: health and education should be provided by govt. (but not restricted to).

I agree with most of those - particularly health. Saving lives shouldn't rely on the profit motive.

I'm not sure about banks though. Why should one bank should be run by the government?

Financial services can only be driven by the profit motive. It seems to me that if you take that out, capitalism wouldn't work. I'm open to change my mind on this.

The important thing is that this is all an experiment. Applying rigid theories doesn't work. Once, foster care could only be managed by the state. How can the care of children be driven by the profit motive?

Foster care is now largely managed by the big NGOs and charities. It's a profit-spinner too - like aged and disability care.

Once, these services were performed by volunteers - families. Today, they're done for cold hard cash. Each, I guess, has its benefits and problems. My mother was very clear that she doesn't want me looking after her in her old age, and I don't disagree.

We have a lot of residual economic theories left over from different economic times. It seems pointless being precious about these. As Deng Xiou Ping said, it doesn't matter which cat catches the mouse.

As Monkey said, we die for our beliefs - time and time again.

freediver wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 10:30pm:

That's a rather elaborate strawman Karnal.

The more the word strawman is used, the more it loses its meaning. These days, I have no idea what it means.

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 10:46pm:

Why should one bank should be run by the government?

it keeps the others honest. As it stands, the Reserve bank is a toothless tiger. Govt. needs some control over the economy and at the moment, it has none.

Critique of capitalism  - number 5 million. Solution to capitalism - zero.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 10:55pm:

Solution to capitalism - zero.

BALANCE

John Smith wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 10:56pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:55pm: Solution to capitalism - zero. BALANCE

ok. Give me half your savings and assets.

John Smith wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 10:52pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:46pm: Why should one bank should be run by the government? it keeps the others honest. As it stands, the Reserve bank is a toothless tiger. Govt. needs some control over the economy and at the moment, it has none.

How would one bank keep others honest? Banks are judged on one thing: their profits.

John Smith wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 10:52pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:46pm: Why should one bank should be run by the government? it keeps the others honest. As it stands, the Reserve bank is a toothless tiger. Govt. needs some control over the economy and at the moment, it has none.

Neither of you know what the reserve bank does, do you?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 10:55pm:

Critique of capitalism  - number 5 million. Solution to capitalism - zero.

How do you feel about capitalism's impact on culture, Mistie? In your case, you left the West to live and work in a Muslim country. You moved there for economic reasons.

I'm curious because your posts are highly critical of Muslims and Islam, but you live in a Muslim country. You regularly support bans on Muslim immigration to the West, but in your case, you chose to move in with the Muslims.

Now you did this for economic reasons in a reasonably unrestricted labour market. You like impermeable borders, but you're free to live and work in Turkey. You champion Western culture, but you live and work with Johnny Turk. Capitalism - the free trade of ideas, goods and services - has allowed you to do this, just as it allows the Muselman to join us. This allows for the transmigration of cultures - the very thing you're against.

How do you square these things within your own life?

Greed is natural and beautiful.
It has rarely been allowed to flourish.

The idea of a 'democracy' cripples greed.
After democracy comes the slow strangulation of the left.

now we are comatose with PC

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 11:44pm:

Greed is natural and beautiful.

Which part of the Bible are you quoting, Sprint?

Are you a socialist Karnal?

Do you think we should do away with national borders?

Milton Friedman's neoliberalism (our current economic system) and Karl Marx's communism are two sides of the same coin.

We need a new coin...!

neoliberalism = oligarchies paradise

neoliberalism = pleb's hell

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

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2016 at 9:35am:

Are you a socialist Karnal? Do you think we should do away with national borders?

To do away with borders would be a good thing; as far a Socialism is concerned; the human race hasn't enough brain for it to function.
Socialism will not work, because the lower end of the plebs thinks, that everything comes from nothing and they don't have to do anything and have a good life; Capitalism cannot work for ever, because all wealth is concentrated in very few hands, and eventually will collapse.
Very few people will have a job; even highly qualified people will not have the security of a job.
How can it be justified that a recent CEO of an Australian bank is paid $88 million bonus after leaving the bank?
In the USA,some CEO's get paid hundreds of millions.

