If we look to the end of WWII, the start of the current credit economy developed by the Western governments (lead by the USA), we see banks lending money only to those able to afford the repayments and have collateral as security; regulatory bodies looking over banking and business; CEO's, senior execs and directors earning only 6-8 times the lowest income earners of their companies/businesses; conservative stability across all markets from property to shares.

We see only relatively minor rises and falls in any market at any given time....until the 1987 Stock Market Crash. But what happened before the crash of '87? In the 1972 Lima Declaration, it was suggested to assist underdeveloped economies by trying to have 20%'of the West's manufacturing base relocated to underdeveloped countries by the year 2000. That figure is now 80%.

Around 1980, the deregulation of banking and business occurred, and these were to be "self regulatory". Since deregulation, we've experienced the 1987 Stock Market Crash, the '91 crash, the Dot Com Bubble, the Subprime Loan fiasco, and the GFC. Forty years of steady prosperity, then suddenly a succession of financial catastrophes over nearly the same time period, with worse to come, and a greater disparity between the wealthy and the not.

What's dogma got to with this? Absolutely nothing. It's economics, rule changes to advantage big business only, and a total absence of oversight by regulatory bodies. None of this is really left wing or right wing, but it's ALL business and finance related. And it's ALL self-serving. Clearly, self-regulation is a farce.

Economics is the dogma of the world, not left or right wing ideologies, for both sides serve the same masters....big business. Government no longer is government for the people, by the people, representing the people. It's a business world that controls the governments of nations, making policy for business first, while the people are incidental, existing only as labour, markets or cannon fodder.

That's not to say there can't be political agitation by the masses, but you'd have to drag everyone away from their TV's, X-boxes, computers and tablets.

Dear DD,

We have an interesting future ahead of us.

The world is becoming a single marketplace, where
capital, jobs, and products appear to be moving
with little regard for national boundaries.
As we've already
seen a computer designed and marketed in Texas may
have its casing built in Mexico, its microchip in
Japan, its circuit boards in Singapore, its
keyboard in Taiwan, its disks in Germany.
The combined effects of international competition and
technological development is leading to the re-allocation of
resources from old industries to the enterprises of the
future in ways that are changing the face of the
economy and society. Who knows what the innovations of
the day, or the implications will be in future decades?

Dear Foxy,

<<The world is becoming a single marketplace, where ...>>

There you stated the whole problem - there's no need to continue with the details.

Do you want to live in a marketplace?

I don't!

Dear Yuyutsu,

Trade, travel, and telecommunications have made
the nations of the modern world more interdependent
than ever before. You may not like living in a
"marketplace" but we may possibly not have much
choice in that direction.

I'd be interested to hear your views on the subject.

Dastardly has given us a lot to chew on.

I'll return to this thread when I've had a chance to mull on it.
This is too important to take lightly.
Should hopefully raise some interesting contributions.

I reckon 'Shocker' will have some ready answers, but I'd really like to hear what 'George' has to offer (and Alan Austin?).

This may appear a 'market' (or economic) contemplation, but 'Politics' is at the root, and can provide the only effective avenue for a 'resolution'.
(Revisionary or 'corrective' Legislation is generally the product of political activism, is it not?)
Interesting times; and the shape of the world's future in the balance?

@Saltpetre, thank you. I'm glad someone got the gist of it. Unfortunately, due to limited word count and not being used to such limitation, I didn't get all that I wanted to say into my Opening Post, nor could I add to it until Big Brother viewed it (sheesh!!). So I've been waiting for someone like you, in order to elaborate a little. As you rightly said, it's a big topic.

Those of you that remember the 80's and 90's, and have a more objective view of the political climate here in Oz, rather then being dogma or hero worshippers, would recollect that Hawke and Keating actually promoted conservative policies, rather than left wing dogma to win elections. Howard, had to use "left" policies to win his election, and then broke every promise he made.

My point, is that for poitical parties, dogma is redundant. Dogma is merely the type of promises that will be broken. Both major parties serve the same corporate masters and abide by no particuar dogma, but swap and change in order to appeal to the public, giving occasional lip-service to dogma for the "party faithful", as for most people, political dogma is their 1st or 2nd religion.

Wran also enacted more conservative policies than left wing ones, but is lauded as a "great man" of Labor. That's what charm, intelligence and charisma will do for you (and strangely, is also the way you describe a psychopath).

What if we dropped the crap, and call a spade, a spade? Call them party "A" and "B", since they don't care what they say, so long as they win. Maybe then, the "religious" followers can focus on what is actually being said and done, rather than genuflecting at the altar of hypocrisy and corruption.

As an aside, I remember this wonderful photograph of Bob Hawke sitting at the head of a table, Kerry Packer on one sade, Alan Bond on the other. Only Bob was eating, while the other two were smiling sweeetly at him, not touching their meals. I wanted to write the caption, "Who's feeding who?"

Dick Dastardly,
There is a graph that I would love to put up here if only it was possible.
There is a very close correlation between the oil price and recessions.
Every recession, except the dot com one, was preceded by a spike in oil prices.

When you look at the now notorious 2008 GFC, but not with a finance
orientated mind, you will find that the price started rising from
before 2005 when peak conventional oil production occurred.
It peaked at $147 in July 2008 and and the crash a couple of months later.
It was no coincidence, and had been predicted for some years.
It always happens that way.

Bazz, the price oil per barrel 10 days before George Bush Snr put troops in Kuwait, was $17.50 per barrel...there was a conversation between Saddam and a US diplomat, and the transcripts made public...Saddam asked, "What is your opinion of our border conflict with Kuwait?"

Diplomat: " We have no opinion."
Saddam asked that question three times through an interpreter, getting the same response, and then asked again himself, in English, to the same reply, "We have no opinion." Next...

Saddam: "I'd like to see the price of oil increase."

Dip: "Yes, we have oil producing states in America that would also like to ser an increase."

Ten days later, the US had an "opinion", and landed troops in Kuwait. The price oil doubled to $35 per barrel. Then, a few years later, the great white peanut gains office, GeeDubya Bush, 9/11 happens, troops move to Afghanistan en route to Iraq, and oil doubles again to $70 per barrel. It drifted up to around $90 per barrel, givr or take a buck or two, since then.

If you're aware of the petrodollar, and how all countries have to use USD to both buy or sell oil (which is how America is able to continuously raise its debt ceiling), Saddam was using Euros instead, which directly affected America's capacity to borrow. So, they killed Saddam, reinstituted the USD in Iraq, and raped whatever they could lay their hands on.

Bazz cont'd, (I pushed the wrong button)

The GFC was the direct result of the Subprime Loan Fiasco, due to banks, including merchant banks, started going bust from their outrageous exposure to those subprime loans, and insuring against those bad debts, causing insurance companies to fail as well...no-one had the money to cover the losses or the insurance payouts.

Watch the movie documentary entitled "Inside Job", it gives an excellent overview of it, interviews some of the key players (there are some great "uhms" and "ers" to hard questions). It's probably the most concise, well researched broad view that I've seen in that format. I'm sure you'd enjoy it. The scariest part about this docco, is it shows you what happened to those crooks...political appointments to the White House!!

Bazz, here's a link to the trailer, I'm on my mobile phone, so can't get the link to the entire film, but if you go to Youtube and search "film/Inside Job", from memory the first choice was the entire film, which had (I think) -avi after it...or something to that effect.

It was on TV a couple of weeks ago, and I only caught about half of it, so watched the entire film a few days later with a mate. I found it riveting. If I knew you personally, I'd watch it again with you!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FzrBurlJUNk

Cheers.

If TV, X-boxes & tablets are more fun than better lives, so be it. But if people want to use those tablets to influence the governments that do so much damage to their lives they can.

