The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Neo-liberalism and impoverishment > Comments

Neo-liberalism and impoverishment : Comments

By Peter Gibilisco, published 5/8/2010

Since its inception world-wide, neo-liberalism has widened the gap between rich and poor.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
"neo-liberalism has widened the gap between rich and poor" says the blurb. And the article asserts that "today’s social reality [is] that the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer".

Oh good, thinks I. I've often seen these claims but never seen a skerrick of evidence for them. So I read the whole article waiting to be told how these views are supported by fact. But alas, no. Instead we are merely told that it is so and expected to believe it despite the weight of evidence to the contrary.

Sure, the rich are getting richer. But so too are the poor. Perhaps not as rich as many would like but richer than they were. For example even those on welfare benefits are over 30% better off in real terms than they were 30 years ago.

I just wish those arguing for change would do so from the facts rather than hoping the slogan will slip through. Surely it is possible to argue that if the poor have improved their living standards by 30% and the rich by, say, 60% (pick any number you want)then adjustments are called for...perhaps. But to just assert that black is white won't wash - at least not outside those circles where the slogan trumps the facts.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 5 August 2010 10:49:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having constantly experienced the inability of most OLO commenters to absorb complex factual arguments unfortunately a theoretically grounded article like this is even less likely to get an adequate OLO response.

I can identify with Peter Gibilisco's wider problems/concerns as I am also a "high functioning" permanently disabled person. Peter realises what he is missing out on and can see the broader picture of discrimination over his disability.

It appears that many disabled are intentionally discriminated against by those who rate personal or professional competition as more important.

1. It shouldn't be as it is. The white collar world is now very much reliant on educated people working at a desk on their PCs - as the basic unit of production. "Disabled" people like me can, and do, perform this function all day long and half the night.

However, money and recognition come from competitive meetings (appearances in crowded rooms) including committees to determine pecking orders and occasionally make risk averse, anonymous decisions, with no-one attaching personal responsibility.

2. In a world of information rationing for money (especially in Australia) pro bono information sharing is discouraged.

The exclusivity and mystique of off-line communication in boardrooms counts more than shared, mass reviewed, online creations or arguments.

Transparency is, of course, tantamount to that very dangerous thing, striving to share informaton without expectation of direct financial reward...

Personal understandings communicated in exclusive meetings of bureaucracy and higher professions equals money value. This is in contrast to unpaid online transparency - something quite subversive I fear.

Note this piece of near subversion http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2010/06/afghanistan-differing-indian-and.html :)

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 5 August 2010 11:03:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would have to side with mhaze. As for plantagenet perhaps I could respond that it may be yourself that has trouble absorbing complex arguments, but of course I would never dream of returning insults in kind.

Although I sympathise with the author's disability I am sure he would agree that his argument should be treated just like any other on OLO. And I would treat it roughly.
He does not present any evidence that neo-liberalism as such has resulted in additional poverty for the disabled or anyone else. He seems to think it sufficient to quote similar-minded authors on neo-liberalism who make broad statements.
So have Australians become more poverty-striken in recent years or less? Which groups have been affected? At the end of the article the author talks about arguements over changes in disability allowances, but that discussion must have occured under a labor government which can hardly be described as neo-liberal.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 5 August 2010 12:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mhaze is right: the lot the so-called poor does improve every time it improves for the rich. If it was not for the rich (and I am not one of them) we would all be on our uppers. Somebody has to have money to invest, to take risks and to provide jobs for the rest of us, and to pay taxes to provide for services.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 5 August 2010 1:00:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Gibilisco

Congratulations on your PhD, and i respect your passion about the issues.

However, it is a bit of a disgrace that most academics in the humanities are obssessed with a description that neoliberalism is the 'evil' reason for everything that is wrong with our society.

As an academic myself, although one who is reluctant to use the term political scientist, I note how the world changes before one's eyes, yet critics of neoliberalism have never been able to do anything about the change. I wonder why. Perhaps there are many reasons why the world has changed, and why it is difficult to go back to some 'idealistic' past, although it never really existed.

