Submitted by factotum on Thu, 11/21/2019 - 14:21
For when one interesting things thread isn't enough.
Don't he just.
"The attorney-general Christian Porter has suggested the higher rate of hourly pay casual workers receive mean many will have “already made provisions” if forced to take two-weeks unpaid leave because of the coronavirus crisis, and the government will not “jump to a solution in anticipation of a problem”."
wrong again facto... again and again... again and again...
pearl jam not my thing ...though there was one song, ...I forget the name of, it made such an impact...
you did get the maritime union thingy right though, but they don't really seem your cup of herbal green tea...
I just stir you facto, because you're a perpetual shit stirrer... the biggest shittest stirrer...
but you do frustrate the hell out of me, ...I've gotta say, willing to vehemently bag the supposed 'concentration camp' 3 star accomodation of australia's system, ..whilst willing to turn a total blind eye to the actual real life nazi like concentration camps happening right now in the 21st century, not willing to utter a word, just constantly ridiculing those that do. nazi like concentrtion camps, racial supremecy, happening right under our noses in china, right here, right now, right here under our watch, with our biggest trading partner, ...does my fucking head in how you and your ip mates don't seem to give a fuck
it's bloody bewildering!!
and hilary? as I've said before, given an either/or choice; trump/hilary, you'd still go hilary...
brush it off all you like, but that's the reality...
hilary has been? ...you may yet have to make that choice once again. she's sniffing around for a re-run
looking at the alternatives, she might just get one...
who would you choose edgy one?...given a re-run?
don't answer, ....you won't answer, ...you don't need to....
or are you all in with biden? happy to keeo the shit show of deception rolling?
or are you a 'blue no matter who'?
biden over trump? ....oh please... sometimes you've just gotta admit your side is all fucked up, really really fucked up
you love to talk about 'the right side of history', one doesn't have to think too hard to imagine how the history books will judge this period into the future, fucking disgusting!
....but the tv's are cheap...
and the righteous are wicked
Sypkahn, sometimes the 'feelz' just aren't enough. Actually, they rarely are. I'd ask you to give one concrete example, just one, proving any of your fanciful accusations, but why bother asking...you won't be able to, because none exist. Except in your fevered imagination.
Why is this?
Why are you so desperate to try and use me now as a strawman to prop up your funny little flimsy worldview?
You've been doing it to others too for years. Same broken record. With no factual back-up.
A look back on your mutterings though takes seconds to google, yet reaps a multitude of sins.
For example (from 2018):
And there's a lot, lot, lot more. I'm sure, in your heart of hearts, you know and 'feel' that.
From that 2018 link:
"So sypkan, no response to my two requests to justify your assertions. Credibility?"
I'm at work blindboy. And seriously even if I wasn't, I wouldn't have the inclination. Maybe crypto could do it. I hear he's good at 'research'.
My slackness aside. You have been toeing a certain line for years. It's all there, I really don't feel I need to prove anything."
"sypkan if you can't support your assertions, you shouldn't make them. It just makes it more likely that people will treat your comments as irrelevant. Hot air!''
Bingo, Blind Boy!
A man with a narrative looking to people it with characters on here.
And in other 'if the shoe fits' news...
"That is how I communicate. You know I’m not a go -back -and - confirm kind of guy..."
Ha ha! No fucken shit!"
And guess who that 'no confirmation' guy was??
Gloria (Gloria), I think they got your number (Gloria),
I think they got the alias (Gloria) that you've been living under (Gloria).
But you really don't remember, was it something that they said?
Are the voices in your head calling, Gloria?
Anyway, here's Joe Biden and Clarence Thomas! Fuck, fucking America is fucked. Fucking funny, but.
geez you talk shit, ...or not...
"Why is this?"
guilty by omission facto, just like the media we were talking about back there, it's all about priorities, and your's are warped
c'mon facto election 2020...
clinton versus trump? must choose one? ...go..
just more riddles I expect, never a position on anything... guilty by omission... just like the pathetic media links you post...
nothing of substance, just a tired old record of accusations of racism, sexism, islamaphobia, mysoginy, and on and on ....toxic identity politics...
"A man with a narrative looking to people it with characters on here."
"You've been doing it to others too for years. Same broken record. With no factual back-up."
pot, kettle, black?
