Ah yes, those damn mega corporations, us lot are always banging on about them, and so we should be.

Corporations can be an enormous impediment to democracy, often dictating the national agenda, especially for developed countries (think water resources in Bolivia) but also in developed countries (think halliburton in the US).

Its a problem thats as old as the Dutch East indies company, but its definatley become more prominent in the last 20 years.

Of course Ms Beder and myself will be hounded down because corporations can be good for the economy and provide jobs and the rest of it, which is true. But the issue is when corporations dictate their own agenda and the public is powerless to stop them and politicians are unwilling.

Surely this is just the continuing workings of elites. Checked with the rise of democracy and perhaps a degree of guilt concerning the miserable state of workers, now huddled in towns blighted by poverty and pollution, whose work supported the elite.
The new paradigm of the individual and profit at any price has given material wealth to perhaps most at levels satisfying much of the Labour parties agenda on welfare. There was of course no public choice or goods or enterprise allowed by the dogma.
This welfare (fairness?) the new dogma argued constrained the possible cornucopia that freedom from restraint offered, itself theoretically kept in moral check by competition, which would ferret out not only poor products but also prevent collusion and dishonesty. Much has tended to deny such complacent thinking, the collapse and dishonesty involved of many companies with Enron immediately coming to mind.
The other side of the coin has been that whilst the poor of community can be ignored other than by the do good folk, the tick for charitable works, workers have found that material well being does not satisfy them as life’s aim. Something more is wanted. Perhaps the joy and pain of building enterprises now foreclosed to other than the CEO clubs. Perhaps being active in the democratic growth of their country but this is difficult for the information necessary for doing this is polluted by non disclosure and falsehood. There are many examples, though of course examples alone do not prove a case merely indicate there might be a case. The more recent is exemplified in Clive Hamilton’s letter to the SMH June 8 2006 pointing to the confusion if not deceit of our GHE being diluted by changes in land clearing, admittedly as agreed at Kyoto but certainly special pleading the kind of thing we supposedly abhorred in Kyoto allowing special treatment for the third world.

conspiracy theories

A very useful and informative article, Sharon Beder.

You wrote : "Governments decide which service sectors they will open up, often without any public consultation or parliamentary vote, and the decision cannot be reversed, even if the majority of voters in a nation want to do so."

Precisely!

Can anyone here confirm a rumour I heard the other day that Australian soldiers are fighting today in Iraq, to defend democracy?

Yet the kind of 'democracy' practised in Australia today is one in which the wishes of 75% of the public opposed to the full privatisation of Telstra were ignored by the Parliament last year.

Queensland Liberal Senator Brett Mason who voted for the legislation, said on 13 September 2005 : "Of all the emails I get, 95 per cent are against the sale of Telstra. ... Nearly everyone who comes into my office and nearly every email I get is against the sale of Telstra."

Brett Mason, knowing better than his constituents, of course, voted for privatisation.

Here's a choice quote from a recent edtiorial from The Australian in which the Federal Government's recent reversal to privatise the Snowy Hydro scheme was denounced :

(See also http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/02/this-is-getting-to-be-a-habit/#comment-52081)

Sadly, the reversal of the decision to privatise Snowy Hydro is a rare exception to the rule.

The Queensalnd Government is now in the process of selling Energex, the retail arm or Queensland's electricity generation utility so that it can fund the building of the Mary River Dam, which is opposed both by the local residents, and it appears. the majority of Queensland public opinion. (See http://www.savethemaryriver.com).

When he first Government in 1998 (or 1999?) 'Labor' Premier Beattie immediately broke an election promise not to privatise the remaining 50% of the State Government Insurance Office (now known as SunCorp).

Sharon,

Corporations driving global economy is and had been in existence since the French revolution.
The critical survival factor of capitalism is the growth (wealth concentration and maximisation)of today's corporations and wealthy individuals.

To achieve that, corporations need to open new markets and, in respect, reduce their cost of production and delivering goods and services.

Goods and services have to move freely and markets have to compete to attract investment. Same as we do it on a national scale, we need to factor it on a global scale.

Last year there was a milestone case in Germany when the workers unions accepted pay cuts year on year to prevent the car manufacturer from moving the factory overseas.
Which ring alerts of the rise of the working poor in the first world economies as Prof. Wallerstein described it.

The alarming issue in Australia today is the constant moving of factories and processing plants overseas reflects badly on workers unions in Australia (either vision or negotiation capability).

Food for thoughts,

Good on corporations.

If you dont like it, join one

Realist,

You are an ignorant fool. If corporations are so good then explain this:

COCA-COLA
- Discrimination and abuse of workers’ rights;
- Assassination, kidnapping and torture of workers for protesting bad labour practices;
- Water privatisation.

DOW CHEMICAL
- Developed and perfected Napalm;
- Health disaster of millions of Vietnamese and U.S. Veterans caused by it’s lethal Vietnam War defoliant, Agent Orange;
- Provided materials to Saddam Hussein for the production of chemical weapons;
- Worst peacetime chemical disaster in history when a chemical leak from it’s UCC pesticide plant in Bhopal gassed thousands of people to death and left more than 150,000 disabled or dying.

Dow still refuses to address it’s liabilities for this.

CHEVRON
- Left 600 unlined oil pits in the Amazon rainforest;
- Dumped 18 billion gallons of toxic production water into rivers used for bathing water. Local communities have suffered severe health effects, including cancer, skin lesions, birth defects, and spontaneous abortions;
- Hired private military personnel to open fire on peaceful protestors who opposed oil extraction;
- Responsible for widespread health problems in California, where one of Chevron's largest refineries is located causing rheumatic fever, liver problems, kidney problems, tumors, cancer, asthma, and eye problems;
- Rape, summary execution, torture, forced labor and forced migration in Burma.

NESTLE
- Forces approx 109,000 child labourers to work in hazardous conditions;
- Nestle is also notorious for its aggressive marketing of infant formula in poor countries in the 1980s resulting in the death of approx 100 000 infants.

In Italy in 2005, police seized more than two million litres of Nestle infant formula that was contaminated with the chemical isopropylthioxanthone.

WAL-MART
- Exploitation of workers worldwide;
- Child labour;
- Verbal and Physical worker abuse in the US;
- Blacklisting of workers who defend their rights;
- Union busting.

Just tell me if you’d like me to keep going? The list is endless.

You’re hardly what I'd call a "Realist" and you certainly have a lot to learn…

An intriguing essay, Sharon, especially when surveying the history of political economy. One wonders what Max Weber, one of the fathers of political economy would think of it, especially as he predicted that capitalism might destroy itself through becoming over-bureaucratic as it tries to save itself.

