Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Leftism » Anti- Semitism » About time! or No more lunch time legends

About time! or No more lunch time legends

Click for source

Sadly the collected unwashed who have just been evicted from this rather stupid and  pointless protest won’t face anything more severe than the equivalent to a slap on the wrist, to the Latte sipping Loonies though these protesters are undoubtedly some sort of heroes but we more sensible souls just know that really they are like pimples on the bum of society. annoying but easily fixed with the application of some focused pressure.
Cheers Comrades

what to do with social pustules

Advertisements

23 Comments

  1. GD says:

    Talk about biting the hand that feeds them. If these wet behind the ears adolescents realised that the only reason they can protest is because they live in a capitalist society, while living off the largesse of its generous welfare system, perhaps they’d think again.

    Perhaps it’s time to re-introduce conscription. Or work for the dole, or simply do a day’s work for a day’s pay.

  2. Craigy says:

    Love how you wingnuts scream about ‘freedom of speech’ but when a few young protesters try and do just that you resort to your support for violence from state forces as your preferred method in dealing with these young ones. I guess you see this as a threat to your capitalist Eden that exists only in your mind.

    The UK and most of the western world is melting down, the market driven, pure capitalism that has been dominant for some decades has failed a generation or two already. The widening gaps in people’s wealth and income are creating conflict.

    Then we have the situation where even the most rightwing supporters of the neo-con dream are supporting the socialisation of the losses of many large corporations, to save the system from total failure.

    Those of you on the right are going to have to learn to live with a much more regulated economy and slower (or zero) growth from now on, if we are going to keep conflict and poverty at bay into the future. We will all have to live with less, this is not in dispute.

    The political right, pure capitalism and neo-con foreign policy have failed to provide stable economies or deal with the concentration of wealth that is creating understandable unrest.

    The only answer from those on the right, is to support violence. Meanwhile, you project your love of putting down the small voices of descent by accusing the left, including the Greens, of having a totalitarian heart.

    Exposed are the true views of a conservative in Iain’s post. Violence and oppression are the tools of the far right, that they are being embraced by many fools in this country is a sad thing.

    BTW, if these people are young fools, what do you call the people at Alan Jones protest in Canberra, as they were old enough to know better surely?

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    We will all have to live with less

    Maybe the answer is for the likes of you and me to sell up what assets we have and donate the proceeds to the underclasses, Craigy? How about we hand over our jobs or businesses too? I don’t agree that we have to “live with less” but that’d be one way of achieving your objective pretty quickly.

    As for your protestations about the protestors, fast forward 5, 10 or 15 years and you’ll probably find the vast majority of them (the vast majority of whom appear to be students) will be in high paid jobs, playing the stock market and driving new expensive cars.

    It’s all part of the growing up cycle, Craigy.

    That said, I agree there’s a growing gap between the haves and the have nots. I just disagree that protesting about it like this is going to do anything to solve it. It can only be solved by (1) education) (2) economic growth (to provide more jobs & opportunity). Oops, that second one kind of goes against the grain with you.

  4. Craigy says:

    “Maybe the answer is for the likes of you and me to sell up what assets we have and donate the proceeds to the underclass’s, Craigy? “

    No Ray, that’s silly. Compared to the wealthy in this country, we are the underclass. Remember, Australia is soon to have the richest person in the world, and she is running a media buy up campaign to push her view that she should keep it all, even though she didn’t set up the business, she inherited it, and the resources that have made her so rich are supposed to belong to everyone.

    It is this kind of power, and the desire of those at the top to use it, that is driving movements like the occupy mob. They have a point, it is not a waste of time to be pointing this out.

    I am not suggesting the mining tax (or any new tax) should just provide welfare, although more money is needed for mental health and education just to name a couple. This kind of money can be used to stimulate other areas of the economy that need investment. Like the long term investment needed in R&D into sustainable energy and food production in Australia.

    As for growth, I agree that in the short term this is the best way for developing countries to pull people out of poverty, but it can’t go on forever.

    In this country, power costs are climbing, as is the cost of food, with demand in developing countries already outstripping supply. It is possible that the demand overseas will see all of our quality produce going there at prices we can’t afford.

