Yabby wrote,

"... If Australians ignore reality as you seem to and let
it happen, then you dear, will learn the difference between
consensual sex and rape, the hard way of course, but it will
be too late."

This known as the "Good cop, bad cop" routine. While the "bad cop" is out of the room, Yabby the "good cop" tells us he really sympathises with you, and not with his Chinese masters. Just give them what they want consensually, he tells you, or when the "bad cop" returns, you will be beaten up and raped.

Nicky dear, attempts at ridicule are not going to make a point for
you. There are plenty of experts worth listening to, who unlike
you, are qualified in their fields and are not obsessed as you are.

*People go hungry because much of arable land is used to grow feed grain for animals rather than people*

Wrong, people go hungry if they have no money to buy grain that is
available. You are free to purchase it and give it to them, if you
wish. There are still millions of acres of the former USSR lying
idle, where no grain is being produced, because it simply wasn't
worth doing whilst prices were so low, until around 2006. Prices
spiked in 2007, more grain is the result, prices have dropped
40% once again. If the price of grain falls below the cost of
production, farmers will stop growing it, better just graze some
livestock on that land.

Australia's current account is crook, not due to Govt spending,
but due to the fact that Australians are poor savers and big
spenders. Next we have few industries that are globally competitive.
Agriculture and mining are where we lead the world, then a few
niche industries, that is about it. But then clearly you have
given up doing anything globally productive to pay your way.
Just let foreigners take over, as you have stated. The rest of
Australia luckily still values the contribution that farming
and mining make to our living standards, even if oddballs like
yourself don't understand economics 101.

I note Yabby is still peddling 'free market' economic dogma -- sorry "Economics 101".

Yabby apparently still hasn't woken up to the fact that the rest of the world sees 'free market' ideology for the lie that it is as a result of the recent financial meltdown and many other free-market-driven catastrophes as chronicled in Naomi Klein's monumental "The Shock Doctrine" of 2007 (http://candobetter.org/node/263 http://candobetter.org/NaomiKlein http://www.naomiklein.org/ShockDoctrine). The 'free market' has also caused the current world food crisis by having diverted food production into ethanol production (see "Evo Morales re-nationalises energy and telecommunications companies, denounces biofuel-driven starvation" at http://candobetter.org/node/491) and it is driving may countries to destroy rainforests in to make way for toxic soy monocultures (http://forests.org/shared/alerts/send.aspx?id=paraguay_soya).

As for Yabby's argument about Russian agriculture, it is common practice for neo-liberal ideologues to throw in such isolated facts which seemingly lead to the conclusion that the only possible answer is the same 'free market' that has led to environmental devastation and human suffering everywhere else. I would like to see the sources upon which Yabby's assertions are based.

It is not Nicky who wants to turn this country into a colony of China , it is Yabby.

One moment he celebrates the orgy of profligate consumption of recent decades and the next moment the turns around and blames our predicament on that consumerism.

He ignores decades of self-serving propaganda that led too many Australians to believe that the importation of consumer goods of recent decades would not come at a cost to the environment, their sovereignty and their children's future and even today Yabby tries out of one side of his mouth to perpetuate that lie.

As I asked before, who were the political leaders who brought about these circumstances, if not Costello, Keating, Hawke and Howard, all of whom he worships?

Yabby's continued silence is telling.

(tobecontineud)

(continuedfromabove)

As for the cropping-versus-grazing argument, I am not able to buy into it. Both are environmentally destructive the way they are commonly practised and both raise entail serious moral and ethical questions. I think the discussion in response to "Working the land - or not" of 24 June 08 at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2397#comment-80362 may be of interest.

---

Yabby's crank economic prescription of ever accelerating export of our finite endowment of mineral wealth, soil mining and a tiny specialised niche manufacturing sector has been well and truly torn to shreds in the discussion over the article "Securing the future of Australian manufacturing" of 10 April 2004 at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7218&page=0

Hehe, so after Daggett fails to convince anyone that Osama is an
angel and that 911 was due to the CIA, he now intends to turn an
animal welfare thread into an economics debate. Perhaps some
of those animal libbers will give him the pats on the head that
he seems to yearn for :) This is all so predictable.

Market economics is in fact alive and well and most Australians
have voted for it for years. Their standard of living has risen
accordingly. The present fiasco is due to the US Govt forgetting
to legislate against theft and let me assure you that if Govt's
don't legislate against theft, then some people will steal.
Even you should understand those basics.

You have shown no alternative that is better then market economics.
I don't see you or anyone else, flocking to live in the nivarna
of Cuba.

Forests are not bulldozed by the free markets, but by corrupt
Govts failing to protect them. Those same Govts, which Daggett thinks,
should control every detail of our lives.

I've said before, that Australians would save alot more, if Govts
did not rob them of their savings when they do save. Indexing for
inflation the earnings from savings would compensate people for
what is stolen. Taxation at marginal rates takes the other half,
so many Australians live it up and don't bother. But all this
is clearly way beyond your understanding.

Cropping and grazing like anything, can be well done and be sustainable,
or they can be badly done and cause damage. Any thing in the
wrong hands can be misused. Agriculture is no different.

I am against animal cruelty for starters. I think we should be able to practice animal husbandry without cruel treatments eg. sheep mulesing, there are alternatives, but they are just not acted upon. The industry is very slowly committing to a future date to stop the practice, but only because they believe they will lose money from activist citizens and businesses who will ethically reject their products. Industry has to be dragged kicking and screaming into using modern methods, the constant refrain of "we'll all be rooned" is tiresomely untrue. We consumers need to reject caged hen eggs now so that chook cruelty is stopped once and for all.

Having said all that though, I am annoyed when people get all misty eyed over an ill treated dog or cat that they see on the news and start demanding the death sentence for the offenders, whilst not saying a word when innocent human beings are ill treated. We had real people going screamingly insane, sewing their lips together, committing suicide etc. because they were being imprisoned behind razor wire in the desert. I'd have liked the RSPCA and other animal welfare groups speaking up for all animals, including the human one.

There seems to be a hypocrisy present by some when animals are treated badly compared to humans. I said so to a work colleague who was upset over an animal torture case, and she said "oh, but the poor animals are innocent." Well, so are children and asylum seekers! You don't get to judge degrees of deserving, evil vs innocence. The bali bombers should not have been executed in such a cruel and inhumane manner, we euthanase our animals more humanely