You have explained it so well, it has one looking for the old global elite, which surely must still have a lot to do with it. The Trilaterists and Bilderbergers, the former largely financed by the Rockefellers and Morgans, et al, and to which George W Bush also belongs, as well as Tony Blair. It is said they also pay homage to Cecil Rhodes, who believed that surely a righteous God would have a place in heaven for the leaders of British colonialism.

Also seemingly sure they have an alotted place in heaven are the new ultra-right-wing American born-again religous right, also having connections in our own Aussie-land with the Howard and Costello- backed Hillsong Church.

Yes, as mentioned in one of our commentaries, big business is now again calling the government tune as in the days of the East India Company, and incidently as it also did before Maynard Keynes found the cause of the 1930s Great Depression. Even us oldies as lads remember the cry about the The Roaring Twenties being ruined by too much freedom for Big Biz, or the middle-men. It is so interesting that the political economic theories that were given the boot by Keynes and Roosevelt during the Great Depression are now back in vogue once again.

Part Two.

It was the English philosopher John Locke’s cry for more freedom for business marketing not long after Britain’s Glorious Revolution in 1688 which helped greatly to spur on British colonialism as well as big business. Such was also backed by the church which further revived the Old Testament fable about a Promised Land and the need for God’s people to replace those that are evil. Adam Smith much later preached the same message with Laissez-faire and the need for more individual competion in marketing - but Smith did warn that because competition was based on human greed, there was the problem that terms like freedom and liberty could be abused. For example, a person can be given the freedom or liberty to kill another, as during wartme.

“Oh Liberty, what crimes have been committed in thy name,” wrote Madame Roland after she had watched Marie Antoinette die under the guillotine during the French Revolution.

So, we might say that it is up to us to watch 17th century words or terms like neo-liberalism or the free-market even more carefully these days, especially when they come out of the mouths not only of world figures like George W Bush or Donald Rumsfeld, but also our corporate leaders, most of them more interested in making an extra couple of billion rather than how the double-speak of certain terms or words can influence a very gullible public to accept what Professor Beder says is happening today with corporate business theory.

What is far more serious, however, is how the dot-com craze has changed the minds of students not only about political and social justice as was proven with their protests during the Vietnam War, but because they now seem to be getting a thrill about being part of a new young entreprenerial class, as Sharon has spoken about. Certainly this must be very disconcerting for young social scientists. However, there is hope because social scientists are usually also qualified historians, and it is them that will very likely contribute to the much needed change that surely has to come.

This enslavement will only increase as long as the sheep (voters) continue to vote for political parties. Considering, all parties constantly state they represent their party and their party represents its backers (donors) not the people, nothing will change.

All parties get more than 90% of their resources from major corporations, except for the money they are stealing from the public purse to funds their election campaigns. They heavily subsidise corporations with our money and sell of our assets and resources for nothing, so corporations can charge us more for less and less.

Privatisation is a perfect example of this, everything thats been privatised has cost us billions. I would like someone to name one substantial benefit the people have got from privatisation. Competition, means major corporations competing with each other to see who can destroy small business the quickest and get the most work and profits from the people. For this they offer less pay, conditions and reduced servicing.

Politicians, then leave public office with huge unfunded super and pensions, then blatantly take a plush job with one of their corporate supporters.

It boils down to one fact, people are to stupid, controlled, fearful and lacking in intelligence to vote for people (independents), rather than corporate slaves. They prefer to listen to the false and lying promises they are given and then watch as those promises turn into lies and the opposite happens. True rational logic displayed by the populace.

You can have all the semantic debates you like, but continuing to vote for the two faction single party system we have and this slide into economic enslavement will continue to accelerate.

Executives also assisted by our Government representatives who are suppose to be looking after the Average Australian Citizen.

Jumpin "JOHN" Flash - It's a GAS,GAS,GAS


Priminister Howard has said that the ACCC would investigate the higher than normal prices of fuel, in light of the Queens Birthday long weekend.

Although that "sentence" raised the Average citizens heads at the possibility that John Howard actually said anything about this ongoing issue.

The consistent increases during holiday period and long weekends does suggests that the oil companies are taking the average motorist for a "RIDE".

Western Australia is the only State that the price of fuel has not jumped so dramatically because it won't be enjoying the lousy rest break they give the average Australian citizen, in a yearly grind of tax paying.

Jumpin "John" flash, dismissed any suggestion that the ACCC would be given more powers to investigate fuel price rises.

Its a GAS, GAS, GAS!

Alchemist, not all people in Australia are as "stupid, controlled, fearful and lacking in intelligence" as you might think. At the last Federal election, enough were (unfortunately), which led to the Coalition Government gaining control of the Senate, but from what I hear amongst the rank and file of the working people, at the 2007 elections, they won't make that mistake again. There is the beginnings of a groundswell of aggitation within the general population against corporate power and it's influence on political parties but at present, there doesn't seem to be a leader strong enough to guide this aggitation into a pulpable voting force. Also, most people wouldn't know exactly which independants they should vote for and who just might begin to pull large corporations into line. Personally, I don't think much will change at the next election unless Government policy begins to infringe on the ability of "mum and Dad" voters to continue to add value to their share portfolios, although this faction of voters may well begin to lose that ability after the next election as the brakes comes off the "Work Choise" legislation and those same ordinary mums and dads suddenly find themselves with either a very much reduced income, or no job at all. Perhaps then, the tide will turn

Sharon, the development of corporations and globalisation have led to unprecedented increases in incomes and living standards over the last 100-odd years, not confined to developed countries but for billions of people all over the world. Many regulations in many countries are badly conceived and badly designed and have negative impacts on public welfare – it’s not surprising if corporations which compete in product and service markets combine to seek regulatory change.

Trade in services is not an invention of corporate conspirators, from memory when I wrote policy papers on it in the 1980s, service trade was of a similar magnitude to goods trade, and services were increasingly “embedded” in many goods – a trend which has accelerated since then as economies are increasingly dominated by services and by intellectual property inputs into goods. That’s how it is. Anyone who believes that this is all controlled by corporate conspirators should explain first, why so many leading corporations decline and disappear every decade and, second, why globally rising incomes, health and education standards and choice arising from the processes of corporatisation and globalisation is a bad thing.

Bushbred,

You would have to be the most wise and intelligent person on this entire forum!

Either the Conservatives can't ever think of a worthy rebuttal or they never understand what you're talking about (I suspect it's a bit of both).

Keep up the good work. We need more people like you in the world.

