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 > Julia Gillard’s inability to change political direction: A price we all pay > Comments

Julia Gillard’s inability to change political direction: A price we all pay : Comments

By Bruce Haigh, published 8/9/2011

The decline of the Left, the disappearance of the Centre and the bullying of the Right: the modern Australian paradigm.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
"The desire of the Right to freeze Australia in some non-existent idyllic moment of the past has the nation marking time, afraid to embrace and plan for inevitable change ..."

You mean like that perfect "non-existent idyllic moment of the past" the global warmers rabbit on about? The one they think they can fix in place forever with a carbon dioxide tax?

Have a go yourself, Bruce. List the great achievements of the Left in Australia. Or anywhere else for that matter.

But until you can remind us of the Left's shining successes, spare us your vision for state-controlled everything and open borders.
Posted by KenH, Thursday, 8 September 2011 11:30:31 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
Love your work Bruce.

"There is no Left in Australian politics or discourse at the moment. There is just the Centre, now seen as the Left by the Radical Right and The Right stretching away to glorious infinity – a Nirvana of free markets, the centrality of self, supported by uncontrolled vitriol and uncurbed aggression."

Many in the rank and file have moved away from the ALP for the reasons you outline. The ALP no longer represents an egalitarian platform.

I recently read an extract by David Korten who writes "A depersonalized economic system with no attachment to place disrupts the bonds of community and family and makes it nearly impossible for parents to provide their children with the nurturing attention necessary for healthy development..."

Korten's ideal is of creating democratic middle class societies where there are no extremes of poverty or wealth and a focus on caring community rather than consumption.

There is room for optimism (as opposed to complacency). History tends to go in cycles where excesses tend to be later tempered with a re-emergence of those all important 'connection' or community values.

In this context a combination of Left, Centre and Right values can be easily tweaked to ensure reward of personal endeavour but not to the detriment of others. It is the far reaches of these Left/Right models that tend to create the same problems of oppression in their extreme manifestations.

KenH
The Left has provided you with many of the advantages you enjoy today including universal health care, education, industrial reform and a social welfare net. And regulation of business that ensures healthy competition and much more. It is the Left or Centre that invariably places importance on environmental protection and understands the importance of sustainability. The list is endless.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 8 September 2011 12:43:47 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
Love your work Pelican.
Posted by Ammonite, Thursday, 8 September 2011 1:04:45 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
I wonder just where, during his overseas service, that Bruce caught the disease that makes him see a centrist when he looks at the lovely Julia, rather than the raving lefty ratbag she is.

Hell if that old shoe banger Nikita Khrushchev were still around, I'm sure Bruce would be complaining he was extreme right wing.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 8 September 2011 2:06:27 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
good piece. Hasbeen has given us a great example.

You see if the NSW Liberal government increase mining state tax then that's okay, But if the Labour federal government want to put in a federal mining tax then it's a communist plot.

I don't think the left has fallen to far, it's just shouting into the wind at the moment.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 8 September 2011 2:45:06 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
I really liked the point re how some people consider the Australian to be left-wing!

And yes the obviously right-wing comments are proof of Bruce's thesis.
Bullies rule OK!

Meanwhile I quite like the book by Chris Hedges titled The Empire of Illusions. This "empire" began with Ronald Reagan and was extended by George Bush, and Howard here in the land of OZ.
If you really do your home-work you will find that the 8 years of his MAL-administration were easily the worst years in USA history.
And if anything thinks, that in the context of the USA, that Perry or Bachmann are anything other than deeply symptomatic of the problem re the dis-integration of Western culture altogether, then they are deeply deluded.
And yet Quadrant online features an essay which claims that Perry will "fix things".
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 8 September 2011 2:57:36 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
Bruce rights

'I have had enough of the radical Right, of the abusive Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard, who suck up to our big and powerful friends and kick down the most vulnerable and those most in need.

