“Since the election of the Albanese government in 2022, the pace of state expansion has accelerated dramatically. The result has been a deeply interventionist regime that picks winners, bankrolls favoured industries and blurs the line between public interest and private profit, as long as both answer to Canberra”. (Burshtein & Swan, ‘Don't cry for me Australia’, 2/8/35).

The invisible hand of the free market is being replaced by the Albanese government, big business, and the unions. What was the free market, that has made us rich until now, will be “massaged” and eventually captured, by state monopoly capitalism as per Marxist theory: what the Treasurer tries to kid us is “values-based capitalism”. What values? Whose values?

The authors describe government blather, incompetence and lies as a centralised economy, “not open to competition”, planned and plotted “behind closed doors”.

We all know how well centralised economies, in countries with governments who actually admit to being Communist/Socialist, have gone. And we look like going the same way under a government that appears to be imitating those sorts of regimes. And, the latest election seems to indicate that they will get away with it. The virtual one-party system is with us.

Governments before this vile lot have been gradually bringing Australia down - and getting away with it - thanks to low-information, ovine voters who are suckers for bribes and being ‘kept safe’. So, there is no excuse for being where we are now.

When the money finally runs out, those people who would rather Big Brother did their thinking for them will wonder what hit them.

While commentators say that Australia's race to the bottom will see us looking like Argentina, Argentina has at least a new government attempting to raise their country up: ours is doing the opposite. I envisage the day when the sneers will be redirected to Australia. Thanks to the “performative incompetence” of Jim Chalmers, Albanese and the rest of the Labor drones.

ttbn,

Australia hasn’t become some Marxist command economy just because Labor is investing in clean energy and local manufacturing. The private sector still dominates every major industry, competition is alive and well, and we’ve got one of the most deregulated markets in the OECD.

Coalition governments also “picked winners” and “bankrolled industries” - remember fossil fuel subsidies and corporate handouts? If that’s “state monopoly capitalism,” then the Coalition were Marxists too.

Argentina’s collapse wasn’t caused by the kind of modest interventions you’re railing against, it came from decades of debt crises, currency implosions, and political instability. Australia has a AAA rating, a strong currency, and robust institutions.

Screaming “Peronism!” is just scaremongering.

The “money running out” line is recycled doom-predicting. We heard the same about Medicare, super, and the NBN, and yet those programs became pillars of our prosperity.

This isn’t “performative incompetence.” It’s just not the trickle-down, corporate-dominated model that conservatives call the “free market” - while ironically championing tariffs now. Calling that Peronism is like calling Medicare Stalinism. It’s a slogan, not an argument.

Just ignore Burshtein and Swan. They're not a very bright pair.

"Just ignore Burshtein and Swan. They're not a very bright pair".

They are much brighter than you - a simple fool who is more interested in who says something than what they say. Just the sort of low-information ignoramus who is in for one hell of a shock.

You can't tell your arse from your elbow.

ttbn,

That’s a bit rich coming from someone who just got their “Peronism” narrative dismantled point by point and clearly has nothing to say in defence of that.

If Burshtein and Swan really had a case, you’d be able to defend their arguments instead of lashing out with playground insults. But when the facts don’t line up, all that’s left is noise.

Calling me a “simple fool” doesn’t change that Australia isn’t a Marxist command economy, hasn’t “run out of money,” and isn’t on track to become Argentina.

You’ve got slogans and abuse - I’ve got evidence. The more you flail, the clearer that becomes.

G'day John,

Well said, very restrained on your part. ttbn has to open his bag of insults because that's all he's got, he doesn't have the mentality to launch a coherent argument of his own. What he does is read these naysayer articles coming out of extreme right field, then regurgitates them on this forum as if they are "fact". All that alarmist "Reds under the beds" nonsense, you would think was well and truly tossed out with the downfall of the Soviet Union about 35 years ago. But no, it seems there are still a few of the old class warriors like ttbn, trying to carry on the fight, alas it may be from the comfort of his commode down at the Shady Pines retirement home for Old Farts, but still trying save the world from those nasty commo's like Albo and Jim.

