Calls for a new world order to regulate capitalism coincide with the realisation, that after a century of male supervision, women have become competent and qualified to govern at all levels in their own right.

This achievement enables decision-making in the form of a consensus between women's and men's perspectives.

With the prospect of a republic, Australia has the opportunity to lead the new world order with governance comprising women's and men's legislatures presided over by an executive of elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.

Capitalism would be regulated with the most efficient and effective utilisation of human resources available.

hmmm ...

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's calls for a new world order to regulate capitalism comes as women become competent to govern in their own right.

Decision-making by consensus is enabled.

Australians should contribute to a new world order with a Republic comprising women's and men's legislatures presided over by elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.

Capitalism can be regulated easily with the optimum of human resources.

close, but no cigar ...

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's call for a new world order to regulate capitalism comes as women become competent to govern in their own right.

Decision-making by consensus is enabled.

Australians should contribute to a new world order with a Republic comprising women's and men's legislatures presided over by elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.

Capitalism can be regulated easily with the optimum of human resources.

Is this the world Govt that the Bush dynasty has been pushing for decades?This smacks of 1984 with regulation coming out of every orifice.The central banks of the world along with the UN are pushing this idea and it will not be a democracy.

excellent analysis.
thank you for your contribution. :)

I read the article too… sounds like Krudd has abandoned Mee-Too now he has been elected and is showing his real Keynesian colours.

Of course the finance, banking and corporate sectors have been regulated for years… or were those companies acts and tax acts I was required to read and understand really all swiss-cheese and Sarbanes-Oxley shows how the regulations can be changed, when there is the will.

And what he is suggesting…. Is what brought UK economy to the brink of collapse back in the early 1970’s.

Re” the most efficient and effective utilisation of human resources available.”

Stalin did that,

except the “human resources" did not appreciate his definition of their “efficient and effective utilisation".

As for “Decision-making by consensus is enabled.”

As Margaret Thatcher, a lady with some success in matters of national policy, said

“To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.”

Arjay “The central banks of the world along with the UN are pushing this idea and it will not be a democracy.”

That is the overriding danger.

And it being echoed in the sentiments of a government who feels entitled to censor the internet.

It is noteworthy that when Rudd and his cohorts analyse the current economic crisis they very quickly, and very loudly, pinpoint lack of regulation as the culprit, and more regulation as the panacea.

However, if the truth be known-and is allowed an airing - govt regulation was one of the prime causes of the current crisis- see below:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm?page=0

More regulation will not necessary solve this crisis, or prevent it re-occurring; living within ones means may be a better formula.

Regulated capitalism is hardly a new world order. The unfettered variety was the new world order and has failed miserably.

Even Turnbull has labelled Rudd's comments as a "tinge" of socialism which is what is needed to curb the excesses of the current system. Do we really want more Enrons floating around in the fog of the free market system. A tinge of socialism is not socialism when it exists within the capitalist system. Last I heard it was called a Social Democracy.

One line from the movie made about Enron which resonates for many is that the Enron fiasco was the example of the "globalisation of stupidity".

America is leading the way with a strongly focussed Buy American campaign particularly for the machines used in manufacturing.

whistler I am not sure if you are kidding about the separate men's and women's legislatures but this won't work. We are all humans living in the same society and should be subject to the same laws regardless of gender, race and religion (in my view anyway).

Separate laws/customs to suit every group in society will be divisive rather than inclusive.

WOAH! "New World Order" ?

Hmmmmm.. "He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. (Rev13:16)

AAah.. "REGULATION".... what a refreshing word.....

DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING!

1 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones.

11 Then he said to me: "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, 'Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.' 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you BACK to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, (From Ezekiel 37)

BD clicks on GOOGLE EARTH and types in "Israel"

<enter>........

zooms in......hmmmmmmmm "Oh look...LOTS of houses and people".....

If you want to read the views of a very clear thinker,log onto Ron Paul a US congressman. http://www.ronpaul.com/-95k-

Ron argues that the free market was not allowed to function.It was Clinton who relaxed the regulation on the banks for the sake of cheap housing for the poor.It was not cheap and now the middle classes are also paying a high price.We should not be propping up a failed system.Let the free market under fairer rules sort this mess out.Govt intervention will be a disaster.The new world order will just enslave us all and only the elites at the top of the foodchain will prosper.Penny Wong apparently see herself as an elite.

pelican, race and religion are contingent upon gender.

Without women and men there is no race or religion.

Achieve equity between women and men and race and religion follow.

Moreover, women and men have different life experiences.

The judgement of one on the other is guesswork, an unsound basis for law, thus the lawlessness hitherto of capitalism.