Peter, I challenge your evidence about an uncarign society in recent times, although there are many problems that are becoming difficult to address.

Unfortunately, it will may be a long time before this bias ends in universities. One can only try, although I suspect such efforts to counter the neoliberal bias is a bit like beating one's head against the wall.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 5 August 2010 1:16:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is true that neo-liberalism has fostered a widening of socio-economic injustice. The poor have gotten poorer and the rich have theirs. But it is also a fact that neo-liberalism - economic rationalism or the new right founded on Hayek and others have had there day. In the UK Thatcherism was quickly dismantled and disowned and Blair tried another way, the third way to get elected rejecting traditional labor policy. In Australia, (always a follower) we had Howard as Treasurer under Fraser trying to do his "flexible workplace thing" but it never really reared its head until Hewson and fightback (and he lost). Howard I think just resurrected his beliefs which had not gone away (the times would suit him he said). And we had ten years of inward looking social policy and a booming economy thanks to the mining industry. The GFC put it all to flight. The question now is will the world and Oz revert to social/commyunity needs or the economy as all. The neo-libs looked at society asd a by product of the market - have we had enough. Forn those who dont remember tehre was a time when people could look after their fasmilies and buy a house and even privately educate their children. I suggest government and business need to rethink the notion of profit and user pays. No-one is winning while we are all looked at as consumers - we are a community of living people. At the same time the political process has been reduced to a parody of wehat it was. For those who grew up under Howard and did well, I fear they will challenge a more equitable just society - until maybe life hits them in the face.
Posted by sleepy lizard, Thursday, 5 August 2010 2:21:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is neo-liberalism the problem? It could well be. It is not unlawful, by reference to S 24F Crimes Act 1914 to point out in good faith errors in the administration of government, and this is currently a pertinent matter, because the International Criminal Court has been given jurisdiction over all of Australia since 2002, and the International Criminal Court Act 2002.

There are three pertinent crimes against humanity that all Judge and Magistrate Courts in Australia have been offending against since 2001, when they entered into force. They are S 268:10, Crime against humanity; enslavement S 268:11 Crimes against Humanity Deportation or forcible transfer of population, and 268:12 crime against humanity: imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty.

An offence occurs against the first named section, 268:10 when a Judge sits without a jury, in any matter of a civil nature, and exercises ownership over an individual, takes his property and gives it to either another person or a bank. 268:11 when the Minister for Immigration asks a non citizen to leave, before he has obtained a court order from a competent court. The third offence is complete, when a Judge and Magistrate sentences a person to prison, before seeking a jury verdict on how long the person should serve in prison.

The International Criminal Court Act 2002, gives the International Criminal Court power now to prosecute and imprison anyone who offends these laws. This should be made clear to both sides in this election. They should be asked for comments because I think that may be why Rudd was dumped. He may have threatened the State Labor Governments. They are the worst offenders. This could see billions released into the economy as State theft ends.

People with disabilities are not at all handicapped in some ways, and would have time, certainly some of them, to ferret out and strip assets from rich criminals, who as neo-liberals have been given immunity from prosecution, by various bureaucracies. Richard Pratt is a case in point. The tax laws favoured him, but he was a criminal as well
Posted by Peter the Believer, Thursday, 5 August 2010 3:19:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author assumes that a growing gap between the rich and poor is identical with the “rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer”. It’s not. What has happened in Australia is that the rich have got richer and the poor have got richer, but not quite as fast as the rich.

