From: Diogenes on 3 Dec 2008 07:48
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:23:29 +1100, jl <not-here(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:48:24 -0800 (PST), JL <jlittler(a)my-deja.com>
>> When I become Dictator of Australia, you super won't be worth zip.
>> But you won't need it where you're going, boy... :-)
>My my you've taken a nasty turn haven't you. No the smiley doesn't make
Relax, Australia is safe. I have zero chance of taking over
But you need to get your humour meter repaired, boy. It ain't readin
From: Diogenes on 3 Dec 2008 07:53
See my final comment in this thread (to Capt_about_lunchtime) above.
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:13:57 +1100, jl <not-here(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:53:54 +1100, jl <not-here(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> Putting words in my mouth mate, where do I say or even imply "who cares
>>> about the losers". In fact I think there should be sufficient govt
>>> support to ensure people can & do retrain.
>> Yes using Australian taxpayer funds to train our workers to work for
>> foreign corporations. Band aid stuff, that is... I still argue that
>> the fundamental issue ought to be Australia striving for economic
><Shrug> from my perspective I don't see your obsession with the
>ownership, it's the skills that determine our long term viability and
>future- it makes no economic sense to "sell the farm to consume" so I'm
>no big fan of privatisation for its own sake. Natural monopolies should
>stay with the govt. But other than that capital makes it's rent in
>profit and labour makes it's in wages, but the difference is dollars are
>dollars and entirely substitutable, people and skills aren't as
>> That would require a pardigm shift in what we see as the econimc
>> imperatives. It would require a commitment to downsize our economy,
>> our needs, our wants, until we get down to a sustainable,
>> self-sufficient Australian economy. A pipe dream I know...
>> Mainstream economists will always laugh this off, but they've already
>> sold us out to the hightest bidder.
>>>> Oh I don't know, I think when wealth keeps bleeding out of the country
>>>> that's as detrimental as jobs or skills leaving the country.
>>> Bollocks. Money is an illusion. As long as capital is available to build
>>> what you need the absence of the skills is what's going to stuff you. In
>>> the war example the govt can nationalise (or just take over for the
>>> duration of the war )foreign owned manufacturing plants (for example) -
>>> if you don't have them, and don't have the skills to build them, you're
>> Bwahahaha... In one breath you say that money is an illusion, and
>> then in the next breath you say "as long as capital is available".
>Fair enough, perhaps I need to reword that for you.
>Money is an illusion, a collective delusion we all choose to participate
>in because it's convenient. Skills however aren't illusory, either you
>know how to weld or you don't.
>We can remove money out of society and society can still exist. When you
>remove enough skills, society is unsustainable.
>The "as long as capital is available" was a reference to the war example
>- it doesn't matter whose capital or where it comes from (if you retain
>the money illusion) - so we go to war and then the govt substitutes its
>capital for the foreign capital and no one is affected at all
>> About taking over and nationalising foreign coprporate stuff, that
>> woud be a very provocative thing to do. A little guy kicking a big
>> guy in the shins is not a smart thing for a little guy to be doing.
><shrug> the example was a war, we're already kicking someone or trying,
>you can't make it much worse if you seize their assets, wouldn't be at
>all surprised if it's in the "rules of war"(1) such as they are
>>>> I think there's a HUGE difference between protecting an Australian owned
>>>> and operated enterprise via tariffs and chucking megabucks of our
>>>> hard-earned at foreign companies make it cosier for them to stay here.
>>> You may well think that but you gave (and still give) no reasons.
>> To me the diference is self-evident. I'm getting to the point where I
>> say "If I have to explain it to you, you aren't capable of
>> understanding the explanation."
>Yeah OK Gerry, I'm too thick to understand your genius and insight
>Tariffs are a blunt instrument of extremely dubious efficacy, however
>they don't actual give money to the companies they protect - the govt
>gets that. Are you confusing the difference between a subsidy and a tariff ?
>>> The money is being spent to keep jobs in Oz, that's protectionism which
>>> in a perfect world you wouldn't have to do, however refer to all the
>>> stuff you snipped and other thread responsse for reasons why you might
>>> want to do that. It really makes little difference most times whether
>>> the business is foreign owned or not.
>> Yes, if the subject is limited to "jobs". If the subject is
>> "Australia's economic self-sufficiency and independince", then the
>> difference is HUGE.
><shrug> Jobs and skills matter in our ability to survive in a changing
>world. Throwing up trade barriers doesn't really do what you're
>proposing - North Korea and Burma aren't exactly doing well.
>>>> An ever growing number of people are starting
>>>> to question all sorts of stuff in the airy fairy fictional world of
>>>> "econonmics". Many of them are economists. Paradigms are collapsing
>>> <chuckle> So point out the bits that are not being questioned in any
>>> science, thats what academics do, that's how we advance civilisation.
>> Our so-called "civilisation" <oxymoron alert> is collapsing, I think.