One law, enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, interpreted in women's and men's jurisdictions, presided over by elders, furnishes the certainty from which capitalism proceeds sustainably.

Effective regulation, not more regulation, is what is required, through the efficient utilisation of existing resources.

If you go back in time to the late 18th century, at a place called Harvard University, this Socialist system was already enacted and adopted by private enterprise- and if you are confused now by Enterprise, then it was the introduction of scientific management system – that means more bureaucrats and No autonomy.

I n socialism, more so in Democracies, it is known that there is a need to get Business on side; - Germany early 1930ies, - There is a need for Funding to come from somewhere, although it is actually a juxtaposition of the Ideological perception of the state- so there is a need when the state can program the new age management through University Indoctrination – and positions are held in executive positions, then the constant flow of funds is available to fund some of the more Leftoid idiocies.

At a cost of your private enterprise and inovative capacity.

America in the late 18th century had perfected the Socialist control of Private enterprise, some 30 years before the Bolshevik Lobotomy transition of Russia.

Actually, quite a few up and coming dictators used the American model as archetypical of funding their up and coming models.

I think Kevin Dudd is a few Km above his lot in life; to claim the State has the Answers- when the state is responsible for the entire mess of the Depression era, as well as fabricating our demise of today – to fund Socialism – the great ponzy scheme of Psy-ops paradigms

"Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!" (Hanns Johst: Schlageter)

When I hear the word Culture, I release the safety catch...

I have much the same reaction to the words "new world order".

To me they are as meaningful as "old world order", or "boiled cabbage".

>>Australians should contribute to a new world order with a Republic comprising women's and men's legislatures presided over by elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.<<

There are so many faultlines in this statement, starting with the word "Australians", that it is difficult to take it at all seriously.

In fact, I shall assume that it is a complete spoof, and move on.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's call for a new world order to regulate capitalism comes as women achieve occupancy of every level of government.

Women and men bring different life experiences to the rule of law.

The judgement of one on the other is guesswork, thus the lawlessness with which capitalism has become accustomed.

One law, enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, interpreted in women's and men's jurisdictions, presided over by elders, furnishes the certainty from which capitalism can be regulated sustainably.

Come now whistler, 'fess up.

This is a leg-pull, isn't it?

You have just repeated, for the fourth or fifth time, the same impenetrable nonsense.

>>after a century of male supervision, women have become competent and qualified to govern at all levels in their own right<<

Are you suggesting they were not competent or qualified before?

>>governance comprising women's and men's legislatures presided over by an executive of elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction<<

Are you suggesting separate legislatures and separate courts for men and women? If so, why?

>>Capitalism would be regulated with the most efficient and effective utilisation of human resources available.<<

How would this particular combination bring about this particular result?

>>Decision-making by consensus is enabled.<<

What actually "enables" this consensus? Especially since you appear to have divided both legislature and court system into separate bodies.

>>race and religion are contingent upon gender. Without women and men there is no race or religion.<<

Errrm, without women and men there is no ...anything.

>>The judgement of one on the other is guesswork, an unsound basis for law, thus the lawlessness hitherto of capitalism.<<

You seem to be saying that capitalism is without laws. My company's lawyer spends his holidays skiing in Courchevel, thanks to the vast array of capitalism-related laws.

Your prose seems oddly other-worldly.

As well as somewhat repetetive.

Are you perhaps some kind of highly evolved cockroach, practising your English?

hi Pericles.

> Are you suggesting they were not competent or qualified before?

yes. in 1902 the Parliament of Australia granted women the right to vote and stand as candidates to the two men's legislatures provided under the nation's Constitution, an Act itself of the exclusively male Westminster Parliament.
Dames Enid Lyons and Dorothy Tangney were the first woman elected to the Federal Parliament in 1943; in 1987 Justice Mary Gaudron became the first woman to sit on the bench of the High Court; Julia Guillard has Acted as Prime Minister and in 2008 Quentin Bryce became the nation's first female Governor-General.
2009 Australian women are competent and qualified to govern in their own right.

> Are you suggesting separate legislatures and separate courts for men and women? If so, why?

yes. women and men bring different life experiences to the rule of law.

> How would this particular combination bring about this particular result?

the judgement of one on the other is guesswork, thus the lawlessness with which capitalism has become accustomed. one law, enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, interpreted in women's and men's jurisdictions, presided over by elders, furnishes the certainty from which capitalism can be regulated, sustainably.

> What actually "enables" this consensus? Especially since you appear to have divided both legislature and court system into separate bodies.

agreement between women and men

You only answered the easy half, whistler.

>>2009 Australian women are competent and qualified to govern in their own right.<<

What, in your opinion, caused them to be less than competent, and less than qualified, prior to 2009?