For example, the ABS estimates that between 1994-95 and 2007-08 real disposable income rose by 46% in the poorest fifth of households and by 70% in the richest fifth, with average growth across all households of 58%.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/32F9145C3C78ABD3CA257617001939E1/$File/65230_2007-08.pdf
(derived from Table 1)

I believe we need protection for those on low incomes and those who can’t support themselves financially or materially, but I don't resent the rising incomes of the rich so long living standards are rising across the board.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 5 August 2010 4:30:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian - quite right everyone has gotten rich but some have become more richer than others. Now if we replace neo-liberalism with something else would that mean everybody would be richer or (as I strongly suspect) everyone would be poorer?
One poster claimed that Thatcherism was dismantled in the UK. It most emphatically was not.. the Labor party never tried to reimpose the massive government interventions she got rid of.. what happened was that the term went away because she wasn't in power and, anyway, there wasn't anything left to dismantle.
As in Australia neither side now seriously suggests that the role of government is massive intervention, for the very good reason that it never seems to work.
Peter the Believer - your posts are so clever that I don't understand them, and I'm not sure anyone else would. Is there a point to that stuff about criminal courts?
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 5 August 2010 5:10:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem I have with neoliberalism and this "meritocracy" is that in the real world it is complete and utter BS.

We all know hard working, conscientious men and women who toil away for years but never get anywhere. But multi billionares like bill gates or warren buffet are somehow (it eludes me) seen as being so much better than the rest of us that they deserve 50% or so of the worlds wealth. Even they can see the injustice and have decided to give half their fortunes away. Then there are those like the Packers. Masses of unearned wealth there. Did Kerry Packer really build his empire from scratch? No he didnt he gained most from his father. The same as he handed it on to his son James. Did they "deserve" what they were given. Did they work hard or were they just born into the right family. Once again luck of the draw not any innate superiority. See this joke of an ideology for what it really is.

The whole concept of a "meritocracy" is an absurd travesty designed to justify the inequality and exploitation of the current economy.
It says the wealthy are that way because they "deserve" to be while the poor cant blame anyone for their impoverishment and are just expected to see themselves as second class.
It completely ignores the luck and good timing, not to mention corruption, power, nepotism and old boy networking that defines the modern mega wealthy.

Neoliberalism is a spiteful, antisocial dogma that devalues anybody who is not rich and part of the elite and renders them little better than a serf let alone people with disabilities who are seen as worthless and a burden.
How evil and inhuman can you get.
Posted by mikk, Thursday, 5 August 2010 5:34:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When ever you see "Neo" something, you know it's going to be a rant by the poster, & many of the responders.

Perhaps it's a badge of honour among the ranters, but it's a sure sign of an unbalanced post. Just a boring waste of time.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 5 August 2010 6:52:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MIKK

There are neoliberals who link their ideas to meritocracy, but it’s not a necessary or even particularly widespread link. Hayek – definitely well regarded by many neoliberals – argued that markets work because they reward value, not merit – quite different things.

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2005/01/hayek_on_desert.html

Indeed, Hayek saw meritocracy as a fundamentally socialist ideology. It is the basis of socialism’s attack on private schools and hospitals, inherited wealth, etc
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 5 August 2010 7:10:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The GAP between Rich and Poor is not due to "Neo Liberalism" it is due to .....

Original SIN!

Man is fallen, alienated from God, and as such he acts accordingly.

PROPHETIC Role.

The vast majority of Old Testament prophecies related to the issue of injustice. ie.. the Rich exploiting the poor.

SOLUTION.. according to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos and numerous others......it was not

-join the Greens,
-embrace Marx or
-follow Marcuse
-Join the Labor Party

Heck..it's not even follow Glenn Beck....

But it IS..

a) Repent. (of injustice)
b) Believe (In God)
c) Obey his precepts.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 5 August 2010 7:13:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No one is ever dealt a “perfect hand”

Whilst many women pay for collagen injections for fuller lips, my beautiful wife once tried to get her naturally full lips “reduced”, feeling they were too full.

We all have limits and what we might perceive as “deficiencies” and imperfections.

To the article…

How does neo-liberalism deprive anyone of anything?

One politician said

“I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour.”

Many people throughout the ages have had disabilities

They have traditionally been helped first by their families and then by their immediate community

But

I fail to see how organizing an economy to a level that

“succeed in reforming the discrimination of people with disabilities, the economic system must undergo serious practical changes which allow for an ethical and social focus on people with disabilities in society.”

