Grr-owl
-
Posts
808 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Grr-owl
-
-
18 hours ago, A F said:
A UBI would continue neoliberalism by ensuring the government doesn't need to create jobs and locks people into a self reliance on Government. But most importantly, a UBI would be wildly inflationary and provide no price stability. The numbers make no sense.
The JG is meant to be 4.5-5% of the working population (the NAIRU equivalent of "full emoloyment"), not 100%. If everyone gets it, not only do the numbers not make sense, you'd have to find a way of having a counter cyclical tax. But there's absolutely no price stability with it.
There's a reason corporate America loves the UBI. It means they don't have to pay decent wages, but the economy has more money in its pockets to buy their products.
I know Bill doesn't agree with this, but I think the JG paired with a small basic income (for the 1% that slip through the cracks) is the best solution.
I'm with you.
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, dieter said:
In the end, we have many, many things to learn from China.
Name some.
1 hour ago, dieter said:For example, to make Australia economically and culturally viable entailed a total suppression of the true history of our Native Inhabitants. It also entailed massive attempts at genocide and Stolen Generation methods to ethnically cleanse them from our consciousness.
You can criticize a litany of mistakes of western civilization, but none of them means that other civilisations should not also be criticized for their mistakes.
1 hour ago, dieter said:a country in which clowns and brain dead liars and Trump imitators think they can fool most of the people most of the time by sloganising lies and propaganda.
Yeah, except he got voted out, proving that he had a minority fooled, not most. And he had a minority to begin with. The fact that he could be voted out is heartening given the behaviour of some who can't: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55355401 , https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55463241
-
57 minutes ago, dieter said:
Is there also, I wonder, beneath your assessment of the inherent massive difficulties in making a place like China a viable and livable place a sense of Two Wongs don't make a White?
I'm married to a Wong, mate, and have Wongy kids, so shove that lazy thinking where it fits.
-
3
-
-
Okay, finished the book, and in short I agree. I previously read An Economy Is Not A Society by Dennis Glover and was moved, and together I think these two texts provide a reason and a method to reinvigorate the sense of social responsibility that is so lacking in the business community of the neoliberal era.
I don't mean to be facetious here, but I'm just old enough to have encountered tea ladies and company picnics, and I always wondered why it was that down-sizing and casualisation of the workforce went hand in hand with record profits. Where did all that profit go? Shouldn't it have meant there were more tea ladies and company picnics rather than less? Neo-liberalism simply removes money from the bottom and allocates it to the top.
So, yes, I agree, though with a couple of caveats:
1. Nationalisation of the financial sector, banks in particular, needs to be done very carefully. I'd want to see them remain nimble in some way, perhaps responsive is a better way to put it, or significantly open to initiative in some areas. I'd want them to remain in some way able to swing with international trends, but with a core that remains steadfastly devoted to society. I'd also want very strict rules to prevent nepotism and favoritism at all levels, so that there is an way for talent and energy to receive rewards.
2. I like the JG, but I'd want to see UBI go hand in hand with it, the reason being that there would always be those who refused to do a job well, who refused to cooperate with JG admin. There needs to be somewhere for those people to go, so UBI is for them. They would receive less than JG, but they would still get what they need to play a part in society, with the door open should they change their tune. I fear a great rash of jobs badly done and rorting of the system. There needs to be some accountability at all levels.
What's missing, I think, is the stimulus for the change. Neo-liberalism has to collapse before the opportunity will come to rebuild the economy with a more responsible edge. And with that, many neo-liberals will have to come to see the error of their ways. I think that means an awful lot of very rich Aussies will have to go broke first and not be able to afford private education for their kiddies. Then everyone will be screaming for govt investment in education.
I think this is needed across the board: Compelling reasons to change course.
For instance, loss of China iron ore business + climate change may compel Aus to adopt the clean-steel/hydrogen idea as outlined in a previous post. Should such a major realignment in the national interest be left to private corporations to organize for themselves and their shareholders? Would that be possible? I don't think so. There is a natural coordination and admin role for nimble and responsible govt there and the interest of Aus society at large should be the no.1 priority in such an endeavour.
Another reason may be CCP encroachment on Australian society, as I have outlined in previous posts, especially in academia and politics. I come across a little paranoid, but my reading has revealed that a little paranoia is probably prudent. I have lived in a Chinese society, and while that was not ruled by the CCP, my long term experience - long enough to clear my glasses of rose color - taught me that there is no aspect of Confucian society which, if adopted by the West, would improve people's lives.
Thanks for putting me onto the book.
What do you think of Biden's chances getting through ideas on jobs, money, climate change and renewables?: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53575474
-
By the way, the CCP took over all of China, which in their definition includes the homelands of the only colonial powers to rule China - Mongolia (Yuan) and Manchuria (Ching or Jin) - and additionally claiming all other territories belonging to those empires. Those include Inner Mongolia, Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang.
Quite a neat trick. It’s as if France had invaded the UK in 1650 or so, then 350 years later, an army of highland Scots rose up against them, beat off the English and an outsider, say Germany, then claimed the right to rule not only all of the UK but France too and all its territories.
