THERE’S A DEAD DOGMA IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD

There was a time when in Australian politics that when we thought of the Liberal Party, we thought of business-minded conservatives, and when we thought of the Labor Party, we thought of social reforms. And then we had the Democrats to “keep the bastards honest”.

On what issues did the Howard Liberal government get into government? Social reforms with some economic management. How did the Keating Labor government win government? Economic management.

Today, what has either Party offered? Thousands of options, awaiting which ones spark a public interest…nothing but a popularity contest. When did the change happen? For me, the die was cast with the deregulation of business and banking under Keating. The focus of everyone is now business, not dogma. Our masters are oligarchs, most of which live off-shore, or are foreign governments. We don’t elect politicians that represent us, but that represent business and other political interests, and we’re just electing the spokespeople that will deliver the spin.

After-all, it was nothing but a few million dollars of advertising from the mining industry that deposed Rudd. Where did everyone think the mining companies were going to get their resources from, that they would shut-up shop and leave?!? It was us that had them over a barrel, but they convinced the Australian public otherwise.

And you know what REALLY kills me? The Australian public have always whinged about how little tax big business pays, and when they had the chance to stick it to them they collapsed faster than a house of cards. The social reforming left Labor Party couldn’t and can’t wait to serve their mining masters. The Australian public do not realize the opportunity they missed to change the status quo ever so slightly, but might never see again.

MC... wakey wakey :) They "Offer" anything and everything that they think on balance will get them into... or hold... POWER.

Then..whichever side get's in, aaah..you can then do some digging in the boards and share holders of bigggggGGGG corporations, and you will find they are aligned politically with one party or the other.. albeit on the quiet.

Then..you can watch those aligned with the winning party *prosper* in unexpected ways...

You are now up to speed :)

Well yes, We live in a society fuelled by it's own greed and supported through it's ignorance and then wonder why we get f@#k&d over all the time. If you are wondering why, go to those happy little marginal electorates that are full of people who bought homes they could not afford with the car they don't need all based on the sales pitch that if they don't sell their souls to the devil now they will never afford it.
The more i hear, the more i see, the more i read, the more i realise that the fee market economy we have is a short road to diaster. It is totally dependant on our greed and the lack of anything that looks like morals.
I wonder how history will judge us?

Nairbe.... interesting observations :)

"The Free market is a short road to disaster"

I take a different perspective mate. It's not the gun which kills..but the finger which pulls the trigger.

Same with the market.

You had it right earlier in your post

"a society fuelled by it's own greed and supported through it's ignorance"

Does it surprise you that in those statements, you might as well be reading any one of the Old Testament stories about the various kings.... same old same old.. and the 'people' were not much better.

Here is John the Baptist's diagnosis:

7John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." (Luke 3)

*OUCH*.... you might say. He didn't mince words and the last thing John cared about was 'getting elected' or gaining popularity.

And there is our problem... we have 'Politicians' not 'Prophets'.

What was Jesus "Election" campaign like? :) simple "UNLESS A MAN DENY HIMSELF...and take up his CROSS... he canNOT be my disciple.

Our pollies are "Ooooh.. if you vote for us we'll save ya.. new bridge... new sporting complex...new trinket here.. new rattle there.
"

I sure has heck didn't fall that...and I'm sure you didn't either. But it's up to us to re-educate the rest eh :

Government –and Bureaucrats- State Minions and Economics is Oxymoronic , In essence I suppose they are just as bad as each other ,although One may wish to hit the mountain at low speed , the other wanted to hit the mountain a mach two , and achieved it .
With just a thin veneer of populist Demagogue, That Ideological Subversive Syonide tablet with a thin veneer of an M&M coating tastes lovely to them ;
So we have to take a long term approach then. The Despotic public want socialism and Neo Tyranical Autocrasy , then let them have it.
You can not help someone who can not help themselves , so we have to love democracy.