The masses need not agitate too much. They merely need to say what they want. There are far more poor people in the world or in OZ than rich ones. Given that politicians get elected by votes, not dollars, the 80% unrich can easily control democracy. Provided they follow Dick Dastardly's advice, forget about party loyalties and party leaders, which are the great destroyers of democracy, because they make us forget the local members whose jobs depend on our votes.

I have helped people do this in every Australian parliament with great success since launching Votergrams, then FairGO, Voterland and Residents Roundtables. I am about to launch Business Voterlobby Australia to assist small to medium business compete with the monsters.

We can control our destiny, but we do have to make a modicum of effort. Most people don't seem to understand how much of their lives is controlled by politicians or how easy it is to influence them.

But we will not do it by talking about it, so join the Residents Roundtables or Business Voterlobby and let's get government working for us.

Huge multi-national corporations have developed
much morw quickly than have the means of
applying social control over them. Dedicated
to the pursuit of profit and subject to the
authority of no one nation,
run by a tiny elite of managers and directors
who have a largely fictional responsibility to their
far-flung shareholders, they represent a disturbing
and growing concentration of global power and
influence. Markets don't shift on their own -
as the film "Inside Job," illustrated so well.
Visible hands write laws and make deals and of course
warped values and greed seems to drive intelligent men
towards folly. People are easily corrputed.
What can an average person do - and how much does the
average person even care or know about what goes on?

Watching the film I felt very dispirited and angry.
It totally outraged me. I wonder how many of you have
even seen it? This is a brilliant discussion raised by
DD - and as Saltpetre rightly stated - its is indeed
a complex topic and bears further thinking.

Of course Voterland is also right in suggesting that once
people no longer take their world for granted, but instead
understand the social authorship of their lives and
futures, they can become an irrestible force in history.
Although in this case I'm not quite sure what can be done.
I'd be interested to hear what suggestion others have.
Fascinating topic though.

In Australia, political dogma is alive, well and thriving. But, the dogma involved is close to "exclusively" far right wing dogma expressed through far right wing political correctness.

Both major political parties are well and truly far right wing. Labor knows that if it wasn't, then these days it would utterly NEVER get elected. Australia is an entrenched right wing nation, just like our masters the USA. The Greens vote is about 80% a "protest" vote only; most Greens votes ate not based on dogma/ideology, just protest. This protest vote will eventually desert the Greens and flow elsewhere, and currently the most likely recipient is the Palmer party, but that will change over time as new alternative parties emerge.

The left is dead in Australia. It always struggled, but it's close to finished now. Why? Right wing corruption, big business, world domination by far right wing corrupt capitalism, capitalist financing of weapons of destruction (close to the biggest business in the world), right wing banking corruption. All this has delivered a MUCH higher standard of living for the average Australian. And the average Australian is extremely self centered, and can easily see that capitalism has delivered them wealth and comfort, and that basically is ALL they care about.

Is there a price to pay for this high standard of living? Yep, but not right "now", and because these consequences won't affect "our" generation we'll continue to believe in, and vote for, far right wing political correctness.

What will eventually happen? Growth will stop. That's it. That's all that needs to happen. Growth is not a bottomless pit. It is not infinite. It must stop eventually, that's a mathematical certainty. And when the growth stops, capitalism collapses.

Dear Foxy,

<<I'd be interested to hear your views on the subject.>>

<<Trade, travel, and telecommunications have made the nations of the modern world more interdependent than ever before.>>

I am totally unconcerned about what happens to nations - my only concern is what happens to ordinary people as a result, so I'm afraid that I don't have a solid view on the subject.

<<You may not like living in a "marketplace" but we may possibly not have much choice in that direction.>>

The comforts of modernism come with a heavy toll - consumerism is one such cost. It may not be possible to completely eliminate consumerism at this time, but there are certain things one can do in that direction and certain things politicians could do... if they wanted...

One should decide for themselves what they need rather than be influenced by others, including the media.

One should actively go out to seek for those goods and services they need rather than allow commercial activity to invade one's private space. Unsolicited junk-mail, SPAM, door-knocking and commercial phone-calls should be regarded as criminal trespassing and be punished accordingly. Advertising should be banned in public places and short of making advertising illegal altogether, advertising expenses should not be allowed as a tax deduction.

To summarise, I have not given much thought to the question of the worlds' markets becoming one single market - but should that one single market be the cause of more aggressive marketing and invasion of privacy and individual autonomy, as per your statement that "The world is becoming a single marketplace", also should it make ordinary people face more faceless corporations with rigid rules rather than other real and understanding people, then I oppose it. Whether this is the case, you probably know better than I do.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You for your thoughts.

It is a complex issue and I'm not sure how much the
average person can influence the general scheme of things.
Take something like advertising. Most of us take advertising
for granted. However advertising does have social effects.
The manifest function of advertising, of course, is to encourage
sales. But advertising has other latent functions. For example,
it creates markets where there were no markets before.
By arousing consumer desires for items or services that
were previously non-existent. The implications is that the
economy is not merely satisfying human "needs, " but it
is endlessly creating more of them.

The further implication is also that modern consumers are
learning always to want "more." And that each increment of
"more" may leave them just as unsatisfied as before, yet
seeking still "more" in the hope of achieving greater
satisfaction.

cont'd ...

I'd better quit and not ramble on.
There's so many thoughts floating
around in my head and I certainly
don't have the answers. I think I'd
better wait and see what you and others
have to say on the subject dear Yuyutsu.
This subject is far too complex and
trying to sift through it no easy task.
Too many questions - no easy answers.
At least for me.

Great thread, Dick Dastardly. It is pretty clear that the US is an oligarchy, run by and for the very rich.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/08/rich-people-rule/

Australia isn't far behind. I suspect that just voting the bastards out won't work because the Labor and Liberal wings of the Property Party will simply join together to change the rules of the game if there is the slightest hint of a threat to their power, as they are planning to do in the case of the microparties.

It is really only the threat of revolution that forces the rich to disgorge. There was an earlier age of globalization before WWI and the American people shut it down. The elite also kept wages low through a program of mass migration, but WWI shut down the trade and immigration. For the first time, many people, especially black Americans, were getting decent wages and working conditions. After the war ended, the elite wanted to return to business as usual. Prof. Peter Turchin explains what happened next:

"These were the years of extreme insecurity. There were race riots (the ‘Red Summer of 1919’), worker insurrections, and an Italian anarchist terrorist campaign aimed directly at the elites. The worst incident in US labour history was the West Virginia Mine War of 1920—21, culminating in the Battle of Blair Mountain. Although it started as a workers’ dispute, the Mine War eventually turned into the largest armed insurrection that the US has ever seen, the Civil War excepted. Between 10,000 and 15,000 miners armed with rifles battled against thousands of strikebreakers and sheriff deputies. The federal government eventually called in the Air Force, the only time it has ever done so against its own people. Add to all this the rise of the Soviet Union and the wave of socialist revolutions that swept Europe after the First World War, triggering the Red Scare of 1921, and you get a sense of the atmosphere. Quantitative data indicate that this period was the most violent in US history, second only to the Civil War. It was much, much worse than the 1960s."

cont'd

cont'd

"The US, in short, was in a revolutionary situation, and many among the political and business elites realised it. They began to push through a remarkable series of reforms. In 1921 and 1924, Congress passed legislation that effectively shut down immigration into the US. Although much of the motivation behind these laws was to exclude ‘dangerous aliens’ such as Italian anarchists and Eastern European socialists, the broader effect was to reduce the labour surplus. Worker wages grew rapidly. At around the same time, federal income tax came in and the rate at which top incomes were taxed began to increase. Somewhat later, provoked by the Great Depression, other laws legalised collective bargaining through unions, introduced a minimum wage, and established Social Security.

