Suse,

On that sensitive topic of identifying: many Aboriginal people may be as pale as whitefellas, but would never have known of any white ancestors, or even relations, going back five or six generations. There used to be a ironic slogan: "Organise a family reunion - invite your white relations."

People tend to be raised of course by their mothers, who in turn ...... so you might have to go back quite a few generations to find the missing whitefellas, and not too many of those hung around for long. And there were what they used to call quarter-castes around the lower Murray lakes from about 1860, many generations ago.

So aspects of the original culture, or ethic, may be passed down by mothers generation to generation, without a whitefella in sight. You can see that, in those circumstances, nobody is going to be raised with any European 'culture' or ethic or anything except skin colour.

In my own kids' cases, when I put it down on paper, they would probably be something like what they use to call octoroons, but I guess I'm the first whitefella that hung around, the first one that the family knew actually.

So Bolt might have got it right with some people, but wrong with very many: it is possible to be very 'Aboriginal' even if one is very pale. Of course, I'm talking here about people who have known since birth, that they have always taken their Aboriginality for granted, that they have never known any other story, that they didn't discover at 14, or 35, that somewhere way back there, they had a bit of Aboriginal ancestry.

In fact, the people I'm talking about are less likely to grab those top positions: their ethic has 'taught' them to hang back, while the ethic of the others, raised a whitefellas, has taught them to go for it. And it's those who, I suspect, Bolt had in mind.

Joe

Aidan, the reason say we need to find the bottom is so that we can start afresh which will invove wiping the slate on issues like welfare and indigenous welfare.

If we have nothing to give any more we will be forced to take drastic action because as it stands now everyone is fearful of stepping on toes which is no way to run a country that's heading south, and like it or not, we are heading south.

As for taxing spendings, a transaction tax, this tax, suggested at just 2% could replace every wither tax we have, effectively injecting billions into the economy every year. We have to tax money, not people, because we can only tax people's net earnings once and it's quite obvious that's no longer working.

Yes, I see what you mean Loudmouth. I never thought of it that way before.

Maybe the Aboriginal way of calling themselves after their mother's side of the family is a better way to go. At least, most of the time, you know who your mother is!

Rehctub, what is it with you? Always the voice of doom!

rehctub, what you regard as "wiping the slate clean" is no such thing, for not only does it fail to get rid of the underlying problems, but it destroys a lot of the progress that's been made addressing them. Evolutionary change is normally much better than revolutionary change.

Rather than taking drastic action, we should concentrate on improving our productivity.

What you think is obvious is actually an illusion. In reality taxing people's earnings is actually working very well.

The transaction tax was a rather stupid idea from Pauline Hanson's party. It failed to recognise that people and businesses would change their behaviour to avoid the tax.

As I said to Rhosty on the "No financial claims scheme levy..." thread:
Stupidity's rarely in short supply among economists, but very few were dumb enough to support the PHONy Party's 2% transaction tax. Most correctly realised that it would destroy the financial sector (which relies on low margin transactions) and make businesses less competitive (due to the extra 2% cost of B2B transactions).

____________________________________________________________________________________

Shockadelic,

Things should be done in parallel rather than sequentially. And whether, when and how quickly desertification is reversed usually depends on the actions of individual farmers (and in some cases conservation groups).

Most of the rest is low value farmland (mainly used for grazing).

I think it was SBS TV where I heard that Aborigines are more pro immigration than the general population, at least as far as refugees are concerned.

Free trade makes sense for everyone. By concentrating on high value work, we can compete with the cheap Asian labour. And if we couldn't, the market would devalue our dollar until we could. Such devaluation may sound bad, but at least it would help our exporters; tariffs would hit consumers just as hard but also hinder our exporters.

Aidan "It failed to recognise that people and businesses would change their behaviour to avoid the tax."

How exactly do you avoid making bank transactions?
Cash?
Who is going to take the risk of storing all their wealth as cash (encouraging robbery)?

Almost all salaries, stock trades, and government payments are paid electronically.
To then get cash requires a withdrawal (a transaction).

You could also legislate that certain transactions (e.g. any amount over $100) *must* be done electronically, making significant avoidance impossible.

The tax would not be an "extra" 2% if it replaces ALL other taxes.

Our economy and standard of living did more than fine under tariffs.

If our young nation had grown up under free trade, we wouldn't have the standard of living/development we have.

It's only because of those founding years under protectionism and imperial preference that we are so far ahead of Asia.

Japan also grew into the juggernaut it became with just a little help from Mr Tariff.

Global free trade is a religious faith, not a practical economic reality.

The only way to get a global "level" playing field is to reduce our living standards to the lowest common denominator Third World level.
No thanks.

Suzie said:
Rehctub, what is it with you? Always the voice of doom!

or the voice of reality ?