"A look back on your mutterings though takes seconds to google, yet reaps a multitude of sins."
yep yep yep, ...same, same, same...
...pot, kettle, black...
"Why are you so desperate to try and use me now as a strawman to prop up your funny little flimsy worldview?"
why are you so desperate to try and use blowin as a strawman to prop up your funny little flimsy worldview?
you reallly shouldn't encourage people to go back trawling, there's some hilarious exanples of factobum chatting with shattered bossom, ...amongst other 'profiles'...
it's all there...
if one wants to find it...
but some of us aren't little high school snide snarky bitches looking to no platform people
anyway, carry on...
...and yet, Sypkahn, just more nothing from you. Nothing concrete. Again. As usual. Guilty by literal omission.
Just 'feelz' and empty imported buzzwords.
Buzzwords, that by the time you've got round to them, Sypkahn, are well past their use-by date, 'edgelord'*.
"Geez you talk shit, ...or not..."
Confused, Sypkahn? A bet each way? An out?
All 3, I wager.
Speaking about confusion...
clinton versus trump? must choose one? ...go"
Why don't you stick to some semblance of reality here? Say, the reality of Biden vs Sanders? Let alone Sanders vs Trump, or Biden vs Trump?
Why does Clinton, Hillary Clinton, rile you up to the point of idiocy so, so much? Did Obama? Does Joe?
More importantly did GW Bush? Does Donald?
*out of date.
just omissions and accusations
this isn't even fun anymore, you've gone all nasty woman
talk to shattered bossom for a while, it seems you need to vent
I've made my positions clear, it looks you have a reading comprehension problem
"I've made my positions clear"?!
We like to think we have a great safety net here, but COVID-19 reminds us that, for many Australians, any leave, let alone sick leave, isn't really an option.
yep, Porter is fucking certifiably insane if he thinks people with cold symptoms (which might be covid 19) will stay home if they don't have sick leave and they have family to feed, rent to pay.
Biden.......corrupt insider, oh man Dems did not learn from the Hillary mess.
Couple Biden with the upcoming austerity budget we have to have here (mark my words), and well...
Good night, and good luck.
Yep, staffroom conversations today confirmed that no-one with a cough or a sniffle will risk getting tested and so potentially being without pay for weeks on end.
Ruthless maybe but that's the reality of the situation.
What's going to happen to working Australians' pay situation when the businesses they work for have no customers? If casual, no one will get a choice, there just will be no shifts. It hasn't happened yet, but look to any locked down area to see or any article about airlines/tourism/retail.
No one gets tested, someone is positive - how many shifts are there going to be at that business when this is realised by the public? Centrelink help needs to be way quicker.
Won’t someone think of the poor vibrants ?
Or the FIFO bigots?
Pretty sure that the vibrants are the FIFO bigots these days . The Koreans never liked the Philippinos
And let's not forget the amateur hour laptop sharebrokers.
And remember, don't hate, but pity them. For they know not what they do.
Silver lining time?
"I argued that we were already amidst a paradigm shift in economic policy thinking as the dissonance of the neoliberal era brings together disparate groups – an anti-establishment citizens’ revolt, central bankers calling for fiscal action, and financial market players realising their business model has been almost terminally compromised – realise that mainstream macroeconomics is a failed discipline.
The coronavirus comes on top of that already growing dissent.
It will redefine what governments can do with their obvious fiscal capacity and will demonstrate once-and-for-all the lies that the mainstream economists tell about deficits, inflation, interest rates, etc."
... and a multitude of useful idiot academics should be the first to go..
This from the fella who called any attempt to call out the neoliberal assault on Australia as Rayyyyssssiiisssst.
BTW....a few days ago I suggested the exact same things as in Facto’s link. Even gave examples.
And his reply ? Smarmy , stupid and arguing against something he should really agree with but can’t because he’s so wedded to being in opposition :
Pupkin commented THURSDAY, 12 MAR 2020 at 1:21PM
Some fascinating to and fro on here. Fascinating for a variety of reasons.
Some of the 'received wisdoms' and readings of history!
And therein lies the rub for the politically disengaged. The quiet and relaxed and comfortable Australians are not best served by the disseminators in this country.