"The US elites entered into an unwritten compact with the working classes. This implicit contract included the promise that the fruits of economic growth would be distributed more equitably among both workers and owners. In return, the fundamentals of the political-economic system would not be challenged (no revolution)..."

"But by the late 1970s, a new generation of political and business leaders had come to power. To them the revolutionary situation of 1919-21 was just history. In this they were similar to the French aristocrats on the eve of the French Revolution, who did not see that their actions could bring down the Ancien Régime — the last great social breakdown, the Fronde, being so far in the past."

http://aeon.co/magazine/living-together/peter-turchin-wealth-poverty

Until conditions become bad enough for this sort of thing, I see little hope.

No Nhoj, you have it wrong on a couple of counts and you are repeating
the financial orientated view of the world.
The reason for the tension between Kuwait and Iraq was because Kuwait
was using horizontal drilling into Iraq territory to suck out Iraqi oil.

In the second count you stopped in examining the cause of the GFC too
soon in the depth of the examination.
The crash of the housing market which triggered the financial crash
was the rising oil price which pushed up petrol diesel food production
and food distribution. It was compounded by the diversion of corn into
ethanol production.

The effect of all this was the average commuter driving worker had a choice;
Buy food, buy petrol to get to work, or pay the mortgage.
We all know what he chose.

The silly part is this whole scenario was predicted many years earlier
by Colin Campbell, Kenneth Deffreys and many others.

Your opinion is held by a majority of financial orientated people,
but they are demonstratively wrong but it is a situation that
financial people and politicians are not prepared to face.

We are committed to another GFC, probably a few years after 2017 when
tight oil production is expected to start its decline.
Thats the way it is and these cycles will keep repeating until after
one there will be no sign of a recovery EVER !

Dick Dastardly, just watched the trailer and I think the full film is
adjacent. The trailer rings true to everything I have read about
previously. I will watch it later tonight and will comment then.

Great thread DD......and now we have the Trans Pacific Partnership foist upon us. A document that has to be ratified by the government of the participating nations, but the "whole" document is available only to a chosen two or three in each of those government, the vast majority of our elected swill will get a Readers Digest condensed version....there are internet legislations in the TTP free trade agreement.....why?

Actually Soneofgloin, that information is probably a lot more than they
got of the Financial Stability Board.
The FSB has been setup to seize bank deposits if any of our banks get
into financial trouble. It was setup by the IMF and the G20 countries
after a trial in Cyprus in 2012. It was approved by the IMF & G20 and
signed up for Australia by Wayne Swan, at the G20 meeting in St Petersberg in February 2013.

That is the biggest secret in town.

Dear Foxy,

<<I'd better quit and not ramble on.>>

Please don't - all you wrote is true and accurate description of the predicament we are in.

Thankyou everyone for your thoughtful and thought provoking contributions. I'm a little overwhelmed by the diversity of relevant content (not surprisingly, as it was a chore for me to coalesce my own thoughts into at least a semi-cogent presentation of the topic), so please forgive me if I don't address any individual posters.

So though I agree all of you (to varying degrees), I'm going to play Devil's advocate, attempting to outline the magnitude of the forces at play, that we desire to control, but I believe "they" have already put systems in place to counter any change of the status quo. I know this may sound defeatist, but to fight against something, we need to understand what it is that we're fighting, and its strength.

National politics for a small population like Australia can be summed-up most succinctly by the Vogons..."Resistance is futile." :)

Here's one example...BHP...In 1999, a report came out stating that the Australian currency was the strongest that it had been in its history. It was valued at about 52 cents to the USD. I said at the time to friends, "rubbish! It's devalued, and being manipulated externally into a downward motion, as who goes to the Olympics? The average Schmuck can't afford to fly to the other side of the planet to watch a guy run the 100 metres in 9 seconds. It's movers and shakers who can afford that. So you watch, property still available on the Eastern seaboard will be bought, and a business or two will also go."

I was considered alarmist and conspiratorial. A few months after the Sydney Olympics, our dollar hit its all-time low of about 47.8 cents to the USD. Strangely, on THAT SAME DAY, the BHP/Billiton deal was done. Our dollar steadily rose to not only match, but exceed the USD. That means that about 2 years after that deal was done, their investment had more than doubled in value. And the last available properties on the coast, were gone.

There is no political movement in THIS country that can prevent such an occurrence.

TBC.

Example Two:

Why do you think America spends more on its military THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED? To enforce its political will, which is the interests of big business. They haven't spent all that money to destabilize other nations for the benefit of altruism, the people's lives of those countries, or to promote "democracy". It's business.

It's the arms business, the oil business, the petrodollar's business, and the opportunity for exploitation...like Dick Cheney being on the board of Halliburton that got the lion's share of contracts to "rebuild Iraq", while he was President of Vice.

So, if America wants something of Australia, what are the realistic chances of saying "no"? Less than zero. The last Prime Minister that did that, went swimming and is still swimming with the fishes. Harold Holt, who was anti Vietnam War.

The second Prime Minister that tried to say "no", returned from Washington with grey hair, despite leaving the country with mostly dark hair...Bob Hawke. He won his 1st election here on the platforms of the damming of the Franklin river in the Southwest wilderness of Tasmania, a 2nd issue that escapes me, and that we were NOT SELLING uranium to America anymore. As he was boarding the plane fly to the US, reporters asked him if he was really going to do it, and he was adamant that he was. Upon return, when asked, he meekly replied, "We're selling uranium to America." Not another public word spoken about it.

Paranoid? Conspiratorial? THEY INVADE COUNTRIES AND KILL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FOR PROFIT!! So, it's not paranoia nor conspiratorial, it's calling a spade, a spade. Vietnam was little different, they dropped more bombs on Laos, that no war was declared upon, than all the bombs dropped by ALL SIDES in WWII, the number dead can only be calculated by estimates.

TBC...

I have watched the video Inside Job.
I found that there are a number of versions of this film.
The first I watched dealt at the beginning with Iceland and had Spanish
subtitles which were rather annoying so I found a different version;

https://archive.org/details/cpb20120505a

It is not as long as the first which was 2hours 17 minutes.
The content is not new and has been well discussed since the crash.
Only one or two had to face courts and the biggest criminals were
given $billions as compensation.

It is interesting to note that as the price of oil continued to rise
during 2006 & 2007 the number of loan defaults kept pace.
In July the oil price peaked and in September Leamans collapsed.
The US has not fixed the problem and if you listen to the language
it is obvious they do not even understand the problem let alone know how to deal with it.

The message is if you are big enough you will be bailed out no matter how stupid or criminal you are.
However next time that may not work as there might well be a systemic collapse of the real industry and economy.

The War on Terror...

Terrorism is as old as war itself, and is a concept. It's not a country, a group or a specific act outside of its dictionary definition. So the entire notion of instigating war against a tactic of war, the concept of terror, is at best moronic. Ultimately, virtually anything can be termed as an act of terrorism. Someone of authority just needs to say the magic word, "terrorism", and it is so.

So what's America been doing since 9/11 in the area of domestic policy? Implementing laws that enable them to arrest any citizen for any reason, denying them of all rights, due process, public hearings, and allowing torture, indeterminable detention, and even death.

Fascism is defined as a dictator using the military to control business interests. But what we're witnessing is a new form, whereby it's conglomerates and bankers that pay for the presidency (Wall Street backed Obama with something like $4 billion, it cost $6 billion for him to win the presidency), and the people elect which dictator of business interests they want. It's fascism in a new form, and I've often called it a "democratic aristocracy". But it's far more sinister than that.

America functions in the format of might is right. Technology is the citizen's enemy, for it tells government everything you do, you think and where you are. Naively, most of us view it as a tool, a toy, a convenience in communication. Yes, it's all those things to the politically meek. But to an activist, it's a death wish.

