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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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