Produces any overall benefits!

When we consider the USA and USSR, as examples of neo-liberalism versus socialism / collectivism and the sort of state I suspect Peter has a vision of in his “economic system”, having undergone “serious practical changes”, I would say

Many of the poorest in USA were better off than the average in USSR and were free to aspire to a better quality of life accordingly

In short

Limiting the rewards of the "whole and healthy", to equalize the opportunities of the "disabled"

does nothing for anyone,

it merely impoverishes life for all


Peter is expressing a selfish notion, devoid of any meritorious benefits.

It is as anti-democratic as it is anti-neo-liberalist.
Posted by Stern, Thursday, 5 August 2010 7:49:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
See Barnett "The End Of Thatcherism". The election of the Tories in uk has spelled a newstart; Rudd's "Brutopia" gives an Oz example and Barack Onama in the US. In all there has been a retreat from neo liberalism and market triumphalism to Keynsian intervention. While it's true that the past intervention hasgone Robert Manne's hope it was all over - (The Australian, May) was wrong. I doubt we will see return in the near future - too many losers have been created. If we have the crash some predict (and there is still trillions of toxic debt to be found (Norris, CEO of CBA last year) then expect something quite different.
Posted by sleepy lizard, Thursday, 5 August 2010 8:47:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Stern one.. *waves*

what you described about the merit or lack thereof of the article simply proves my long held dogma that "communities" act on the basis of what they feel will benefit THEM... rather than the whole of society.

This is true for racial, cultural and religious groups and is more than ample evidence if it were needed that "Multiculturalism" is only fit for the lunatic assylum.

Cheers mate.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 6 August 2010 11:13:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, as appropriated and adapted by the establishment, neolib is a truly ugly and naked ideology and the only trouble I have, is in people not being able to, or perversly refusing to, see it for what it is.
That is, an alibi for the ransacking of the common wealth for the miserly few, bypassing Keynesianism and social democracy, or for that matter liberal democracy even, as opposed to Ricardian/Malthusian classical liberalism.
God help the people of this country if they are ever stupid enough to turn this country over our version of David Cameron; the daft Inquisition Abbott.
Posted by paul walter, Saturday, 7 August 2010 1:57:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
May be ya-all its time to humble ourselves and bow our heads and cry out not my will but thy will be done. Let your kingdom come. When the load is too heavy come to Jesus for he is the way, the truth, and the true light in an ever darkening situation, for the truth you know will set you free. 2+2 is 4. Perfect love casts out all fear, greater love has no one than this, than to lay down ones's life for his friends.For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Australia is at a cross road. Truth and justice or the same ole same ole. Both parties have taken a stance right of centre to get elected. More better we pray for our leaders that truth and justice flow through them then their own selfish desires. Blessed is a nation whose God is the Lord. Cursed is the nation where selfish ambition is on the throne.
Posted by Richie 10, Saturday, 7 August 2010 3:39:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Al’

Waving back….

Peter’s article relies on classifying people and modifying their individual rights to equalize the reward they receive from their individual efforts and achievements

Similarly “multiculturalism” suites those who seek differential entitlement, like the recent headline from USA, where non-Anglo voters were supposedly allowed 6 votes to Anglo’s one vote…. I will follow that one in detail as it unfolds.

As one politician wrote

"When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality - other than equality before the law - that government poses a threat to liberty."

Peter’s notion… “the economic system must undergo serious practical changes” -

Would, I assume need the support of law and no politician or statesman would expect to get elected on such a platform (“democracy” recognizes the able bodied as well as the disabled and there are more able bodied with a vote)

(alternatively he would be fomenting some form of revolution… and for many practical reasons, I cannot see that succeeding even if it happened – I am going to stop there because to continue, I would end up in the middle of one huge sick joke)

The challenge for us all, is to deal with the challenges of our life and grow as a person, accordingly

It is when people seek to burden others with their challenges that several things happen

1 they become a boring “victim” of circumstance
2 they become unjustifiably critical of the abilities and achievements of others
3 they seek undue influence and manipulation of the laws to unfairly limit the potential of others

Actually the ones I feel sorry for are those who have wealthy successful parents and healthy bodies, who then blow their apparent advantage in an orgy of self-indulgent indolence, failing in life completely and likely losing their inheritance to die a pauper and in the gutter.

