leoj, your rehash on a regular basis of that out dated, unsourced, unsubstantiated "news" article is typical of your green paranoia. Why don't you get over it, and concentrate on your rabid right adulation of Wacko Hanson instead. You should be busy now, white shoes and all, propagandising for One Nation in the up coming Queensland election.

That booted former Senator, and now One Nation wombat of a candidate in the Queensland election Malcolm Roberts kept an accused rapist as a personal adviser for five months, unbelievable. Is that the sort of thing you agree with leoj?

Shadow, what is so quaint is your ability to make wrong predictions. Just a few I can recall;

1. The Tories would win the British election in a landslide. They now have to rely on some lunatic Irish to keep in government.

2. An arrest was imminent in the 'Beat Up' Bolt fiasco. Still waiting months later.

3, Barnyard Joyce had nothing to worry about when it came to the High Court and his citizenship. You are truly a legal eagle when its comes to the law.

Shadow the law of averages would say you should get it right sometime, but you defy such law, and get it wrong all the time. How do you do it?

Four decades ago Sydney had the highest house cost, averaging $28,000 while today it exceeds $850,000. So while earnings have gone up, by almost tenfold, house prices have gone up by more than thirtyfold in that same period of time.

However , the smart money is on tents in Martin Place Sydney with low mortgage and no painting or roofing maintenance

Oh what a silly thread!

Qatar is a resource based economy - their economy is largely dependent on the export of resources. Indeed Australia's economy has historically been resource based. ButI that's not what GROM, AGron (who I suspect is GROM larping as someone else to make it look like he has more support than he does), Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement etc mean. AIUI what they want is a resource ALLOCATION based economy, using some mechanism other than money to allocate resources.

In general that's a bad idea IMO, as it's likely to end up as too inefficient and bureaucratic, and a lot of the perceived benefits are based on a misunderstanding of how the economy works at present. But we must be careful to distinguish between current conditions and post scarcity conditions. Once we reach the post scarcity age, the economy will change considerably. However getting rid of money would still be a bad idea, as there would be labour shortages in many occupations, and there would still be shortages of things for which there is limited supply and high demand, such as Harbourside land.

As for capitalism and socialism, the both have to be more precisely defined before criticism of them becomes meaningful. Though I think it's safe to say pure communism is as undesirable as it's unworkable, and I'm quite surprised to see Paul claiming otherwise, even if the brand of communism he regards as pure is one that doesn't involve totalitarianism.

Aidan, do not be surprised, that at some future date, way in the future. in an unrecognizable by today's standards, idealistic world "communism" could be the norm. In a world, not necessarily of this planet, where mankind has reached a state of Nirvana. a place where all of mans needs are met in entirety. In such an flawless world based on love and kindness, there would be no requirement for grubby money as a means of exchange.
I don't think Stalinist Russia or Maoists China quite reached the necessary higher astral plane to achieve Nirvana. In fact, I think they were miserably short of the mark, however I envisage such could be the case, by the year, say 4027 AD, possibly on the planet Mars. My first paragraph is more like what I support. please take note of that, and don't be so surprised.
In the meantime we will just have to make do with what we've got, warts and all. Agree?

They almost got rid of money when Britain joined USSR in forced labour.
"In December 1941 the British government conscripted women into the the Land Army. The Land Girls did a wide range of jobs, including milking cows, lambing, managing poultry, ploughing, gathering crops, digging ditches, catching rats and carrying out farm maintenance work. Some 6,000 women worked in the Timber Corps, chopping down trees and running sawmills. , Land Girls earned £1/17 for a minimum of 50 hours work a week, £1/1 or less after deductions had been made for lodgings and food. In 1944 £2/17..

In Australia Womens Land Army pay was at minimum wage of one pound/10 a week. .
In 1934, the Basic Wage £3 /5 ..
1940 male factory wage 4 pounds/15 ."

Mary people posting on this argument forget that we live in a successful mixed economy.

We have adequate federally based regulation that allows Limited Liability Companies to be created and function. Those companies often attempt to sell products that are useless to society but the customers largely decide by their purchases what products the supply side of the economy produces.

A explanation I read many decades ago left an impression on me.
The explanation was that; If the manufacturers are directed by nominated quotas, as they were in the early days of Stalin, then if the quota for a nail factory is by numbers the factory produces shoe tacks and pins and if by weight; rail spikes.

The only improvement to capitalism that I can suggest is that every company should be required to accumulate a sinking fund from profits which could be only drawn on at the direction of a regulator in a dire imminent collapse situation.