Daysh,

What a disagreeable character you are: lacking the ability to introduce a topic yourself, you lurk like a snake in the grass, waiting for someone to contribute so that you can rant and rave against whatever is said. You can't even tell the difference between an opinion and a review of someone else's opinion, in this case that of Dimitri Burshtein and Peter Swan.

No. You just fly at me, criticising me for not defending their opinions. I don't have to defend their opinions. If you want a defence, contact them. They are well known professionals who could put you on the right track, but only if you could muster the courage to confront them.

I can assure you that you have not “dismantled” their narrative. Your arrogance matches your ignorance.

You remain a simple fool; and while the Australian economy is not yet a Marxist one, it will be, thanks to fools like you.

Evidence? You didn't provide any evidence to back your first rant against me (against Bernstein and Swan, actually). You just have opinions, based on who knows what; and those opinions, entitled though you are to hold them, are rubbish - in my opinion.

So, Mr, Daysh, you carry on with your nonsense and continue making a galah of yourself - and, I suspect, keeping people who don't want to be bullied from contributing to OLO.

Your card has been marked.

ttbn,

You didn’t just review Burshtein and Swan’s piece. You used their talking points to launch your own claims about a Marxist command economy, Peronism, and looming economic collapse.

That’s not neutral commentary, that’s endorsement.

Pointing out that you can’t defend those claims isn’t “criticising you for not defending their opinions,” it’s noting that you’ve walked away from your own position now that it’s been challenged.

If you truly were just a detached reviewer, you wouldn’t have added your own alarmism about “vile drones,” “state monopoly capitalism,” and “Big Brother.” Those were your words.

I’ve addressed every substantive point: Australia’s still a capitalist economy, Coalition governments also “picked winners,” Argentina’s crisis wasn’t caused by mild intervention, and the Medicare/NBN “money will run out” trope has been wrong for decades.

So far, your response has been to avoid all of that and throw insults. That’s deflection, not debate.

If having facts on my side earns a ‘marked card,’ I’ll take it. Just don’t expect it to magically defend the Peronism scare story you abandoned.

In the future, I am not going to name my source just so some simpleton who has the source's name on a hate-list thinks that making disparaging remarks about the source is a substitute for expressing an opinion, for or against, on the subject matter. I will think carefully about starting a thread, too, if I think it will attract only nutjobs.

What the simpletons say about me - even when I’m just passing something on - is neither here nor there. I'm too old and experienced to be bothered by what a couple of thugs say.

I am certainly not going to argue the toss anymore with simpletons and nobodies, who are probably not allowed out of the backyard in their miserable real lives.

The reports of increasing mental illness in Australia is not hard to believe.

ttbn,

You started a thread quoting Burshtein and Swan, expanded on their arguments with your own claims about Marxism and Peronism, and called Labor a “vile lot.” That’s not “just passing something on,” that’s taking a position.

I challenged that position with facts and you’ve responded with nothing but personal abuse and now talk of not naming sources or starting threads because “nutjobs” might reply. That’s not debate, it’s retreat.

Insults about “simpletons,” “nobodies,” and mental illness won’t change that your alarmist narrative was dismantled and you couldn’t defend it. Walking away doesn’t make you right, it just makes it clear you had nothing else.

Seeing that I'm attracting nutjobs only, I'll change the topic and announce that someone I am not going to name has asked if we should be electing judges following one of the idiot’s overturning of the NSW premier's and police NO to antisemites and Israel-haters closing Sydney Harbour Bridge for around 5 hours with hate and yelling.

And, yes, I have asked the same question many times, so feel free to implicate me along with my source.

When governments (sometimes) try to do the job they were elected to do, some unelected, activist judge steps in and stops them.