No what Bruce has had enough of is that the majority of people are not sucked in by UN charters which generally do more harm than good, 'science' consensus which is plainly wrong and social engineering which is leading to private schools exploding in numbers. Bruce is out of touch with what has gone on and still goes on in Aboringinal communities, seems heartless towards the many wanting to come to our country but have not ripped up identification and believe their still should be consequences for bad behaviour in schools.

Ms Gillard knows all this and that is why she is now desperately turning right after sucking up to the left which has led to her demise. Bruce's 'çompassionate' ideologies if adopted by Ms Gillard would ensure the slide even quicker.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 8 September 2011 3:29:04 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
@ KenH (Quote)Have a go yourself, Bruce. List the great achievements of the Left in Australia. Or anywhere else for that matter.

As a matter of interest - could you please tell me how many great achievements you appear to believe have come from the Right?
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 8 September 2011 3:47:33 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
I note that despite years of opportunity to enlighten themselves about Australia history and politics, the brain dead zombies of conservative myth making still infest these pages with their favourite delusions. Not one iota of shift in their intellectual capacity, still stuck in Menzian/John Howard theme park, straight-jacketed in their safari suites & long socks, frothing at the mouth. How sad.
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 8 September 2011 3:56:28 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
runner

I thought the point of Bruce's article was that Gillard has been influened more and more by the Right. When has the PM ever 'sucked' up to the Left? Please give me an example.

The point as I understood of Bruce's article was the lack of a Centrist and Left 'place' in Australian politics and the growing influence of the Right. Gillard is not turning Right she has sat at the Right since becoming elected. Whether it is Howard-Rudd-Gillard the big picture outcomes are the same.

The PM may need to consider onshore processing after the determinations by the High Court - that is what has influenced the government not in this case the influence of the Left. What is so bad anyway about influence from the Left, it just balances up the extremes of the Right.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 8 September 2011 4:00:12 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
Pelican

When has the PM ever 'sucked' up to the Left? CARBON TAX She tried to appeal to the centre/right in promising no carbon tax under her Government. To cling to power by her finger nails(sorry deceitful independants) she lied to the electorate.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 8 September 2011 4:51:30 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
*You see if the NSW Liberal government increase mining state tax then that's okay, But if the Labour federal government want to put in a federal mining tax then it's a communist plot.*

Err Kenny, there is in fact a difference. State Govts own the
minerals, not the federal Govt, who were trying to muscle in.

Next thing, the proposed tax was so high, that it hardly made it
worthwhile for people to bother mining. The left seem to think that
corporations and their shareholders should only take risks for the
benefit of the left. In general, the right creates wealth, the
left blows it on whatever new scheme is dreamed up at the time.

Given the huge waste in Govt, they hardly spend it wisely.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 8 September 2011 7:16:07 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
Privatizing assets- especially water- is not 'left wing' you moron.
And it worked so well in the past ten years hasn't it?
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 9 September 2011 11:41:21 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
"DENIAL IS NOT A RIVER IN EGYPT" perhaps we should have this tattooed on the forehead of every closet communist.

There has never been any shift to the right in Australian politics over the last half century or so. Moderate Centrists like myself, KenH, Hasbeen & runner have been recoiling in horror from the radical, extremes of both the Loony Left & the Raving Right.

The merger of Bob Katter's Australian party with the Queensland party is just the beginning, almost all of Australia's other minor parties will soon follow suit the FF, APP, AF, DLP, CD, ASP, SP, F & LP, LDP, AD, etc.

The Closet communists will lose EVERY seat.

With a preference swap between Bob Katter & LNP, the combined ANTI communist vote will be somwhere between 70% & 80%, with a combined RED/green, getup, GAYLP/alp, Socialist Alliance vote from 15% to 30% at best.

That article & some of the closet communist comments are more delusional than anything i have ever seen since i began following politics in the mid 1970's.

All loony left politics is a derivation of totalitarian communism/socialism, the only difference is which label Stalin applies to the turd, how Hitler intends to distribute it, how much "colateral damage" Mao intends to inflict & whether Pol Pot intends a quick, merciful execution or whether the "dear leader" intends to do it Australian/Fabian style, slowly over decades.

pelican, i know you think you mean well, but feMANazism was invented by closet communists as part ot their PC, Thought Police plan to destroy our society. Bob Katter is THE poster boy for moderate, centrist, politics, i knew Don Chip personally & you would be amazed at how much policy they share.