    China and India are already buying up large areas of our good land, this means we will not get much return (or Tax) from these businesses to support those that live here (under the current rules). We are particularly vulnerable to the increasing price of fuel. Many people, me included, are reducing the amount of car travel we do. We are doing it without much protest, so we are living with less already and it won’t be getting better any time soon. That said, we are still very rich compared to the rest of the world.

    As I have said, we are very lucky at the moment, in the USA, UK and Europe though, it is a different story and our commodity based economy is not bullet proof yet. One reason is that resources are not guaranteed to last forever and there is no way we can be sure we will get the high prices we are getting now into the future. We should be planning for these changes and we seem to be ignoring it like the party will go forever. It won’t and it can’t.

  5. Craigy says:

    BTW Ray, do you support the use of force against these harmless protesters like Iain does?

  6. Ray Dixon says:

    Compared to the wealthy in this country, we are the underclass

    I don’t agree. I don’t regard myself as being underprivileged compared to the likes of Gina Rinehart, Craigy. I just regard her as being greedy and lucky. Not so lucky in the family relations stakes though, it seems. You could strip her of all her wealth, power and so-called influence and nothing would change in our society. And the occupy protesters would simply find something else to protest about. There’s always a cause, no matter how undefined.

    As for those ‘sky is falling’ issues you mention about our rising electricity costs, food etc, the answer once again is growth. And that also means growing our poulation substantially – to create the workforce to increase our productivity and to create more employment opportunity. Yes, we are sustained by the resources boom and it can’t go on forever. All the more reason to populate in preparation for that when it ends.

  7. Ray Dixon says:

    do you support the use of force against these harmless protesters like Iain does?

    If they are ordered to leave (under the law) and they refuse, resist and react to being forcibly removed then, yes … give ’em a clip around the ears and a kick up the arse. Violence? No, I don’t support “violence”. I support reasonable force.

  8. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy

    BTW Ray, do you support the use of force against these harmless protesters like Iain does?

    I support the minimum force necessary to carry out the orders of the courts that these people have their encampment removed by the Bailiffs, nothing more they have made their simplistic point and their protest is so far its use-by date that it stinks.

    That said I also think that you are right to say that the Australian and for that matter the Global economy can not go on eternally growing at an exponential rate and we will have to seek to make ours a “steady state” economy rather than a Growth based economy eventually so its probably a good idea to think about it now rather than later.

  9. Ray Dixon says:

    the austral;ian and for that matter the Global economy can not go on eternally growing at an expotential rate and we will have to seek to make ours a “steady state” economy rather than a Growth based economy

    Iain, Australia (and the world) is not growing “exponentially” economically or (in Australia’s case) by population. What is this “steady state” economy you talk of? Steady at what rate of growth? Zero % perhaps? Or minus? If 3 or 4% growth (which is what we’ve had – tops) is too high for you, where do you think the jobs will come from if we don’t have reasonable growth? How will we support the 50% who don’t work if we don’t grow? And how can we expand our farming & manufacturing (not to mention car and building) industries if we don’t increase our population? I’ll await the details of yours and Craigy’s economic models for Oz. Should be interesting.

  10. Craigy says:

    I don’t know about you Ray, but my ‘wealth’ is not looking that good right now. Super is down (and my fund will only pay a % of my benefit after the losses in the great ‘free market’ over the past few years.) The value of my land is down, job security is not what it was and we have the chance of workchoices again in a year or so. In the meantime some people could buy this country on the money they are making due to nothing more than Dad doing a smart land deal years ago.

    I agree we need some extra population Ray, I have heard your arguments for growth in the rural areas and I agree with your views.

    Where I disagree is that we can grow endlessly, and that we should continue to shrink the way we live in the city to cram more in. This is one policy I disagree with some Greens over.

    I don’t agree with ‘reasonable force’ against non violent protesters and what I see in the pictures in Iain’s post looks like violence to me.

    I don’t support any authority using force against people unless public safety is the issue. This is an economic protest, which has a good reason for being. Violence in support of one person’s wealth against those who have not been so lucky is appalling.

    With regard to lucky old Gina, should I be able to raise an army and take her wealth off her? No.

    Can I buy a newspaper or a TV station, sit on the board and dictate the type of journalism that supports my political and economic view – that I should pay the least tax and be able to keep more of the profit?…..No.