They also invaded Vietnam in 1979.
Anyway you look at it, an awful lot of bombing and invasions. If you are interested, try Great State: China and the World by Timothy Brook.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, dieter said:
Am I wrong in questioning whether it's better for us if one brand of 'neo-liberalism' wins?
In other words, I read and hear that anything China does is 'Communist' and therefore bad, yet it's doing precisely what the US has been doing since the false flag war with Cuba etc. With one major difference - it has not dropped one bomb, or invaded anybody.
Ideology always confuses me. The Catholics in my upbringing - an upbringing I have totally refuted - were totally against anything to do with the 'C' word, yet they had no problem with US or British or South African atrocities, ever.
I detect remnants of ideological blind spots in many of these quotes, as much as I detect adherence to various economic ideologies.
Please enlighten moi.
Not wrong, but I’m not sure why you’re asking the question. If you want to understand a little about the CCP, read Jung Chang’s books. Note that they are in English and published in the West. You won’t find anything with credibility published in China.
Many tens of millions of innocents murdered, so stop with the ‘the West is so evil’ stuff. It’s not a defence. Here’s a good analogy of the way you are looking at it:
Judge: Mr Xi, you stand before the court today accused of murder. What do you plead?
Mr Xi: A westerner once murdered somebody.
Judge: Mr Xi, the court only accepts a plea of guilty or not guilty.
Mr Xi: A westerner once murdered somebody.
Judge: Mr Xi, this trial is about your behaviour, not someone else’s.
D, it’s not the race or nationality or ethnicity or identity that matters, it’s the behaviour. Murder, killing, torture, suppression of dissent... you fill in the list for me.... it’s bad. The identity of the people doing it is not relevant.
My posts are trying to make a point that neo-liberalism has empowered the CCP, but now that the CCP threaten Australia’s sovereignty, the reclamation of that requires state intervention in the form of administration of and investment in education and infrastructure, similar to that we used to know in eras before corporations took it upon themselves.
If we want to remain free and democratic, we gotta reclaim the state so it serves the national interest, not the interest of an elite section of the population. The elitism of neo-liberalism plays into the CCP’s hands. So I think that the necessity to steer away from economic dependency on China that COVID has brought into stark relief marks the beginning of the end of neo-liberalism.
It’s got a way to go yet, but I can’t see a way for the democracies to retain sovereignty without the passing of neo-liberalism.
I realise my ideas are not quite sorted out. I guess what I am trying to do is sort them out here. I’ll get there. If you were to watch the links I posted, I think you’ll get what I mean. Yes, they concentrate on the relationship of the CCP to Australia, but you’ll find many markers of neo-liberalism referred to in the conversations.
-
1
-
-
Actually , that’s the wrong clip.... .. the clip I am looking for is in the long version beginning around 40m actually the whole long version is very much relevant to our conversation here. It seems to me that there is no end to neo-liberalism without a turn away from the CCP toward a state-led business culture of the kind Mitchell is on about.
-
Along the same lines, this clip sums up how neo-liberalism’s promotion of an elite plays into the CCP’s hands....:
-
AF, would love to know your thoughts on John Lee’s assessment of the Chinese economy and what that means re pivoting away from China, iron ore/clean steel opportunities, renewable energy, trade barriers etc... and the end of neo-liberalism, if you have the time ?:
I sense a great confluence of ideas happening in this space...
-
I’m not quite as down on the poppies as Dieter. They are, after all, ordinary humans like the rest of us, and they reflect and respond to movements of ideas within society at large. They have to do so, otherwise it wouldn’t be a representative democracy.
And we should remember that long before they become candidates on a ballot they are chosen to be a candidate by their party branches, so anybody who wants to represent an electorate has to first represent the people in the party branches, who are also ordinary humans with interests and ideas and things to care about like the rest of us. It’s best to think of candidates as the top block on a pyramid, like the head of a faction, a group, a bunch of people who are the supporting blocks.
The fact that Australian polices have been so useless in climate policy I think reflects the fact that most Aussies actually just want more money anyway they can get it so they can pay their absurd mortgages and get their children a decent education. I am yet to meet a businessman who cared about what they sold or where it came from or how it was made; they just want to sell more of whatever it is they sell. Maybe that’s me being cynical, but that’s my experience.
Thing is, these dynamics within society actually work in the favour of climate change mitigation, because as soon as it makes economic sense to save the climate, it will be saved. Coal is already on the way out. Oil is too useful to go out entirely, but it’s role in climate problems is changing as I type. As soon as this is the case, the pollies will suddenly support it because that’s what their supporters will want; they will reflect that ideological change.
Shallow and fickle as that is, it’s probably not a good idea to expect pollies to ideologues. Then we end up with Hitlers. Better to just accept the bar on the conga line will always be set low, so only the slipperiest, most flexible can get through. Then they can join each other for punch, while the rest of us get on with actually making change.