…more reasons for “Realist” and The Right to celebrate the beauty that is the corporation:

SUEZ-LYONNASIE DES EAUX

- Water privatisation in poor countries. This in turn has seen the price of water skyrocket up to 700%!
- Negligent in providing safe drinking water that has resulted in deaths and severely sickened 725 people in one district alone.
- Left 200,000 people without access to water by charging between $335 and $445 to connect a private home to the water supply. Countless people were unable to afford this charge in a country whose annual GDP per capita is $915.

The IMF and World Bank are playing a key role in pushing water privatization all over the world.

Many countries have been forced to open their water supply to private companies as a condition for receiving IMF loans, and the World Bank has approved millions of dollars in loans for the privatisation of water systems.

PFIZER

- Extortion in regards to HIV/AIDS medicine by selling it at inflated prices that most poor people cannot afford.
- Refusal to grant generic licenses of fluconazole to governments in countries around South America where patients are forced to pay $20US per weekly pill, though the average national wage is only $120US per month.
- Withdrew from scientific studies of a new class of AIDS drugs called CCR5 inhibitors, choosing instead to rush its own untested CCR5 inhibitor onto the European market without full information about the drug's side effects.

KBR (A Subsidiary of Halliburton)

- Exploiting labourers from poor countries to rebuild Iraq. They sleep in crowded trailers and wait outside in scorching heat for food rations. They lack adequate medical care and put in hard labour seven days a week for at LEAST 10 hours a day.
- Dishonest billing practices;

No wonder America was so sure they’d be able to rebuild Iraq. It costs them virtually nothing!

Yes, good on the corporations...and good on The Right-Wingers too, for supporting it all.

But like Realist said, if we don’t like 'em, join 'em. Yes people, we too can be murderers and thieves.

Ah the usual hissing fits.

Now who owns corporations,

well individual people own corporations, either directly as individual share holders or indirectly as subscribers to superannuation and other mutual fund type savings plans or insurance policy holders.

So what is a corporation - well it is development of a Dutch idea where individuals could join together to “share” in the risks and rewards of commercial ventures.

Are corporations inherently immoral – No – no more than socialist organisations are inherently virtuous.

Are corporations subject to public review and oversight?

You bet, reams and reams of company’s law going back centuries.
Statutory Accountability to consumers, government, share holders, the public in general, the list is endless.

A lot more legislation controls the conduct and behaviour of corporations than controls the activities of unions.

Could we possibly live with out corporations – No, unless you want to return to a subsistence existence and barter economy.

Are the rules of conduct for corporations ever reviewed – constantly.

Some might suggest that executives are overpaid – well – offer your services for the executive job and see how well you match up to the job description, when you can do it you get to criticise the package, if you cannot or would not get the role, you are not qualified to comment.

If corporate executives represent the new aristocracy, well better we have some one with the intellectual competence to work up through the process than a chinless wonder there due to lineage and the divine right of kings or a thug who crawls up a network of intimidation and union blackmail.

Col, I concede your statement about 'who owns corporations' is indeed people, but think a step further.....

Corporation/ShareHolder.
-Who's interests are served by the Corp ? its the shareholders of course.
-What must the corporation 'do' in order to satisfy the lust of the 'shareholder' for bigger and better returns ? Why, its obvious, they must a) 'Appear' to be good corporate citizens, while b) working towards the absolute destruction/absorption/takeover of all opposition.

They may not do this with Ak47s but with marketing campaigns and price wars and misuse of market power... etc.

And what of the shareholders of these other corporations ? well.. I think they are 'collateral damage'.

Can a society survive this ?

Now, I'm totally in favor of private enterprise, but ONLY within a framework of government control which prevents the country being blackmailed by the HUGGGGEEEEEEE financial interests that today's big corporations represent.

Open slather capitalism will run out of steam and resources like a fire cracker skyrocket.

It should be abundantly clear to a thinking person, that the premises on which capitalism is based are totally flawed.

Example:

Village on a river survives comfortably with a diet of fish and jungle produce.
One villager went to a town, and took some dried fish with him. The town merchant offered him a good price and asked "Can you get more of this" ?
The villager then goes and begins using more up scale methods of obtaining fish, which in the case of Borneo would be a poison from a tree root.
He dries and sells the fish, then gets a whole swag of cash, sets up home in the town, and the villagers starve.... no more fish.

That....is capitalism.

Socialism is equally deficient in outcomes, and based on the flawed premise that people actually 'want' to work for the benefit of those in society they don't know from a bar of soap.

We cannot exist with one, nor the other alone.

Socialism without reality based fiscal responsibility and Capitalism without compassion are both bankrupt.

"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life"... said Jesus.

damn boaz, you ruined the most sensible post ive ever seen from you with your unnecessary preaching.

David “What must the corporation 'do' in order to satisfy the lust of the 'shareholder' for bigger and better returns”

As an investment strategy, an investment which can deliver sustainable and consistent growth and capital security is a better option than a ride on a portfolio rollercoaster where the capital worth, not merely the earnings capabilities are fluctuating wildly.

Hence one of the major benefits of an Investment in Australia versus many parts of say, SE Asia, China anywhere in Africa or Latin America, is the political stability demonstrated over generations of democratic politics and absence of “revolutions”.

The only way to deliver medium and long term capital security is to deal in a manner which respects not simply a demand for dividends but also the expectations of employees, customers and the wider environment in which the corporation exists and hopes to grow.

You will always find examples of short sighted moronic strategies, in recent decades, example Australian Bankings quest to remove its human face.

“Corporate ownership” the process by which people can come together to jointly participate in ventures which they could not afford to pursue as individuals.

Re “can society survive”

remove “society” and you remove the purpose of corporate ownership structures, to say nothing of its customer base (you know, no customers = nothing).

Just as there are always con-artists, thieves, cheats and scumbags, there will always be poor corporate citizens and to some degree we have legislation in place to regulate their behaviour and make them accountable. A worse problem is when all power is in the hand of politicians who can make the laws they would hold corporations accountable to but manage to avoid regulating things in their own nest or interest.

I liked your AK47 illustration but I would point out, Kalashnikov AK47s were produced to bring down capitalism, not to enhance it.

“Socialists” made guns too and have been more profligate and irresponsible in their distribution than capitalists (back to what I said earlier about all power in the hands of governments).

Mr Boaz,

That is by far the best post I have EVER read from you! I agree with it 100%!

I may go over the top most of the time, but it's usually for shock value to get people thinking. But your last post is precisely what I feel about both Capitalism and Socialism. Extremes in both areas will merely implode on themselves, and sometimes, provoke violent revolutions. We need a balance.

Col,

You said:

“A lot more legislation controls the conduct and behaviour of corporations than controls the activities of unions.”