On here Stunet, you're talking about reading worthy books to people who barely read posts, let alone links! And they're NOT the politically disengaged (apparently)!!!!
71 years of federal Liberal governments, more often than not.
An inconvenient truth?
I've been waiting for someone to pipe up and point towards our state government voting as as a refutation of sorts. But then again, for every Don Dunstan (not that there's been many...any others?), there's a Joh. Actually, sticking to SA, the longest serving premier was Thomas Playford...a Liberal.
Now, imagine if we didn't have compulsory voting.“
Facto....why don’t you email Bill Mitchell and tell him that you think his ideas are impractical and stupid ?
"This from the fella who called any attempt to call out the neoliberal assault on Australia as Rayyyyssssiiisssst."
Only you, Alan.
If the gaudy suit fits...
"Some of the 'received wisdoms' and readings of history!"
Don't worry, Sypkahn, see you get a guernsey too.
"The quiet and relaxed and comfortable Australians are not best served by the disseminators in this country.
On here Stunet, you're talking about reading worthy books to people who barely read posts, let alone links! And they're NOT the politically disengaged (apparently)!!!!"
Am I wrong?
Simplistic, wrong-headed, media-fed regurgitations just don't cut it.
And yet they do?!
"71 years of federal Liberal governments, more often than not.
That’s it mate. Best you stick to calling people names.
Blow in, as always, your house of straw (men) is flimsy as, bro.
I know you love a quote so as Chopper said to Keithy, "you should thank me...you've got a head that needs regular panel beating."
Poor old bugger.
(ps I've left an 'in' here for ya, cobber, if you've got the brains for it)
Breaking my rule of don't feed the troll here, but oh well...
Pupkin/Facto (I'm agreeing with others' inference that you're Facto - apologies if you're not), bit rich to be calling strawman fallacy on a fella who generally does reason out his opinions here (out of interest, what has he said that you consider to be a strawman?). Especially since most of your contributions seem to consist of ad hominem attacks and genetic fallacies.
Sure I don't always agree with what Blowin has to say, but at least it provokes thought.
You represent yourself as an intelligent fella; it'd be nice to see you actually put forward at concrete opinion and argue for it at some point, rather than posting those oh-so-funny comparisons to media/pop culture figures but not actually providing anything to discuss.
He who hesitates is lost
Yeah. For sure.
Old mate Bill says that Australia needs to renationalise a few key industries the same as I did , but for some reason you seem to think it’s God’s word from him and worthy of ridicule from me.
To be evenhanded , you could at least give Bill a senseless nickname which only you find even remotely amusing enough to mention a single time , let alone worth repeating endlessly , without realising that every utterance makes you appear ever more ineffectual .
Pops, here's a fallacy related dictum. Don't believe anything blow in says on here about other people's opinions. Simple rule but effective.
Pardon the pun, but bog standard bigotry colours nearly his every utterance. Especially of late in his 'Wu-Flu' conniptions. I mean who (wu?) in their Right mind would bother proselytising for such a goofy name change? And why??
As for your query, "what has he said that you consider to be a strawman?"
"This from the fella who called any attempt to call out the neoliberal assault on Australia as Rayyyyssssiiisssst"
Pops, sorry, but this is just a straight up lie. Easily refuted.
And a joke to boot. And I'm not even talking about the typically hysterical language. Wasn't "Neoliberal Assault" a lame metal band from the late 80s?
Strap yourself in (from 2019):
"Andy M, and yes! even you Sypkan, a lot to unpack there, and to open up. And some stuff that's already been discussed. And I'm a busy man...well, kinda...but the fact is I am at work, BUT...let's address some of this stuff.
Obviously not in detail, but something is better than nothing, I guess. There may even be some connecting and over-arching things that come up. In fact, there will be.
OK, re: the TPP. Actually, the ever changing TPP. Actually, the ever changing nature of trade agreements in this so-called 'free trade' era, post GATT & the WTO, NAFTA, etc.