@AlGoreIsRich, "MC... wakey wakey :) They "Offer" anything and everything that they think on balance will get them into... or hold... POWER."

Lol...no smelling salts required! I'm just trying to gently get some people involved in a discussion. Say something too provocative and all you get is the "nay-sayers" espousing their crap. I'm actually more used to a no word restriction where people are able to fully express a view, rather than 350 word "grabs". It's like debating in sound bites here. I'm only posting here until I organize my ISP, and am able to return to my usual haunt.

But back to the topic, you're correct in that I omitted to say that usually we also hear a "plan" for the country from both sides. In this last election, no side had a plan other than to win office, but not a plan for the country, let alone one based upon the dogma of their political terrain. So they just threw ideas out there and waited for a response...a popularity contest, not an election of government. The Liberals SAID they had a plan about 2 weeks before the elections, but again, it was only a "plan" in name, for it had been quickly and roughly put together after media criticism of neither party having a plan for the country. In effect, it was only a plan to win office not a plan for the country, quickly concocted to sway criticism and to be one-up on Labor.

TBC...

"Then..whichever side get's in, aaah..you can then do some digging in the boards and share holders of bigggggGGGG corporations, and you will find they are aligned politically with one party or the other.. albeit on the quiet"

Absolutely correct! And especially watch who becomes "consultants" for the companies that were "bailed-out" and received billions, when their political careers come to an end. The politicians bailed-out their own futures, not ours, and they did it world-wide. The following G20 meeting was a farce, with no lessons learnt, but the status quo maintained.

Business is bigger than most governments, and certainly ours. In 1986, the 28th largest company in Japan could buy Australia lock, stock and barrel, 4 times over and be left with some chump change. People need to come to understand how BIG business is able to manipulate markets, workforces within industries across nations, to set their own political agendas. The mining industry currently is an excellent example, by withdrawing a little investment, affecting a few workers, and combined that with some advertising, and suddenly Rudd is usurped, and they save $20 billion per year. And put it this way...if I was in their position, that’s precisely what I would do too! Admittedly, Rudd was politically naive to make such an announcement 3 months prior to an election, and has to wear some of the responsibility of his own demise. But how long did it take them to usurp him? From the time of the initial announcement, it was only a matter of a few weeks.

There's a much bigger picture that we all must come to better understand, to have any hope of proper government, and what our expectations of government are or should be. But dogma is dead and only exists as political gain-say and facade. The world is ruled by business and banking, and because they cross all nations, are bigger than any one nation. This is a reality we collectively must better understand and appreciate.

Maybe I should say, all of the old dogma is dead, and we're on the verge of creating new dogma.

@ALL, I like your style of cynicism;

“With just a thin veneer of populist Demagogue, That Ideological Subversive Cyanide tablet with a thin veneer of an M&M coating tastes lovely to them ;
So we have to take a long term approach then. The Despotic public want socialism and Neo Tyrannical Autocracy , then let them have it.”

Well put. They have it, but I would say it’s currently an issue of social reforms incompetence versus tyrannical incompetence.

“You can not help someone who can not help themselves , so we have to love democracy.”

That’s a gem! I’ll use that one, myself. :-) :-)

MindlessCruelty:>> The world is ruled by business and banking, and because they cross all nations, are bigger than any one nation.<<

MC, a mate of mine drew my attention to the exchange rate of the Aussie dollar during the Billiton takeover of B.H.P. We looked up the exchange rate for the 18 months previous to the take over and the 18 months subsequent to the take over and if you graphed it the outcome would be the Sydney Habour Bridge turned upside down, with the lowest point being the day the deal was done. They manipulated the economy for the purchase and screwed shareholders and all other business' importing at that time. I agree with your synopsis, we control nothing the nation controls nothing the IMF, World Bank and the Club of Rome run everything.

'I take a different perspective mate. It's not the gun which kills..but the finger which pulls the trigger.'