True. But, unions aren’t responsible for as many deaths or the gross exploitation and crippling illnesses of literally billions around the world. Union thuggery is only a direct result/response to the thuggery of corporations, an eye for an eye like they say. Sometimes, in the extremes that the largest and most corrupt corporations can hurt and destroy people, peaceful protests just ain't gonna cut it. They'll fall on deaf ears. Sad, but true.

Personally I view the largest corporations as being on a similar level to the likes of Saddam Hussein and Hitler. They are all responsible for some of the world’s worst atrocities. There are only 2 differences that I can see...

1. We need corporations [cringe];

2. The atrocities committed by the world’s largest corporations aren't publicised. Gee, I wonder why?

But in response to the last paragraph of your first post:

Not always true. A lot of those on the Board of Directors are only there due to nepotism or cronyism. Even where I work, I have to answer to someone who is far less competent and intelligent then I am purely because of nepotism. So it is more like a “divine right of kings” situation that you mention i.e. there are some who will be born into it. And - as much as I laugh at the stupidity of Communism - it was this exact situation that provoked it. Extremism breeds extremism – both ways.

Corporations could do little or no harm if our elected politicians didn't aid and abet them for post-public-service employment and benefits.

The fact that Bob Carr left office and in a flash went to work for MacBank went largely unnoticed but it is tantamount to criminal. How dull NSW electors are!

We NEED PPPs (Private Public-Partnerships for a wide variety of projects). There are WAYS to make them mutually beneficial to public and corporation alike. What we don't need is this schoolby sheepish acceptance of Government Private Dictatorships (GPDs) at both state and federal level. People need to stand and be counted. We are being shafted by our own politicians and our political systems are stale and will not cater for acceptable changes in line with public sentiment. Our state and federal political systems have to be overhauled. There are ways to do this.

Rule by Corporation. Benign or Malignant?

At present the corporation has too much power and is aided and abetted by government. Currently, the very structure of corporations favours the immoral. Managers and directors have a legal duty to put shareholders' interests above all others' and no authority to serve any other interests - the 'best interests of the corporation' principle.

In short, business is amoral; its only social obligation is to make money within the law. The pathologically narrow and materialistic view of human nature that underpins today's corporate form not only dominates economic activity - it is also altering humanity, which goes a long way to explain the views of some of the more callous and cold blooded posters to OLO.

Enron, WorldCom, One-Tel and HIH had one thing in common – they were run by individuals who excelled in the ruthlessness, cunning and risk taking that is characteristic of the psychopath.

The popular image of a psychopath conjures up the likes of Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler. The reality is that the psychopath is far more common and the ideal environment is the corporate world. On the broad continuum between the ethical everyman and the predatory killer, there's plenty of room for people who are ruthless but not violent.

Many psychologists suggest that the high-profile cases mentioned are merely the tip of the iceberg and symptomatic of a wider culture that allows ruthless, unremorseful psychopaths to rise inexorably through the corporate ranks.

The following link reads like all you ever wanted to know about corporate psychos but were too afraid to ask…

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~arc24/ec34.html

That said some very good points have been made by other posters.

Kaep I agree with you regards PPP's - however it is not only governments that need overhaul.

An excellent post was actually contributed by BD - shame he had to spoil it all at the end.

Mr Man - I understand how you feel, have had similar experiences and had the sheer appalling luck to have worked along side a woman who can only be described as an out and out psychopath.

Mr Man “But, unions aren’t responsible for as many deaths or the gross exploitation and crippling illnesses of literally billions around the world.”

Not “corporations” either, possibly some the people who run some corporations. Your rhetoric is like the child who blames all the adults for the degeneracy of a few, neither realistic and lacking any suggestions for any solution or viable alternative.

“Even where I work, I have to answer to someone who is far less competent and intelligent then I am purely because of nepotism.”

I have heard that levied at me (by someone with a chip on their shoulder, a deficiency in competence and no ethics). It is the excuse of the indolent and incompetent who, lacking the skills to manage, blame their own deficiencies on a supposed conspiracy of nepotism. If you really feel like that I suggest you find a different job.

Scout “At present the corporation has too much power and is aided and abetted by government.”

Always easy to make critical claims without supplying any detail whatsoever.

Yep Enron, is an example of when things do not work.

Cadbury (now Cadbury-Schweppes) is a classic example of when they do. I suggest you do some research and find out how the township of Bournville came into existence.

You also claim Corporations are aided and abetted by government?
Sounds like hysterical conspiracy paranoia to me.

I think most would observe, a “psychopath” is out their on the extreme fringes of humanity. Suggesting there are enough psychopaths to populate all those jobs in corporations is to suggest being a “psychopath” is not a disorder at all but “normal”.

I would note, however, the co-dependency which is demonstrated and demanded by socialists, whilst not as extreme a dysfunction as psychopathy of sociopathy, is none the less, a recognised disease.

So to all that choose to whine and criticise,
I suggest you come up with a viable and functioning alternative before you try to tear down that which works and supports the quality of life you all enjoy.

Col,

"I have heard that levied at me (by someone with a chip on their shoulder, a deficiency in competence and no ethics). It is the excuse of the indolent and incompetent who, lacking the skills to manage, blame their own deficiencies on a supposed conspiracy of nepotism. If you really feel like that I suggest you find a different job."

Perhaps in a lot of cases.

But then why is it that I can tell when they're about to lose money on a bad desion. I warn them of a mistake and then whadda ya know? They lose money.

Also, I suggest vital procedural changes that are needed in my department but they ignore it because the implementation might take a bit of extra work for a few weeks and possibly cost a few hundred. Despite the fact that they are already losing money by running things in an adhoc manner.

Don't mistake me for some whining fool who has no idea about business practices. I've studied enough project and quality management as a part of my Uni degree to spot imcompetence and nepotism when I see it.

Capitalism, socialism and corporatism - all self-serving and inherently flawed.

The only social system that guarantees mutual survival is the basic family unit.

The next step up is the tribe, where everyone has a function to perform and recognises that the survival of the tribe is in their own personal interest.

Both these systems appear to have socialist ideals, yet when the tribe gets too big it all just falls apart.Too many people living off the labour of too few.

Corporatism, like free-market Capitalism, is what happens when the non-producers get organised. Again, more benefits for those who don't physically produce anything than for those who do.

They both work well for a while but both eventually lead to a dead end when the market is full or the resources run out. During their lifespan, they produce innovation and varying degrees of benefits for those involved. Enjoy them while you can because when they fail, its always in a big way.

Oh, and Corporations aren't aided and abetted by governments - it'e more the other way around.

NSW and federal Govts are aiding-and-abetting corporations at the-expense-of-citizens.