Yes, Labor's negotiated support through caucus for Turnbull's TPP-II was more than disappointing. An upside was the vociferous criticism from within the caucus and shadow cabinet of the TPP-II in general and the labour testing, ISDS clauses, and transparency issues specifically. The resultant 'pragmatic' negotiation and placation deal (one to avoid a damaging split while Labor is in opposition) did come with the proviso to relitigate the issue if and when in government. Labor sources and unions who objected to the TPP pointed to the example of New Zealand, which has sought to change its trade agreements under Jacinda Ardern. Although I concurred with Sally McManus at the time that Turnbull's TPP-II is "a trade deal that encompasses all the worst elements of our broken trade system"...but also that "the ALP has now committed to serious and much-needed reforms of our trade system to make sure that future deals benefit working people and are subject to real public and parliamentary accountability."
I guess the crux of the believability that Labor will follow through with this is if you believe that Labor is "beholden to the (dun dun daaaaa!) unions" or they're not.
Speaking of which, where does that 'beholden' narrative originate, and why does it get 'traction'?
Definitely back to that in time.
As for neo-liberal economics in general, as Stunet said, "we're 40 years down this path, great structural changes have taken place in the economy (and in our culture too, but that's another issue). Changes that would take another generation to reverse. We just can't wish them away, and Labor sure as fuck can't do it in a four year term."
Another interesting comment from Stu in regards to the neo-liberal economic experiment was that, "I've seen Labor's role as that of harm minimisation. To put a brake on the neo-liberal dream the Libs are trying to achieve, and which is slowly tearing the country apart."
Now let's cast our minds back...a (very) potted history of neo-liberal economics as applied in so-called realpolitik.
Thatcher and Reagan. The UK and the USA. Countries with similarities, cultural and political, as they are with us, and also real differences (the main one regarding us: compulsory voting. Thank fuck!).
Anyway, forgive the simplicity now. Neo-liberalism manifested itself primarily as privatisation in the UK (more State entities to sell off) and de-regulation in the USA. Of course these 'tenets' overlapped, but run with me here.
These countries were at the time (and still are to a great extent) our combined major cultural and economic partners. How to react to this 'revolution?'
The Hawke/Keating 'harm minimisation' strategy. I became of voting age during this period. Did I agree with the direction? No. Did I think they should've gone all Scandinavian? Yes. Did I vote for Labor in this period? No. Did I have the luxury (or not!) of living in a stronghold Labor electorate, so that I could vote for the SP and other real left manifestations? Yes.
This 'harm minimisation' - neo-liberalism with government regulation (an oxymoron!) - worked so well here, ie Labor was in power! especially compared to the Right devastation in our partner countries, that it explicitly led to the so-called '3rd Way' via Giddens for one, and subsequently taken up by the Clinton Democrats and Blair's Labour in the realpolitik world.
But, as I've stated elsewhere many moons back, once the neo-liberal genie is out of the bottle, it's real fucking hard to control it, let alone put it back in. Especially when the previously worst treasurer in living memory (the triple double digit man - unemployment, interest rates and inflation) John Winston Howard is the PM and with his treasurer Costello smashes the bottle into little pieces. As that bastion of leftism the IMF stated, the Howard-Costello government was the "most fiscally profligate" iteration EVER down under. Oi!
Sold the furniture (mate's rates) and de-regulated the fuck out of everything.
Which brings me to the Labor government now. As Guy Smiley said, for starters, they are trying to wind back ever so slightly (well, for me), such Howard-Costello legacy items like the 'rorting' of negative gearing and franked dividend credits. Oh, all legal of course, but broken genie bottle, unregulated, used and abused via the Libs.
Banking? Remember the royal commission. Hmmm, we need some re-regulation it seems.
Here's an idea, let's build a cheap and nasty NBN and then flog it off, hopefully. Just not to China. Maybe.
Heads up: there will be a royal commission into the NBN debacle.
Wait, maybe a federal ICAC is needed? Yeah, nah. YEAH.
Let the markets decide wages? Yeah, NAH.
Actually, with the Libs today calling Labor's child-care worker wage policy socialism at best, communism at worst, how does that even slightly fit into your "hardcore neolib for mine" summation of Labor, Andy?
I might break up the 'pabulum' - hah! - for now. Lunch break. But there's more! Be careful what you wish for!"
More of that'd be good Pupkin, less of the sniping please. Makes for a much more interesting read for those of us who prefer reading and weighing up opposing opinions than shit-slinging matches, gives another perspective to think about. Also gives you a little credibility and leads to a better discussion all 'round.