If Don Chip were alive today he would be declaring himself to be a "reformed" EX, social liberal & a reborn social conservative, he always was an economic conservative who did not believe in the "dream" of level playing fields, like myself & jesus he would not wish to BASH poofters &/or GLBT people but would DIS approve of perversion being promoted as normal.
Posted by Formersnag, Friday, 9 September 2011 12:18:05 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
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12582#217536

KH, actually you might be surprised if you thought about it some more, privatising assetts like water & radical, extreme, raving right, policies like globalised, "free trade", leads to Coca Cola Communism in which an ever shrinking minority of multinational corporations own &/or control everything "of value" that is worth owning/controlling, in other words a tiny minority of oligarchs on the board of those corporations runs everything, just like the senior levels of "the kremlin" ran the USSR.

Think about it, what REAL difference is there to the average pleb on the street between Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Burma or the Coles/Woolworths duopoly.

We vote ocasionally & everything has been changing for the worse for half a century? Especially since the SWP/greens morphed along.

The only REAL difference is how far down the toilet bowl we are & how fast the water/weasel words are spinning.
Posted by Formersnag, Friday, 9 September 2011 12:36:41 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
Bruce Haigh is right about both the major parties being on the same side of the fence.That side is the corporate dominanace of our country.

The left right paradigm is just a distraction for the masses while the really big players pillage and plunder our resources,energy and labour.The boat people is another distraction.More people stay here illegaly with a passport and they arrive on a plane.

Bob Brown wants "Global Goverance" 10% of our CO2 taxes will go to the UN for their "New World Order".Did we vote for that? Adolph Hitler also used environmentalism to justify his actions.

The US Federal Resreve a private group of European banks, since 1913 have owned the US $ and created all the money from nothing to equal increases in inflation and growth.They have the US Congress and nearly all presidents in their back pocket.The USA is the prime funder of the UN.So this private group of banks control the UN,IMF,World Bank,Bank of International Settlements and all the economies of Europe.They push for wars of imperialism since they can finance both sides and make money by controlling more energy and resources.

Has our stupid public awoken from their Hollywood trace? Do they dare smell the reality of Global oppression that will see the total enslavement of most humanity on this planet?
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 9 September 2011 6:19:11 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
*Think about it, what REAL difference is there to the average pleb on the street between Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Burma or the Coles/Woolworths duopoly.*

There is a huge difference Formersnag and if you don't understand
it, then you need to educate yourself a bit better.

You choose to go to Woolies/Coles, because you get a good deal,
or you'd be off the the IGA store, the Aldi store, the Costco store
or the butcher, baker and all the rest.

Hundreds of thousands of mums and dads own shares in both Coles
and Woolies. Virtually all Australians who have a super fund
investment own shares in them too, aware of it or not.

You can even buy a few shares via the internet in either, go to the
AGM and tell the management what you think.

In Saudi, Burma or North Korea, they simply shoot you if they don't
like you.

Formersnag, you need to post a bit more substance and a bit less
poorly thought through rhetoric.

You sound more like the tea party fanatics, all the time.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 9 September 2011 7:41:50 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
http://webskeptic.wikidot.com/federal-reserve-ownership

There you go Arjay, just to clear up one of your conspiracy theories.

But I know, you need your daily fix of this stuff, rather then
do a little research.

Fact is all US savings banks, as distinct from investment banks,
are compelled to own a share in the Fed. Profits from the Fed go
to the US treasury. But keep kidding yourself.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 9 September 2011 7:56:41 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
Well runner clearly the PM did suck up to the Right with the No Carbon Tax promise. The only reason she went back on it was to win government in a hung parliament. Abbott would have done the same to win government, Abbott mooted a Carton Tax and he has said he would have sold his 'behind' to win power.