I am always a little surprised to hear the 'left' is dead in this country and that our two parties are basically the same. Sure things are relative, for instance the majors both support our universal health care system and thus would be consigned to the label of 'dirty socialists' in the eyes of the American political system, but in our little continent there are stark differences.

Gonski was left leaning, so was the insulation scheme, and the NDIS. State owned infrastructure like the NBN also smacked of 'leftist' leanings and even the much watered down mining tax spoke to redistributive measures that are definitely out of the socialist handbook. Compare that to Abbot morphing Costello's $5,000 baby bonus into $75,000 cash handout to our wealthiest mothers, paying billions to our biggest polluters, neutering Gonski and the NBN etc.

I'm not arguing the similarities between the two can on occasion be downright infuriating and depressing but there are differences that stand along ideological and dogmatic lines that are far too big to be ignored.

More interesting points have been raised.
And, please excuse my repeating what's
already been stated. However,
I also want to express my concerns.

It does make it difficult to try and
fight the international influence of
multinational corporations when so many of
their headquarters are in one country, the
United States. As has been pointed out the
international influence of these organisations
therefore is primarily an American one.
Decisions made by a small group of people in
the United States can mean prosperity or
unemployment in nations thousands of miles away.
These corporations dominate the economies of many
less developed countries, influencing the level
of wages, the kind of crops that are grown, or
how national resources are allocated.
Even developed nations are subject to their influence,
much of Canada's industry is owned by American
multinationals, making it difficult for
the Canadians to control their own economy.
How much of our industries are American owned?
Where will Chinese investment leave us?

This of course leads to the informal political and
economic domination of one society over another, such that
the former is able to exploit the labour and resources of the
latter for its own purposes. And as we know American-based
multinationals have an impressive record of interference
in the affairs of the host countries, with activities
ranging from bribery of local officials to attempts to
overthrow foreign governments.

As stated earlier - these huge organisations have developed
much more quickly than have the means of applying social
control over them. Dedicated to the pursuit of profit
and run by a tiny elite of managers and directors they
represent a distrubing and growing concentration of
global power and influence.
What can be done about any of this?
Perhaps I am being naive.

Foxy, what you say is 100% truth.

So far the USA has succeeded with this type of behaviour because, for many long decades now, it has been "THE" economic and military power in the world, with no real challengers. This is now changing, and within 20 years China no doubt will be "the" power, but the USA will still remain strong. The future behaviour of China will be no less immoral and corrupt than the past behaviour of the USA.

BUT- the difference this time is that there will be 2 all powerful, major players in intense competition for a big slice of the world's cake. The USA will not have the cake all to itself anymore. This will result in an even more aggressive and violent USA, and China will respond in kind.

The result? I see a major nuclear war within 50 years. Mankind is utterly primitive.

A lot of you seem to think that the US is somehow equivalent to Nazi Germany, but what we are really dealing with is a globalising cosmopolitan elite with no particular loyalty to any nation state. Is Nestle, which encouraged mothers in poor countries to buy infant formula, which they could not afford and could not prepare hygienically, instead of breast-feeding, somehow morally superior to another multinational that happens to be based in the US? Ordinary Americans certainly haven't benefited from the US being a superpower. Anyone who doubts this should take a look at the graphs in State of Working America, for example this one, which shows that most American men are receiving lower real wages than in 1979

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4c-change-real-hourly-wages/

If the Australian government goes along with the US government, it is because both of them are working for the same people.

Sonofgloin made a good reference to the TPP, so here's a Wiki link explaining what it is, what countries are involved, and how even the American Congress is being kept in the dark, while companies like Halliburton are privy to information...http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership. The last news article I read about it, stated that it involved the largest 600 companies of the member countries (us included), and that those companies will have more rights than any citizen OR GOVERNMENT.

Bazz...yes that one with the Spanish subtitles is the the one we watched. Annoying, yes, but it was easily accessible. I don't know if there's a DVD version available as I haven't looked, but there should be.

Globalization is the NWO, with conglomerates having no national loyalties, just head offices located somewhere...somewhat like a Hydra. Ironically, it could be Russia and China that are the stumbling blocks for it all. Russia wants no part of it, and China, as always, is its own master because it can be.

But I fear for Australia's future...we're a Commonwealth country whose biggest ally is America, but our biggest trading partner is China. We know that superpowers don't fight in their own backyard but in the yards of others, and that we have more resources than you can poke a stick at. So when the US and China come to blows, where will that fight be fought? It seems to me the most likely place would be right here, in order to control and access resources. I think we're walking a political tightrope right now (with no safety net) since we can't offend either America nor China...but it's often difficult in making one happy, not to offend the other.

Dick, your last paragraph is 100% accurate. It shows how Australia will pay a heavy price for being the servant of 2 corrupt countries - China and the USA.

These 2 corrupt countries WILL eventually come to blows. The USA will NEVER accept that it's not top dog anymore, and China desperately wants to be top dog and will get there in 5-10 years. I predict a nuclear war of aggression between those 2 countries sometime within the next 50 years. Both the USA and China would be quite happy to sacrifice Australia if they consider that to be in their interests. By being the servant of both those countries, we become a target for both those countries when they eventually go to war.

Dick, I think we are already seeing the end of China's climb to
prominence.
China has been running a 10% growth rate for some time now but they
are now falling to 7% or thereabouts. If they attempt to maintain
7% growth rate they WILL crash as there is no hope that the Chinese
economy can double in 10 years. It is just impossible, there is just
not enough energy and resources to do that. Already they have scooped
up most of the resources in the world but energy is the limiting factor.
Just think about China having an economy twice the size it is now !
It just cannot happen.

Talking about China ...

Over two centuries ago, Napoleon commented that
China was, "a sleeping giant, and when she wakes,
she will shake the world." Much the same could be
said today.

Mao died in 1976, and his successors were faced
with a society in stagnation. Gradually, the new
Chinese leadership under Deng Xiaping abandoned many
of Mao's policies and cautiously introduced reforms that
seem to be taking China down the "capitalist road."

The new regime seems to be pragmatic, lavishly praising
communist ideals but much more interested in
immediate results' as Deng commented, "It doesn't matter
what colour a cat is, so long as it catches mice."

Inevitable reform is spreading. Planning is
being decentralised and limited private enterprise is
permitted. Old time Chinese communists are apparently
resentful of the changes taking place, arguing that the
use of incentives will revive class differences.

Many experts feel that China is now irrevocably embarked
on the path to industrialisation and modernisation.
Yet China has a long way to go. It is still determinedly
socialist and authoritarian.

It will be interesting to see how far the country will
stray from the socialist path and whether economic
liberalisation will in turn lead to political
democratisation.

Given China's size and potential, its economic future
will be of world-historical significance.

Foxy
There is an answer for the people. Revolution! take to the streets armed and dangerous and protest your exclusion just as they have done in every country in the world.
Stand up and fight otherwise oppression and political issolation will rule supreme.

Bazz>>Actually Soneofgloin, that information is probably a lot more than they got of the Financial Stability Board.
The FSB has been setup to seize bank deposits if any of our banks get
into financial trouble. It was setup by the IMF and the G20 countries It was approved by the IMF & G20 and
signed up for Australia by Wayne Swan..<<

That info is worth repeating....thanks Bazz...didn’t know about that one......

Foxy>> As stated earlier - these huge organisations have developed
much more quickly than have the means of applying social
control over them.<<

Most valued Foxy......As the “Inside Job” factually conveys, the ones who ran the scams that stole from the rest of the world became the presidentially decreed regulators. When these shylocks worked in the same financial segment they now regulate, they and their chief puppets reaped BILLIONS in payouts consisting both shareholder and tax payer monies.