Oh, and "Don't believe anything blow in says on here about other people's opinions. Simple rule but effective." - I don't take any of that at face value, as per your own ad hominems. I do try to weigh each opinion on its apparent merits.
Too bad that you’ve been a loud shill for the open borders / mass immigration which IS neoliberalism.
And every call to slow the flood of cheap foreign labour which is driving up house prices ( ie debt slavery ) and driving down wages / hard won working conditions wasn’t even debated by Facto.
It was declared racist and any attempt to discuss this was framed by him as burning a cross . Even to this day , even though the facts supporting this are universally accepted, he will still obey the Fake Left doctrine of playing Useful Idiot for the neoliberalists and argue ( futilely ).
PS Notice he had to go back 12 months to find a single example of a post which wasn’t juvenile name calling ?
Still no accounting of the link to an author who stated the exact same approach as I suggested ?
"Makes for a much more interesting read for those of us who prefer reading..."
It's all been scattered there for years, Pops.
Unfortunately there are those that don't prefer reading...anything. Especially posts, links, books.
They end up mainly getting the responses they deserve.
The sheer density of name-calling inanity does make it easy to simply scroll past most of your posts without pressing them for too much information, though. What's the goal of it?
"Too bad that you’ve been a loud shill for the open borders / mass immigration which IS neoliberalism."
And yet more, shall we say, STRAWMAN BULLSHIT.
The same old rubbish year in, year out, 24 friggin' 7.
You want a link from this year? or 4 years ago? Round and round and round we go.
A post on here from the 28th April 2016:
"It is high time that Australia has an election based on class, because for the last forty years worldwide the neoliberal project has been shifting wealth from below to above, disenfranchising middle and working class people alike, and virtually winning the class war for the unnaturally wealthy.
Turnbull & Co want to create a little plutocratic fiefdom at the end of the world (ringed by submarines and numerous on water naval vessels) while Labor would like to see Australia’s egalitarian, multicultural nature preserved and expanded.
From Tony Abbott (with a scowling face), Malcolm Turnbull (with a smiling face) took over the Coalition government’s assault on the institutions of society that have mitigated against unfairness and economic inequality - like public health, public education, including needs based education, fair compensation and conditions in the workplace, and the social safety net, including disability support.
On Insiders a couple of weeks ago, Mark Reilly dubbed the next poll a fight between the “top hats” and the “hard hats”. (Turnbull immediately started running around in high viz and a hard hat.)
Bill Shorten’s call for a Royal Commission into banks will answer the question of whether heads in top hats will roll or not – if the ALP get up, that is.
Ian Narev , CEO of the CBA, has come out blaming the victims of the banking scandals – calling them “unreasonable” - in a shocking pronouncement attempting to direct attention away from the calls for a Royal Commission that clearly demonstrates the toxic culture that a RC would target, and seek to reform.
The Prime Minister has resorted to the old “politics of envy” trope to attack Labor’s election policy to halve the tax break on capitol gains, even as Shorten fired back that it’s not about envy , but fairness (since the well-off to pay less tax than the less-well-off) saying teachers and nurses can’t reduce the tax they pay from their salaries like that.
(It’s also about removing the double whammy of negative gearing and capitol gains from real estate speculators to make housing more affordable.)
At the foundation, the difference between the government and the opposition is whether the national interest is paramount or the special interests. Labor’s newly named “people first” strategy has been framed specifically to target this difference.
No matter how many policies the government steals – perhaps on super and tobacco, for example - it still won't put the interests of people who need public services ahead of corporations that are focused on profit, and avoiding their responsibility to pay fair tax on them.
It has become increasingly clear to an ever enlarging portion of the electorate that were wealthy individuals and multi-national corporations to be taxed commensurately with everyone else that there would likely be adequate revenue to avoid cuts, austerity, and budget “savings”, so that basic public services could be maintained, or even increased – without a lot of ersatz drama from a fast-talking Treasurer.
After thirty years of governments of both stripes advocating the neoliberal model of political economy, Labor now appears to have turned the corner in an attempt to get the settings right on capitalism. In truth, even when Labor was introducing free market reforms they still had a foundation of social justice behind their policy in the Accord when the social safety net was strengthened to compensate for wage restraint.
That tradition continues with the Gonski reforms and the NDIS, both of which the Coalition government appears to want to weaken or abandon.