And yet Al, you still support a completely unregulated market. What happens when the fingers pull the trigger - we just all have to grin and bear it.

Good post MindlessCruelty and I agree about the need for some new dogma or at least revisit some old dogma and modify it a bit (or something like that).

The reason why governments harp on about economic management is to detract from any other possible reforms and it is about perception of economic managment rather than the reality.

And I agree with Al on this, the economic management rhetoric is pushed out to win elections and we all sit back and nod like sock puppets at how Howard was a good economic manager but never ask why nothing was spent on actually improving infrastructure, hospitals or on other reforms so taxpayers actually got value for money. Not arguing Labor did much better on this front just highlighting the mantra about Howard economic managing mania.

@sonofgloin, then I commend you and your mate on your insights and perceptions, for he's the only other one I've heard notice the parallel.

He may have drawn your attention to the fact that the Aussie dollar usually sits around the low 70's to low 80 cents in the US dollar, and that its manipulation down to something in the vicinity of 48.7 cents US, Billiton must have saved about 20-30 billion dollars in the deal, and then seen their investment grow over the next couple of years, back to its true value...another 20-30 billion dollars. Just on exchange rates alone!! They paid about 60 billion, and that's about what they both saved and made over the 4 year period by just manipulating the markets down slowly prior, and then back up slowly after the deal was done. Now THAT'S how to do business! We'll own the country's largest company on exchange rates over time.

(For the innumerate...buying BHP when the currency value was say 80 cents US, would have cost them nearly double the $60 billion they paid @ 48.7 cents US. But I believe it came down from the low 70', so they probably saved in the high 20's of billions of dollars)

There are not just giants out there, but monsters of companies and conglomerates that know no national boundaries nor therefore, alliances. It's just business.

ALGOREisRICH,
"I take a different perspective mate. It's not the gun which kills..but the finger which pulls the trigger."
Fair enough if we were not so greedy the free market would work just fine as the gun is an excellent tool, the problem comes when idiots get hold of one.
I have come to the conclusion that the problem is not the governments but the fools who elect them. The drive for more and more has totally distracted us from the concepts of sustainable economics, environment and society.
The only thing i am sure of is that we will be levelled as all the other civilisations of history have and we will suffer as all those biblical kings did. It may not happen in my life time but it will happen. Then again, isn't that what most of them are betting on.

@ Pelican, thanks for your kind words.

“I agree about the need for some new dogma or at least revisit some old dogma and modify it a bit (or something like that). “

Yes, but unless the general public start to get a better understanding of that bigger picture, and in real terms, not conspiratorial ones, then they will remain ill-equipped to make informed decisions, and so be just as easily lead. And I hazard a guess that Global Warming is part of that new dogma, with carbon trading and a host of other issues. All I will say about Global Warming is this…the planet has been much hotter and much colder on numerous occasions prior to the existence of Man, as well has having many variances during our time. We don’t know how to reclaim desert, preserve our natural environments, but we know what the planet is doing within its own cycle and our impact upon that?!? I don’t think so.

However, that does NOT mean we shouldn’t clean-up our act and live in a more environmentally friendly way. But it requires pragmatism. We also make 30,000 odd by-products from oil, including the plastics of our computers. So oil is not just for our fuel/energy and lubrication, but a plethora of other common items. It means literally a re-fashioning of the things that we use that are oil-based. So, in understanding that (hopefully), it means that we must look towards that re-fashioning, the new technologies, and re-modelling of old, with the focus upon longevity, not consumption, of those 30,000 odd by-products and plastics, and everything else we use, particularly with so many developing countries coming on-board the Industrialized Capitalist Express.

Try selling THAT to big business! I can easily sell it to the socialist-minded, the poverty stricken and the reasonably minded that have no pecuniary interests. But most of those have no influence. So it requires the masses to understand to be able to create the political momentum. (Where’s my soap-box and loud-haler?)

TBC...