Ajax wrote on Aug 14^th, 2016 at 9:52am:

Milton Friedman's neoliberalism (our current economic system) and Karl Marx's communism are two sides of the same coin. We need a new coin...! neoliberalism = oligarchies paradise neoliberalism = pleb's hell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxxOIfrtYYY

[smiley=thumbup.gif]

hawil wrote on Aug 14^th, 2016 at 11:33am:

freediver wrote on Aug 14th, 2016 at 9:35am: Are you a socialist Karnal? Do you think we should do away with national borders? To do away with borders would be a good thing; as far a Socialism is concerned; the human race hasn't enough brain for it to function. Socialism will not work, because the lower end of the plebs thinks, that everything comes from nothing and they don't have to do anything and have a good life; Capitalism cannot work for ever, because all wealth is concentrated in very few hands, and eventually will collapse. Very few people will have a job; even highly qualified people will not have the security of a job. How can it be justified that a recent CEO of an Australian bank is paid $88 million bonus after leaving the bank? In the USA,some CEO's get paid hundreds of millions.

[smiley=thumbup.gif] [smiley=thumbup.gif]

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 11:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:52pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:46pm: Why should one bank should be run by the government? it keeps the others honest. As it stands, the Reserve bank is a toothless tiger. Govt. needs some control over the economy and at the moment, it has none. How would one bank keep others honest? Banks are judged on one thing: their profits.

When the commonwealth bank was in public hands it set interest rates. Other banks either competed at that price mark or lost customers.

i.e they followed the government bank owned set rate or there were no profits.

Selling the commonwealth bank has led to greed, high prices, profiteering and driven a lack of integrity in the banking system.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 14^th, 2016 at 11:59am:

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 11:03pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:52pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:46pm: Why should one bank should be run by the government? it keeps the others honest. As it stands, the Reserve bank is a toothless tiger. Govt. needs some control over the economy and at the moment, it has none. How would one bank keep others honest? Banks are judged on one thing: their profits. When the commonwealth bank was in public hands it set interest rates. Other banks either competed at that price mark or lost customers. i.e they followed the government bank owned set rate or there were no profits. Selling the commonwealth bank has led to greed, high prices, profiteering and driven a lack of integrity in the banking system.

well said........... 8-)

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2016 at 9:35am:

Are you a socialist Karnal? Do you think we should do away with national borders?

Thanks for contributing to the discussion, FD.

Remember, there are no small parts, .only small actors.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 14^th, 2016 at 11:59am:

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 11:03pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:52pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:46pm: Why should one bank should be run by the government? it keeps the others honest. As it stands, the Reserve bank is a toothless tiger. Govt. needs some control over the economy and at the moment, it has none. How would one bank keep others honest? Banks are judged on one thing: their profits. When the commonwealth bank was in public hands it set interest rates. Other banks either competed at that price mark or lost customers. i.e they followed the government bank owned set rate or there were no profits. Selling the commonwealth bank has led to greed, high prices, profiteering and driven a lack of integrity in the banking system.

The RBA was tasked with setting interest rates after WWII, DNA. Treasury (and the PM, and the Country Party) told the RBA where to set rates.

The Commonwealth Bank was privatized in.the 1980s. The task of setting interest rates was removed from government and handed directly to the board of the RBA.

The Commonwealth Bank, while it makes good money boxes to get kids to save, hasn’t had the role you mentioned since the RBA was created.

a few impressions.
1. the world is a very paradoxical place, the Buddha and Jesus certainly were amongst the first enlightened people to realise this.
2.  most successful people may be initially motivated by money but eventually become motivated by the journey.
Most successful people eventually become motivated by a sense of contribution, and by the improvement the journey gives them (higher consciousness and inner self development). Most are quite humble and very grounded.
3. We are moving into an era where you will have to harness your creativity to be successful.
4. everyone is either getting a little better each day or a little worse each day.
The default is that you go down a bit each day.