Free speech? Occupying public areas and preventing people from going about their lawful business is not speech.

These ratbag judges need to be held to account. We elect the idiots who appoint them: it doesn't work. We should elect the judges too.

If things go horribly wrong at this hatefest, the judge won't be held to account

Some people insist that free speech is involved in this hatefest on the Bridge. But, hang on, the Palestinians in general are NOT advocates of free speech. Quite the opposite.

These dreadful people are intent only on creating obstruction; banging on about the same thing, week after week, deluded that if they keep it up long enough they will get their way.

People might be apathetic, vote carelessly and so on; but when they are personally put out, they tend to get very stroppy. The NSW government knows this. The NSW police know this. The stupid judge does not know this. Were she to be subjected to the choice of the people as per the NSW government, she might get it.

You would know all about hatefests titibean. It's all you've got ya sad senile old git. I've never seen anyone take an election loss so badly. Get over it loser. You lost fair and square. Got flogged actually. 94 seats fool 94 seats. The Australian public have spoken loud and clear against the rwnj agenda of denial, nuclear scam, snowflake whining and complaining and dumb culture wars. Just stfu and go towards the light boomer.

"These dreadful people are intent only on creating obstruction; banging on about the same thing, week after week, deluded that if they keep it up long enough they will get their way." ttbn has finally realized what he is, spends half his day bagging on the forum, 6 posts in 3 hours. probably not allowed out of the backyard in his miserable real life.

ttbn wrote in his first post...."(Burshtein & Swan, ‘Don't cry for me Australia’, 2/8/35)."

I'm guessing its a typo and he meant to write 2/8/25. But it turns out to be quite the prescient Freudian slip.

Because, while what ttbn and his sources wrote, probably isn't obvious to the less cognoscente among us t the present time, come 2035, it'll be very clear that the centralisation of power and wealth was the aim. The recent so-called Productive Summit which was restricted to Big Government, Big Business and Big Unions is a pointer to where the nation is headed under current leadership. Note there wasn't a murmur of dissent from the Libs who are effectively on board with all this, just not on board with who is leading it.

All of this concentration of power and wealth is possible while-ever the elite can buy off the electorate with electricity subsidies and parades and ever increasing welfare. But when the music stops and there's no more largess to buy off the voters, things will be very different. Come 2035 we'll know how that turned out because the next decade isn't going to be pretty for the Aussie economy.

mhaze,

I now need an editor to edit my edits.

I appreciate your sensible comments on the topic.

mhaze,

So now we’ve gone from “Australia is already Peronist” to “it’s not obvious now, but maybe by 2035”? That’s not prescience, that’s hedging your bets.

This “centralisation of power” line is just slogan politics. Australia’s private sector still drives the economy, competition is alive and well, and wealth is less concentrated here than in many OECD nations. The Productive Summit you mention? Similar forums have been run under Liberal governments without cries of creeping Marxism.

Electricity subsidies and welfare aren’t “buying off” voters, they’re standard policy tools used by both major parties. Medicare and superannuation were called vote-buying gimmicks once too, yet decades later they’re pillars of prosperity.

If you’ve got hard evidence that Australia is heading toward a Marxist-style, centrally planned economy, produce it. If not, vague predictions about 2035 are just a safety net for a failing argument today.

It is annoying when a poster can't agree to disagree, but keeps on, and on, and on, disagreeing, long after everyone else has lost interest.

But it is also sad, pathetic. What sort of life does such an obsessive person have that he keeps trying to make people believe that his opinions are superior to everyone else's? He claims to 'prove' that he is right; that he deals in 'facts'. No, he does not. He is just another sad windbag, full of BS.

ttbn,

You keep calling me a “windbag full of BS” with “no facts,” but here’s what I’ve actually put on the table:

-- Australia is not a Marxist economy: The private sector still drives every major industry, competition is alive, and we’re one of the most deregulated markets in the OECD. That’s not central planning or “state monopoly capitalism.”