* Syd airports - making passengers walk shop loops before departing. Airports are not THAT Privately owned that Howard shouldn't step in to regulate nuicance policy that affects airport efficiency and our world standing. Howard not taking action is abetting MacAirport. At any rate Howard abetted in selling the aiport knowing this sort of corruption would happen.

* Snowy sale, Howard was forced to introduce foreign-ownership limits in-the-prospectus AFTER a-public-outcry. He's not incompetent. He was always aware that the-Snowy-sale would mean AUST farmers become unfairly dependent on foreigners for life's basic needs and did nothing -> aiding-and-abetting.

* The Tunnel funnel. The secrecy surrounding the sacked RTA boss's payout and its relation to the suspicion he was a scapefgoat for Government complicity shows IEMMA has the machinery to cover up Government aiding and abetting of corporations. Sacked men on big payouts tell no stories. This ugly situation plus the fact that our stale political systems don't change enough and need overhauling means that state and federal governments are now dictatorships.

* The Old Sydney brewery high-rise scandal. Sartor and Iemma are backing developers over people. Their version of this development WILL aid and abet the developer corporation. Residents will be affected by pollution, congestion and crime from overdevelopment.

I don't need to go on. The INTENT is clear. The aid and abet is OBVIOUS. One personal motivation is post ministerial jobs and favours which at this time are legally protected from public scrutiny. We can only guess what surrounds Carr's exit. It is the biggest escape mystery since Houdini. What's worse, most are too afraid to ask.

What corporations want most and what Howard and Iemma in particular are abetting is more immigration: bigger markets, more profits. Only dopey Public servants (we know who you are) would not want to see the trend change because Iemma or Howard are their bosses and sign-their-fat-paychecks. What do they call it Munchaussen's-syndrome?

Continuing ..

Continued ..

BUT this poll-on-satisfaction-with-immigration shows more-corruption-still:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/most-think-migrants-good-for-nation-study/2006/06/12/1149964470334.html

* "The results show we are probably about in the middle of the pack compared to other countries, but THEY-ARE-QUITE-ENCOURAGING," said Randall Pearce, the general manager of Ipsos Mackay, the group that conducted the study.

Hello! The guy in charge of the study expressing-personal-BIAS?

The study was evenly polled over the whole country when 100,000 of the 140,000 yearly-migrant-intake goes to Sydney to cause riots, gridlocks and water shortages. The study is BIASED. Its PROPAGANDA.

Further Iemma is illogical. To say WE need to use less water so he can accomodate 100,000 extra people each year is like sharing a lolly by breaking it unevenly and then eating the uneven bit so-the-share-LOOKS-fair. Only someone high on greed would be so brazen.

If Iemma and Howard use the immigration poll (and they will) to justify continuing yearly 140,00 immigrant increments where 100,000 people go to Sydney, it is corrupt. It is simply aiding and abetting corporations who find it easier to profit in overcrowded and uptight cities.

As I have said before, Howard's problem is that he is turning from the autocratic King John into a senile King Lear, abdicating responsibilites to corporations that are now too demanding. Perhaps he and his cabinet should enrol in the British Shakespeare and Modern Politics course to get a better appreciation of community service in government: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/from-bard-to-verse/2006/06/12/1149964470441.html.

Kaep, You mentioned post-privatisation foreign ownership limits.

As I recall, OPTUS were granted their license on the basis they were majority Australian owned.

A couple of years later they were majority “Australian Company Owned”.

Now they are owned by SingTel – a Singapore Government Enterprise (and they have the contract for communications in Parliament House).

SingTel also own the Queen Victoria Building and Strand Arcade in Sydney plus a host of other commercial properties in Queensland.

Funny how a foreign government is willing to invest in Australia when our own governments aren’t.

Corporations are all too willing to get their hands on public assetts.

If activities in the WTO are any sort of guide, watch out for the increasing trend in pressure for all governments to privatise public water supplies. This is a very interesting global event and is more frequent than most people realise.

If you dont like corporations do something about it!

Dont buy their products.
Dont buy their shares.

Thusly,

Next time you need antibiotics just tuff it out instead of buying from the evil drug companies.

Take all your retirement savings out of your super fund which is likely to be heavily invested in evil money mills like, er, corporations and dont leave it in a cash account with a bank afterall they are companies. Instead buy gold, oops that was attained be exploitation and degredation. OK just put the wad of cash under the bed where it will figuratively rot away on the back of beloved governments inflationary policies (inflation steals from the future).

Dont pick up a phone, use electricity, throw the PC away and dont use the internet. All created by, sponsored and maintained by evil corporations.

Dont borrow money from evil banks. Cut up the credit cards, sell that mortgage financed house and go live under a tree.

Quit your job at the evil corporation. Go work for the public service but dont accept any tax dollars from the evil companies nor the workers who are the machinery of those companies.

Lets not look at anything good that free enterprise yeilds. Only the bad stuff. Sure they have their faults. Dont the harpies who write articles for this forum ever tire of complaint? Dont they ever write positive, action oriented articles?

Trade

Get a grip. A criticism of corporations is not a denial of capitalism. Just an abhorrence of extremism - whether it be corporate, political or religious.

The divine right of kings has been replaced with the divine right of the market place. As with the monarchy, total rule by corporations only benefits a minority at the expense of us all.

A healthier market place would see more small businesses and far less monopolies. True competition cannot exist beween huge corporations - just look at the banks. This is another reason why essential services should not be privatised.

OUR FATHERS toiled for bitter bread
While idlers thrived beside them;
But food to eat and clothes to wear
Their native land denied them.
They left their native land in spite
Of royalties’ regalia,
And so they came, or if they stole
Were sent out to Australia.
They struggled hard to make a home,
Hard grubbing ’twas and clearing.
They weren’t troubled much with toffs
When they were pioneering;
And now that we have made the land
A garden full of promise,
Old greed must crook his dirty hand
And come to take it from us.

But Freedom’s on the Wallaby,
She’ll knock the tyrants silly,
She’s going to light another fire
And boil another billy.
We’ll make the tyrants feel the sting
Of those that they would throttle;
They needn’t say the fault is ours
If blood should stain the wattle.

--"Freedom on the Wallaby" Henry Lawson (1891)

See also http://home.alphalink.com.au/~eureka/henry.htm

Been there done that. Australia learned over 100 years ago about the evils of corporatisation and the inherent dangers that it brings http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/interventions/nineties.htm

I understand about 5-10% of people are socio/pyscopaths in that they have no regard for other peoples feelings. Some see this as a positive trait for management.

There is nothing that is unexpected involved here. History shows surges of deregulation followed by periods of re-regulation.