5.  Currently , the cream are becoming better and better and their success and improvement works like a positive feedback loop. our best people are in an upward spiral.
Thanks largely to social media and the death of any sort of religious contemplation, the majority of people are now, not in an upward spiral but are going down.
People are hooked on low consciousness, social pinging and validation hunting often on the internet but also thru low quality reality tv.
combine this with bad food , little exercise and little interaction with nature and you have the Durrr state or as the best seller on the internet say "the shallows".
Much of the low quality reactive posting on ozpolitics is a case in point. it is durr state social pinging.
6. People no longer read. I think because they dont believe value can be obtained in a $15 soft cover book.
some really smart people who have been really successful , have sat down, with editors and , with a sense of contribution presented their very best ideas.
These are shunned because people in low mindfulness and eating bad food,do not have the mental willpower to "read".
7.  meditation and mindfulness will become crucial weapons in propelling people forward.
8.People need to come to the realisation that "no-one owes you sh*t". nothing holds people back more then self pity and a victim mindset which are really low consciousness ways for the ego to feed and grow out of negative thoughts. (thinking negative is bad and pumps egos, this is where gratitude meditation is so useful.
9. Governments cannot and will not solve any of these problems. Governments and the public service are part of "group think " and "social conditioning". they are part of and contribute to the Durr state and lack of mindfulness that is dragging everyone down.
The social narrative of governments is not one of people having to work very deliberately and with will power to bust thru barriers and climb the very narrow road to success. The position of anyone who relies on group think to solve their problems is a position of laziness and a desire to reduce the time and effort needed for mastery. Governments offer to solve problems and remove obstacles. Real growth can only be obtained by manning up and tackling problems yourself and busting thru obstacles.A man is only as big as his problems. If you want to be a better man, you need to get better and bigger problems. This is the exact opposite of what government offers up as salvation. As such, big government is toxic to personal growth as has been witnessed time and time again 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 10:59pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:56pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:55pm: Solution to capitalism - zero. BALANCE ok. Give me half your savings and assets.

i said balance you fool. If you have no idea, don't comment.

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 11:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:52pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:46pm: Why should one bank should be run by the government? it keeps the others honest. As it stands, the Reserve bank is a toothless tiger. Govt. needs some control over the economy and at the moment, it has none. How would one bank keep others honest? Banks are judged on one thing: their profits.

if the RBA moved interest rates and a govt bank (call it commonwealth Mrk II) moved interest rates in line with the RB, how long do you think before the others follow?

freediver wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 11:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:52pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:46pm: Why should one bank should be run by the government? it keeps the others honest. As it stands, the Reserve bank is a toothless tiger. Govt. needs some control over the economy and at the moment, it has none. Neither of you know what the reserve bank does, do you?

do you?

Of course.

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 14^th, 2016 at 2:03am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 11:44pm: Greed is natural and beautiful. Which part of the Bible are you quoting, Sprint?

Quote:

.........He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them........

Matthew 13:11,12



Quote:

“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them

Matthew 25:26-29

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 11:44pm:

Greed is natural and beautiful. It has rarely been allowed to flourish. The idea of a 'democracy' cripples greed. After democracy comes the slow strangulation of the left. now we are comatose with PC

Socialism 'averages down' society

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 14^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 14th, 2016 at 2:03am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 11:44pm: Greed is natural and beautiful. Which part of the Bible are you quoting, Sprint? Quote: .........He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them........ Matthew 13:11,12 [quote] “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them

Matthew 25:26-29[/quote]

its a very good piece of "self-help" from jesus to understand this concept.
it is better to give then to recieve ...is true as a business principle.
the servant who buried the money and did not go forward, courageously, and try to expand and grow, had even this small ammount taken from him.
this is certainly true of people who have a certain degree of talent and do not use it...it will be taken from them.