I don't agree with the Carbon Tax either but do you really believe if Abbott and the Greens had formed Government we would not be going down the same track. You are dreamin' if you think different.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 9 September 2011 10:15:39 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
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12582#217561

Arjay, spot on.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12582#217566

Yabby, while all of that is technically correct, it is a half truth, there is no need for jack booted storm troopers in the land of OZ because the sheeple have been fooled by the spinganda.

Super funds investing in shares is one of the biggest problems facing our economy, fund managers gambling with billions daily is what causes the boom/bust cycle, furthermore all those people owning shares through super don't have their names on the shares, cant go to a shareholders meeting, which is why the Board & managment get away with blue murder, as you well know.

You are collaberating with the super rich to steal from the low & middle income earners. Have you heard of WW2? What happened in 1945 France to people who collaberated with the Nazis? i have met many Tea Party, moderate centrists, you are from the ruling elites of the loony left & raving right, supporting the rape of Australia by foriegn multinationals.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12582#217573

pelican, i do love the way you try so hard to ignore my comments. the PM sucked up to the centre on her broken CT promise, the raving right want it just as much as the loony left, big poluters pass it all on to consumers, &/or get compensation, banksters get to trade in carbon derivatives, they steal from all of us get rich & make some tax deductable donations to RED/green NGO's with Bob, Penny, Peter & Greg on the board.

if you believe otherwise you are dreaming.
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 10 September 2011 11:21:04 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
*Yabby, while all of that is technically correct,*

That's all it needs to be, Formersnag. Without your colourfull
imagination added. That was my point.

*Super funds investing in shares is one of the biggest problems facing our economy,*

Sheesh, there was silly old me thinking that workers having 1.5
trillion $, much of it invested in Australian assets, was a good
thing. If not workers, who do you think should own large corporations?

Our boom/bust cycle is very much tied up with us being a commodity
driven economy. Thus we need to focus on becoming a diversified
economy, with lots of niche industries, as I've previously mentioned.

*furthermore all those people owning shares through super don't have their names on the shares, cant go to a shareholders meeting*

Formersnag, they have every right to question their super fund about
its investments. If they don't like its policies, they can move their
money elsewhere. Today hundreds of thousands run their own super
funds, so they can go to meetings if they wish. Meantime something
like 40% of Australians own shares directly. Thats in the millions.

2000 people in Australia earn over a million. So very few indeed,
as it stands. Unlike you, I don't suffer from envy.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 10 September 2011 3:14:56 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
FS
I was not ignoring you I was responding to runner.

The trouble is while you acknolwedge concern with the free trade and globalisation policies of the far Right you are more concerned with attacking the Left. I suspect what you think is Left and what I think constitutes the Left in the Australian context might be different. As Haigh writes much criticism of the 'Left' in Australia is really aimed at the Centre/Left. There are few socialists left in Oz most are only imagined. Listening to some commentators you would think the 'The Reds under the Beds' have been upgraded from closets to bedroom suites.

I reckon most Australians can see the benefits of collective interests and invidual interests without being confined to strictly Left/Righ perspectives albeit those terms can provide useful sometimes as a descriptive aid.

The fact that the Greens forced the Carbon Tax issue does not make it a Left policy. Climate Change and solutions are not exclusively Left or Right issue.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 10 September 2011 4:43:21 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 author appears to have got out on the wrong side of the bed, and become disoriented.

Otherwise, why would the Right be attributed with pushing Left-wing agendas such as global warming scaremongering, the carbon tax, nationalising the broadband network, same-sex 'marriage', and the release of illegal refugees from detention?
Posted by Raycom, Saturday, 10 September 2011 11:28:57 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
Pelican

You are dreaming if you think Abbott would of introduced a carbon tax. You are mixing him up with the true believer Turnbull who thankfully got booted out which resulted in the Liberals ratings sky rocketing. Tony Abbott is dishonest on man made climate change because he knows that it is c-ap and yet still insists the Liberals will reduce Greenhouse gases by 5% by 2020. He would not of been nearly as naive as Gillard who thought she could con the Australian public with this unnecessary job destroying tax.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 10 September 2011 11:42:14 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
Runner
Why did Abbott refer to a Carbon Tax as a possible Liberal policy for climate change a couple of years ago. Abbott's direct action policy is all very well, but what are these direct action policies? We are still waiting to hear, the silence is deafening.