We see it all the time… around every third generation… and has always happened and I guess always will

Such is the price of freedom,

The alternative, where we are all shackled to a manipulated “economic system”, will not stop it.
Posted by Stern, Saturday, 7 August 2010 10:42:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sterny....amen and "indeed" :)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Sunday, 8 August 2010 8:25:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for highlighting the fact people with disabilities are going backwards in this era of late capitalism.

The current Federal election is a classic! There’s not much on offer except more strategies to push people off the Disability Support Pension and make it harder to get. The only Australians being more ignored this election are Aboriginal Australians, who are almost invisible in the major party campaigns.

But the problem is more than just neoliberalism. “Classical economic liberalism” is the term used to describe the profit system in its youthful heyday. Translated, this means that industrial robber barons and bankers did what they damn well pleased, without regulation. As you say, this model was reborn in the 1960s and implemented globally in the 1980s as neoliberalism.

The essence of neoliberalism is removing all limits on what big business can do to maximize profits. In order to get loans from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank countries are forced to slash government services, open their markets to foreign capital, and sell off state-owned enterprises in energy, transportation and water to private companies.

“Let the market decide” serves as the justification for vanished social services, stagnant wages, and anti-union campaigns by the bosses.

However, while neoliberalism is a curse, the whole capitalist economic system needs an overhaul. Free-traders were betting that neoliberalism would give capitalism a second wind, and for a while, it did. But over the past few years it has been stirring up more resistance than revenue: that’s the good news! If you’d like to be part of the resistance, the Freedom Socialist Party (www.socialism.com) would love to work with you. Our Melbourne HQ is at Solidarity Salon, 580 Sydney Road, Brunswick.
Posted by Freedom Socialist Party, Sunday, 8 August 2010 9:03:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah the “Freedom Socialist Party”

How clever, it is not often we have someone who can work an oxymoron into their logon…

I have driven past your Brunswick HQ … often and noticed the sign “hairy lesbians against everything” painted outside

Perhaps I should give you my wife’s business card, she is, among other things, a beautician and could fix that superfluous body hair up in an instant. Electrolysis on the face and wax for a smooth “Brazilian” finish!

You suggest being “part of the resistance”… do I need to be constipated or something to join…

Not so much an underground movement, more a bowel movement

So let us consider the plight of the disabled… I can think of a couple

Stacey Keach and Joachim Phoenix

Both born with cleft pallets / hair lips

So, what happened to them?

Well someone did their best to relieve them of the disability and despite the physical heirloom of the operation, these guys turned into renowned actors.

What does that tell you…

Well, they both lived in USA, home-ground of capitalism… and could have their disability partially repaired

But what would have happened to them if they lived in the “workers utopia of USSR”?

That conveniently forgotten 70 year experiment in “socialist freedom”?

They would likely have been ostracized and vilified for their disability

No “cosmetic operations” allowed, by law, in the workers glorious, atheist (by law) republic.

So don’t come here and pretend that the disabled are ever treated better by a socialist government…

What happens

the “disabled” are treated the same as the “able”

And that means the “disabled” are treated worse than under capitalism and for the “able”, a lot worse than under capitalism.

Denying people their just reward for individual innovation and risk merely reduces the incentive to achieve.

the result being worse outcomes for everyone

But do come back with a reply, I so love shredding the patently defective philosophy of collectivists (by any name)

Just remember, as one capitalist said

"When you hold back the successful, you penalize those who need help."
Posted by Stern, Sunday, 8 August 2010 12:00:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*We all know hard working, conscientious men and women who toil away for years but never get anywhere. But multi billionares like bill gates or warren buffet are somehow (it eludes me) seen as being so much better than the rest of us that they deserve 50% or so of the worlds wealth.*

The problem Mikk, is not them, but you and your envy.