-- Coalition did the same: Past Liberal governments heavily subsidised fossil fuels and bankrolled industries. If that’s Marxism, then your own heroes were Marxists too.

-- Argentina analogy fails: Argentina collapsed after decades of debt crises, currency crashes, and political chaos - not because they invested a bit in their own industries like we’re doing here. Australia has a AAA rating, strong currency, and stable institutions.

-- “Money running out” is recycled fear: Conservatives said the same about Medicare, superannuation, and the NBN. Decades later, those programs are pillars of prosperity, not signs of Marxist ruin.

-- 2035 prophecy is hedging: mhaze already pushed the alleged economic collapse a decade out because there’s no evidence of it now. That’s not foresight, it’s moving the goalposts.

You’ve responded to none of this. No counter-evidence, no rebuttal, just personal insults and attempts to paint persistence as obsession.

Facts don’t stop being facts because you’re tired of hearing them. Calling me a windbag won’t change that your Peronism narrative collapsed the moment it was challenged.

And yet somehow, I’m the one you call nasty…

You are in denial, so you won't hear from me again. I'll leave it to whomever else thinks you are worth wasting their time on.

ttbn,

That’s not me being in denial, that’s you walking away after dodging every fact laid out:

- Private enterprise still dominates our economy.
- Coalition governments did the same subsidies you call Marxist.
- Argentina collapsed from debt crises, not mild state intervention.
- Medicare, super, and the NBN proved “money will run out” cries wrong.
- mhaze’s 2035 prediction is a hedge, not evidence.

You’ve responded to none of this. Saying you “won’t waste time” is just a polite way of conceding without admitting it.

//…you won't hear from me again.//

I thought we’d already agreed to this long ago. You’re welcome to respond again if you change your mind - otherwise, I won’t expect responses to any of my future replies to you.

It will save us both a lot of time, at least.

Well JD, despite accusing me of "cries of creeping Marxism", I didn't use that term at all. Didn't even imply it although I'm sure you'll assert otherwise.

If anything, the corporatisation of the government, the alliance between big government, big business and big unions, is closer to classic Fascism than failed Marxism. But I didn't use that term either, because it's way too emotive and I'm way too level-headed.

It's mildly amusing the way that JD feels the need to leap to the defence of the ALP whenever there's the slightest critique. Even after I point out that the Libs have the same broad policies, he feels he has to say that the ALP is just as bad as the Libs.

Even more amusing is the demand that I prove something will happen in 2035. I'd like to, but I leant my time machine to my grandson last week and he's currently interviewing So-Crates. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvYRqsRZ7vE

As nations enter decline, especially economic decline, there is an inevitable battle among the various groups seeking to retain their absolute share of a shrinking pie. The next decade will be all about that battle.

The US is already addressing the transfer of wealth and power from the working and middle class to the elites over the past 30 years via the MAGA revolution. We are also starting to see leaders emerge in Britain and some European countries who are nibbling at the edges of these issues. Will we see someone emerge here? Nothing pops out as yet.

Trumpster,

How the Dill Brain Donald fixes massive unemployment in the US as hundreds of thousands are thrown out of work, because of HIS ratbag economic policies. SACK THE STATISTICIAN WHO PRODUCED THOSE AWFUL (BUT TRUE) FIGURES! That's how!

Actually it wasn't Erika McEntarfer who produced the awful economic data, it was people in the department. Donald wouldn't know that, as he's totally clueless. We know, you continue to idolise the American Fuhrer, you do love him so.

Well, mhaze...

Whether you call it creeping Marxism, corporatised fascism, or centralised power, it’s the same alarmist story: vague claims of authoritarian drift, no evidence it’s actually happening now, and a hedge that “by 2035 it’ll all be obvious.”

(You seem to be having trouble with the idea of an ‘implication’ - new concept for you?)