>> but I'm neither an academic, nor a scientst, nor an economist.
>OK, so other than the black dog camped at your place, in what way is
>civilisation collapsing? Serious question.
>We've just had a sharemarket and financial crisis - OK, but we had one
>of those in 1930, 1890 (and if I recall correctly 1850 odd, 1810 ish.
>1775 ish and 1670 ish) asset bubbles and severe recessions happen. I
>very much doubt this one will be anywhere near the 1930's one - yes
>Iceland is going to be in a bad way for a long time, and probably the
>Ukraine as well, but the developed countries can weather another
>recession without the sky falling in.
>> I'm just one guy with a bunch or opinions doomed to irrelevance by
>> those who "know better". What do you want from me? At the end of
>> the day you have a piece of paper which says you know better. Good
>> luck to you. I was just airing my opinons.
>>> The trouble is people like you...
>> Oh...the old "People like you.." gambit... Ooer...
>Oh for heavens sakes Gerry - you come over all conspiracy theory and
>trade protectionist and you object to me mentioning the fact that I've
>heard this argument before ?
>>> ...try and lump all economists together
>>> the way Shock-Jocks and Howard era politicians lump muslims together.
>> If you'd actually cognited about what I said, you'd have seen the bit
>> where I said "An ever growing number of people are starting
>> to question all sorts of stuff in the airy fairy fictional world of
>> "econonmics". Many of them are economists." Please tell me how
>> that equates to lumping all economists together, John.
>Very simple - shall I quote back at you the parts you snipped where you
>made sweeping statements about what economists believe, say, think etc ?
> That's what I was referring to.
>If you'd said "some right wing economists think" or "keynesians say" or
>etc then you're not lumping everyone together. When you say "economists
><insert verb>" you're lumping in
>If you say so Gerry
>>> Well there's not much point discussing it then is there. OK, you don't
>>> want to convince me or the people reading that's fine
>> I'm just sharing my opinions. That's all. I can't speak
>> authoritatively because I have no basis on which I can claim to be
>> right. They are just my opinions. Do with them what you will.
><shrug> You can have an opinion that the moon is made of green cheese
>too, and if you assert it I'll ask for something that verifies or
>supports your opinion.
>(1) Legal conventions and etc that govern this sort of stuff - I'm no
>expert on what's what in that space
From: theo on 3 Dec 2008 16:58
On Dec 3, 3:14 pm, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 21:45:38 -0800 (PST), theo <t...(a)bekkers.com.au>
> >On Dec 3, 2:12 pm, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote:
> >> One year after I become Dictator of Australia, I PROMISE you the
> >> rortists woud either be digging for water or they'd have bolted
> >> overseas.
> >> I have so many good ideas I can hardly wait to implement them. :-)
> >I'm still voting for Zebee.
> >> Our very own JL would come under particular scrutiny, as would Theo.
> >For what? Being a working pensioner and gaining some pensioner
> >I suspect next week the Gov't is gonna put $1400 in my bank acccount.
> Huh? I thought you were a number cruncher. Where did I get that idea
Yes I am till next July. But in the meantime I've passed the age of 65
and Centrelink called me in for a little talk. Despite my fulltime job
they insisted on giving me a Seniors Health Card, which gives me a
$500 a year 'living' subsidy, free medical at my GP, $5 scripts at the
Chemist, and now a $1400 bonus. When I retire they promise to give me
another couple of $K tax free for working past 65. Ain't they nice
From: theo on 3 Dec 2008 17:02
On Dec 3, 9:46 pm, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:14:04 +1100, jl <not-h...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> >What makes you think I rort the tax system Gerry ?
> I've shut this thread down for myslef, but in departure, let me just
> say that you misunderstood what I menat by rortists. to me all
> economists, numbercrunchers, et al who support the "free market"
> model of econmics are rortists.
Ahh, the Pol Pot solution, followed by cut and run.
Good one Gerry.
From: Diogenes on 3 Dec 2008 17:50
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:02:07 -0800 (PST), theo <theo(a)bekkers.com.au>
>On Dec 3, 9:46�pm, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:14:04 +1100, jl <not-h...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >What makes you think I rort the tax system Gerry ?
>> I've shut this thread down for myslef, but in departure, let me just
>> say that you misunderstood what I menat by rortists. �to me all
>> economists, numbercrunchers, �et al who support the "free market"
>> model of econmics are rortists.
>Ahh, the Pol Pot solution, followed by cut and run.
>Good one Gerry.
No, you misunderstand, I am more like Hitler than Pop Pot.
Pop Pot just killed his victims, whereas Hitler worked them to until
they were of no further use, and even then he utilised every part of
their bodies, clothing etc (having already seized their assets).
As you can tell Hitler was the better economist of the two...
Hence my comment about tentrinching tools and digging for water
I could save this country... ;-)