He has as little regard to democracy and obligations to the Australian public as the other lot.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 11 September 2011 5:12:24 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
I don't know about the lurch to the right beginning with Howard, Hawke and Keating did the real damage normalising third way economics, but of course I agree that there is no left in this country, though I don't blame the political parties; they are representative. Australia has by and large a conservative, bigoted and paranoid populace that is anti-green, anti-tax and anti refugees (many of whom we are responsible for in our support for imperial military incursions in sovereign nations and our ongoing ideological offensive in general).
It's all about money and the left is dead in Australia at least until the mining boom has been gobbled up. We are not a thinking people, but a reactionary one led by the nose, primarily by the US. We've mastered the art of self-deception and diplomacy in our culture of complaint, but have no ideals to either promote or defend.It's ironic, We're a bankrupt State though we're swimming in dough.
Posted by Squeers, Sunday, 11 September 2011 7:20:31 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
Rainier,

Simple.

The development of Western Liberal Democracy which includes all it's great institutions of Government and Learning especially of those Science, Medicine and Humanities.

That about covers it. ;-)
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 12 September 2011 12:04:24 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
Yabby

It is true the Fed Res pays a dividend to the Federal Government. But that is hardly the point. The Federal Reserve determines economic policy of the US and hence it's influence on world trade and affairs.

Now, from memory without exact revision on my part, all but three or so of the 12 or so members of the Board of the Federal Reserve are appointed, by Law, by agrEement by the 12 or so Local Reserves eg the NY Reserve. The NY Fed appoints the majority of the members and is controlled in turn by the major banks of New York who appoint their members. You should also note the US Treasury and the Government appointed Chairmen are usually former members(Bank Appointees)of the NY Reserve.

As you might understand, the interest isn't in the profit of the Fed Res but lies in the power of it's manipulation of world economic affairs.

btw I see BHP shares have gone from $AUS22 odd to about $AUS38. Well Done. No doubt your super looks real good.

However I bought silver at the same time at about $US16 an ounce. As I suggested.

I guess, as you said at that time, you really are a lot more economically smarter than me.

But when you account other factors, such as, the Aus $ went from, about $US 0.60, at the time, eventually to $1.05 and if you haven't traded your shares and I had not sold a big % of the silver, as it plateaued about $US35, and then traded the profited $US dollars for rising $Aus then ... well you'd get the gist. Oh and silver today is sill about $US42 and I'm waiting for the Aus to crash. If you watch it's relation to the NZ $ and the relative strenghts of the euro and the US to the Aus$ and add in the indications of the busting property bubble in China then you'll get an indication of when it is likely the Aus$ will collapse against the US.

There, there's another tip for you.
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 12 September 2011 12:40:54 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
Good article, Bruce.

I tend to agree with those who claim that "left" and "right" are now pretty meaningless labels.

The main opposing forces in poltics are those who support the policies of the big financial powers that have such an iron grip on things, and those that are prepared to argue against the destructive effects of so many of those policies.

What do we call them? The "plundering elites" and the "common gooders"? Must be something better. Any suggestions?
Posted by john kosci, Monday, 12 September 2011 1:40:13 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 the Fed Res pays a dividend to the Federal Government. But that is hardly the point*

Nutter, it certainly is the point, for clearly profits arn't going
to those "evil banksters", as claimed by Arjay. Yes, the mandate
of reserve banks is to keep the economy ticking along as well as
possible, at arms length from politicians, who would more likely
make decisions which are best for their reelection, rather then
what is best for the country in the longer term.

I don't see why bankers on the Fed should be a problem. They have
a better understanding of economic and monetary policy then say
brain surgeons and you do need qualified people in such a job. It
is in banks interest that the economy is in healthy shape.