If people like Gates and others have the talent to be creative and
innovative, to create products that hundreds of millions clearly
want to buy as they vote with their wallets, why should I object?

Would I be better off it these people had never created these
products, if we did not have our PCs, the internet and the rest?
Clearly not and I see no reason why I should feel better, if
they were poor.

We need innovation, we need calculated risk taking to achieve it
we need smart people with those skills, as voted by people with
their wallets, to do more of it.

What do you mean, people don't get anywhere? People make a living,
that's what it is all about. Happiness and somewhere don't have
to be about money, they can be about anything. The scientist might
get somewhere by fullfilling his/her curiosity with some major
discovery. The chef might be passionate about creating a new
dish. They are all achievements, yet you seem to limit your
evaluation of achievement by money alone. How wrong you are.

The main thing is that people have choices to do what they are
passionate about and if possible get paid for it. The freedom
to have a society where people have those opportunities is
what it is about these days and I'm blowed if I can see why that
is such a bad thing.

Life is never going to be fair for all. If you were born dead
ugly and your mate was born great looking, that is just how
the dna crumbled. Rather then shed tears of envy about it, make
the most of the talents that you have.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 8 August 2010 2:20:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>The richest 1% of adults in the world own 40% of the planet's wealth, according to the largest study yet of wealth distribution. The global study - from the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations - is the first to chart wealth distribution in every country as opposed to just income,<<

Mhaze you gotta look at the macro, not the micro.
Posted by sonofgloin, Sunday, 8 August 2010 8:07:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sonofgloin ">>The richest 1% of adults in the world own 40% of the planet's wealth, according to the largest study yet of wealth distribution. The global study - from the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations - is the first to chart wealth distribution in every country as opposed to just income,<<"

yes maybe so

what % of the tax-take comes from that 1%?

What % of the world is reliant on that 1% for

gainful employment?

How did that 1% become that 1%?

and what do I have to do to join?

Meaningless statistics of wealth and income distribution, when used to beat the achievers is an exercise in total pointless envy and small mindedness

Mind you, it is the sort of waste of public funds which one would expect from UN

As to collectivism, the basic alternative to capitalism (and known by so many different names, usually because of the failure of the previous attempt that it gets renamed repeatedly by fools believing that renaming a "pig" makes it anything other than a "pig")-

Winston Churchill was heard to comment

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

and to the thought behind the most common theory of collectivism

Thomas Sowell wrote

“Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men (Marx & Engles) who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers"

A pair of ner'do-wells, no doubt

I think we will be better off saving the money spent by the UN on puerile statistics not on another "revolution by the proletariat"

but on a big orgy instead.

Maybe employ a few (otherwise) impoverished waiters and other flunkies to hand around the nibbles....
Posted by Stern, Sunday, 8 August 2010 9:10:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul Walter,

I was interested in your response, so looked your blog up.

So what does this mean. "It has baffled me for some time that Australians would prefer a delinquent Abbott to a dull but more effective Rudd Labor government" and Labor needs a second chance "to rethink its attitudes and approach to policy and issues they have obviously not come to terms with, particulalry environment and a decent rather than sado social policy.

You might want to look at facts before sharing your wisdom.

2009-10, env spending down under Rudd when compared to last years of Howard govt.

And $1.12 billion of that amount went on the insulation program".
Posted by Chris Lewis, Monday, 9 August 2010 12:51:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stern:>> Meaningless statistics of wealth and income distribution, when used to beat the achievers is an exercise in total pointless envy and small mindedness<<


Stern my personal view on wealth and subsequently other levels of liquidity through flow on is simply this "If the boss is not driving a Mercedes, then you are not driving a Holden".