and success does breed success.

everything feeds into everything.
a decision to eat the right food and work hard, might lead to a better creative mind, might lead to better self esteem , might lead to a great relationship, might lead to confidence to take a risk in business and on it goes.

a decision to eat pizza and dick around on facebook, might lead to a foggy mindset, might lead to a desire to take a bit of speed to wake yourself up for work on mondya, might lead to having the wrong people in your life , might lead to co-dependant relationships , might lead to the gutter.

success is absolutley a conscious and very deliberate decision.
success is extremely paradoxical and the bible is an extremely paradoxical book as are the buddhist texts.

one thing about failures though is that failures always have a leeching mentality. a failure is a value leech.
if you want to win lotto, if you look forward to going on the pension and relaxing, if you desire to take value , instead of being a source of good clean expansive energy...you will seal your own fate.

this is why it is better to give then to recieve, not because you lose by giving and contributing, but because you win.
socialism believes that success is a finite asset and the success of others is grinding you down. this is such a rediculous  concept. its why socialism just doesnt get the paradox of how life works and why it will always fail.

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13^th, 2016 at 11:12pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:55pm: Critique of capitalism  - number 5 million. Solution to capitalism - zero. How do you feel about capitalism's impact on culture, Mistie? In your case, you left the West to live and work in a Muslim country. You moved there for economic reasons. I'm curious because your posts are highly critical of Muslims and Islam, but you live in a Muslim country. You regularly support bans on Muslim immigration to the West, but in your case, you chose to move in with the Muslims. Now you did this for economic reasons in a reasonably unrestricted labour market. You like impermeable borders, but you're free to live and work in Turkey. You champion Western culture, but you live and work with Johnny Turk. Capitalism - the free trade of ideas, goods and services - has allowed you to do this, just as it allows the Muselman to join us. This allows for the transmigration of cultures - the very thing you're against. How do you square these things within your own life?

God, you are full of sh*t. I've never worked there or received a single Lira.

John Smith wrote on Aug 14^th, 2016 at 2:56pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:59pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:56pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:55pm: Solution to capitalism - zero. BALANCE ok. Give me half your savings and assets. i said balance you fool. If you have no idea, don't comment.

ok. go find a homeless man and give him half your things. balance and all that, c*nt.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 14^th, 2016 at 9:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 14th, 2016 at 2:56pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:59pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:56pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:55pm: Solution to capitalism - zero. BALANCE ok. Give me half your savings and assets. i said balance you fool. If you have no idea, don't comment. ok. go find a homeless man and give him half your things. balance and all that, c*nt.

that's not balance that's stupidity ... of which you have endless amounts

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 14^th, 2016 at 9:00pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 11:12pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 10:55pm: Critique of capitalism  - number 5 million. Solution to capitalism - zero. How do you feel about capitalism's impact on culture, Mistie? In your case, you left the West to live and work in a Muslim country. You moved there for economic reasons. I'm curious because your posts are highly critical of Muslims and Islam, but you live in a Muslim country. You regularly support bans on Muslim immigration to the West, but in your case, you chose to move in with the Muslims. Now you did this for economic reasons in a reasonably unrestricted labour market. You like impermeable borders, but you're free to live and work in Turkey. You champion Western culture, but you live and work with Johnny Turk. Capitalism - the free trade of ideas, goods and services - has allowed you to do this, just as it allows the Muselman to join us. This allows for the transmigration of cultures - the very thing you're against. How do you square these things within your own life? God, you are full of sh*t. I've never worked there or received a single Lira.

No worries, Mistie. Feel free to join in the discussion then. What do you think of neoliberalism's advancement into "culture"?

There's a Turkish PhD in there, don't you think?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 14^th, 2016 at 3:20pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 11:44pm: Greed is natural and beautiful. It has rarely been allowed to flourish. The idea of a 'democracy' cripples greed. After democracy comes the slow strangulation of the left. now we are comatose with PC Socialism 'averages down' society

Thanks, Sprint. I just took the time to read your Jesus quotes.