The values-based policy and fairness test that Labor is planning to apply if elected is exactly what the economy needs, and what society needs, as well, to recover from the decades of free market based economic policy that has moved Australia in the direction of becoming a market society - where everything is for sale including the politicians, and the people are increasingly left to fend for themselves in a Darwinian free for all.
Labor will likely become known in future as the best economic managers because they put human beings back into the equation instead of turning them into another commodity like the the failing neoliberal model prescribes.
This election is about fairness. It’s about what sort of country its people want Australia to become.
In an attempt to deceive the public like Nixon did, Turnbull can make Checkers speeches till the cows come home, but his inability to identify with the concerns of everyday Australians nonetheless becomes more obvious by the day - at least to those who are paying attention.
You know, one of the things that outed the real Nixon was that he loved to hang out with criminals."
Someone must have swapped your decaf for a ristretto that day Facto.
No. I did read it and I agree. I just wonder what happened to the guy who wrote it . It seems he strayed from the ideology behind what he believed in order to maintain loyalty to a political party which was moving down a seperate path.
The ALP “ expansion of multiculturalism “ is a polite spin on the mass importation of humans required by neoliberalism. They can try to convince the voting public that they were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts , but the fact remains that the neoliberal end result of debt slavery through mortgage level elevation and the ever downward pressure on wages / work conditions is the same .
And they never once put it to the electorate whether that’s what the people wanted.
The ALP were in a lockstep with the LNP in the Big Australia neo liberalism strategy. They still are. They have a “ compact “ which is a pretty way to say that they colluded with the LNP to never jeopardise the neoliberal future by allowing immigration levels to become an election issue . A bit of fiddling at the margins on other policies of little consequence as an attempt to create a point of difference between the colluding parties doesn’t alter the final outcome greatly.
And that’s why I say you support neoliberalism.....because you do. You just don’t realise it because you’ve swallowed the ALP party loyalty hook so deeply that you no longer seem to even be able to cast a critical eye over just what they stand for anymore.
That’s why I assume you work for / adjacent to the ALP ....because it’s usually money which causes a blind spot that large in a person’s oversight of their beliefs.
Cobber, to be respectful, just a bit, why would I or anyone with decades of interest and engagement and involvement in politics (small p as well as big P) take their cues about what, say, neoliberalism or globalisation entails from someone that didn't know about either 5 years ago, and knows less than Pauline Hanson now!
And actually voted for her!
It'd be akin to listening to someone who rhapsodises incessantly about Bali, and that reckons Outside Corner is shit, and then admits they haven't even surfed it!
Tell me, please, that you read the above previously?
Or rather, not...because if you had, then you're a bigger bald-faced liar than I thought.
Want some more merry-go-round? A continuance of the first piece above?
"I guess the crux of the believability that Labor will follow through with this is if you believe that Labor is "beholden to the (dun dun daaaaa!) unions" or they're not.
Speaking of which, where does that 'beholden' narrative originate, and why does it get 'traction'?"
Another one of the ties that bind the UK, the USA, and us is Rupert Murdoch.
The insiduousness of his giant reach is overwhelming. Where do the enlightened types on here (hah!), the ABC breakfast team, political staffers, people like the woman in Tassie who called Bill Shorten a prick then apologised because she thought he was Scott Morrison, me repeating this Tassie 'story', yes, where do all us VOTERS get our 'news' from? Either directly, indirectly, it doesn't matter. The cold dead (if only! C'mon Jerry, you too can do your bit for humanity!) hand of Rupert touches everything!
Even by critically deconstructing his purposeful mis-perceptions and ideological 'common knowledge' (like I am right now!) is to acknowledge his powers of persuasion.
But don't hate the media, become the media! Deconstruct away! Look for the fissures and cracks in corporate media 'news' of all stripes and shine a light on them and up them!
Interrogate, don't regurgitate.
I think Jello Biafra said that. Or should've.
He definitely came up with the 'become the media' thing.
There's always room for Jello!"
"Juice the economy with people because it's the only game left in town, to the detriment of the environment and wages, living standards of people already here."