You can dress that up as level-headed all you like, but it’s still prophecy over proof. A time machine joke doesn’t change that.

As for reflexively defending Labor, I’ve already said the Coalition subsidised industries and ran similar summits. That undercuts both parties’ free-market purity. Pretending that’s me “leaping to Labor’s defence” is just a way to dodge the point: there’s nothing Marxist or fascist about Australia’s current mixed-market approach.

If you’ve got hard evidence of authoritarian central planning - something beyond future predictions and MAGA comparisons - let’s see it. Otherwise, this is just another vague forecast waiting for a decade to pass so it can’t be tested now.

Paul, for whom statistics are a foreign language.... Most recent US unemployment rate 4.1%; most recent Australian unemployment rate 4.2%. (Quick JD, leap to the defence to the ALP). Paul thinks the US has massive unemployment but will avert his eyes from the truth.

As to sacking the BLS statistical, they have, by their own admission got every number wrong for the past year.

"You seem to be having trouble with the idea of an ‘implication’ - new concept for you?)"

Not a new concept ....just the way use misuse and misunderstand it.

"but it’s still prophecy over proof."

There is no proof of a prophecy. Quite why that's a difficult concept for you to fathom is unfathomable to me.

"If you’ve got hard evidence of authoritarian central planning -"

Well since I never made that claim, although you might say it was implied, I don't see why I need to provide evidence. Especially to someone to relies entirely on assertion rather than evidence

It seems this one’s really got you rattled, mhaze.

//Statistics are a foreign language … Quick JD, leap to the defence …//

Insults and bait aren’t arguments. They don’t change the fact that you’ve avoided showing any actual authoritarian central planning happening now.

//Not a new concept … just the way you misuse and misunderstand it.//

And yet, still no examples. Convenient. Do you actually understand what an implication is?

//There is no proof of a prophecy … unfathomable to me …//

Exactly, prophecy can’t be proven. That’s the issue: instead of evidence of authoritarian drift today, you’re hiding behind predictions that “by 2035 it’ll all be obvious.”

//I never made that claim … although you might say it was implied …//

You and ttbn have both argued that government, unions, and big business are centralising power and capturing markets. That’s not even an implication—that’s a direct claim of authoritarian drift.

If you didn’t mean that, then you’ve been arguing against nothing this whole time.

Trumpster,

About a half a million Americans have been thrown on the unemployment scrap heap in the past 3 months, something you can't deny. So much for Dirty Donald's claim of Making Americans Great Again, add that half a million to the 7 million already on the heap! As for your claim about "own admission" is BS, its The Donald who is making that claim, no one else. From now on The Donald will announce the numbers personally!

Donald speak; "Unemployment is at zero percent, same as last month, a beautiful number, yah just beautiful, unbelievable, when Biden left office unemployment was at 150%, a disaster, he employed all them Mexican criminals, we stopped that, we've got that down to zero. There was a guy in Tallahassee, who didn't have a job, don't think he wanted to work, but we found him a job at Mar-a-Lago. That guy rings me every day, to say how happy he's working after Biden sacked him, just beautiful!... "I don't know this Epstein guy, never met him, you guys should asking Obama about his drug addiction, terrible, its just terrible, on drugs no job, what he's a terrible loser, and you don't ask why!"

Thinking that what happens in the US or anywhere else in the world excuses what is being done to our country by the Albanese government only emphasises the ignorant stupidity of certain posters, and the general stupidity of the majority of Australians who just vote for the crooks who give them the most free stuff: the stuff that will disappear in the not too distant future.

What the hell is Peronisation ?
Can't find any reference to that anywhere !

You're not alone, Indyvidual.

//What the hell is Peronisation ?//

I asked the same thing and got nothing but slogans in return.

“Peronisation” isn’t an established economic or political term, it’s just a dramatic label ttbn borrowed from a recent op-ed to make it sound like Australia is sliding into some Argentine-style collapse.