But your solution still puzzles me. I asked "Are you suggesting separate legislatures and separate courts for men and women?", to which you replied "yes".

I'm not sure what problem this solves. You appear to be suggesting that we create different laws for men and women, and then try them in different courts. How does this move us towards "furnish[ing] the certainty from which capitalism can be regulated, sustainably."? Surely the approach of having separate lawmaking and law enforcement can only serve to deepen the divide between men and women.

Am I missing something here?

whistler “One law, enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, interpreted in women's and men's jurisdictions, presided over by elders, furnishes the certainty from which capitalism proceeds sustainably.”

Hmmmm… sounds positively “Spartan”, from Sparta, that is

Pericles “Your prose seems oddly other-worldly.

As well as somewhat repetetive.

Are you perhaps some kind of highly evolved cockroach, practising your English?”

could I pass you the Moriten ?

re “2009 Australian women are competent and qualified to govern in their own right.<<”

ah yes, at times like this I always fall back on a famous quote

“The battle for women's rights has been largely won. “

Margaret Thatcher, previous Prime Minister of Great Britain

Who is also famous for saying

“I owe nothing to Women's Lib. “

Pericles:

> What, in your opinion, caused them to be less than competent, and less than qualified, prior to 2009?

opportunity, eventually provided by the overwhelming weight of public opinion against the intention of the Westminster Parliament in promulgating only men's legislatures and a men's jurisdiction at law with the Constitution of Australia Act.

> You appear to be suggesting that we create different laws for men and women, and then try them in different courts.

one law, enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, interpreted in women's and men's jurisdictions.

> How does this move us towards "furnish[ing] the certainty from which capitalism can be regulated, sustainably."?

resolves the problem that the judgement of women and men on each other is essentially guesswork.

> Surely the approach of having separate lawmaking and law enforcement can only serve to deepen the divide between men and women.

the doctrine of the separation of powers unites its constituents.

Col Rouge:

“The battle for women's rights has been largely won. “

absent women's legislatures and a jurisdiction at law women remain under perpetual male supervision.

> Margaret Thatcher ... is also famous for saying “I owe nothing to Women's Lib. “

Margaret Thatcher, like Golda Meir and Indira Ghandi, was hand-picked by men to lead a Parliament comprised exclusively of men's legislatures to which women were invited under male supervision.

Sorry, this is just too bizarre, whistler.

Your response to my question why you perceive women to have been incompetent and unqualified prior to 2009 was "opportunity".

That's a nonsense. Women had many opportunities to be competent and qualified prior to 2009.

And please elaborate on this for me:

>>one law, enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, interpreted in women's and men's jurisdictions<<

Are you proposing that this law is debated separately by men and women? How does that achieve consensus? Would the differing interests keep batting it backwards and forwards forever? If not, then why not put them in the same chamber to work it out - why keep them separate?

But the second part - interpreting the same law (?) differently in a men's court and a women's court - just crazy. You cannot possibly, in a civilized country, have different judgments for men and women. That would hardly foster any sense of unity, for one thing. It is a perfect design for creating an all-out war between the sexes, though.

>>the doctrine of the separation of powers unites its constituents.<<

Not if the powers are different, they don't. Think it through. Even if the legislature were to agree on the wording of a law, allowing it to be interpreted differently in the courts divides, rather than unites.

I get the feeling I'm taking you way too seriously. Since we haven't actually moved the discussion onto any sound logical basis, I shall retire gracefully.

Thank you, though, for putting forward ideas that are so totally bizarre and impractical. That takes a special sort of courage.

'You cannot possibly, in a civilized country, have different judgments for men and women. '

Not so crazy when you look at the sentences handed out as it is...

I am not certain where this is going to lead , but it is a well know fact that men ( well most men ) have a more logical thinking process – Juxtaposition to women – who can Mutable task and excel in communications – out side of 7 odd volumes of Psychology – Psychiatry- Neurology , that is the basic premise of realised fact.
However, Women in natural chemistry have a tendency to lean heavily left, and would tend to - not pay much attention to detail and objective reasoning, but rather driven by emotion.
There are many women that can achieve very much by themselves- where it fails in theory and in practice ,- is when ability is substituted with affirmative action and Agitprop ;
I have to dispel the assumption that it is subservient, (Just ask any Husband) , and I cannot argue the mere fact that there is an abundance of male counterparts who also have no right or ability to be in positions of power; but the reasons that is; - be based on a separate issue.

Unisex apartheid sounds – hmmmm; - Like atomizing the Goose then searching for the molecules to cook.

men bossing over women is unisex apatheid?