The medias biased ALL THE TIME.

"WTF? - Not Again" said- The problem, for them, is that Smith goes to great length warning of the types of individuals that, given the opportunity, would take advantage of legislation to benefit themselves rather than all of society. The Liberal Party and what it stands for is a pretty good summary of what Smith warns us about."

Answer- I'm not sure that Adam Smith said what "WTF? - Not Again" is implying. Smith talked about the hidden hand of the market- and how this selfish motive benefited the community as a whole. But Smith did seem to take a pretty dim view of stockpiling and price gouging during the American Revolutionary War- he used the example of tobacco from memory. Stockpiling and price gouging can occur when there is a gap between supply and demand. Modern financial markets appear counter price gouging. Price gouging apparently due to artificial supply restrictions due government red tape- certain industry and ideological groups lobby for favour- but both the Labor and Coalition pander for their reasons. For example Unions have a vested interest in certain legislation usually under the auspices of safety but really to wall their patch. I'd like to think we could have safety without restricting supply.

Despite the above communist/ socialist/ Labor/ Left claims for example are often based on the principle of perfect equality- which in my view is unachievable- even Economic Liberals/ Libertarian's such as Ayn Rand appear to support the "equality of the dollar"- Stiglitz says that the "Efficient Market Hypothesis" in the weak and strong form fails- so even Libertarian Equality vote of the dollar appears unachievable.

Peterson says "Humans need Values create Hierarchy creates Inequality"

Deneen (and Maltuse) suggests that all forms of Locke Liberalism are doomed to failure being top down, growth based, with finite production.

Representative Democracy itself seems to discount "Equality of the Vote".

The Socialist Left has some interesting concepts that seem to "mirror" those of Adam Smith/ other economists- the apparent non sequitur's of Marx's Das Capital Vol 1-3- Labor Theory Of Value, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_valu

The intention of this thread was for a discussion of the policies of minor parties and how the media tend to concentrate on the Big Two, ignoring the 20%. I think that the policies of parties such as the Greens, Palmer, Hanson and Independents should be more open to media scrutiny and critical analysis so voters have an opportunity to assess their worth.

Of course some minors welcome such an opportunity, the Greens I know do, both Jacqui Lambie and the Mad Katter (I say that with some affection, great value is old Bob) are always open to discourse with the media, as are others. I don't think Fat Clive in particular and The Lovely Pauline to a lesser degree are so welcoming. In the case of the Palmer Party they rely on saturation propaganda advertising and voter ignorance and fear to win votes.

The media should be out there with; "FAT CLIVE, explain your CRAP TALK to the VOTERS." Then you would see Fat Clive scuttling up a back ally, like the snake oil salesman he is, trying to avoid the cameras.

Um, the ABC is giving more coverage to Katherine Deves' trans views than the Ukraine war, and that is getting covered with a Russian bias. Nor is there anything about that great anti-American friend of Russia and China, Julian Assange. Poor Jules, about to be sent to the Evil Empire and his greenie mates have gone quiet.

When people have to go back to the ancient history of Neville Wran, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating to defend their ABC they don't have anything up their sleeve. Just like Green Paul who is still locked into parties and politicians gone for three years because he can't think of anything else to attack me with. What a drone!

What is "Sky after Dark"? Who made that one up? Some goon who says it is "unwatchable"?

Who "gave" Murdoch $30 million? Probably not Australian taxpayers, who give $1 billion to the ABC so that they can slag off Australia and Australians, most of whom don't even watch it or listen to it. It costs Australians nothing to ignore the Murdoch empire if they wish to, and nothing if they do use it.

You have to be a moron to think it is OK to pay for anything you don't use and don't want. A Leftist moron, who expects everyone else to chip in for something he or she wants. Good old socialism.

"Finally" the Palmer 3% mortgage rate cap is not a "hoax". That's what Palmer thinks the rate could/should be, and that's what he would aim for if he were in a position to do so. We know it's not going to happen, but the same goons would whine if he had no policies. The Left criticises shite put out by the people they hate, but they are silent about Green Labor shite, including the straight out lies by Albanese that I listed above. Oh, and by the ABC that puts out stories on 4 Corners that turn out to be actual, fair dinkum hoaxes.

And, Palmer pays for his own advertising. It costs the public nothing; unlike the ABC, which gives free advertising to Green Labor, and we all pay them to do it.

For all mortgage whingers and history illiterates, the mortgage rates in the 1960s/70s were 6.5% - 7%. And there was a lot less money around then, when people actually SAVED and paid off the debt well before the 25 years or whatever the term was.