When pressed for specifics - how we’re supposedly becoming authoritarian, centrally planned, or “Peronist” - no evidence showed up.

Just predictions that maybe by 2035 it’ll all make sense.

Indyvidual

If you don't know about President Peron and Argentina, you need to start doing some reading.

JD,

I pointed you to the laughingly called Productivity Summit that was limited to Big Business, Big Unions and Big Government. Increasingly the elites are concentrating power in their hands and ignoring the other parts of the society.

We saw another example today. While the wider community is looking for housing relief and population relief, via lower immigration, the government quietly announced an increase in international student numbers. What the elites want, they get, irrespective of what the mere plebs want.

But wanting proof of what things will be like in the future is inane. Although we did see in another thread that the concept of prediction seemed alien to you.

Paul,

"About a half a million Americans have been thrown on the unemployment scrap heap in the past 3 months, something you can't deny."

Well I can deny it because its completely untrue. Jobs continue to be added in the US market, not lost. The only thing that is lost is your ability to understand simple statistics.

Hilariously you then give us a long quote from Trump, which is entirely fabricated by who knows who.

mhaze,

You’ve shifted from arguing Australia is becoming a centrally planned, authoritarian economy to saying elites are “concentrating power” because of a summit and immigration settings. That’s not evidence of Peronism or authoritarian drift, it’s standard policymaking that both parties have done for decades.

And you’re proving my point about prophecy: when asked for evidence of actual central planning now, you fall back on future predictions and tangents. That’s not foresight, it’s hedging.

If you want to argue elites have influence in politics, fine - no one disagrees with that. But that’s a far cry from your original claim that we’re sliding into Peronism or authoritarian central control.

Your argument started big and bold, but now it’s just “elites have power” - something everyone already knows. That’s not a revelation - it’s a retreat.

//Although we did see in another thread that the concept of prediction seemed alien to you.//

You mean the one where you had to cut and run after I laid it all out for you?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10628#371162

It seems we can add "prediction" as well as "implication" to list of concepts you struggle with...

"You’ve shifted from arguing Australia is becoming a centrally planned, authoritarian economy to saying elites are “concentrating power” because of a summit and immigration settings. "

I never talked about central planning. You're confusing me with ttbn. Do try to keep up.

mhaze,

You’ve spent the entire thread warning about elites consolidating power, capturing markets, and ignoring democratic input - now you’re backpedalling to say you never suggested anything resembling central planning?

That’s fine, but it raises a simple question:
What exactly were you warning about this whole time?

Because if your argument isn’t that we’re sliding toward authoritarianism or centralised control, then all you’ve said amounts to “powerful groups have influence,” which… well, yes. That’s been true in every democracy since the dawn of representative government.

If you’ve got a clear position to defend, by all means - lay it out plainly.

But you can’t keep hiding behind implication when challenged, then crying “I never said that” when your own implications get exposed.

Kudos ttbn and mhaze

From AssistAI-

Peronism / Justicialism, Argentine political movement founded by Juan Perón emphasizing social justice, economic independence, and political sovereignty. It has been a significant force in Argentine politics since 1946, often associated with labor rights and populist policies.

Overview of Peronism

Key Principles
The Three Flags of Peronism

Social Justice/ Economic Independence/ Political Sovereignty

Historical Context

Founding: Juan Perón rose to prominence after a military coup in 1943, becoming Minister of Labor and later President in 1946.
Evolution: Over the years, Peronism has evolved, incorporating various factions, including left-wing and right-wing elements.

Political Impact

Elections: Peronists have won 10 out of 14 presidential elections in which they participated.
Legacy: Peronism continues to influence contemporary political discourse in Argentina.

For Indyvidual...