And so it’s lead us back to what it’s all about...pecuniary interests. Like they always say…if you want to know who has what to gain, then just follow the money, remembering that everyone has their price. It’s just that in national and international scales, it’s often in amounts that are mind-bogglingly big.

We also forget that the price of petrol at the pump is about 60% government taxes and excises. That’s’ huge revenue for a government to forgo, and so other taxes have to be made-up to replace them, which of course the average Schmoe is not going to understand or appreciate. So governments are in a Catch-22 situation too, of being damned if they do, and damned if they don’t, just on an economic level, which translates into a political dilemma. Economically, it’s not in any government’s interest to lose oil as a cash-cow due its significant contributions to revenues, and the political awkwardness of attempting to introduce new taxes, or dramatically increase existing ones, to replace those revenues.

This of course, is but a miniscule part of the picture.

“The reason why governments harp on about economic management is to detract from any other possible reforms and it is about perception of economic management rather than the reality. “

True. There’s hardly anyone in any government that actually is qualified to understand anything at all about economics. The last person that comes to mind is John Hewson, so they were quick to rid themselves of someone that understood what he was talking about.

TBC...

“And I agree with Al on this, the economic management rhetoric is pushed out to win elections and we all sit back and nod like sock puppets at how Howard was a good economic manager but never ask why nothing was spent on actually improving infrastructure, hospitals or on other reforms so taxpayers actually got value for money. Not arguing Labor did much better on this front just highlighting the mantra about Howard economic managing mania.”

As long as the “we” doesn’t include me, I totally agree with you both. I appreciate getting out of debt, what I don’t appreciate are the extreme methods. Howard got us out of debt in their early days of office, by dumping our gold reserve onto the global market. The credit we had was created by the raping and pillaging of infrastructure…public health, education and many public works, while feeding private education, health and industry…the loss of free university!! And then he raped more to feed an unjust war so he could feel important on the world stage with GWB. He saw himself having a place in history, while I saw him as an ankle…three feet lower than a….(you work it out). Plus he sold us out to the US in those “Free-Trade Agreements”.

Fraser sold us out with the Lima Declaration, Keating with the deregulation of banking and business, and Howard with the Free Trade Agreements. Bob just partied from the America’s Cup, onwards (or was that me?)

You are welcome M C , it is just good to hear some good Ideas for a change ; Be it I do not know what methodology can be used other than that of time , and keeping in mind an optimistic long view for the future , and as M Rothbard had said in his papers ; The old guard is Moribund and doomed to collapse eventually ;
That part is the most frustrating and the most embarrassing part for Australia as a Whole.

So until then , Chinn up , maintain the course and keep the fires of Logical deductively and Ethical standards well alive. Armed with the knowledge that Reason will win ; When is the complex conundrum , I cannot predict that unfortunately . hahahah :-) I am not Annuitant as is The Ideologies of Utopian war lords creed.

A long hard battle ahead , and I suppose there is time for more Good Ideas that with stands the judgement of truth.

Mindless cruelty fantastic thread and fantastic points!

I might reinforce the concept that people don't seem to get is that big business has zero power in a country compared to a government. It's that the governments personally, would rather work with them than with us purely out of their own free will.

We are probably among the less politically and corporately regulated countries on the planet- as a result we get governments who are free to not lift a finger, and high profile people can do whatever they like (including at our expense) so long as they have the money.

I would, ad nauseum point the problem at not enough Democracy- for both restricting business practices and influence (it's harder to bribe a whole COUNTRY out of something to its better good than the minister in charge) and for political conduct (they can't dance around a few key issues and pretend they MIGHT do something to get elected- not to mention Conroy would never get anywhere).

@ King Hazza, thanks for your kind words.

“I might reinforce the concept that people don't seem to get is that big business has zero power in a country compared to a government. It's that the governments personally, would rather work with them than with us purely out of their own free will.”