As to BHP, I am quite happy with my investment and really don't
need your advice lol. BHP can continue to send me a nice dividend
cheque every 6 months, that is good enough for me. But speculate
away, all that you want, its not my scene. If BHP should ever
drop back to 22 $, I'll certainly be buying some more.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 12 September 2011 2:37:57 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
Yabby

I think you'd find the bankers representatives on the Fed Res don't give a diddly squat about 'what is best for the country in the longer term'.

I think you'd find they pay much more attention to the interests of the banks in both the short and longer term and any advantage for the country would be pure fluke or unintended consequence.
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 12 September 2011 4:33:38 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
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/board/default.htm

Nutter, there is a list of the current board of Governors and their
credentials. Tell me which ones don't give a stuff about the
US economy.

Methinks you would not have a clue as to what people are thinking
but its easy to try and pretend that you do.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 12 September 2011 5:22:22 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
Yabby

I'll respond to your insults by pointing that you have overlooked what I actually said.

There's that old lack of comprehension you always used to display.

I didn't say the members appointed by the Government 'don't give a stuff about the US economy'. I said the bankers representatives don't give a didly squat.

The other mistake you make is in understanding the essential roles in the Fed Res, and your assertions or suggestions don't reflect the truth.

Firstly the setting of interest rates and monetary policy is not the responsibility of the Board of Governors. A committeee called the Federal Open Market Committee is, by law, entrusted with those roles
This committee has 12 voting members:

In 2011 the Members of the FOMC were

Ben S. Bernanke, Board of Governors, Chairman
William C. Dudley, New York, Vice Chairman
Elizabeth A. Duke, Board of Governors
Charles L. Evans, Chicago
Richard W. Fisher, Dallas
Narayana Kocherlakota, Minneapolis
Charles I. Plosser, Philadelphia
Sarah Bloom Raskin, Board of Governors
Daniel K. Tarullo, Board of Governors
Janet L. Yellen, Board of Governors

Alternate Members
Jeffrey M. Lacker, Richmond
Dennis P. Lockhart, Atlanta
Sandra Pianalto, Cleveland
John C. Williams, San Francisco
Christine M. Cumming, First Vice President, New York

Non-voting Reserve Bank presidents attend the meetings of the Committee, participate in the discussions, and contribute to the Committee's assessment of the economy and policy options.

Much of the information supplied to this committee is supplied by the Regional Feds and decisions are made on the basis of that information.

Now of the Board of Governors Members:

Duke once served on the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond and has extensive banking background.

Raskin once worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and also has extensive banking background.

Yellan was President and Chief Executive Officer of the Twelfth District Federal Reserve Bank, at San Francisco.

Only Bernanke and Tarullo weren't from the Reserve Bank System. They are banking academics.

Don't you think the backgrounds of these people windicate some preference in their attitudes and emphasises in setting monetary policy?
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 13 September 2011 8:12:01 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
Nutter, one of my experiences about life is that people who don't
have much, invariably think that the rich are only driven by money.

In all my dealings with them, that has not been my experience. Ego
is a far larger driver, then money ever was. They just use money
as a kind of scorecard as to how they are doing in this world.

Serving on the Fed is considered quite a prestige appointment, but
it also carries with it responsibilities and lots of criticism.

As you would know, economics is hardly an exact science, or not
even a science at all. So there is much debate about what kind
of monetary policy is best for the country and economy, despite what
politicians might be doing.

These guys don't serve on the Fed because they need the money. Getting
it right would be a huge boost to their ego, so why should they not
do the best job that they can and cash in on all the prestige which
that entails? Money can't buy that.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 13 September 2011 9:37:08 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
Yabby,

It is my experience in life that employees will invariably do the bidding of the people who pay them and who will best enhance their careers.

None of those people on the list actually own any of the Fed Res banks. They may have a few shares but they wouldn't be from the families like the Rockeffellers, the Rothschilds, the Morgans, and lately the Buffetts etc who own the vast majority of shares inthe banks that make up the membership of the Federal Reserve. They achieve their positions through the patronage of the owners of these banks. I doubt they would be all that rich. They are like most board members in most enterprises, very well off but not mega rich like the people they serve.