I think it's not Peronization but perhaps Peronism. Anyway here's the article that ttbn mentioned in the first post. Remember the song "Don't Cry For Me Argentina" as I understand it's about Eva Peron.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2025/08/dont-cry-for-me-australia-2/

Here's some background on Peronism for those that don't know or have forgotten due to the power of the leftist Trump Derangement Syndrome white noise coming through the main stream media...

Ironically relative sovereignty and economic self sufficiency are probably good things. Social justice at least in the way that they are implemented in the west not so good.

Javier Milei known as the "chain saw" against Peronism was famous before the recent US elections and was probably useful in bringing President Trump to his second term. One of Peronism's main problems has been it's evolution into an extremely bloated government. The youtube video of Milei cutting 10 or so ministerial portfolios will go down in history as a relief from the tyranny of leftist policies that starve the people in the name of freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUYPNsTpO4Y
(Javier Milei illustrates which Ministries will be REMOVED for good when he assumes as PRESIDENT)

http://www.theblaze.com/news/javier-milei-eliminates-half-of-argentinas-government-ministries-on-first-day-as-president

Affoya!

The sad thing is that Peron probably was well intentioned but maybe a "Projects Department" that covered research into a range of issues in Argentina would have been a better way to go. Also Argentina apparently has a very multicultural diaspora which can be problematic for cohesion and for goal focus. Talcott Parsons AGIL system talks about the minimal requirements for a stable society- goal focus is one of them.

Canem Malum,

No amount of kudos will undo the bruising ttbn and mhaze have just taken, but I’m sure they’ll appreciate the gesture all the same.

Kudos.

JD writes: "You’ve spent the entire thread warning about elites consolidating power, capturing markets...".

Just as I never talked about "central planning" or "creeping Marxism" despite JD's assertion that I did, I've never talked about "capturing markets". Indeed, until this post I haven't mentioned "markets".

The problem is that when I say something that is both too logical for JD to attack and too well referenced for him to assail, he feels the need to attribute other assertions about what I've said and then to attack these made-up claims. I'd call it strawman construction, but its less ethical than that.

So I'll talk past JD, in order to again describe how I see the situation. In Australia we have an economy in decline with manufacturing effectively gutted and the service economy dominant. As we become a quarry for the world, we become dependent on outside factors entirely beyond our control. So, whenever a nation is in decline, competing interests in that nation seek to preserve not only their own relative position, but their absolute position.

This is what we are now seeing with Big Government, Big Business and Big Unions combining to shore up their position as against those outside the power circle. The laughingly called Productivity Summit is an example. We saw this week governments rush to save a failing smelter in SA at the behest of business and the unions. This is money taken from other Australians to save the bacon of a few. Expect to see much much more of that over the next decade up until the time when such frivolous spending can no longer be sustained.

mhaze,

You keep insisting I’ve misrepresented you, but never quote where. Curious, isn't it?.

Your “Big Government, Big Business and Big Unions” narrative is exactly the sort of authoritarian-drift claim ttbn called Peronism. If you now say that’s not what you meant, you’ve just gutted your own argument.

Your “power circle” talk is market capture by another name. If it’s not that, then what is it?

And your “evidence” - a summit, a smelter bailout - are bipartisan, decades-old practices. That’s not proof of new elite consolidation, just normal policymaking.

Once again, you end with predictions. Without proof of it happening now, you’re still in prophecy-land.

This is just another classic mhaze reframe-and-retreat.

"Your “power circle” talk is market capture by another name. If it’s not that, then what is it?"

They are not centrally planning. They aren't seeking to capture markets. They are seeking to ensure that whatever the shrinking markets dish up, they'll get the lion's share. That's what happens in declining nations.

"You keep insisting I’ve misrepresented you, but never quote where. Curious, isn't it?."

In my last post, I quoted from you three times to show that you made up claims about what I said. THREE TIMES. Just making up claims about making up claims is pretty grim. Are you incapable of seeing this or do you just think that ought lying is a substitute for the truth?

mhaze,

So we’re down to this: the “power circle” isn’t capturing markets, it’s just… ensuring they get the biggest slice of them. You can play with labels, but the substance is the same.