An age ago, I tried to tease something out of the great 'immigration-of-all-stripes-is-the-root-of-all-evil' proselytiser [blow in], or rather I slyly directed him towards a more nuanced direction. Nothing. Well, he did mistakenly produce a link to an academic study via his new (only?) go-to Leith Van O's MacroBUSINESS. They had done their now infamous cherry picking stunt of pasting a paragraph or two from a couple of chapters in a 20 chapter, 5 part, 328 page book. It was called The Wages Crisis in Australia: What it is and what to do about it. You may remember it? Or not...whatever.
Actually, speaking of MacroBUSINESS, a trip down memory lane on here...WEDNESDAY, 10 OCT 2018...
strap yourself in.
"Hang on, your Macro Business stuff? Of course!
But wait, we may be able to tie some observations/obsessions together here. Join-the-dots. Maybe.
Let's go back to what Shorten proposed.
A bi-partisan taskforce that would look at temporary work visas, infrastructure development, service delivery such as health and education and settlement policy.
That's a lot to unpack. If you just look at TWVs, there's a lot to unpack. Historically. Were they ever needed? What regulations around them were relaxed or just plain 'de-regulated'? Who by? For whose benefit?
Another interesting angle that always gets a run. The international education and training sector. Actually, let's just focus on the university sector. Again, who pushed for full-fee paying international student participation, whilst de-funding the sector? Again, what regulatory frameworks were relaxed or abandoned? Who benefits?
And that's not opening the bigger can of VET worms! Who fucked TAFE again? Whilst allowing dodgy private providers in, out, and about?
De-regulation as an end in itself isn't healthy. The much-fought against banking RC shows us that in stark terms.
I don't know about spittle-flecked abuse, but "creating a bi-partisan population taskforce that would outline recommendations both parties could accept, and that would look at temporary work visas, infrastructure development, service delivery such as health and education and settlement policy" seems reasonable to me.
As Shorten wrote in the letter to the PM, "population policy runs the risk of being politicised by those seeking to divide Australia, and (who) see political opportunity in polarising opinion in the community”.
"But my friends we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come."
(Refos, nah, immigrants, well, nup, un-regulated and exploited backpackers, dodgy and exploited TWVs, dodgy and exploited OS students, dodgy OS private training providers, dodgy OS labour hire, yeah?! And all whilst bashing TAFE, unions, unis, and 'un-Australians'!!)
Yes, brothers and sisters, all roads lead back to the 'Big Un-Australian'!
John Winston Howard.
And to know thine enemy is to defeat them."
are you affiliated with a political party in any way ? Have you ever been ?
Hahaha. Why do I feel like I'm in front of the ol' HUAC anti-communist hearings, and you're Senator Joseph McCarthy?
I was a member of Class War once. Does that count?
My union is also non-affiliated. You may have to look that up. Actually, it may be a good educative exercise.
Also, while you're 'researching', look up co-determination in Germany, say. It's a policy idea that the Labor party here have been vehemently criticised for. Though not for being "hardcore neolib"?!
I've just come to the realisation, blow in, that you don't know what 'realpolitik' is or what it means, do you?
And have never bothered to look it up.
Same modus operandi for everything on here you don't know, hey?
Not sure how you can spray 2000 words and still manage to dodge saying anything concrete, but you just did.
A central and necessary tenet of neoliberalism is the mass importation of humans into a country to push wages down and fixed asset prices up.
ALP and LNP and yourself are all steadfastly committed to this ideology.
That’s all that needs to be said.
I've come to the realisation that you don't even know what it is that you do not know
For sure. He’s not playing with a full deck.
Now I feel bad for giving it to a special needs case.
It's genuinely bad that you two are now genuinely tied at the waist.
Sypkan. You're now a real joke.
"A central and necessary tenet of neoliberalism is the mass importation of humans into a country to push wages down and fixed asset prices up."
I don't think they're doing it to push wages down and fixed asset prices up. I think they're doing it because we have an ageing population that expects to be looked after by the government (healthcare, aged care, pension) so the government needs to keep growing the population in order to grow the economy and tax base. Growing the population is the path of least resistance for the government.
"ALP and LNP and yourself are all steadfastly committed to this ideology."
One third half right, yet more bullshit, blow in.
You're an inveterate bullshitter, a closet bigot, and a frigging willfully ignorant idiot.
Prove me wrong, or rather right.
Sypkahn can help if you like.