Rob513264 ““Union thuggery”
What about Management thuggery?”

Employers and Employees form the two parties to a negotiation. A union is neither party to a negotiation, its role is supposedly agent for one parties.

Whilst you might claim “management thuggery” I can tell you, no sensible employer will risk losing a valued employee and those who are less sensible, will lose from the process.

The “management thuggery” you speak of does not exist, since neither party can be forced to remain in the contract. The union thuggery is derived from the very fact that they represent an external party whose power and authority is often best served and enhanced by setting the contracting parties against one another.

“Draconian” is a matter for the electorate to decide. I can assure you when people see their opportunities for personal financial advancement and reward for their personal effort expropriated by aggressive taxation, they too will consider it “draconian” and worse.

Keynsian Clearinghouse is merely newspeak for the Marxist debunked and defunct hairbrained theories to impose, on the market economy, collective central planning, subversively instead of through revolutionary means and as such could better be described as “a lie parading as deceit”.

Is there anywhere which currently uses the “Jubilee” economic model of which you speak? Just another theory which lacks the reality of practice.

Escalating Taxes – destroys incentive and innovation

Cuban limited private enterprise is an offensive system of repression which leads to an under utilization of peoples potential simply because, no incentive when effort does not translate into personal reward.

Trust me, remove reward and the dynamic forces of individuals evaporates and stagnation ensues.

The reason anyone still lives (if that is what you would call it) in Cuba is simple, the water is too cold and shore is too far and the sharks are too hungry between Cuba and Miami. For East Germans, their confinement was merely a wall and guards with guns, until the guards gave up and the people tore down the wall.

You theories have no hope, just ask an East German

“Enterprises which are macro by their nature such as mining, banking, insurance, car manufacture, etc would all be state owned. Such a system would not require legislation of property because the nature of income would be a limiting factor in itself.”

Actually, similar to the Labour party of the mid 1970s who lost government to Margaret Thatcher (electorates do know best).

The moribund nationalised industries of the UK, railways, steel, coal mining etc. Raped their consumers and argued exclusively in support of the vested interest of the hardline unionized employees. The position of those unions was so insidious as to attempt to bring down the democratically elected government.

The strength of Thatcher was tested and she won against Gormley and Scargill when the NUM exceeded their legal mandate and tried to force her and the ordinary people of UK to yield to their politically motivated blackmail.

Thatcher broke the railway monopoly on commuter transport and my travel costs dropped to 1/3 of what they were with the monopoly.

The nationalized steel industry was another basket case living off the taxes of the rest of the population.

British Telecom yet another, which is mirrored in Australia’s Telecom industry, one which still thinks it has some sort of divine right to exercise monopoly power.

I have seen the outcome of these ideas, it is not a green or pleasant vista, the “green” is similar to that seen in a stagnant pond. The red hues are from the rust on obsolete and underutilized equipment and the blues are the color of the cold from people denied the benefit of their natural innovative energy.

Finally a quote form Margaret Thatcher

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

She was right and history keeps proving her right.

Whenever Col regales us with that quotation from Thatcher, I berate myself for not recognising the obvious compassion and generosity evident in the opinions he expresses in this forum, and in his manner of expressing them.

Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 17 December 2006 7:10:53 PM
“Whilst you might claim “management thuggery” I can tell you, no sensible employer will risk losing a valued employee and those who are less sensible, will lose from the process.”
Unfortunately many employers are not particularly sensible.

”The “management thuggery” you speak of does not exist, since neither party can be forced to remain in the contract.”
More capitalist sophistry – someone with a job and commitments to family and mortgage can be forced to remain in the job because of economic pressures – like the Cowra abattoir worker said, ‘John Howard says “get another job” but out here there aren't any other jobs to get.’

“Keynsian Clearinghouse is merely newspeak”
Keynes was born in 1883 you have a very generous interpretation of “new”.

“Jubilee” … Just another theory which lacks the reality of practice.”
It was actually practiced and for quite a long time.

“…simply because, no incentive when effort does not translate into personal reward. Trust me, remove reward and the dynamic forces of individuals evaporates and stagnation ensues.”

I would like to point out that an enormous number of people do an enormous amount of work on a voluntary basis in this Australian culture. It should be particularly poignant at the moment when so many bushfires are being fought around the country and our bushfire-fighters are unpaid volunteers – I had a mate die fighting a fire in Wentworth Falls nearly 30 years ago – your assertion that people will do nothing unless there is money at the end of it is utterly offensive. Your assertion only betrays what motivates YOU – not what motivates everyone else. You display your own self-centred, self-interested and self-absorbed nature in the characteristics you attribute to everyone else – I am betting you don’t do any volunteer work – would that be right?

Rob513264 “Unfortunately many employers are not particularly sensible.”

Yet “sensible” enough to organize employment for their employees

Alternatively we could ask what “sense” is there in remaining in the employ by someone who lacks sensibility?

“Keynsian Clearinghouse is merely newspeak
Keynes was born in 1883 you have a very generous interpretation of “new”.”

And “Newspeak” was used by George Orwell in his book “1984”, which was written in 1948. The date of Keynes birth is irrelevant to the comment.

““Jubilee”
….It was actually practiced and for quite a long time.”

So was human sacrifice, do you have any contemporary examples or is it simply the stuff of myth and legend, used to amuse or scare in stories for small children.

As for “I would like to point out that an enormous number of people do an enormous amount of work on a voluntary basis in this Australian culture.”

As dearest Margaret said, in my previous quotation “people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate.”

Regarding “your assertion that people will do nothing unless there is money at the end of it is utterly offensive”

I have always found people who determine to judge me “utterly offensive”. Peoples lives can be divided into time compartments, that time needed for sleep, that for family and friends, that for relaxation, self development and that for “work”.
My reference to “monetary incentive and reward for effort” was, as you already know, specifically to “work”.

I repeat, pointless aggressive taxation destroys incentive, to the detriment of the individual and thus the community overall (recalling a “community” is merely the collective noun for a lot of individuals).

As for “I am betting you don’t do any volunteer work – would that be right”

You are wrong.

What I do, like most of the others, I do to suit myself, not for any acclaim or glory.

I suggest if that is the best you can do in terms of attempted character assassination, find another role which suits your intellect and fits with your character profile. Try collecting your own bellybutton fluff.

Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 9:14:00 AM
“So was human sacrifice”
Wow, ‘redistributing wealth’ and ‘human sacrifice’ – now there’s a valid comparison. I didn’t realize I was in communion with an intellect so subtle as could grasp such a tenuous connection.

“I am betting you don’t do any volunteer work … You are wrong.”
I am glad I am wrong on this – presuming that your response implies that you do actually do some voluntary work - although the lack of specifics in your response did sound 'potentially dubious' to my mind's ear.

The issue I raised in citing 'volunteer work' was not ‘people’s freedom to choose’ but their ‘motivation in the absence of monetary reward’. The technique you consistently employ of applying the evidence supplied to issues other than those on which they are being challenged is barely adolescent.

“if that is the best you can do in terms of attempted character assassination…”
Assassination would be redundant for someone who so consistently shoots themselves in the foot.