As for your “three quotes,” I’ve looked. None of them show me inventing claims you never made. They show me interpreting your own words in context, then asking you to clarify or back them up - something you’ve yet to do.

If you think one of those quotes actually demonstrates me making something up, then point to the exact words I “invented” that aren’t a fair reading of your position.

Otherwise, you’re just hoping repetition will make it true.

Try again.

"then point to the exact words I “invented” that aren’t a fair reading of your position."

"central planning" - I never said it. Never implied. Never thought it. Never supported it as an interpretation of the present or future. Apart from any thing else, these people aren't capable of something like planning!! You made it up.

"creeping Marxism" - I never mentioned Marxism. I never suggested they're Marxists. Specifically rejected it and said that, if anything, they're closer to Fascism. You made it up.

"capturing markets" - I never said. Never even talked about markets. This isn't about markets. The markets continue as per usual. They just protect their slice of the wealth. You made it up.

This is interesting...

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6nx2b4rg

The purpose of this study is to examine what Marx, Nietzsche and Freud make of the idea of repetition, and how their concepts of repetition relate to what they perceive as problems of modernity, in a selection of their works. This thesis first looks at how teleology, a concept of time characteristic of the Enlightenment, faced competition from other temporal ideas like repetition during the nineteenth century, and the interrelationship between repetition, modernity's relentless aspiration towards newness, and memory as a means of mediating between past and present.

Well one of the things we'll be cutting when the chainsaw takes aim at Australia in it's De-Peronism is John Daysh, "Don't cry for me, Argentina".

mhaze,

None of those were presented as verbatim quotes. They were summaries of the implications in your “Big Government, Big Business, Big Unions” narrative.

When you warn about elites consolidating power and protecting their share of wealth, you are describing:

- Centralisation of control (central planning by another name),
- State–corporate collusion often framed as creeping Marxism or corporatist fascism, and
- Economic dominance (market capture, whether you use the phrase or not).

If you want to quibble over labels, fine. But you can’t seriously claim your meaning is unrelated. The behaviour you describe fits the terms you reject.

You’re not catching me in an “invention” - you’re just playing semantics because you can’t disprove the reading.

Off you trot...

He asks for quotes.

I give him three.

He says they don't count because he didn't really mean them to be quotes.

We are now at the part where JD realises he's been shown up AGAIN and just tries to bluff his way out of admitting by monotonous repetition of his lies.

Not playing.

mhaze,

I asked you to point to where I’d “invented” things. You came back with three terms I never presented as verbatim quotes, but as fair readings of your “Big Government, Big Business, Big Unions” narrative.

Saying “I didn’t use those exact words” doesn’t change the substance: warning about elites consolidating wealth and power is describing the same dynamic whether you call it centralisation, corporatist collusion, or market capture.

If your whole defence is semantics, you’ve still done nothing to disprove the reading. And now, having been pressed on it, your “not playing” just looks like you’re taking your ball and going home.

Stamping your feet and pouting won’t change any of that.

You said I talked about creeping Marxism when not only had I not but I had specifically said it wasn't Marxism.

You just fabricate stuff and then hide behind the cowardly assertion that its a fair interpretation of what was said without bothering to show how that's so.

Either you lie or your comprehension skills need to be massively revised.

mhaze,

You keep pretending I claimed you used the words “creeping Marxism” when I clearly said it was a reading of your “Big Government, Big Business, Big Unions” framing. That’s not fabrication - it’s connecting the dots between your own descriptions and common political terminology for that dynamic.

If you think the reading is wrong, you can explain why, but just shouting “lie” isn’t an argument.

Right now you’re dodging the substance by fixating on labels, because it’s easier than addressing the interpretation head-on.

You can keep accusing me of lying all you like, but it only makes you look desperate.