@diver dan, Monday, 17 October 2016 8:25:08 AM

Diver, OMG, is this really you who suggests: "...encouraging the sale on the world stage, of Australian real estate to foreigners."

But, but, the Chinese Diver, the Chinese. Have you forgotten already?

If you need reminding of the growing and unwelcome influence of the Chinese Government in Australia, check out the following:

1) http://johnmenadue.com/blog/?p=7923
(JOHN FITZGERALD. Beijing’s Guoqing versus Australia’s way of life.

2) http://johnmenadue.com/blog/?p=7880
STEPHEN FITZGERALD. China’s deepening engagement in Australian society: is it a concern?)

The problem with demcracy and capitalism in todays world.

The politicians were supposed to uphold the egalitarian ideals of democracy,
but power has shifted from the political to the economic,where there is no democracy.

I was watching a talk on this the other day.
I thought it pinpointed whats gone wrong in todays so called democracies and
why the poverty gap is widening.

nana

so you dont want to bear any cost for other peoples children

but you do want a healthy young army to go to war for you if world war3 breaks out.
Also you want young strong health workers and doctors when you need medical care.

Do you want to live in a decaying, aging society?
Would you like to live in the desert, alone, with no vibrant young life around you at all.

You benefit greatly from other peoples children, but you want it all for free.
Typical of the selfish attitude that is destroying its own society with the cry
of "more for me"

mass unemployment is set to get much worse.
Pizza Huts and food delivery bosses cant wait to get the freed up
regulations that will allow them to do away with drivers and use drones.

What about drones on speeding duties instead of cops with speed guns.
Drones could also quickly zero in on crimes in progress. Although humans would still be required to physically arrest the criminals. Unless the drones could be fitted with a net or lasso the offenders and then a big pilice bus just go ariund and round them all up.
Funny idea I know, but it amuses me to think if it.

Then we have the driverless cars, trucks and buses revolution, maybe even driverless
trains. Lots of jobs lost there.

Plus robots are becoming ever more advanced, they can now walk and converse with people, and recognise faces. Now if the elite,wealthy, put all those people out of work
but dont compensate the working classes for their loss of income, then prepare for the revolution.
A society in which everybody prospers is a happy society, a lesson those who are
greedily grabbing the lot would do well to understand.

After all who wants to live in a society where everyone is miserable.

Pilgrim...
You are forgiven for misunderstanding my ambiguous text on foreign ownership of Australian real estate. The meaning is, that the Government approves and encourages foreign ownership to the detriment of Australians, (whoever an Australian is today, is also very ambiguous)...
I agree with the content of your links. The Chinese "Thing" is out of control.
A walk through Sydney CBD will have you wondering if, by some magic, you were misdirected in your travels, to Hong Kong!
That view of course is anickdotal, and would be amusing if not for the reality of the prime suburbs of Sydney, cascading into the gleeful hands of Chinamen

Poverty can be seen in two ways. There is absolute poverty where, by any measure someone or some group is living in abject poverty seen by such things as not having enough to feed, shelter or clothe themselves. Think Malawi, Niger, Central African Republic.

Then there is relative poverty where someone is poor as compared to someone else. I'm poor compared to Bill Gates, but a Chinese peasant is poor compared to me.

In Australia we have relative poverty and always will have irrespective of what polices are implemented. Poor in Australia means living on less than 50% of the median household income - the so-called poverty line. But someone living below the poverty line now is much better off materially than a similar person from say 1970 - 30% better off in real terms.

By definition we cannot reduce poverty in Australia because the poverty line continues to rise as the nation grows wealthier. (Well we could do down the path of ensuring everyone was equally well off but anyone mildly conversant with the 20th century knows that that just leads to everyone becoming equally poor).

Anti-poverty campaigners aren't really able to overcome poverty (as defined). All they are trying to do is to alleviate the relative poverty of some by appropriating the resources of others.

I'd much prefer to see poverty defined in absolute terms. Set a benchmark as to what a poor person would need to have to not be poor and aim to achieve that. eg define poverty as not being able to provide shelter, clothing and 2000 calories per day. Then make sure everyone can do so. By such a definition poverty would be quickly resolved in Australia.