Quote:

The Parable of the Sower 13 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. 3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.” The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” 11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see;     though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

As you can see, Jesus isn't talking about neoclassical economics at all. He's talking about the art of listening.

You might like to reflect on Jesus' words when you next ponder the meaning of religious texts.

Though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 15^th, 2016 at 4:43pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 14th, 2016 at 3:20pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 11:44pm: Greed is natural and beautiful. It has rarely been allowed to flourish. The idea of a 'democracy' cripples greed. After democracy comes the slow strangulation of the left. now we are comatose with PC Socialism 'averages down' society Thanks, Sprint. I just took the time to read your Jesus quotes. Quote: The Parable of the Sower 13 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. 3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.” The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” 11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see;     though hearing, they do not hear or understand. As you can see, Jesus isn't talking about neoclassical economics at all. He's talking about the art of listening. You might like to reflect on Jesus' words when you next ponder the meaning of religious texts. Though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

Bingo....!  good pick up.

Nicely done..... 8-)

Ajax wrote on Aug 15^th, 2016 at 6:06pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Aug 15th, 2016 at 4:43pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 14th, 2016 at 3:20pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 13th, 2016 at 11:44pm: Greed is natural and beautiful. It has rarely been allowed to flourish. The idea of a 'democracy' cripples greed. After democracy comes the slow strangulation of the left. now we are comatose with PC Socialism 'averages down' society Thanks, Sprint. I just took the time to read your Jesus quotes. Quote: The Parable of the Sower 13 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. 3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.” The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” 11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see;     though hearing, they do not hear or understand. As you can see, Jesus isn't talking about neoclassical economics at all. He's talking about the art of listening. You might like to reflect on Jesus' words when you next ponder the meaning of religious texts. Though hearing, they do not hear or understand. Bingo....!  good pick up. Nicely done..... 8-)

Quote:

.............. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.........

is a fact of the world.

in another language, 'the rich get richer and the poor get the picture.......'

Quote:

in another language, 'the rich get richer and the poor get the picture.......'

No Sprint, Jesus still means the same thing in his own language: he is referring to spiritual knowledge, not money.

Jesus doesn't support neoliberalism, he champions the poor. Perhaps the closest you can find to a statement that seems to disregard support for the poor is "the poor will always be with us" - a quote Tony Abbott used to hold back his support for Matthew Talbots, a homeless refuge in Sydney.

The "poor will always be with us" line is not about supporting the rich, it's about encouraging spiritual work: "The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me."

Jesus was all about the poor. His entire message is one of humility and poverty. The words of Jesus can't be used to back Adam Smith, for example, the grandfather of neoliberal economics.

Adam Smith was a moral philosopher. He was pointing out a great moral irony: collective self interest is good for society. He pointed this out because the prevailing ethics at the time favoured the teachings of Jesus, who preached the opposite of self interest.

Social and political theory during the industrial revolution focused on the poor. London was overcrowded with slums. The jails were full. People were being transported to Australia. "The poor you will always have with you" rang true, but this wasn't good enough after the plagues and the great fire of London. Solutions needed to be found for the poor, lest they infect all of society. The colony of New South Wales was one solution; framed as an almost utopian society built on hard work and the rule of law. The penitentiary was another: jails as a place of social reform. And then, after germs were discovered, there was the invention of the hospital and the rise of public health.

All these utilitarian public "good works" competed with Adam Smith's notion of self interest, which taught that the invisible hand of the economy would solve all social ills. In the end, we ended up with the blend of utilitarian and freemarket ideas and policies that we have today.

Quote:

All these utilitarian public "good works" competed with Adam Smith's notion of self interest, which taught that the invisible hand of the economy would solve all social ills.

Did Adam Smith say this, or did his notion say it?