    Can I go on the street and peacefully protest about the greed of these people? No it seems….Or the state will come and violently move me on, so as not to discomfit the wealthy….

    Why can she do all this with money made from resources that we all own?

    It stinks, it’s wrong and while I don’t agree with all the occupy stuff, I support their right to do so and wish they were still in Melbourne. Despite all the frothing from the mouth from the establishment, they did a great job of raising the issues and getting us all talking, like we are now.

  11. Craigy says:

    Ray, if you base your business model on endless growth in population, as the only way to grow your business, then your not very good at it.

    In many countries the population can not grow any more, think Indonesia. What happens when they all become be middle class? Who will do the low paid jobs……Import Australian’s?

    Iain is right we (the world) need to find a way to feed everyone without endless growth, which as I’ve said, is impossible in some countries.

    What’s your model for Asia, double the population?

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    Where I disagree is that we can grow endlessly, and that we should continue to shrink the way we live in the city to cram more in

    I think Australia can grow “endlessly” for the forseeable future, Craigy. We have a long way to go before we start putting up the “we’re full” signs. But I don’t advocate for that growth to be focused on the 3 main capitals, Sydney, Melbourne & Brisbane. The growth there has been ridiculous and impossible to keep up with in terms of services, infrastructure, transport and housing affordability. As you’ve said, I’m a strong advocate for regional growth, but I go further than that and say that’s the only way we can sustain our growth – by introducing huge incentive programs for people to up stumps from the cities and relocate to the country towns/cities & surrounds. After all, that’s where the food is grown!

    As for Gina, why would you feel the need to take her wealth away? Protesting about her wealth, power and so-called influence won’t achieve a thing. Hang on, I’ve already said that and you haven’t explained why (or how) you think it would.

  13. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy

    I don’t know about you Ray, but my ‘wealth’ is not looking that good right now. Super is down (and my fund will only pay a % of my benefit after the losses in the great ‘free market’ over the past few years.) The value of my land is down, job security is not what it was and we have the chance of workchoices again in a year or so. In the meantime some people could buy this country on the money they are making due to nothing more than Dad doing a smart land deal years ago.

    I’m actaully surprised that you don’t realise that the whole premise about Superannuation is fundamentally flawed because it id entirely predicated upon the idea that the stock-market will eternally rise to provide an income for the. Ah hem, cough, “investment”.
    Frankly the value of your land is entirely irreverent because its probably something that you don’t want to sell and if you did sell it to buy anther place then its probably close to a zero sum game no matter what the economy is like anyway.
    As for “job security” try running a business or being self employed and then you might realise just how good you would be having it even under some form of Workchoices (that I don’t endorse BTW) The only certainty that all of us can be sure of is that everything is largely uncertain and we all have to work with what life gives us.

    Finally true wealth is not ever measured in money.

  14. Ray Dixon says:

    Btw, Craigy, just to clarify: My question of how is “protesting” about Gina’s wealth going to change anything is not about the occupy protesters (we’ve done them). I meant how is taking her wealth etc away going to change anything? Unless of course, you’re talking communism. That’d do it.

  15. Ray Dixon says:

    true wealth is not ever measured in money

    Yes Iain, but we are talking about the economy, aren’t we? If money doesn’t matter what’s the point of topic?

  16. Iain Hall says:

    Obviously I am suggesting that when economists drone on about the way our society works that they are being too blinkered when they think that we have to only focus on money to measure the success of a society.

  17. Ray Dixon says:

    They’re not suggesting that we only have to focus on money, Iain. They’re suggesting that if we don’t focus on it then everyone will be miserable. No “success” in a society that is over-run with poverty & starvation, Iain, no matter how happy and smiley we might try to be.

  18. Craigy says:

    “As for Gina, why would you feel the need to take her wealth away? Protesting about her wealth, power and so-called influence won’t achieve a thing.”

    I didn’t say I wanted to take all her money Ray I’m sure a Billion or two would be enough for her. But the ‘Mining Tax’ is totally fair and doesn’t go far enough.

    The other problem is that any argument for redistribution of wealth gets shouted down, because she has the power to buy the media. I have the power to protest, but the state supports her over me because she has wealth. Get it. That’s why I support the protests and am appalled at the violence against peaceful people. (And before someone mentions S11, I don’t agree with any violence from any side).

