Country towns not well
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
From: Yeebok on 4 Dec 2008 05:51 theo wrote: > 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> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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 >>> benefits? >>> I suspect next week the Gov't is gonna put $1400 in my bank acccount. >>> Wowee! >> Huh? I thought you were a number cruncher. Where did I get that idea >> from? > > 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 > people? > > Theo We are, yes.
From: Yeebok on 4 Dec 2008 06:01 Diogenes wrote: > On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:52:04 +1000, "Capt.about_lunchtime" > <cameronb(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: > >> ">>So what incentive is there for the Oz jeans manufacturer to get >>>> competitive, or even of a higher quality? What prevents us from >>>> fellating the local industry? What do we gain for our $47? >>> We get to support our own cotton growers (Australian jobs) >>> We get to support our own textile mills. (Australian jobs) >>> We get to support our own clothing manufacturers. (Australian jobs) >>> We get to keep these industries going instead of killing them by >>> buying imports. >>> We get to keep the money in Australia. > >> And likely we end up wearing shoddy jeans made by inefficient textile mills >> while paying heaps for low quality clothes and the value of the dollas kept >> in Aust.falls even more.. >> >> Competition, real competition, is the only thing that industry will respond >> to in the name of greater quality and cost effiencies. Tariffs while >> supporting local jobs is a severe determent to improving quality and >> efficiency unless they are accurately targeted and short lived. >> >> One example is Harleys' plea for the US govt to impose tariffs on the >> Japanese MC manufactures in the 80s' due to their alleged dumping of bikes >> into US markets. The US gov. agreed to a 5 year tariff imposition >> >> Honda decided to produce Goldwings, a big US seller, in the US thus >> bypassing the tariff. Harley however had enough time to launch the >> Evolution motor. This was so successful that Harley asked the Gov to axe >> the tariff a year or so earlier than they originally proposed. >> >> Well targeted, short-lived and successful in keeping a local manufacturer >> afloat while improving the product out of this world. >> >> Yes I know Harleys are actually made in China and only assembled in the US >> but not even the die hards can afford 75USD for an 883 > > I was in the mood for a bit of flippancy. > > But I would like to see us change radically how we do economics. > > I'm completely _not _sold on globalisation. I think it will lead to > Australia losing what little remains of its economic independence > (self-sufficiency). > > I think we ought to be heading in the opposite direction, i.e. > economic self-sufficiency in all vital areas of the economy. > > I don't mind if I get called an economic nationalist. I think it's a > lot better than us being a slave to the big economic powers. > > I don't think it would be easy. I don't think it would be painless. > But I do think fighting for our economic freedom (and that's what it > would be) would be worth it in the long run. > > And I don't have any problem with tariffs, governement control or even > publicly owned enterprises. > > I'm a dreamer, I know. > > Now, this is the end of this thread for me. > > Seeya, dudes and dudettes. > > > > >> Eventually the wages in these third world countries rise and the cycle >> continues, its a small world out there and getting smaller by the week >> putting up tariff walls is a short term insular bandaid. Long term it just >> wont work > > > Onya bike... > > Gerry Hate to tell you, but globalisation may not be 'perfect for one country' but just in case you haven't noticed, we're all on the one planet, against a universe. I really believe the day things are made with a global focus, we'll be better off as a species. All your plan will do is pollute -everywhere-. Admittedly it'll be even globally, because if we want an iPod we'll have to pay $3k for one.. or buy a locally made knockoff.. for $3k..
From: Yeebok on 4 Dec 2008 06:09 Diogenes wrote: > On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:23:29 +1100, jl <not-here(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> Diogenes 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 >> it funny. > > Relax, Australia is safe. I have zero chance of taking over > Australia. > > But you need to get your humour meter repaired, boy. It ain't readin > correctly. > > Onya bike... > > Gerry I didn't see anything funny in the post or even in the thread. Just saw you shownig your ignorance about some things, misspell a lot, skip letters in words, skip whole words, make blanket statements and sweeping assumptions. Then again, this is usenet isn't it. I get the feeling you didn't sell your shares and now you have the irrits.
From: Nev.. on 4 Dec 2008 06:15 jl wrote: > Diogenes wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:27:04 -0800 (PST), JL <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> >> wrote: >> >> Lots of snippage mainly because you're getting too deep for me to >> respond. >> >> >>>> Oh I don't know... I think employed consumers can afford to pay more >>>> than those who've lost their jobs because their empoyment (and >>>> expertise) has gone offshore. >>> Sure, but that assumes that no one can ever do a different job to the >>> one they did at 18, which is manifestly untrue. I've retrained myself >>> through 4 discretely different job groups in the last 20 years, I'm >>> sure I'm not the only one (because the ABS tells me so) >> >> I think there's a lot of what I call "re-invention fatigue" out there >> i.e. when you hit the wall and lose the plot because you just can't >> cope with re-inveting yourself yet again. Great for the >> psychologically strong, but devastating for the psychologically >> fragile. > > Oh give me a break, you don't *have* to reinvent yourself every 5 years, > most people will do it once. Job categories don't currently disappear > that fast. Yeah, the distributed computing guys have been talking about the impending demise of the mainframe for years. Most of the mainframe people at my work have never had a career change and are 20+yr employees. We installed the newest IBM mainframe last week. IBM are taking us out to lunch next week. Dell never take us out for lunch. Nev.. '07 XB12X
From: Yeebok on 4 Dec 2008 06:26
Diogenes wrote: > On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:15:29 -0800 (PST), JL <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> > wrote: > >> On Dec 3, 11:53 pm, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: >>> You win. >>> >> Baah humbug. There is no "win" - I've been trying to get you to >> actually explain your position and support it with evidence so we can >> have a rational discourse (and whether you believe it or not I was >> trying very hard to give your position the benefit of the doubt). >> Given you've not actually done so I would suggest if anything we have >> both lost. I didn't think it was a competition, I read it as JL said, gently trying to get you to explain why such bizarre ideas make sense on any level but you just skipped over it, begged to differ, or patronised people. I mean "boyo", how is that meant to be taken if not patronisingly ? > > I've explained my position. There are numerous economists who hold > similar positions. Google it, boyo... Maybe they could give you the > evidence and rational discourse you so crave. > > I have never been accused of, or found guilty of, the crime of > rational discourse. May I remind you of this country's defamation > laws? If you presist in slandering my reputation in this way, you > shall hear from my lawyers. I thought the guy in town who wore a dress, dyes his hair green and wears a skirt was an idiot.. Again, it's not humour it's just an acidic barb designed to garner a reaction. If you think about it the statement above pretty much guarantees your loss. You're agreeing with the person you're claiming to be defaming you. GET BACK UNDER YOUR BRIDGE. |