I assure you I am no socialist, but the figures I presented are factual. Because they do not fit your argument there is no reason to then equate them as markers to personality flaws of the messenger, 82% of sheeple know that, baa baa.
Posted by sonofgloin, Monday, 9 August 2010 4:09:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris Lewis, you ascribe to me the quality the very Athenians are said to have bestowed upon Socrates; wisdom, and am touched by this simple gesture motivated surely only from the stand point of good will and solicitude. But following Socrates without being able to emulate him,the only certain thing I can say, that "all I know is that I knoweth not".
My "cup runneth over" however, figuratively speaking, when you ascribe to me some sort of ownership in some sense, of "a blog".
I am a free agent with a suite of current affairs blogs I enjoy visiting from time to time, for my own better education and edification.
Sorry, Chris..
It's obvious I subscribe to Peter Gilbarco's view, have read your reply to his essay and reluctantly find your position to be the less convincing of the two, if only from my stand point.
Labor is neoliberal, but at least hasn't valorised it.
The strident voices of the new Conservatism, however, are amnesiac to the disasters and wastage of this last decade through ideological neoconservatism and neoliberalism.
The despicable wars throughout the Middle East which are now claimed to have cost $trillions and the GFM of a couple of years ago, cost far, far, more. But the likes of Cameron in Britain and Abbott here, want to embark on severe deflationary policies, not because these quack remedies and nostrums are efficacious, but because of an ideological abstraction that beleives these policies should be introduce for their punitive and disciplinary consequences for their subjects.
Although there is the practical side, too.
You have to have an excuse or alibi to offer, if you have the gall to rob the masses to pay for your casino games and their consequences to further feed your avarice.
BP, Goldman Sachs and all the rest have such a wonderful sense of mutual obligation, duty of care and sense of community interest, don'cha think?
Posted by paul walter, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 2:31:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul Walter

Believe me, i am no fan of the status quo. As you indicate, there are some severe shortcomings in who is getting favoured.

Nevertheless, I am a bit more optimistic about the efforts of the major parties, although they do both need to lift their game. Perhaps we all do if we are to offer ideas that can make a difference to enhance debate.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 7:27:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sonofgloin “I assure you I am no socialist, but the figures I presented are factual. Because they do not fit your argument there is no reason to then equate them as markers to personality flaws of the messenger, 82% of sheeple know that, baa baa.”

Who said they do not fit my argument?

I did not contest them or their accuracy

I did in fact, assume their accuracy

But made comment to their meaningful relevance to anything

Although, I should, in hindsight, have addressed my comment to mhaze

Paul Walter “The strident voices of the new Conservatism, however, are amnesiac to the disasters and wastage of this last decade through ideological neoconservatism and neoliberalism.”

Ah grand words...

Is yours the strident voice of the new collectivism – what is going to be your new name?

Lets face it, all the old names are so bent and debauched through abuse and the hate they engender from the millions of surviving victims who suffered under their previous application that

being a “Neo-socialist” or “neo-communist” will more likely get you stoned to death than supported.

Regarding “these policies should be introduce for their punitive and disciplinary consequences for their subjects.”

Wrong

“Punitive and disciplinary consequences” are the stock-in-trade of collectivists, that is why they had to have the gulags and killing fields

and before you contest that "this time" there will be no massmurders

- that line has been used time and time before

but it is where the "collectivists" always end up....

bankrupt economies, bankrupt societies and mass-murder

It is like Andrew Sandlin said “For socialists, not just the wealth but the guilt must be redistributed”
Posted by Stern, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 8:30:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris, its agonising at times following this election at times, today a plethora of thread starters and articles in response (Sauer Thompson, Quiggin and another her at Online Opinion ( I think, the title eludes me for now) about post liberal society as now consumed to the point of simulacra.
Disempowering and depressing at its worst.
Last week's burglar is this weeks Rottweiller leavings, as to liberal democracy, without the resistance that comes of people exercising their faculties to reconnect, at sites like this.
Posted by paul walter, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 2:28:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy