TurnRightThenLeft
The ”powerful” few act to maintain the status quo?
What does that mean? Maintain the free market? (Sure, but why is that a problem?) Maintain their position on the ladder? (there is no literal ladder, it is only a metaphor.) Maintain their wealth. (yeah, so what?) Maintain their power? (What power? A free market implies a free society where the law protects persons and their material and intellectual property. When we talk about Rup Murdoch having power we are using poetic licence when referring to how they “command” attention from Presidents and Kings and “dictate” when the general population reads and views. But in reality this is hogwash. Murdoch has less real, literal, tangible power than a parking inspector. A parking inspector has the discretion to decide whether or not you will pay a $100.00 parking fine in return of which you get nothing. What can Murdoch legally do to me to make me suffer? The ‘power’ of law abiding plutocrats only comes to them because they have the talent of giving the others what they want. Every time they attempt to exercise arbitrary power by doing what they themselves want rather than what the public wants they begin to diminish their power, by opening the door to a competitor. ((Murdoch allegedly installed Thatcher into power in the 1980s and Blair this decade. But when you look at it carefully was he really appointing or just identifying and then following two very competent politicians.)) If their “power” is purchasing power then come and make me the victim. Let them throw money at me to make me do things they want me to do. I’m ready to be bullied. )
There’s a difference between the power of the dollar and that of the whip and those who don’t know deserve to find out the hard way.

It gets complicated when you talk about world trade. The free market doesn’t have to imply that. Are you saying that if Australia was all of the known world then you would believe in the free market?

Rupert Murdoch openly says that his newspapers have changed Australian governments. Rupert always gets the government he wants, even though he is now a US citizen.

Alcoa's mission statement was "we are in business to maximise profit in a socially acceptable manner". That's clear and simple. It's up to society to set limits on what's socially acceptable. Its the role of our elected representatives to represent our interests and set the boundaries of what is acceptable behaviour.

No, its not the role of the market to set the boundaries of reasonable behaviour. Throughout history the markets have shown themselves to be prey to price gouging, restrictive trade, insider trading. The economists pure competition mrket is a mythical beast, but Australian farmers have long been held up as examples of units operating under pure market conditions. As such Australian producers regularly experience tomato gluts, the 11 year cattle cycle, the n year hog cycle, go broke prices for fresh milk, Australian Wheat Board.

Clearly under these conditions the foolish and unlucky don't survive. Are we as a society prepared to watch 5% of the market driven to the wall? Probably yes. Are we prepared to see 50% of the market driven to the wall? Probably not. Are we prepared to see 90% driven to the wall?

Does it advantage society to have the winners living comfortably and the losers living in poverty? Well that probably depends on proportions. The high taxing Scandanavian countries have a more equitable society than the the UK where the pop gods and aristos complained loudly about their massive tax bills.

Did I read Col Blimp approving of his dear margaret who championed the mass murderer Pinochet who executed 3000 Chileans in his first 48 hours of terror then disappeared and tortured thousands more in his reign, including the current president of Chile who graduated in medicine from Australia. The remaining population lived in grinding poverty, as you do when the breadwinner has been shot or exiled. The military officers lived very well and sent their chidren to Stanford University south of San Francisco.

Civilisationalist, Caroll Quigley, notes, there is danger in wealth and power co-existing in the same hands at the decline stage of a society. Herein, those with the muscle will protect their status quo, and innovation is arrested, as a result. Protectionism destroys the societal structures from the inside, making the decling society ripe to be defeated by a more able expanding society.

Billie
There’s a difference between a Danton using eloquent speech to communicate with the masses and inspiring them to rise up and overthrow the shackles of tyranny, and a Robespierre who doesn’t bother to inspire but just drags out Madam Guillotine to threaten force against those who disagree with him.
Governments and only governments have a monopoly on real power. Ask your mate the Great Helmsman about power and gun barrels.
Murdoch boasting he can change governments is like Sarah Bernhardt boasting she can bring her audience to tears. To the degree that they can it is to their credit that they can communicate, not to their detriment that they threaten tangible harm. I, for one, shall never fear words.
Alcoa's mission statement simply means that they will operate within the criminal law which is nothing less than what we should expect. Governments have the right to set laws but only laws that apply to everyone. No one, corporation or humble pedestrian, should be allowed to steal, obtain an advantage by deception, violate prescribed rules that protect the environment or dishonour a contract. But when you introduce laws that target one otherwise legitimate group in society for the benefit of another, you become nothing more than the grubby thugs you accuse others of being. (eg. why is it that an employee has the arbitrary right to quit a job but the employer does not share the same right to dismiss?)

P.S. Colonel Blimp was a Boer and Great War hero who certainly wouldn’t lower himself to petty, spiteful, class war jealousies. And he’d be respectful enough to use capitals when writing the name of a lady such as Margaret.

Edward,
"why is it that an employee has the arbitrary right to quit a job but the employer does not share the same right to dismiss?"

The employer possesses two vital powers: to hire and fire. The employee only has one power : to quit. Employees have fewer choices, if they want eat and live in safe accommodation. Correction: eating is compulsory.

vivy,
Edward is one of those power hungry employers that Workchoices was bought in for to boost their ego's. There are many good employers, who are not arrogant up themselves specimens like Edward, he seems to think he has decended from Royality, we both know what part of the Royal anatomy it was that he decended from.

Capitalism in a less extreme form than we have in Australia at the moment can be a good thing, the trouble is with any system when the extreme is reached as it has in this country now. More rich people sure, no problem, but a lot more poor people which is a problem. As a Christian nation, we have a duty of care to lift these people up to an acceptable state of living, it's our moral obligation.

Only when the last fish is caught from the last poluted river will man realise money cannot be eaten.