Entrepreneurs (and artists & rebels & deviants) are invested with an urgency to seize the day. They consider regulations to be counter-productive and wasteful of their limited energies. They are our agents of change and improvements and we should never undervalue their positive role in a good, resilient community. But they are an ever present potential threat to the sustainability of our communities, too.

Corporations will always strive to force deregulation, and if that also means disempowering government and democracy then we should not blame them. We should rebuke ourselves for allowing it.

Businesses, including multi-nationals, are power-houses. They truly are the potential horse-power for any change, good or bad.

If we regulate them properly, they have the potential to provide us with everything that we could desire, so long as we also give them potential to realise enough of their desires.

If we give them too much rope, more fool us. The irony is that too much rope is never (never!) in the best interests of the entrepreneurs. Collapses of civilisations include ruin for the businesses that were, or should have been, integral to the civilisations.

A resilient society can be judged to display a measured, workable mix of regulation and freedoms.

The past 3 decades has seen a frenzied deregulation of businesses. The unhappy outcomes of this include inequity, a degrading of democracy and an increase in social dysfunction. Our forum correspondents have listed the symptoms including a new working poor.

Happily, it can all be redressed by a rethink of how we want our big banks, big businesses, big churches to serve the community. Believe it or not, they will comply and make the most of whatever business environment they find themselves in, even a significantly more regulated one.

Most people don't know that the Boston Tea Party that resulted in the American War of Independence was due to the East India Company attempting a Corporate takeover of the colony (at the behest of the British monarch).

The British government/business partnership later went on to India to help establish colonial rule there instead.

The Government/Business partnership concept raised its head again in the 20th Century, revived by Franco, Hitler, and Mussolini.

The Italian dictator even used the word "Corporatism" to describe it, and then later renamed it as "Fascism" - a word that was defined in American dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary in 1983 as "fas-cism (fash'iz'em) n.

"A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

What most people believe to be Democracy these days is actually a Duopoly or Oligarcy.

Spot on Scout (and Wobbles , Narcissist, ChrisW, Rache).

With big business merging left, right and centre it is becoming increasingly difficult to boycott certain corporations, not to mention the potentially devastating effects it has on consumers.

Not many people know about this (they attempted to do it quietly) but one of the first things the Howard government tried to do with it’s control of the senate was to alter the Trade Practices Act was so that the ACCC couldn’t intervene with the merging of big business. Luckily though, the only coalition member with some sense of remorse, Barnaby Joyce, blocked it. And then Howard has the gall to pretend he’s a friend of the working-class…pffft!

This is yet another reason to believe that the coalition doesn’t care in the slightest about anyone or anything but big business like Howard has fooled so many into believing. He’s certainly the most cunning PM we’ve ever had with his ability to manipulate public opinion to the point where the working-class are in a mindset of thinking that the only political issue that exists is interest rates.

Speaking of psychotic behaviour and corporations, it reminds me of the checklist of behaviours expressed by psychopaths that also fits corporations (and quite often the fat-cats of corporations too). Interesting because, according to US law, a corporation is actually considered a person! Some of these behaviours include:

- The inability to feel remorse and a pronounced indifference to the suffering of others;
- A grossly inflated view of oneself;
- Pathological lying;
- A pattern of deceitful behaviour. Etc…

But while I’m at it, I had forgotten one of the biggest corporate criminals in history…

IBM
- Built machines for Nazi Germany which greatly assisted with the slaughtering of different demographics.

IBM knew full-well what they were being used for as they were punch-card machines that helped the Nazi’s efficiently process the different categories of people being killed. Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, etc… It’s been estimated that Hitler was able to kill up to 3 times more people than he normally would’ve been able to without them.

Mr Man “Don't_mistake_me_for_some_whining_fool_who_has_no_idea_about_business_practices. I've_studied_enough_project_and_quality_management_as_a_part_of_my_Uni_degree_to_spot_imcompetence_and_nepotism_when_I_see_it.”

Really,

If you knew anything about corporations you would realise the “operational management” is a separate role to “project management”. I work in one role as a consultant, exclusively in project management, I know one of the critical elements of project management is to portray a professional manner and communications competence. Poor spelling (as you have demonstrated) is a portent of non-communication, lack of professionalism and no indication of any competence.

Wobbles “Corporations are all too willing to get their hands on public assets.”

It is very difficult (one might even suggest impossible) for any one individual to pay the amount needed to acquire the entire ownership of a public asset but even if they did, if it were me, to maintain some separation of liability, I would use an incorporated entity, rather than buy and run the “public asset” as a “sole trader”.

So who on earth would be in a position to buy a public asset other than a “corporation”?

Trade215 – well stated

Scout – small business, there is nothing stopping anyone from incorporating a small business.

Of course I could suggest how you might get into a “small business” – give you a large one to run, then come visit a year later.

ChrisW nice post. Agree the powerhouse of a nation is its commerce, the process of producing wealth (which as some here would try to deny, really requires management, innovation and risk, all of which, rightly, expect reward), You are most likely right, re cycles and pendulums. concerning de-regulation versus regulation. The main thing to remember is to read which way it is going and organise accordingly.

Mr Man, A “corporation” is also considered a “legal entity” (person) under Australian law, British law and the law of every other nation which matters. My own corporate entities are legally separate to me (I am not a sole trader). They have their own tax returns, their own legal obligations to report to ASIC etc

I've noticed Col, throughout your posts, that you have a tendency to confuse there with their. It happens too often to be a mere typo. Not that I'm claiming to be a perfect speller - no-one's perfect of course. Except that you seem to think you are, and that this entitles you to belittle those who you think are not.

Just thought you might like to know.

tao/tristan - you are just an empty vessel full of nothing but air. Who cares what you think. When it matters you have nothing to offer, no insight, no experience, no substance, just a breaking of wind, as your post, like your article, illustrates.

Col,

”If you knew anything about corporations you would realise the “operational management” is a separate role to “project management”. I work in one role as a consultant, exclusively in project management, I know one of the critical elements of project management is to portray a professional manner and communications competence. Poor spelling (as you have demonstrated) is a portent of non-communication, lack of professionalism and no indication of any competence.”

Whoa! Sorry!

Of course I know that Operations Management is different to Project Management. But Operations Management doesn’t involve running things in an adhoc manner. On the contrary, it’s partly about ensuring that the complete opposite happens.

And a typo isn’t an indication of why someone with less experience, less qualifications and no service to the company was immediately placed in management rather than immediate family relations. I never wanted the position; I was never in the running, but I don’t like answering to someone demonstrates that they don’t know what they’re doing.

I see numerous typos on this Forum and you raise one to try to prove me wrong on everything. Not only is that petty but it discredits your arguments.