    We have upper limits on population growth Ray, but agree that we can take more for sometime to come. Movement from city to country is a great thing, but we don’t want country areas to become as crazy as the city.

    Iain,

    I am not in super by choice and at Uni I don’t have the option to move it unless I leave my job.

    I agree with you about super on all other counts…

    With regard to my land, your right that I don’t want to sell while I am fit and healthy but at some stage later in life I my need to move on and downsize and I will need whatever I can make out of it to top up my super fund payout or pension.

    I ran my own business for 15 years Iain and moved to full time employment due to people not paying their bills on time or at all. I needed the security. I am now too old to re-train and start a new career, so workchoices would not benefit me or many others (most full time workers). Workchoices was only a choice for the employer, they set the deals, and workers could take it or leave it….Bullshit in my book.

  19. Craigy says:

    “No “success” in a society that is over-run with poverty & starvation, Iain, no matter how happy and smiley we might try to be.

    And no amount of money can make you happy Ray, more money doesn’t mean a better life. Enough money to live and you have a chance at happiness. I would like everyone to have that chance.

  20. Ray Dixon says:

    I agree with the mining tax too, Craigy, but I don’t agree with your anti-rich stance. The protesters didn’t bring about the mining tax – that was already on the way. As was the carbon tax, another redistribution of wealth. So what exactly are they asking for? And how exactly do they (and you) see the gap being reduced any more than what the government is already doing? Do you seriously believe they don’t already rake enough money in via taxes and other means? Of course they do. The government is no different to the likes of Gina – they want all the money and the power that goes with it. Don’t think it’s all altruistic either, because most of the revenue goes into expanding the empire. I reckon we pay enough taxes. And I don’t think the low paid are subsidising the higher paid. It’s clearly the other way around, Craigy.

    Btw, the population of Albury-Wodonga is only about 95,000. “”Crazy” would be if it went to several million in a decade or so. That’s not likely to happen, even if there were major incentives offered, so there’s no fear of over populating the country areas for a long time yet.

    And no amount of money can make you happy Ray, more money doesn’t mean a better life. Enough money to live and you have a chance at happiness. I would like everyone to have that chance.

    You just contradicted yourself, Craigy. “Enough money” is an “amount of money”. Anyway, putting semantics aside, we have gone full circle. My argument from the outset here is that for people to get enough money we need to keep building the economy. Just cutting down and protesting against the rich won’t achieve that.

  21. craigy says:

    No amount of money can make you happy ray but having enough to live gives you a chance at finding it. No contradiction there ray. Read it again. Maybe I should have said it a bit more betterer the first time. I will explain the rest when I’m not on the train.

  22. Ray Dixon says:

    Craigy, I missed these comments of yours yesterday:

    if you base your business model on endless growth in population, as the only way to grow your business, then your not very good at it.

    I don’t base my personal business model on that but obviously a growing population helps all businesses. It may not directly help mine (new immigrants don’t usually hop in the car and head for a holiday in Bright, not straight away at least) but it certainly gives a boost to other sectors, particularly building & retail.

    we (the world) need to find a way to feed everyone without endless growth, which as I’ve said, is impossible in some countries. What’s your model for Asia, double the population?

    It’s a conundruum, I agree and we are partly to blame for the explosion in world population over the past century. It’s happened mainly because of advances in health & medicine reaching third world countries. What should we do, stop giving aid? I don’t think so. I have read that the world population will peak at about 9 billion (presently it’s 7 billion) and thereafter decline as the countries producing that growth (mainly China, India & Africa) reach such a developed and westernised state that their birth rates decline to more moderate western levels. Like what has happened in Japan where their birth rate is now well below their death rate. I don’t have an economic model for Asia, that’s their role. And I think they’ve got a handle on it.

    I don’t want to sell while I am fit and healthy but at some stage later in life I my need to move on and downsize and I will need whatever I can make out of it to top up my super fund payout or pension

    Aah yes, that is what I believe a lot of babyboomers will do over this decade, Craigy – sell up and buy a cheaper home in the regional areas. It’s got to happen – for their sake and for the sake of the wider economy.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: