Even though they have signed off, it is noteworthy to mention that,
firstly I and the rest of the country would be incensed and angered to find that the Federal Police would be wasting their time and resources on just another disenfranchised and betrayed consumer.
Only simple minded 'children' with no life or maturity, but too much time and imagination would respond with an attempt to point score with such a pathetic notion.
Yes I can see it now, the Feds running out the door to arrest the MILLIONS of people who wish to see the painful demise of a bunch of lying, scheming, scumbag thieves.
I can understand some posters not agreeing with some of the words I use, but I find it necessary, because the written word does not allow the true meaning of the passage without some creative language.
Words in written form have no inflection, and so do not deliver the intended message.
Others have offered suggestions, but as I am not familiar with them I prefer to go with what works for me.
I feel that the commentors on side, will see my reasoning.
Those off side, are sworn to oppose no matter what and no matter how.
On of the biggest and most annoying facts about my detractors is they use virtue signalling as if they own it.
Their 'be nice, be respectful' attitude is sickening to the point of ad nauseum, and, yes I find it totally un-acceptable that simply because certain people are gutless and embarrassed by the truth, it's more pleasant and not confrontational to simply go along with everyone and lie doing so.
PC, virtue signalling, or more correctly, lying, and such fallacies are all products of being weak and immature.

mhaze,
Regarding the rest of your Wednesday post:

[distrust of capitalism]
Yes, I acknowledged the validity of your criticism. But why do you direct it only at the Left when it's also applicable to the Right?

As I said, Whitlam was before my time. But my understanding of his tariff cuts is that they were mainly intended to counteract the inflation that had occurred as a result of the oil shock. Almost any response would have resulted in job losses, and Fraser also caused job losses by attempting to solve the inflation problem. It wasn't until Hawke became PM that the problem was solved with The Accord. Which was appropriate or ironic (take your pick) because it had been Hawke, as ACTU leader, who had done more than Whitlam to create the problem in the first place.

Is any of the above objectively wrong?

> But the overriding underlying cause is that leftist need to redistribute without regard to economic circumstances.
In many cases (including 20th century Venezuela) the problem wasn't that they ignored economic circumstances; it was that they reacted to them in the wrong way.

Also you could just as easily blame the rightist need to cut taxes without regard to economic circumstances.

Ultimately countries create their own economic circumstances. But the system of fixed exchange rates created inappropriate economic circumstances. It required a lot of foreign currency borrowing, which shifted huge amounts of risk onto the debtor countries.

(tbc this arvo probably)

mhaze,
>No that's being below the poverty line.
That's what "relative poverty" is generally taken to mean, at least in Australia.

>Relative poverty is a term in juxtaposition to absolute poverty.
Yes it is, but "absolute poverty" does not mean destitution. It does not mean having nothing. It does not just mean the most severe level of poverty.

Absolute poverty means poverty measured by absolute standards (as opposed to poverty compared to the rest of the population, which is what relative poverty means).
Normally the word "absolute:" is omitted so as to avoid the need for this tedious explanation every time.

>Well now you're just making it up.
No, I'm altering you to a genuine problem.

>The real value of the poverty line in Australia has grown by over 30% in the past 3 decades.
>So someone on the poverty line today is 30% richer than the same person on that line 30 years ago.
In financial terms, yes - but that doesn't necessarily equate to a standard of living increase, as housing costs have risen a lot more than that.

>The poor don't pay income taxes.
Yet they pay GST. The government shifted more of the burden of tax onto them by introducing the GST.

>Real wages have continued to grow over any period over a year you care to mention.
They've scarcely grown at all in the last decade.

>I'm all in favour of change. But I'm against economic suicide.
I'm all against economic suicide. But unlike you I don't look at everything through a Left v Right prism. And far too often I've seen policies designed to prevent economic suicide actually causing it.