But that swindle was a sideline event that paid the underlings like Greenspan and Bernanke, the takeover and merging of the financial segment was the required outcome, and that happened...the big got bigger.

They purchased the rating agecies, the intellectuals, the government regulators, and both Bush and Obama were paid for in full....who paid....not the CEO’s or directors of these financial institutions...but somebody did pay.

Foxy the largest bank on the globe is the Bank for International Settlements, it has about fifty odd privately owned shareholder banks and of those banks there are a handful that own the fifty odd and of that handful there is ONE bank that owns the lot. We are enslaved to one family.

Foxy social control will not come when you have the governments and the mass media controlled by the Banking Cartel behind the companies exposed in the doco. Sad for us....but true.....

Nhoj,>> Both the USA and China would be quite happy to sacrifice Australia if they consider that to be in their interests. By being the servant of both those countries, we become a target for both those countries when they eventually go to war.<<

Exactly right Nhoj, but let’s clarify a salient point while not detracting from your thoughts.

When we talk about a nations willingness to sacrifice we are talking about the administrators (whether democratic elected or not) of those nations willingness to make sacrifices, including their own constituents if need be. The Chinese administration murdered unarmed students in Tiananmen Square and the American administration murdered students at Kent State University in my lifetime.....

My point is that there are no “good guys bad guys.” But the NWO agenda spearheaded by the bought and paid for American administration is patently more corrupt than China. Consider the places that America has sent armies since the Second World War....everywhere, they have fought on every continent....while China has sent troops to two foreign countries, and they share boarders with both.

Bad or worse take your pick.

@chrisgaff1000, and just how do you propose to organize 7 billion people across the planet to revolt? By using the very tool governments uses to detect such action, the Internet? You might like to think that suggestion through a little more.

I've had an idea that amounts to "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"... Since it's corporations that will have the rights, government will be the tool to enforce those rights and citizens will be incidental, we can incorporate all our towns and cities and all be directors with equal voting rights within that incorporation. That could re-instate some rights for citizens, as well as provide democracy at a social level. Just a thought.

Cheers.

Dear Chris,

I'm wary of "Revolution," to me it implies violence
and things can get out of hand. However, I am all
for applying political pressure and demostrations
by peaceful means. Take the Vietnam War. It came to
an end largely as a result of the anti-war movement,
a social movement that consisted disproportionately of
young people. When the anti-war movement first
challenged the war it received little support from
politicians or the press and the goals seemed hopeless.
But the tide of public opinion gradually began to shift.
In the 1968 presidnetial primaries in the US, an anti-war
candidate backed by student volunteers did unexpectedly
well and President Johnson decided not to run for
re-election. From that point on, political debate on
the war focused not on how to stay in it, but on how to get
out of it.

Through collective action, ordinary people with few resources
other than their own determination had changed a national
consensus for war to a national consensus for peace.

Dear SOG,

Thanks for your post.

Much appreciate the information.

Yes Foxy, that's right. But the big difference between the Vietnam war and now, was conscription. The idea of being drafted into a war that people had grown up watching on TV, never understanding why there was a war, was a great motivator for the up and coming young cannon fodder...me included.

But technology in weapons and equipment have advanced so much that wars by the West require much fewer troops, so can be handled by professional soldiers. And since we're always riding on the shirt-tails of America who only picks on underdeveloped countries, the government has been shrewd enough not to reintroduce conscription to create that motivator.

Plus, protesting was our generation's middle name. We rose up from near Victorian conservatism of the 50's, creating the cultural revolution of the 60's. There was lots to protest about. One could even argue that we may have taken it all a bit too far. And there wasn't the PlayStations, X-Boxes, computers or even video players to drone people in front of a screen. There was only one TV per house, domineered by mum and dad, or playing outside, coming in for dinner at news time, seeing the Vietnam War every night.

We have been conditioned differently since then, mainly via access to other technologies, able to isolate ourselves in our rooms, select whatever floats our boat to watch or play. Unpalatable news is no longer thrust upon us, but disinformation and propaganda is. In addition, everyone has their own pet issues today...dolphins, global warming, rising seas, chem-trails, fracking, the impoverished, the wealthy, the NBN, the Illuminati, food prices, energy prices, or are only interested in the latest iPhone, etc, etc, etc. We are divided instead of united. The singers and songwriters of our generation wrote protest songs, and we protested, making heroes of them.

I "Imagine" "the answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind."

Cheers.

Dear DD,

Yes, you're right times have certainly changed.
However some things don't seem to change.
For millennia,
people have hoped for peace in their time.
Today, as usual, there is not shortage of grand
proposals for peace - such as new defense
devices, or the acceptance of one religion or another,
or even the reform of so-called human nature. Yet
arms races and wars continue as before, sometimes
creating the discouraging ideas that hopes for peace are
too "idealistic."
And indeed, we are likely to be disappointed if we expect
dramatic results in the form of of an immediate end to
war and militarism.

The prospects for peace look much more encouraging, however,
once we recognise that war and peace are really opposite
ends of a continuum, and that movements along this
continuum, in either direction, is the result of social
processes that develop and change over time under the
influence of government policies and popular pressures.

We can see this process in the hostile, intricate dance of
the superpowers as they waver along the continuum between
war and peace - sometimes trending one way, sometimes
another. As we've seen in the past, the policies of both
the former Soviet Union (now Russia) and the United States
have been and are constrained by the knowledge that if
one side pushes the other too far, nuclear war could
result. Consequently, both countries test one another -
but only within the perceived limits of their mutual
tolerance. The superpowers are generally careful to avoid
direct confrontation, and instead participate openly or
covertly in wars in other countries, often
through the use of foreign "proxy" forces, such as
the Cubans in Angola, or the Contras in Nicaragua.

Both countries, it seems, share an unwritten understanding
- essentially, that if a country is already communist-ruled
the Soviet AAUnion (now Russia) will be permitted to
intervene to keep it that way, and if it is already
noncommunist, the US will be permitted to intervene to
maintain the status quo.

cont'd ...

Not sure how the situation in the Ukraine fits into
all this. And also not sure if we'd want the answers
"to be blowing in the wind," if they're going to be
radio-active.

Peace is transient. Survival dictates that all species be self-serving, otherwise they don't survive. Humanity is no different, but learnt that a certain amount of co-operation increases our chances of survival, thus humanity has prospered by being gregarious and working together.

However, due to our capacity to invent technologies to assist in that endeavour, and the fact that we spread across the globe creating different cultures, sub-cultures and sensibilities, we cannot unanimously agree upon anything, but remain essentially tribal, competing for resources collectively.

Add materialism, hubris, wealth and the plethora of other features unique to humanity, and it's a dog's breakfast of competing interests, making universal peace a pipe dream. Until we are above such mundane things as materialism, there can be no peace, for humanity functions as parasites, having no regard for its host (the planet) but only for immediate gratification. Change that, and you change the world. Otherwise, it WILL be "blowin' in the wind" since Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD...the only acronym that is more meaningful than what it represents) is the planet's only saviour. Humanity needs to evolve to another level to save itself, or suffer the inevitable consequences.

Dick, you are absolutely 100% correct. But I'm more pessimistic regarding homo sapiens than you. We are no different from the entire animal kingdom regarding our survival instinct, and our "instinct" in this regard is no more advanced than any other species.

Unless humanity finds a way to change our DNA and alter this specific instinct, homo sapiens is doomed. Why? Because we don't have just nature and other species to deal with ... we have "ourselves" to deal with. And because we can invent and use technology as a destructive force against ourselves and the planet, we are doomed to one day destroy ourselves and also change our environment.

Possession of this destructive ability is not a sign of the superiority of our species, it's a sign of our inferiority.

Homo sapiens has been on this planet for a very tiny period indeed. We will be extremely lucky to even double that short amount of time. We will become extinct, and sometime in the future will be replaced by another, different species that will dominate Earth in it's own way. Then they will become extinct, and so on and so on. That's nature at work.