I don't know your would but in mine money can very definitely be seen to buy prestige. But then again our values are somewhat different. In my world it isn't seen as all that prestigious to be an employee.

In the organisation of the Fed Res I guess we see differently where the prestige lies. I think the owners carry the prestige where you see it lies with the employees. hmmmm I guess we are both exposing more of ourselves than we normally would and I think this discourse should end.
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 6:51:58 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
*But then again our values are somewhat different. In my world it isn't seen as all that prestigious to be an employee.*

Nutter, that really depends on where you are working and why. In
America, results matter, above all. Steve Jobs gained his prestige
not because he owns shares in Apple, but as an employee of Apple,
having turned Apple into what it is, the list goes on.

Petreus won prestige as he got results in Iraq, not because he was
rich. Service to the country, if you get results does indeed carry
prestige with it in America.

All American savings banks have shares in the Fed, but they don't
get to keep the profits, as Arjay and others seem to imply.
So the Rockefellers, Rothchilds and others, really don't matter.
In fact like here, pension funds today are the largest investors
in banks, so everyday Americans would be the largest investors
in the Fed
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 11:17:49 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
Yabby,

'... the Rockefellers, Rothchilds and others, really don't matter'

This sort of statement, when these are the people who own the banks which own the Fed Res and influence most of the selection of most of the members of the FOMC which dictates the economic direction of the USA and the world, is plainly stupid.

To discuss anything sensible with you is impossible. You seem to think I make things up. You totally disregard relevant facts. You shoot off on irrelevant tangents. You sink to personal abuse ... much of which can fairly be applied to yourself.

You miss the point of any discussion. Most of us, unlike you, don't undertake such simply to impose our viewpoints onto others. Most of use use it as a medium to expand our knowledge and to learn from others.

Oh and I've been self-employed since I was 17. I have never worked as an employee.

I'm also a pacifist and reject the notion there is anything prestigious in anything military.
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 2:43:59 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
There you go, Nutter.

http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html

Unlike yourself and Arjay, I tend to question a little and not believe
every conspiracy theory that comes my way.

*Oh and I've been self-employed since I was 17. I have never worked as an employee.*

Err so what? As it happens I've been self employed
too for most of my life, but that has nothing to do with the
debate about prestige. Marius Kloppers might be an employee, but
his position in society carries alot more prestige then yours.
Which was my point.

*I'm also a pacifist and reject the notion there is anything prestigious in anything military.*

Well that is just your point of view. It hardly matters in this
context, about what earns prestige in the USA, which is what we
are discussing. It is their perception of the world which matters,
not yours.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 4:45:54 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
There you go. still at it aren't you? Trying to impose you very limited world fiew onto others.

Don't you understand I have little faith in your views ..which is my right.
You really shouldn't hector people to accept your view....nor abuse them.

This is becoming really very distasteful.
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 7:24:31 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
http://webskeptic.wikidot.com/federal-reserve-system

There you go Nutter, some more skeptical information about the Fed,
despite the hysterical claims by the consipiracy theorists.

Abuse? The only abuse that I see is in the nick that you seem to
have chosen for yourself. Keith was far shorter and less abusive
to yourself.

You are quite correct, you don't have to believe a word that I post.
That is your choice. But this whole debate started when you
challenged what I had written. If my responses upset you, best
you don't respond to my posts. All that I can do is remain factual
and well informed. If that upsets you, well I can't help that.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 8:04:01 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
More of your abuse because i have a different opinion from you.

Well Yabby anyone reading our exchange will have a good old belly laugh.

One of us believes bankers, when given an opportunity to either act in the interest of bankers or in the interests of the wider community, will choose to act in the interests of the wider community.

Additionally one of us maintains bankers would be more interested in a few billion dollars in annual profit rather than in having the power to exercise great influence over interest rates, the US economy and much of the western worlds economy.