I would actually word it the other way…that government has zero power. And my example of how the mining industry deposed Rudd is the perfect example. But if you would like more, here are a few others;

*Rupert Murdoch…it is inconceivable what power this man wields across the globe through his media interests. He has the power to put governments in and out of office at a whim through nothing more than editorial comment through those media interests. He owns Sky in the UK and Western Europe, and Fox in America and Australia, plus his newspaper and magazine interests in those places.

*The banks…the Reserve Bank of Australia is the representative of ALL banks, and is the advisor to government on economic policy. Let’s look at that…that means that the banking industry is the law, not the government. Government merely informs us of what the “reason” is for their increased incomes from our mortgages. And please note, when has a bank shown a “loss”, compared to any other industry or business? They have the perfect “inside” run.

*And in this country, resource companies. Again, if you were to review what I commented on about the BHP/Billiton deal, and how our currency was manipulated down until the very day that this deal was done…the deal was sealed the very day Australia hit its historic all-time low of 48.7 cents US, and did nothing but steadily rise from the following day, for the next 18 or so months after that deal, other than some other external market variations. Many would call it “coincidence”. In big business deals performed amongst companies whose assets exceed that of an entire country’s, there is NO coincidence.

TBC...

*The USA… We function as their 52nd State, not as an independent nation. And when you consider that our population is barely a little more than that of New York State, you can start to understand why. Those of you old enough to remember when Bob Hawke won office for the first time, he won on the issues of the damming of the Franklyn River and saving the South-West Wilderness of Tasmania; the cessation of selling uranium to the USA; and a third issue that escapes me. About a month after he won office, he went to visit Ronny Ray-gun (Reagan) in Washington to inform him that they will no longer be receiving uranium from Oz. Bob was a man with dark hair and a few grey streaks until then. He returns from the States a few weeks later, reporters eagerly awaiting to ask one question…”Are we still selling uranium to America?” and the response, and ONLY words ever uttered about the issue since then, was a meek…”Yes… we’re still selling uranium to America.” And those words came from a man who now had virtually only grey hair. I’m sure that most have heard the expression of “turning white from fright”. IMO, Bob was shown his TRUE relevance in the scheme of things, and if a puny little country (in population size and economy) thinks it’s going to tell the most powerful military and economic power-house on the planet whether or not it can have their uranium, then they have another thing coming.

We are ruled by far stronger powers than exist in this country, but that have interests in this country.

You may even remember what America did to its ally New Zealand, when NZ had the temerity to ask whether a visiting US ship was nuclear-powered or not, and the US refused to “confirm or deny”, so NZ presumed it was nuclear-powered, and did not allow entry into its ports. The US placed a trade embargo upon NZ!! That’s what caused the NZ economy to plummet in the 80’s, that’s how the US treated an ally!

TBC...

That’s the regard that the US has for the population’s opinion of ANY country. In this world, might is right. We are NOT mighty. We are puny…22 million for a nation and the economy and military power that that can generate, is pathetic compared to 100 million, let alone nearly 300 million. The only interest the US has in Australia is its resources. It doesn’t give a rats about the people of its own country, as demonstrated by New Orleans, so it’s naïve to think it gives a rats about anyone else’s peoples.

Ladies and gentlemen, the real world of politics and big business is NOT a world of altruism, but of self-perpetuation at all costs. And I do mean, ALL COSTS. War is about profit at the expense of other people’s lives, and they are predominately the little people. How can you possibly believe that they would not kill the leader of another country to get their own way, if push came to shove? They normally just discredit the leader that opposes them, but if it comes down to it, they will permanently dispose of their problem. That’s life, that’s human history. Just because they wear suits and ties and talk nicely on TV doesn’t mean they’re not ruthless, or are not just the puppets of the ruthless.

The world is not a nicer place in the 21st Century than in any other century, it just looks nicer through pictures, while we are distracted with our pursuit of materialism and its affordability…we’re shown the world we want to see, while preoccupied wondering how to afford it.

“We are probably among the less politically and corporately regulated countries on the planet- as a result we get governments who are free to not lift a finger, and high profile people can do whatever they like (including at our expense) so long as they have the money.”

I would agree that this is the appearance that has been created, but not that it is a reality, and I believe for the same reasons I pointed out above.

TBC...

Let me put it this way… our 22 million compared to other countries of “power” on the world stage, is insignificant. We do not possess the population to even create an army large enough to protect our own borders, and so traditionally, alliances have been crucial. But if we had a population of say, 150 million, economy and infrastructure that goes with that, then how many countries on the world stage would you think we would pander to? We have enough to get the resources out of the ground, and that’s it! The last thing any of the other powerful nations on Earth would want to see is Australia grow its population and infrastructure and gain firmer footing. How could that possibly be in their better interests?? So let’s talk about “sustainability”?!? Japan’s islands could fit into Tasmania, and they can support 60 million. Please, gimme a break about “sustainability”!

We need to look at Australia from outside Australia, not from within.

“I would, ad nauseum point the problem at not enough Democracy- for both restricting business practices and influence (it's harder to bribe a whole COUNTRY out of something to its better good than the minister in charge).”

I would have to disagree;

*restrictive business practices…there are too few. Keating deregulated banking and business, and our current woes are a result of that and other similar decisions globally. The “greed is good” philosophy has merely dug us a deeper hole to fall into.

*Yu don't bribe a country, as the mining industry demonstrated by getting Rudd deposed, you sell the populace a notion. It’s actually easier, and more legal. Bribery has its problems, whereas disinformation through advertising and a slight re-arrangement of investment to get a few workers un-employed and upset, creates massive political momentum, as shown. For VERY big business, it actually makes far more sense than bribery.

We seem to collectively understand what “pop” music is and how generic it is, yet we seem to fail to understand or realize, that it’s exactly the same with politics, religion, psychology and just about every facet of our lives.

Considerably True MC, although a few things to consider:
(Mainly in the element of Bribery):
Governments do whatever their lobbyists desire specifically because those lobbyists are hooking them up to some lucrative deal, and the parliamentarian in question joined for the sole purpose of getting hooked up.

If it wanted, the government could have nationalized the mining industry, and voters would probably not bat an eyelid. It is the fact that by doing so, the party risks scaring away its contacts in other industries, and thus has no prospects of joining the business world post politics- hence why the other party members panicked and booted Rudd. Also, by simply threatening to tax them and otherwise letting them decide how to manage that (eg increase costs), they handed ammunition to the industry to sell a quite feasible story.

Hence why NSW state government are so lightning fast to sell off state assets- because they're thinking entirely of their own future when they quit politics.

You've definitely highlighted a lot of VERY extensive lengths of private power I didn't actually consider though.

@King Hazza. Thanks for your comments, mate. Though I may disagree with a few things you say, you’re on the same page, and I appreciate your conciliatory style, in contrast to a lot of the aggression seen in these forums.

“Governments do whatever their lobbyists desire specifically because those lobbyists are hooking them up to some lucrative deal, and the parliamentarian in question joined for the sole purpose of getting hooked up.”

Yes, generally speaking, industry is located within a region, and employs large workforces within that region, and so enjoys the duality of having employment as well as investment acting as leverage to create a lobby group. However there are also the resource companies, the largest of which are foreign-owned, especially now that we’ve lost BHP to Billiton. There’s America and how we are bound to purchase a certain amount of their media so that their culture slowly inculcates ours. And how we employed American companies to build detention centres and staff them. Why? And how they’re considering privatising the jails…to American companies again! I use the M7 in Sydney, pay $7.00 each-way, and my credit card shows the US exchange rates…I’m paying an American company to drive on a road in the heart of Sydney!! Why? These things happened after the “free-trade agreements”, that also just happened to be signed after 9/11, (except media, we’ve been maintaining a certain percentage for many years already).

The point I’m making, is that it’s not as simple as lobby groups. If I may use this analogy…that’s just local affairs. Big business views national government in the same manner as national government views the council chambers of Wangaratta.

“If it wanted, the government could have nationalized the mining industry, and voters would probably not bat an eyelid.”

Though in principle I heartily agree with the idea, it’s a death-wish for the Prime Minister that orchestrated it. Literally, not just politically. Nationalization of mining would nationalize literally everything in the ground, and the noses of a LOT of big business and foreign interests, both commercial and political, would be out of joint.

TBC...

America would deem it as a communistic move, inhibiting democracy, meaning inhibiting their ability to rape and pillage. Nationalization means that everyone in the business of mining here today, is out of business tomorrow, for every mining license and deal now has to be renegotiated. Or, to put it another way, if you wanted to watch the Stock Markets go into a frenzy and free-fall, that would be the way to take business confidence out of the markets. In short, the poo would not just hit the fan, but consume it!

“It is the fact that by doing so, the party...”

Yes, partly. His real errors were two-fold, IMO…
1. He announced it prior to an election, rather than post-election;
2. He spent no time selling the concept to the Party-room and THEN to the rank-and-file to garner the necessary support to then sell it to the public. He presumed everyone would jump on-board as he did, and didn’t consider that the mining industry would simply take out ads and pull some investment, thus easily out-manoeuvring him. And to protect $20 billion per year, wouldn’t you? I mean, as if they would just lay there and take it. Rudd should give himself an upper-cut for that one.

“Hence why NSW state government are so lightning fast to sell off state assets- because they're thinking entirely of their own future when they quit politics.”

State and Federal have been doing this for a long time already. You know, when I was a kid, the Commonwealth Bank was owned by the government, so too was all telephone and postal services (the GPO), and water and other utilities. Basically all infrastructure. Even their own insurance company, the GIO…Government Insurance Office. All these things created revenues for the governments, but all governments along the years, have found reason to “get us out of debt” by selling an asset that creates revenue. This is the economic genius we elect…creating an empire by selling it off?!?

TBC...

Let’s look at our democracy…we elect the naïve and the corrupt, who have no experience or qualification in running business, let alone a country, or have any economic training and those that do, basically do so to increase their business interests through policy, but because we like the look of them, and, what sometimes they say that pleases us, we give them such responsibilities. And we wonder why we’re broke, heavily taxed, and don’t own our own country. Sheesh! Is it any wonder why big business loves democracy? It’s run by idiots.

Let’s look at something as simple as Telstra…that we once owned. It makes billions in profits each year, and rather than that being revenue for the government, we pay a private company the money, while that revenue now lost to the government has to be replaced, and so we pay more taxes on something else to make-up for that loss of revenues. So in effect, you could say we now pay double for the same service.

And this is what a wonderful goldmine the telephone business is, that our illustrious leaders sold-off…all major telephone companies can give you $350 worth of calls for only $49, and still make billions in profits. WTF?!? Are you starting to see the total BS we accept as our everyday reality? We listen to nonsense and accept it. If what they said was true, they would be losing billions, not making billions. As a society, we’re not holding anyone accountable for what they say.

We listen to promises from our politicians, knowing most are lies, hoping the few they implement might be ones we agree with, but then state that we follow a “dogma”? How does playing “pick a truth” constitute dogma? We all know that action speaks louder than words, but forget to apply that to our politicians.

“You've definitely highlighted a lot of VERY extensive lengths of private power I didn't actually consider though.”

Very cool. I usually get told of the extensive lengths of cynicism I portray. But my cynicism is also an attempt at brevity in a big topic….sometimes.

I must say MC I agree entirely, and you have covered the topic exceptionally well.

Not to mention, that privatization policy in politics is a great way to get into a lucrative field in a high-profile but less-ethical industry without having to demonstrate competence or credentials most businesses expect from potential employees, nor having to contribute your own resources to get a company share (but instead contribute ours).