Political dogma is of no use if politicians ignore reality.
Too much dogma is centred on the US (& Aus) because the US and others
are involved in wars we in which we should not be interested.
Certainly there are some cases where that is true but Afghanistan is not one of them.
Afghanistan harboured AlQuadia while they trained to attack the arch
enemies embassies in east Africa, the USS Cole in Aden, the Australians
and others in Bali, the Tube bombing in London, the Madrid train
bombing and the World Trade Centre in New York.

You could say the last was a bombing too far.
The whole justified a total invasion and declaration of war.
That should have been done.
At the time the Taliban was the government which made the whole
country a target, not just the training camps.
It is to be hoped that the Islamic countries now realise they dare
not allow such activities on their soil.

That should now be political dogma.

Nhoj, what? That wasn't pessimistic enough?!? LMAO.

I don't believe changing our DNA for survival instinct is an answer, since by definition, we wouldn't have the will to survive. No offense, but you may want to re-think that reasoning.

We already have all the tools necessary...intelligence and technology. The problem is greed, corruption and entitlement. For example, communism is a great system...until bastardised by humans desiring position and advantage over others. Capitalism is a great system, until bastardised by humans desiring position and advantage over others. The common denominator of flaws is always people. This is why I'm apolitical, for both sides have good qualities, but usually poor leadership and implementation, due ostensibly to greed and corruption.

By the same token, we don't want to all be Vulcans either, for logic alone is no answer (much to the chagrin of Star Wreck fans) since it's emotions that are the driving force for empathy, and more importantly, matured emotions create empathy. Immature emotions lead to lack of insight and empathy, and so to be only self-serving like a child. Just look at Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory, and though he's an extreme example for comical purposes, epitomizes what I'm talking about...chronologically mature, but emotionally no more than a 5yo child. And it's scary how many Sheldons there in the world...they're the perfect bureaucrat...black & white thinkers, cowardly, self-serving, unable to admit fault, live stringent routines to gain their sense of security, live by policy and procedure manuals due to fear of consequences of a bad decision, and consequently the insight of a gnat.

So the question then becomes, how do we get everyone to simply grow up? I have no answer to that question. I understand how we are now, but not how to get everyone to be emotionally mature, since the lack of emotional growth in most is due to their upbringing, and you can't create uniform upbringing. Life is not a controlled environment.

Cheers.

An important element in any peace process is the
international community and its mechanisms for
restraining conlfict among its meembers.
Of course there are problems. Today's societies have
entered the nuclear age with political institutions
inherited from a previous era.

The human population is spread among a series of sovereign
independent states - most of them with their own armed
forces - and so there is a built-in potential for
warfare whenever two nations have conflicting interests.

In fact, before the twentieth century there were few
institutionalised ways for hostile nations to achieve
peaceful settlement. When negotiations took place, they
often occurred only after a war - for the purpose of
agreeing to a peace treaty that would specify the spoils
of the victor.. Although the structure of international
peace-making is still rudimentary, it now offers
infinitely better prospects for helping nations to avoid
war.

Particularly in a world where all nations face a common
threat of direct or indirect involvement in nuclear
warfare, some reliable method is needed to limit conflicts
among sovereign states.

We have two vital elements for international peace-making
already in place. The first is the United Nations, which
although not perfect by any means - provided a forum for
world opinion and a mechanism for conflict resolution.

The second is a growing body of international law that
specifies the rights and obligations that nations have
toward one another - particularly with respect to
aggression. Over the years, as we've seen the UN has
intervened successfully in a number of wars (Korea,
the Middle East) and in several situations that might have
led to war - Cuba, Berlin, to name just two.

A major difficulty with international peace-making,
of course, is that compliance with the resolutions of the
UN and the rulings of its World Court are voluntary, for
no country is willing to surrender its sovereignty to an
international body. The UN is probably most effective
when superpowers are able to agree on a course of action
and mobilise their blocs to support it.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Even so, the organisation provides an influential
forum for world opinion, and while it doesn't
always prevent war, it surely helps make it less
likely.

Foxy, no. The UN was set-up by the winners of WWII, consequently they are the only permanent members of the UN Security Council. If it actually functioned as a proper UN, all countries would have equal footing, but they don't. The IMF has put underdeveloped countries into unfathomable debt to prevent them prospering, preventing them from competing for the same resources as the 5 permanent members of the Security Council. Those 5 members are also the 5 largest arms dealers and manufacturers on the planet.

The only reason you have the impression you do, is because you live in a Western country that has reaped the benefits of the loaded game. If you lived in an underdeveloped country, you would see it differently. We have actively denied those countries the one thing that drives ours...electricity. Unless they have resources for us to rape, in which case, we provide enough to create the infrastructure to get them, and supply arms to both government AND its enemies to create instability. Or, we just place a puppet government insitu...whichever is more expedient.

WE are the terrorists on this planet, while everyone else are actually freedom fighters attempting to free themselves from our imperialism.

Bazz, No. The last altruistic war America and us were involved in was WWII, and even then the American people had to be duped into agreement...in 1995, 50 years after the end of WWII, America released secret documents pertaining to that war, where they ADMITTED knowing of the presence and intent of the Japanese fleet that attacked Pearl Harbor. What people forget, is that as a democracy, committing to a war on the other side of the planet is political suicide without public support. America was just recovering from the Great Depression, people started having jobs again, so why would they fight someone else's war? So they needed a "bad guy", and got one. They had invented radar, but only used it at night at a time that night-time bombing hadn't been developed, and turned off the radar at 7 am.

TBC

Cont'd

Consequently, the American public gave the government a 98% approval rating to go to war against Japan and the other Axis powers. Strangely, that's exactly the same approval rating received to go to war after 9/11. There were about 3,500 people killed at Pearl, and a few more killed on 9/11...that seems to be the magic number of deaths to get approval for war. The entire notion of two planes hitting two identical buildings in different spots of those buildings with different damage configurations, getting the same result of a perfect collapse, is at best moronic. The explosions you see is aircraft fuel igniting, so a few seconds later, the only thing left burning is office fixtures. So, you've got different damage configurations, a short fuel ignition and nothing but paper, desks and fixtures creating enough heat to melt steel struts for a perfectly equal heat distribution to melt steel equally in order for all the structure to give way simultaneously to create the perfect collapse. UTTER SWILL!

Look on YouTube for news footage on that day of the Pentagon...not a scrap of aircraft fuselage or wings. Just a round hole, 67 feet wide, that turned into a U-shaped hole after 30 minutes as the top facade fell. The wingspan of a 737 is about 160 feet. So why are there no wing imprints on the Pentagon wall, or wing wreckage in front of the building? Only one answer...there was no plane, it was a missile.

WMD's was proven to be a ruse, whereby 1 million Iraqis were murdered, and yet people still believe that murdering 3,500 people in their own country couldn't happen in order to kill 1 million others...how does that even remotely make sense?!?

Dick wrote regarding the survival of our species, "we already have all the tools necessary... intelligence and technology".

Nooooooooo.

(1)"Intelligence". You're using "mankind's" definition of what constitutes intelligence. Obviously that definition will be VERY sympathetic towards a "perceived" superiority of mankind. It follows therefore that all the intelligence measurements we invent will of necessity place mankind at the top of the tree. When the definition itself favours mankind so heavily, no other outcome is possible. Trust me Dick, our "perceived" intelligence superiority (which is not superior at all in factual reality) will be of no more assistance in the longevity of homo sapiens as a species, than the intelligence level of insects will be of assistance to their longevity. We are not as smart and superior as we "believe" we are ... we are merely the "current" dominant species. That will change eventually.

