The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Should Sarah Murdoch and fellow celebs pay back the Bonds money?

Should Sarah Murdoch and fellow celebs pay back the Bonds money?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All
We have a problem, a big problem with the poor, undeveloped countries and I UNDERSTAND THEM! They will punish us with their way or we will pay for what we did or did not do to them!
It is wrong to believe that undeveloped countries make ONLY cheap products, many high technology products as CPU, produced in poor, countries.
1. We must help them to create a democratic system, a system which respect the unions and human rights. But we can not speak for democracy and human rights to people with more essencial needs, as the hungry, the health, the education from their children etc. BUT If they have stronge unions they can increase the working costs and make their place less atractive for foreign business.
2. The governments from developed countries can put some basic condision to their companies when they open fabrics,brunches, offices in poor countries, as respect to environment,human rights etc and the courts from developed countries to trial (judge)the companies for their acts in poor countries. The poor countries is not the paradise with NO LIMITS for the businesses.
3. We can put some conditions for imported products from poor countries and sent the mesage that
4. The industries from developed world must reduce their no neccessary expences. It is unaceptable to weast so much money on CEOs, 10,20,30,50 or 100 times more that the avarage wages. This is paranoic provocation. It is even worst when we now that these imature, irresponsible CEOs caused the worst financial crisis since 1930, and even worst when we know that more that $18 billion dollars, taxpayers money, instead to used for new jobs American CEOs used them to increase their bonus! They have extremely low moral code or nothing at all!
For me it is time to put limits, a cup to CEOs mixed income. $300.000 dollars are plenty about 6 times more than the average wages. I feel sory for the poor CEOs and I agree to allow them to have a goat in their unit or a cow in their house for fresh milk.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Tuesday, 17 March 2009 10:04:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Built-in Obsolescence is a major factor preventing a move towards a sustainable and equitable economy*

Yet some companies know that there is a market for quality and service
that market, so it is up to consumers. When I bought a new Mig
welder a couple of years ago, I wanted quality. I probably paid
three times the price of an el cheapo version from China and I bought
Australian made. Reason being that every engineering shop I walk into,
uses the same brand and for good reasons, they last.

Its the same with power tools. You can buy the el cheapo handyman
version, or the industrial version. The latter might cost 3-4 times
more, but will usually last a lifetime. Not so for the el-cheapo,
where the handyman might use it once a month.

*At present the economy is run by and for the extremely wealthy few.*

Ah, then along comes the internet and changes everything! Those
newspaper tycoons are going broke, online shopping is changing
how people shop, no need to pay huge rents to Westfield anymore.
Opportunity is everywhere, for those who open their eyes.

*then compensation to the retrenched employees needs to be paid in the form of retraining and income support till they regain alternative jobs*

Hang on, nobody owes you a job. If you tried to introduce such
silly legislation as law, any prospective entrepreneur would run
for miles. Net result, unemployed people everywhere.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 17 March 2009 4:46:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Yabby, RobP,
All your reasoning still relies on a non esoteric notion that Capitalism is self righting (market forces) but needs a level playing field to do so.

Yabby That fridge/freezer I mentioned were a bog standard cheapie then. The same went for w/c the last W/c was a top end beast (cost mega) and lasted 2.5 years. The current front loader cost the same yet is damn near bullet proof.

(Aside) the Roller, it was sold to me as a minder to stop a wealthy family being fleeced by an avaricious ex-wife. In the end she was arrested for fraud and the son a lawyer bought their Roller back. He gave me a bonus a deposit on a home unit…but its fate is another tale. But boy did I get up to mischief with that Roller.

My point is /was that neither brand or price is a guarantee of quality and that in reality we the consumer is at the mercy of those with the capital.

There is a LONG list of Aussie good inventions bought and then buried because they offered a threat to the big boys. *Real* market choice is an illusion we can only chose from what we are presented and the choice of what is presented is the sole discretion/ benefit of the capitalist again the diseases left un touched because it’s not profitable. On the Murdoch post I talked about sterilzers and washing powders (brands) most being made by the same manufacturer and without real difference.

Finally strip shops are dying Qld where business it taking me has more shopping centres all offering the same chains per head per capita than anywhere in the world including Sweden which is under feet of snow for 6 months of the year.

Fractelle
me opined what? (Groan) another silly pun.
It never ceases to confirm that so many people have so much difficulty latching onto dis-linear and or lateral thinking. Then again we share a sometime unwanted quirk ;-) ;-) know what I mean?
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 17 March 2009 6:54:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*My point is /was that neither brand or price is a guarantee of quality and that in reality we the consumer is at the mercy of those with the capital. *

Nonsense, today the consumer is king, unlike the bad old days of
high tariffs and limited monopoly production, where you bought
what was available or went without.

What cannot be legislated for is for consumers to have any common
sense, many don't. They are free to work on it :)

Most of the things that I buy are not based on advertising, but
by asking other people who own the same product. Today with the
internet its even easier, just about any product can be checked out,
for those who bother to do their homework.

Not only that, but because of the internet, we consumers can cut
out some greedy importers. My 300$ dog training collar landed up
costing 46$ on Ebay, straight from Hong Kong. The infrared
thermometer to check bearing temps cost about the same, rather then
the 380$ I was quoted locally. Then you come along and tell me
that globalisation is a bad thing and that I am the mercy of those
with capital. Think again lol.

Its a shame that I don't have the link anymore, but some time ago
I read the story of an appliance manufacturer in Australia, who
inherited the business, but actually wanted to be a cattle farmer.
This was back in the days of high tariffs. He felt no need to
test any of his new models. Consumers would do that for him,
based on complaints. Sorry, but with that kind of attitude,
those companies should simply not be in business and to try and
force people to buy their rubbish by legislation, is a frigging joke.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 17 March 2009 7:46:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"All your reasoning still relies on a non esoteric notion that Capitalism is self righting (market forces) but needs a level playing field to do so."

examinator,

My reasoning is this. Monopolists thrive when ordinary people are down, in the dark and disempowered. It's a see-saw - when one end's up, the other's down. This phenomenon happens because the physical world is finite, not infinite and the people in it are farflung in terms of their abilities and starting points in life. It stands to reason that if you have superior abilities and get in first, you dominate. This is why the developed West is so dominant.

But, once the ordinary person gets educated, has access to technology and other opportunities etc, the world will flatten out. Because it is finite, the yin-yang principle will start working the other way: the ordinary people, through weight of numbers, will start getting control back. Might be a hundred years away, but it will eventually happen.

Your reasoning goes back to past history (which was right then, but then people were in the dark and without real opportunities). The world is changing.
Posted by RobP, Wednesday, 18 March 2009 9:10:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby
I do not know how many times you bought from ebuy but I bought more than 670 times (I can prove it) your examples do not say the whole truth , about 15% of the products I paid I never received them, or they was totaly diferent from the products I paid.
We have changes but if we want to protect ourself from the crouck business we need new laws, as we need new laws to control CEOs acts who destroyed our financial system, etc.
Yabby it is seemed that you prefer businesses to act withouht limits to do what they want, take the risk and make money,not diferent from the drug dealers.
This happened 200, 300 years before, these was Bush's dreams but he destroyed the international system. We need laws and more laws to control the croucks, the thiefts and there are MANY OF THEM!
If they are dogs their problem but we (people, workers, women, etc)must have enouph power to brake dog's teeth if they try to bite us, and they bite us very often because we are unprotected
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Wednesday, 18 March 2009 1:55:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy