Yabby,

Now you have admitted a double standard in treatment of large and small companies :-) I have previously stated that double standard is O.K. in the context of the corporate and governmental efficiency.

The difference is that we can easily control the government agencies. In the case of multinational corporations with their on-going blackmail and often corruptive practices, it is getting out of hand or I would rather say that the government does exactly how they want. They take excessive risks and demand bailouts or guarantees at the cost of taxpayer soon after.

When you add to this recent military conflicts which have generally benefited multinational corporations being granted public contracts without tenders (see the recent KBR case in Iraq), the situation explains the current state of budget deficit in the US.

In Australia, the situation looks better, but we are a step beyond the U.S. in deregulations so I am concerned that Australian and other western governments might follow the U.S. model. (I have even praised the Aus government for their recent standing on carbon tax and plain cigarette packaging initiatives which would mostly affect the multinationals.)

With socialism for corporations (and free market for anybody else), anti-climate change measures will be taken by corporations too little and too late. For this reason, we need further government's leadership in these issues. Unfortunately, with the corporate world having a significant influence on media and consequently on the constituency, a breakthrough in the climate change policy development does not seem very likely in the years to come.

*I have previously stated that double standard is O.K. in the context of the corporate and governmental efficiency.*

But Rob, you are comparing apples and oranges. Corporations were
bailed out to save the little guy who had the most to lose. Large
investors took huge hits and often lost their shirts. When Govts
waste, the little guy always loses, it never stops. Nobody repays
the money either.

*I would rather say that the government does exactly how they want.*

Nope, the Govt is simply trying to buy votes. Porkbarreling to win
elections, works. "Its the economy -stupid" is very true.
Corporations use this weakness of politicians to their advantage,
all quite legal. Politicians care more about being reelected, then
they care about your money, so it gets wasted.

*the situation explains the current state of budget deficit in the US.*

No, you can blame that one all on Bush. He cut the tax rate and
then started two wars, all with borrowed money. When Obama took over,
the economy was stuffed and the cupboard and been stripped bare.
Now they won't even let him increase taxes for the rich, which are
quite low in America.

*anti-climate change measures will be taken by corporations too little and too late*

That depends on the corporation. Some will make money out of anti
climate change measures. But you can't expect corporations to
make investments which will lose them money, that is not their
role and it is unreasonable for you to expect them to do it.

Yabby, You say "The corporations were bailout to safe the little guy."

You suggest that it is another example of "trickle-down" economics / approach which has been applied since Reagan's times in U.S. ? If the rich got richer, everyone else would play in the crumbs under the table.

We would be naive to think that such approach (though I disagree with it in the first place) has been the only reason of the bailout. It is specifically so that the U.S. government members and financial institutions have been intertwined as never before.

Also, Bush slashed taxes for the rich (as you also say) so the government was subsequently required to borrow more from the banks (and pay more interest to them) to fill up the gap in the budget. Therefore, the bank bailout was also required to keep them afloat for this reason. This is the absurdity of the situation.

Rob, I am not sure of the point that you are trying to make here.

Bush wanted to get reelected. Tax cuts short term can be great
pork barreling, how sustainable they are long term is another
question. Electors commonly do think short term, as we can see
in many elections.

Banks are an important part of our economic system, so they and
their health, matter to everyone in the community and thus the
economy. If a major Australian bank went belly up tomorrow,
who do you think would be the biggest losers? Why the shareholders
for a start and our banks are largely owned by superfunds, which
are owned by virtually every Australian who has a super fund,
so just about everyone.

If the economy tanks, the rich have enough reserves so that it does
not affect their lifestyles too much. The same is not the case for
the poor, who could lose their jobs, houses etc with dramatic
effect.

If the Australian economy would tank, the rich could simply use
their offshore assets to still live extremely well. Not so for
the poor. So the poor have far more to lose from a sick economy
then the rich.

If you are a Bill Gates, do you really think it matters so much
wether you have 10 billion or 40 billion$ ?

You ask Yabby what my point is? The point remains unchanged though you have argued over the last two weeks that: (1) it is O.K. when the societal polarisation progresses; (2) it is O.K. there is unlevel playing field for the multinational corporations and SMEs / individuals; and finally (3) that any decisive government policy on climate change would harm the economy and society.

My view also remains the same. The system is drifting away from the sustainability and democracy. This will generate even greater global political upheavals and self-annihilation by the end of the centary as the current anthropogenic climate change trend is unlikely to be reversed.

Rob, the thing is, you want to blame all the world's woes on
corporations. As if Govts can do things better, they can't.
So IMHO you are basing your whole argument on a flawed
premise.

If corporations can be blamed for anything, it is lifting
hundreds of millions around the world out of poverty, so
that what we now have is huge economic activity by
billions, which certainly creates an environmental problem.

Fact is that as many Chinese as Americans are now buying
cars, they used to pedal around on bicycles. In nearly
every country except for a few like North Korea, similar
applies. Think of the many new power stations opened globally
in the last 25 years etc. That has added a huge CO2 load which
you seem concerned about.

At the start of last century there were around 1.5 billion
people, meantime we added another billion in just the last
12 years, heading for 9 billion or more. Do you think that
this has nothing to do with global environmental problems?

The CO2 tax devised by our Govt is little more then a feelgood
exercise, its not going to solve anything, so best to call
it for what it is. Despite that corporations will be asked
to cough up 10 billion a year or so.

I have seen many people try to save the world with good
intentions, along comes the law of unintended consequences
and they land up causing an awful lot of damage.

I've also learnt that alot comes a black swan and its such
a game changer that whatever we thought would happen,
turns out very different. You are trying to predict the
future. How many have done that accurately in the past?