Sooner or later the neo-liberal economy will go bust and its ideas will be shown up once and for all to be a great con. When that happens and everyone is broke, even those who benefitted most from neo-liberalism, maybe people will realise that you need to pay people well if you want them to spend, rather than forcing everyone to borrow at interest. I think Henry Ford worked this out way back in.... oh, 1910 or something. Basically, you want people in reliable employment. Once the population gets it, the pollies will follow. They’ll have to if they want a job themselves.
-
1
-
-
I twice wrote up detailed replies to Dieter’s post but both times mi**** a link and lost them. Bloody heartbroken.
In short, Toby Ord’s The Precipice is all about existential risks, including Climate Change. If the book is a bit daunting, check out his appearance on Sam Harris’s podcast.
Elizabeth Colbert’s The Sixth Extinction is about the present state of things. As D has read in the fires and floods, the news ain’t good.
-
2
-
-
I'm still reading, so I won't say much in relation to Mitchell and Fazi yet except, Yes. I know jack-s@#! about economics, so the technical stuff is a little confusing, but the ideas chime with mine. So good to find out I have been right all these years..... ; )
I think the worm is turning. Let me know what you think of this:
Globalization suits the neo-liberals in the pursuit of higher profits because it allow corporations to have things made in the place where labour and other costs are cheapest. And in the age of global products, iPhone for instance, which are manufactured by the billions, China is at a massive advantage because of its huge labour pool not only of workers but of engineers, and because it's Confucian systems of government over many millennia had impoverished everybody except a minuscule elite.
And so China has risen in the neo-liberal age. However, there has been cost in terms of sovereignty as the CCP has at a central mission to encroach on the sovereignty of its partners, as recent events highlight:
https://www.aspi.org.au/report/party-speaks-you
https://www.aspi.org.au/report/chinese-communist-partys-coercive-diplomacy
https://www.aspi.org.au/report/cyber-enabled-foreign-interference-elections-and-referendums
So Australia needs to push back against this by reclaiming its sovereignty. But how? Well, any government who wanted to change the status quo would need people to vote for it, and that mean the middle and lower class or wage earners to do that, so there would have to be jobs in it to gain such people's vote.
So the equation is: maintaining sovereignty equals shutting china out (at least somewhat, though profoundly) equals jobs for Australians.
Well, China will source its iron ore from West Africa sooner or later, so Aus will need new customers, so the hydrogen idea and manufacturing steel in alliance with strategic allies such as Japan, Germany and US makes sense:
-
Still reading. Making progress. In the meantime, I’d say there’s potential in this. Be interested in what you think. Seems to combine a few positives while eliminating some negs:
-
8 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:
Bill Hicks
You got me.
-
-
Who goes to the city anymore? Tourists?
-
3
-
2
-
-
Last time I thought the door was ajar, LSD was involved.
BOOM! BOOM!
-
3
-
-
9 hours ago, dieter said:
I don't believe I've ever argued that; I'm pointing out that Mr.Sols saw through the bulldust of the West pretty quickly. When he 'defected' he was under the illusion he had entered Utopia. He soon saw Utopia was mainly Hollywood bullsh..t. And, have a good look at the USA: Disneyland for the rich and white and privileged, in essence, a Lunatic Asylum run by gun-bearing lunatics.
A bit harsh, don’t you think?
-
2 hours ago, dieter said:
There are other takes on that. It involves the origin of Socialism, and, as Mister Solz. noted, the communists who took over Russia weren't mainly not actually the Rus.
In the meantime, there is only a schismatic difference between so-called Western Christianity and its Constantinople based 'rival.
Do you, for example, see the Greek Orthodoxians as 'Western'?
No. The culture is fundamentally not western. I reckon that case could be made creditably made in relation to most of Italy and Spain and Portugal, too, even though they are Catholic. One of the major reasons that Europe will fail, but I don’t want to go into that.
I’ll take the Souvlaki, though...
-
Neo liberalism has to go. See the thread about it. AF has interesting things to say....
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, dieter said:
I beg to differ that it doesn't mean their work is biased or wrong: they are the mouthpiece of the organisations which feed their brain cells, which pay their wage. Surely you're not naive enough to believe that any organisation partly funded by the US State Department and various bomb manufacturers is going to have independence????
And, in my life, I've learned that a little cynicism is necessary. I agree wholeheartedly about prejudice.
And, it's hard to judge things on their merits when you are constantly lied to.
Maybe it's a good idea to stop looking for things to believe?
-
32 minutes ago, dieter said:
It was Christian throughout the communist period. The impulses and idea that drove both are the same - uncritical acceptance of ideas. Dogma. The desire for a savior.... etc...
-
8 minutes ago, dieter said:
Yep, and look at the state of the world. Look at Trump and his attitude to 'Science'.
Education is the answer, and once the neo-liberals are gone, we might get some of that.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, dieter said:
It's not the West, mate. No Orthodox country is Western....
Neoliberalism: The Economy, Banking & Asset Markets
in General Discussion
Posted
Thing is, both of you express simplistic ideas. You fail to engage with the argument, and that is frustrating for those of us who post in good faith assuming that, in some way, you might be interested in learning something.