*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...