(2)"Technology". Nuclear bombs. Environment destroying and altering emissions. Guns. Swords. Advanced war planes designed to kill. Tanks. Warships of mass destruction. Rockets designed to kill. Drones of war. Computer technology for war, spying, planning destruction. Depletion of the Earth's resources. Trust me again Dick, technology will NOT ensure the survival of homo sapiens. It will only advance our destruction. Why? Because of our primitive, unaltered, survival instinct ... a survival instinct that is no different from, or more advanced than the animal world. This is why species like cockroaches will LONG out survive homo sapiens; cockroaches don't have the low intelligence ability to destroy their species or alter the natural planet, unlike homo sapiens.

Nhoj, you've cherry-picked the destructive technologies, rather than consider the positive ones. As soon as Man picked up a rock or piece of wood to use as a tool or weapon, it was a technology. We are not the only species that does this. But we ARE the only species that have had the intelligence to change the shape of that rock or piece of wood into a more efficient tool or weapon, and keep developing more technologies that have improved our chances of survival against the elements, and in so doing, become the dominant species and improved our longevity. Against other species, that's rather impressive. We have the technology for sustainability within the confines and limitation of resources on our planet. But it's about public demand and agreement with the political momentum to enforce it that is lacking.

We are intelligent, but on a collective level, we are not smart. I know intelligent people that are not smart, and I know others not that bright, but very smart. So unfortunately, what intelligence doesn't automatically include, is being smart. Nor does it command integrity, empathy and the host of other human virtues. We are a kaleidoscope of differing qualities, good and bad, that accompany that intelligence.

Technology can be used to make things last and don't need to be replaced for a dozen lifetimes. But we use "programmed redundancy" to make things fail for the purpose of increased consumerism, which is increased profits. We have technologies that can replace fossil fuels for energy, but there's too much money involved for both government and oil companies to use the alternates. The list is nearly endless.

Necessity is the mother of invention, but that also means that we don't do what we can do until we need to.

Dick, yes I have picked the destructive technologies. Why? Because they are precisely the tools mankind will use to alter the planet and destroy it's own self. This in itself is part of the way nature works. A nuclear bomb is no less a part of nature than a growing tree.

Homo sapiens is of such mediocre intelligence that we are the slaves of our animalistic survival instinct. We can't change that, and we use the destructive technology as a support tool for that survival instinct, and that's why homo sapiens won't survive. We simply don't, and will likely never, have the technology to alter the DNA on which that survival instinct relies. Altering our survival instinct, does not mean eliminating our survival instinct ... getting rid of the harmful and aggressive aspects of our survival instinct is mankind's only hope, and that is highly unlikely to ever happen. Technology, be it benign or destructive, won't save us.

Also, the intellectual and physical ability to make tools and technology is not a sign of superior intelligence. It's a sign of higher intelligence *AS IT'S DEFINED AND MEASURED BY HOMO SAPIENS ITSELF*. As I explained before, that "definition" is skewered towards ONLY the way that homo sapiens itself measures intelligence. It thus gives us the "belief" that "our" intelligence is higher than the intelligence within the collective animal world. "Our" intelligence is not the "only" type of intelligence.

Homo sapiens won't last much longer due to it's LOW intelligence (as NOT measured by mankind), and it's ability to manufacture destructive technology and most of all it's 100% dependence on it's destructive survival instinct. Those 3 things, working in tandem, will be our demise.

Our specific species has been here for roughly 100,000 years or so, and I very much doubt that in another 100,000 years we'll still be here, and not 100% extinct. Yep, in the grand scheme of things, 100,000 years is a very short time indeed.

Nhoj, every word you've used to express your POV is a human construct, as are their definitions. Your assertion that it's only our definition is merely stating the obvious. Implying that there are other definitions as defined by other species is pure supposition that you can't prove...unless you're about to claim to be Dr Doolittle, in which case I'd suggest to see a psychiatrist.

Why don't you start a thread entitled "The End is Nigh" to preach your doom and gloom? Or do you plan to shuffle off your mortal coil to beat the Christmas rush?

Cheers.

Dick, everything a human says and thinks is a "human construct", it cannot be anything else. I did not say there's other definitions of intelligence "as defined by other species". Other species on Earth "define" nothing as they don't think in human terms, just as we can't think in animal terms. We judge an animal's intelligence according to "our" parameters only, because we know of no other possible way. Nature itself controls our understanding, and currently in human evolution we have absolutely ZERO choice in the matter.

What I'm saying is because we are homo sapiens we can only think as "homo sapiens". And our species generally considers itself to be a superior species. But, we can only measure that supposed superiority in terms of the way that only homo sapiens decrees. That's a human construct, and we have no choice in that matter because we can't perceive outside the parameters that nature has provided within our intellectual biology (our specific type of brain).

We are an incredibly primitive species and consider ourselves to be highly superior (which is a human construct). We equate domination with superiority ... that's a part of our primitive survival instinct.

Nhoj, this is a political discussion. Not science, not philosophy, not technology, not even doom and gloom. If you want to discuss those things, start a thread for each, as you're derailing this one. By the sentiment of your posts, we should all just bend over and kiss our asses goodbye. Strangely, a few of us aren't ready to leave yet, nor do we want to instil a sense of no hope for our children or their children. There have been doomsday sayers throughout history...join the queue. This is about how we might try to regain some social parity with the conglomerates currently ruling the planet.

Cheers.

Oh Gawd, the conspiracy nuts have arrived.
Dick the Americans did not invent radar or computers either for that matter.
Goodbye.

Bazz, disagreeing with events espoused by professional liars (politicians) doesn't make someone a "nut". We're all free to agree or disagree with anything put in front us. But insulting and ridiculing someone that disagrees with you or conventional belief, and then refusing to partake in reasoned argument, speaks more of you than it does of me.

The topic isn't about conspiracies, but do yourself a favour and Google secret war documents pertaining to WWII and Pearl. It was also reported in our local papers here at the time of the release of those documents, which is where I originally read of it. 9/11 is a different issue, and if you want to believe Washington, that's your choice. But I believe that administration were war criminals who committed crimes against humanity, defied international law and killed some of their own citizens. This is the same group that endorsed "rendering"...the kidnapping and torturing of people...I fail to see how anyone can see them as wearing white hats, or that it's beyond them to perform other criminal deeds. But it's your choice.

Bazz, and BTW, you were in boots and all about "Inside Job", which amounts to a conspiracy to defraud millions people of their money, rewarding those conspirators with government positions. So a conspiracy that you believe in is a valid conspiracy, but one that you don't believe is only proffered by "nuts", huh?

Our Federal Government's 'Commission of Audit' appears to be suggesting (or recommending) the privatization of various government (public) assets - Medibank, Australia Post, some rail transport services, and others.
And, in the past, quite a few other public assets were 'sold' (or partially sold) - Commonwealth Bank, various airports including Sydney's Kingsford Smith, Telstra and various electricity generators.
(And our major miners and manufacturers appear to be owned largely by foreign internationals or multinationals, and with ever-increasing traffic in that same direction.)

My point? The more essential services are 'privatized', the less say ordinary voters and consumers have over their lives and their future (ie, over 'their' government).

Such 'sales' may ultimately ('probably') mean our selling-out to, and giving power over to, the very global forces which are causing such havoc and mayhem around the world by directly controlling and manipulating governments, manufacturing, financial and capital markets, and militarization.

Perhaps therefore, one answer to restoring power to the people would be to 'nationalize' all essential, industrial and financial services. IE, to reverse at least one part of the process which has led the world to its current top-heavy and precarious situation (as far as 'ordinary' thinking people is concerned).