How is a typo enough to judge the portent of a person’s entire competence, communications skills and professionalism? In fact, it’s usually me who the “big boss” asks to contact partnering companies and clients in situations that I would know more about because he has always been pleased with my communications skills, especially my diplomacy (I realise I’m not diplomatic here, but I’m not at work either).

My ability to communicate instructions in a clear, concise and professional manner is how I landed the job as a Technical Writer.

Why do you find it so impossible to see that this one case may actually be nepotism? You DO realise that it happens from time-to-time don’t you? And yes, I am in the process of looking for another job.

Anyway, your arguments seem to be tailored to attack more than push a point and this is starting to become rather petty. My professionalism isn’t the topic here.

Sheesh!

I don't know why any of you bother with Col rouge, considering he tends to display all the attributes of a corporate psychopath in his posts. Not being able to handle criticism, nitpicking and attempting to belittle people, is a sure sign of one frustrated at not being able to provide constructive debate and desperate for control.

When you consider the average corporate shareholder has little if no influence against the major shareholders in the direction or operational functions of a company, I fail to see how you can support a view that states its a mum and dad corporate world. You only have to look at telstra to see how little say average shareholders have in the company, the same goes for all our privatised assets and major corporations.

The true professional corporate operator, displays compassion, understanding and guidance for those they are responsible for. Not dismissal and degradation.

Hey Carl :)
I really had to smile when I read your rather exasperated post on my 'preaching'. Yes, I can see how it looked a bit like 'Woo.. time to throw in the totally unrelated Bible verse to spiritualize my post'....

But in fact, I'm expressing a heartfelt conviction.

What I did, is point out what I see as the weaknesses in the main political poles we have on offer, and then present (albeit a bit trite I guess) a solution or another 'way'.

I would be a bit remiss if I just 'attacked' that which probably most Aussies are committed to (Labor or Coalition. Left/Right) and then offered zero in its place. People would be entitled to say "Well..THANKyou very much..for destroying something I used to feel pretty good about" ! kind of thing.

In all seriousness, I do believe Jesus, as in, repentance and faith in Him is 'the' way of managing not only our own eternal destiny, but also our social organization. On the social side, I only mean that in the sense of renewed/regenerated individuals rather than a legislative regime.

John the Baptist had a few good words for our politicians...

"Brood of Vipers"

People asked him. 'Ok.. what do we DO' ?

His response...

Tax Collectors.... collect only what is right.
Soldiers..... Don't use your power for personal advantage.
Man with 2 Tunics....share one with him who has none.
Person with food... share with those without.

All very practical social points.

Perhaps today he might say

Stockbrokers (and ur families) NO INSIDER TRADING.
Police... NO RIPPING OFF DRUGS and selling them yourself.
CEO's.... 'he who has 2000 tunics, pairs of shoes, holiday places, boats, fleets of cars SHARE with him who has none.....etc')

But Carl, people asked John about these things because he came with a message from God. If not that, he would just be 'another flea bitten long haired loony on a soap box'. So, there is more to my 'dropping a verse' than just trying to look spiritual :)

Boaz,

I can completley understand that you are interested in 'another way'. This is one of the most secular countries in the world and you probably bleieve it has left us somewhat empty.

But I simply can't see religion or faith in Jesus as being a way of managing our social organistion, even if we keep it out of legislation. In my view (and you may see my view as disorted) widespread religiosity is not good for society, as evidenced in Europe in the 1600's or the Middle East today, or a million other examples.

Its not because I think religion is bad, it is because it seems people are incapable of keeping their personal religous beliefs to themselves and feel compelled to share them with everyone else, sometimes forcefully, often leading to violent conflict

Too right Alchemist. Every word of your post was spot on.

I’m not going to bother anymore. I’ve made my point here and no one’s been able to come up with a half-decent rebuttal so I’m done with this thread.

I thought Col was going to be an enjoyable and challenging debate but closest thing I can get to a response is an insult or a paraphrase on something I’ve said.

All I’m doing now is defending my professionalism from unfounded assumptions and attacks while the main issue is being dodged - true characteristics of a corporate leader (or a politician).

It’s obvious to me now that he has to have the last say so, I’ll let him.

Over to you Col…

Well at least there is some honesty about the intentions of corporations. They bring together capital and labour and deliver
consumer products and services in the process. Some honesty
is required, if their products are duds, they can be charged
for misleading consumers about their products or services.

Now the real money is in starting a new religion! You promise
nothing but hope, you never have to deliver to show that
your product is genuine, people become emotionally attatched
to your product and send in mega millions every week!

Note the big bucks involved in the so called US bible belt,
the Bakers and many others etc. Religion is a hugely profitable
business, only free from consumer laws of having to show that
your product actually is what it claims to be.

The Singsong Church in Sydney has a mega million budget. Where
does all the money go? Mother Theresa received huuuge amounts
of money. Where did all the money go?

If corporations were as accountable as many religious institutions,
their leaders would no doubt be in jail by now.

"if their products are duds, they can be charged
for misleading consumers about their products or services

That is the most sickening thing on this thread to date.

You can't charge rogue and corrupt corporations. Not if they are the only game in town.
Let's see you charge MacAirports for stuffing up Kingsford Smith for example .. or for stuffing up Sydney streets when they overdevelop airport precincts.

Yabby can't find MONOPOLY in the dictionary it seems. Monopoly means they do what they want when they want and F to U.

Nor did he read my post about Sartor, Iemma and Howard actively aiding and abetting selected monopolies they feel suit their purpose in DICTATING to the will of the Australian people without fear of any real electoral scrutiny.

"You can't charge rogue and corrupt corporations."

You most certainly can! If they make a claim about their
products, for which they have no evidence, you can sue
them. Try going down the street and promoting snakeoil
as a cure for cancer and see how long you last lol.
Consumer protection will be onto you like a flash.

Sure corporations would like a monopoly. Its a license
to print money after all. If politicians provide them
with a license to print money, then its a political
problem, not a corporate problem.

If politicians provide corporations with monopolies, then they should be accountable for their
actions to you, the voter. If you still vote for them,
well, thats up to you. Don't come crying.

When was the last time a politician was accountable for their actions?

There's no point voting for anyone else because they're all the same.

Don't you remember Little Johnny coming to power on the promise of being open and accountable - because Labor wasn't. That went out the window quick smart.

If a Labor government was elected, they would be exactly the same, except their mates would get the benefit.

KAEP “Monopoly”
Look up “ACCC” in macquarie
Look up “Federal Trade Commission” in Webster's
Look up "Competition Commission" nee "Monopolies and Mergers Commission" in the Oxford English.