Additionally one of us believes money doesn't confer prestige and that bankers would rather assess prestige in terms of employment rather than in terms of capital.

Sheeeeesh.

Now do you think credibility could be confered on the opinions expressed by someone holding such unusual beliefs?

lol
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 15 September 2011 8:13:35 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
Nutter, you still don't get it, but that does not suprise me.

If you've ever owned bank shares you'll know that banks generally
do best when the economy is ticking along nicely, people are
borrowing and banks are lending, with minimal losses from dud loans.

So its in bankers interests to fullfill the mandate given by the
US Govt, which is to keep the economy ticking along in a healthy
state. They both benefit.

The board of Governors is however appointed by the President and
Congress, they are not allowed to own shares in private banks.

But continue to see conspiracy theories everywhere.

Bernanke is not chairman of the Fed for the money. Only some people
can be bought, so your post tells us something about you.

Fair enough.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 15 September 2011 9:44:02 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
That's not what will make people laugh.

It's the positions you've maintained.

lol
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 15 September 2011 6:40:55 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 hell I couldn't resist one final laugh.

'banks generally do best when the economy is ticking along nicely'

and of course they did great when they were involved in dud securities and times were ticking along nicely.

But how do you explain how well they did during and after the GFC.

It seems to me apart from Lehmanns they all benefited greatly from bailouts, the stimulus and the printing of money.

And hey whatsmore they seem to be doing even better now, if the share price is any indication, during a time of a sad sack economy?

sheesh do you even take notice of what's actually happening in the world?
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 15 September 2011 6:50:54 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 seems to you, Nutter? You clearly don't bother to inform
yourself too well, just wild claims to try and impress.

http://au.finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=C&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=s&a=&c=

That should take you to the Citigroup 5 year price index, ie if
you'd invested then and what would be left of your money now.

That is despite the various sovereign wealth fund bailouts, despite
the Fed propping them up, for the Fed knows if they banks are stuffed,
so is the rest of the economy. What about all the US banks which
have gone broke?

Even Australian bank share prices have never returned to what they
were, because they all had to suck up extra capital, which has
diluted their unit price.

Just stick to silver, Nutter, you can't go far wrong and don't need
to think too much.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 15 September 2011 7:57:11 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
Which just goes to prove either you don't understand what you've read or you are similarily stuck in the Gillard mode of to thick or pigheaded to change your intrepretations.
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 19 September 2011 2:59:31 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
Sheesh Nutter, I thought that the figures were plain as day.

But if you can't refute them, so just chuck a wobbly, that will
solve it.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 19 September 2011 3:51:25 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
If using words and phrases such as:

'you don't understand what you've read'

and

'mode of to thick or pigheaded to change your intrepretations'

is throwing a wobbly

what do you make of using terms such as:

'don't bother to inform yourself too well, just wild claims to try and impress'

'you would not have a clue as to what people are thinking
but its easy to try and pretend that you do.'

'Only some people can be bought, so your post tells us something about you.'

and the disrespectful 'Nutter'

Finally when you make statements like:

'But this whole debate started when you
challenged what I had written.'

It makes you sound as though you think your opinions shouldn't be challenged. ie that you are infallible. And after that statement you've gone on to prove it's truth by being as disparagging of me as you possibly can, without incurring the moderators censure

I reckon that just goes to show who is throwing a wobbly ... and why.

You give me such great belly laughs so often with your illogical irrational and self-undermining positions that sometimes I have to stop and ask myself:

Yabby are you trolling?
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 8:01:26 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
*and the disrespectful 'Nutter' *

Lol Nutter, do you often shoot yourself in the foot and then
wonder why it hurts?

How much thought did you put into picking your new Nick?
Keith was fine. Don't blame me for your self inflicted
wounds.

I state my opinions on OLO. People are free to agree or disagree.
If their disagreements are simply wild or spurious, I commonly
challenge them based on points of reason and some evidence.
Don't blame me if your claims are shown to be nonsense, based
on that evidence.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 11:46:37 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
Still trolling Yabba?
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 21 September 2011 4:03:04 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. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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