On the separate topic, my view on the failure of human intelligence and 'drive' is that 'we' have been unable to see the fault of unbridled propagation of the species, and have been unable, and unwilling, to do anything constructive about limiting human population to a manageable and sustainable level.
(China had a go for a while, but now appears to be back on the 'growth' model. Couldn't be to compensate for losses to be incurred in Nhoj's upcoming global nuclear holocaust, I don't suppose?)

So, the major fault in humanity is ego; the unwillingness to die without propagating one's 'genes' (for better, or, for worse), and the more widely spread, the more 'successful' one deludes oneself into 'feeling' - perhaps the most unreliable, unpredictable and 'uncontrollable' of human emotions.
(But not to worry; chances are a 'super-virus' will correct the imbalance - before a nuclear holocaust becomes the only remedy.)

Over the past decades, global spending for military purposes
has consumed in the trillions of dollars. This represents
a colossal diversion of funds from socially useful goals.
For example, a single hour's worth of these expenditures
would suffice to save through immunisation, hundreds of
thousands of children around the world who die each day
from preventable diseases.

If more and more nuclear weapons are built, and if
more sophisticated means of delivering them are devised,
and if more and more nations get control of these vile
devices, then surely we risk our own destruction.

Yet if ways are found to reverse that process, then we can
divert unprecedented energy and resources to the real
problems that face us.

However, as long as profit and greed rules, I don't like
our chances of turning things around. All we need to do is
take a look at what's happening in our own backyard with
the current government. I worry that we're no longer
investing in science, research and devlopment, that cuts
are being proposed to institutions like the CSIRO - whose
science is world class. And Australia has always been one
of the standout countries in terms of human development
status in the past. It is not corrupt. Yet when ignorance
and vested interests are concerned - greed will always win
out it seems. New ideas instead of being welcome for the
opportunites they open up for the improvement of the
human lot, are seen as threats to those who are comfortable
in their ideologies.

So we have"wedge politics," as being the name of the game.
In which self-interest groups and antagonism between
citizens permeates policy-making. The much-touted notion
in liberal democracies that governments govern for all,
is no longer believed by significant numbers of voters.
It is all too obvious that governments actually don't
do this. This destroys social capital, that is, trust,
togetherness and the tender feelings of a caring society.

There is "them" and "us" rather than simply "us" and much
effort is employed in partisan politics which could be
much better utilised in positive pursuits.

Saltpetre, I agree in principle with nationalization of resources and infrastructure, there are two main difficulties though...if a country just takes them from whoever owns them, and it's likely some foreign companies have interests, it's against international law, and could well provoke war from the countries where those interests are based. The second alternative is to buy them back from the current owners, which is perfectly legal in all aspects, but extremely unlikely since we'd be paying top dollar, and would require government will and commitment to do so. We've sold so much that it would be a near Herculean task as well as expensive. But I would still support it, since in time, we would recoup the expense and derive income.

Pertaining to population, I think you're correct with ego, but I would add the basic fact that many people don't like to use contraceptions, or passion preceding planning...the heat of the moment can be a powerful thing. :)

Cheers.

Foxy, you've nailed it. The only point I would add is that both sides of the political spectrum serve the same masters. It's not just the Liberals, since Hawke and Keating enacted more conservative policies than social ones, and were softened-up by big business. Howard made promises that were the most left-wing since Whitlam to gain office, and broke them all, but my point is that they serve the same masters.

The Military Industrial Complex (MIC) of the US spends more on military than the rest of the world combined. It's little wonder America can't afford a national health scheme like we have. I remember when Obama first articulated his plan, that for the next few weeks he received death threats. Death threats for wanting to introduce public health!! Only in America! I found it bizarre, to say the least. But point being, they (the MIC) have a lot of influence in government policy due to the magnitude of funding, and so America is only too happy to impose its political will via the military. And it's that political will to control resources in foreign countries through force, while proffering their propaganda of being the "good guys" that is most hypocritical and annoying...anyone that self-appoints themselves to be "police" more often than not are the exact opposite.

Cheers.

Dear DD,

When my husband graduated from Melbourne Uni (Architecture
and Town Planning) we travelled to the US (Los
Angeles) and although we only meant to stay for a year of so
we ended up living and working for ten years. We experienced
the "Good Guy," mentality first hand. Many Americans truly
believed they were the "Saviours" of the world and that
America was the best country to live in. Even little
pre-schoolers began their classes with the "Pledge of
Allegiance," by putting one hand on their heart and raising
the other to proclaim, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America, and to the Republic for
which it stands..."
For us, it was quite an education. And of course we did enjoy
and benefit from the experience in so many ways. It was a
time that neither of us regret. We got so much out of that
experience. And we learned to question everything.

Dick said;
Bazz, and BTW, you were in boots and all about "Inside Job",

The difference is there was a US Senate enquirey into the shenanigans
in the US financial system and it exposed the fraudulent activities of
the big US banks and the ratings companies. A very few were actually
procecuted and many are actually being sued by Australian councils
together with many other organisations around the world.

That there was a conspiracy is clear but the CIA flying the planes
into the NYC Trade Centre is in another league altogether.

Bazz, I made no claim of CIA involvement. After all, how would I know? My claim of 9/11 is only that of observation combined with reason...how does an aircraft with a 160 feet wingspan disappear into a 67 foot hole in a building that's heavily reinforced, and leave no wing imprints on the outer wall or wreckage in front of that wall? And if you remember prior to 9/11, at least a couple times per year on the nightly news would be footage of a skyscraper or industrial chimney being demolished, with the narrative of the complex science of getting a building to collapse upon itself. Yet two aircraft, creating different damage configurations, create equally distributed heat throughout the two buildings in order for steel to give way simultaneously for a perfect collapse. The only heat to melt that steel being from a flash of aircraft fuel, and then burning office fixtures. Ponder it. Even building 7 collapsed perfectly upon itself, and it wasn't hit by any plane at all. One is forced to ask some serious questions about "coincidence", aren't they?

There's lots of anomalous inconsistencies to the entire affair. If you care to discuss it, I'll start a thread. I just find that the event defies reason. And I didn't believe it from day 2...day one, I was absorbed in the event like everyone else. But as it all unfolded over the following days and weeks, it was clear that the government had an agenda, were distorting and covering up details on the run, and firing experts that gave opinions the government didn't want, so they hired people that would.

My opinion on this doesn't stem from looking at conspiracy theories devised by others, and quite frankly, most of those things do more harm than good by their misguidance or outrageous claims...ranging from holographs to aliens.

I understand that it's a contentious issue steeped in emotion and tragedy. But in the cool light of day, there are a myriad of glaring anomalies.

And btw, thanks for responding.

Cheers.

Bazz>> Oh Gawd, the conspiracy nuts have arrived .That there was a conspiracy is clear but the CIA flying the planes
into the NYC Trade Centre is in another league altogether.<<

Bazz I have been here for a while...but Dick De Dastardly is certainly a newbie and an insightful orator.

9/11 stinks Bazz, I will tell you why.
Not just “one” first time in history event but “three” first times in history events as the skyscrapers fell to the ground (in their own footprints no less) supposedly due of fire. One was not even struck by a plane.

Whenever contact is lost with any airplane, fighter jets routinely take to the air to investigate. This commonly occurs about 100 times per year in well under 20 minutes. But on 9/11 nearly two hours passed without any interception, and they had three targets.

There is no mention of WTC Building 7's remarkable “collision less” collapse in the 571-page 9/11 Commission Report. The Bush administration resisted the formation of the 9/11 Commission for 441 days. Similar investigations, such as Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, Oklahoma City bombing and the space shuttle disasters, all started in one week.

The 911 commission was given absurdly limited funds to assure a short and limited investigation. In total $15 million was given by the Bush administration to investigate 9/11. Over $60 Million was spent investigating Bill Clintons’ affairs with Monica Lewinski.

These facts are just the tip of the dung heap…..Nah Bazz it stinks.