Each of the above organisations is chartered to investigate and prosecute monopoly and anti-competitive activity and if the US funeral industry or the Australian pre-mix cement industry is anything to go by, they certainly succeed. Microsoft seems to be a “tough nut” but the FTC has not given up yet.

I would note under the western economic model, competition is, generally, applauded and encouraged.

I would note the biggest “monopolies” have always been those which were government owned, Telstra and power utilities springing to mind.

I would note that under the "socialist" model of decades past; the entire state was one big “monopoly”, corruption was rife, “productivity” abysmal, the “police state” in full force and the resultant “Quality of Life” of the poor souls who had to suffer “central committee ownership of everything” enough for them to do everything to escape to “capitalism”.

Yabby, I think we are tackling the same problem from alternative ends.

Tao “politicians held accountable” – darn it – and that’s what I thought elections were about.

Where the public gets to hold their representative accountable by voting for them or not.

Of course the difference is – only “party members” would get to vote under your system, the rest of us would just “suffer” – but “suffering” does not fit into my chosen lifestyle.

Col,

So, you must have got your seeing-eye-dog to look that crap up then?

In the real world, Col ..........

I know what's going on and so do a lot of other interested parties.

To assume Howard was just clumsy in approving the Snowy sale in its original form is a little naive. Howard has SHOWN he approves monopolies and will sneak them in wherever he feels people are not watching.

To assume Frank Sartor has grabbed development controls for Sydney Brewery to make Sydney a better place to live is naive. To assume the developer is not a Labor Party backer and has a guaranteed MONOPOLY over the site is naive. To assume that Freedom of information on their liaisons is not protected qualifies you for blindness concessions.

KAEP “Col,

So, you must have got your seeing-eye-dog to look that crap up then?

In the real world, Col……..”

Why?

Do you presume that simply because I have skills which, obviously extend beyond your comprehension ,that I need assistance?

I would note, I have lived in the “Real World” for many years.

I know that what government can do is, at best less than most of us would want or demand or expect if we were “in power” ourselves. Hence, I vote for government which is going to leave me alone to make my own decisions rather than a bunch of socialist tossers who want to make the decisions for me.

I doubt you would do better than our present government but, if you feel so strong about it, I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and stand for public office, although I think you will find “failure” is a difficult mantle, for one with so few inherent skills, to wear.

Rea 6

It is so timely that Professor Bader has made mention of a rising corporate class that to a retired farming director is really nothing new, except that with the stupendous advances in modern electronic communication, including computerised accounting, etc, we could wonder whether we could be facing a kind of social imbalance in the future, meanig that with so many budding right-wing advisers coming along, we could find ourselves with too many chiefs and not enough Indians trying to run the show.

Aged farmers can relate how a lack of telephones in 1929 before the onset of the Great Depression, when grain after being delivered was sold either by letter, or a drive into the nearest town to use a public phone. International companies like Bunge and Dreyfus made many a financial kill as prices fell from 6/8 shillings down to 1/8 a bushell. However, most of the kills were made as prices like shares today fluctuated over around 18 months, Dreyfus and Bunge like Jewish woolbuyerrs believing it was their entreprenerial right not to mention a price rise to a potential customer, even though he or she lacked a private phone.

Thus the cry went around the districts never to trust Big Biz, as the cry went worldwide never to trust the middle-men, some callimg them parasites along with smart-arse advisers who fed off the ignorant cockie.

The point is are these new middle-men today the same breed as those back in yesterday - ready to con the ignorant or those who could not even afford a home phone. As Bunge and Dreyfus are still in the grain buying game along with Cargills, and Chicago being still the headquarters of these corporates, how much of an eye is kept on these now global companies, seeing that philosophical courses in our WA Murdoch School of Humanities deal with dishonesty in corporatism as well as in smaller businesses.

Pert of the dialogue is how profits from grain subsidies in the huge American MidWest go more to pay Big-Biz lobby groups, than to the ordinary simple farmers.

It is hoped, therefore, that these budding corporationists, now a big part of our nouve riche, are more honest than those the farmers had experience with in the Great Depression, in Australia causing farmers en masse to turn agrarian social to form co-operative protective boards similar to the Aussie wheat-marketing single-desk still well alive today.

With Big Biz or corporatism obviously a major part of today’s right-wing business acumen, and with John Howard so eager when he joined George W’ in the Bi-Lateral Trade Agreement, Professor Beder might give us a few clues about how it has weakened our bio-custom laws. The culprit in question happened to be Brazil which was allowed to land a shipment of carcase beef into NSW, when the country had already been banned over such, owing to foot and mouth disease - and all revealed on video per SBS Dateline compered by George Negus, obviously making our beef and mutton breeders very upset, especially as it seemed our Federal Government was able to hush it down in the media.

Finally, it is so interesting politically that a gutless Labor has never made a mention of something so dangerous to our export trade, that it might have begun a case for the impeachment of our PM, Johnny Howard

From Bob The Builder to Bob The Betrayer

Carr accuses Iemma of being soft for opening funnel roads.

"I wouldn't have done it," Mr Carr told a Privatisation and Competitive Sourcing Committee of the American Bar Association in Washington on Thursday.

"I'm afraid it's going to cost the state's taxpayers a lot of money," he said, referring to the likely lawsuits over the road closures. "If the Government had held firm the thing would have gone away. Instead they have reignited the issue."
His candid remarks to a group of about 20 executives were reported in the online magazine Tollroadsnews.com.

The website said Mr Carr described the political environment surrounding the tunnel as being akin to when sharks get in a frenzy with blood in the water.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/you-stuffed-up-bob-tells-morris/2006/06/17/1149964751491.html

Comment:
How Low can he go? If ex-Premiers have such little respect for the voters in NSW then there must be a reason. He's sold us out!

Bushbred, your posts raise the question as to what is worse for
farmers, the greed of traders or the ineptitude of what often
comes with monopolies.

I've been following the story of an Indian wheat deal which
AWB signed, with a nil tolerance for certain diseased grains.
Well of course the Indians only have to find one single grain
in a whole boatload and it becomes a disaster. They can create
merry hell for the seller, with claims for discounts, refusal
of boatloads of grain etc, which it seems is what happenend.

How much such seemingly bad deals cost growers, is anyones
guess.

Likewise lamb exports were a Govt monopoly for years in WA,
so few invested in sheep and lamb processing. We are still
paying a price for that, with WA prices well behind the
Eastern States, year after year. Hopefully a few more
efficient ES exporters will set up shop here soon, to create
some urgently needed competition. Govt red tape is what is holding
alot of them up, once again another monopoly. So its a two
edged sword as to what really works best