Throughout the last few years of the Howard government, anyone who criticised the government, or suggested that Howard was not the best person to be Prime Minister of Australia, could be sure of being labelled a “Howard hater”. A quick Google finds this trope being used regularly by Miranda Devine, Paul Sheehan and Gerard Henderson, and being taken up by their numerous blogospheric supporters.
This was always silly. Perhaps there were people motivated to oppose the government because of a personal animus against Howard rather than his actions and policies, but if so I never met any. Of course, people who disliked Howard’s policies tended to dislike Howard, and some people who hated Howard’s policies hated Howard as a result, but using a term like “Howard hater” to explain opposition to the government is like explaining the effects of opium by reference to its dormitive qualities.
The real motive underlying the use of “Howard hater” as a term of attack was the recognition that he and his government never commanded enthusiastic support from most Australians, merely a judgement that they were better than the alternatives on offer. Once this changed with Labor’s (long overdue) choice of Kevin Rudd as leader, the government was doomed.
Tonight’s Four Corners suggests that much the same was true of Howard’s colleagues. While only Costello and a couple of his closest supporters came across as Howard haters, most of the rest showed a notable lack of enthusiasm, and willingness in retrospect, to blame Howard for the government’s defeat. Tony Abbott’s undiminished loyalty just enhanced the contrast with the rest of the crew.
In terms of policy, the most startling revelation was Joe Hockey’s claim that members of the Cabinet voted for WorkChoices, including the abolition of the “no disadvantage” test, and were then shocked (or pretended to be) that people were disadvantaged. This news ought surely to sink resistance to Labor’s reforms, and may indeed have been intended to achieve this purpose.
John Quiggin 
Me: Except your argument was about US whites’ birth rate in particular which is lower than the US average.
Mugwump: A figure you have yet to quote. So much for truefact.
You made a completely unsupported assertion that the US white birth rate was dramatically higher than for people in other developed countries.
I used the gross birth rates to show that the “breeding liek rabbits” claim was horsesh*t.
But I’m at fault for not providing further data on a subset of the population.
IT’S YOUR ARGUMENT.
The onus of proof is on you.
But as we’ve seen, you don;t really “do” proof do you.
“Sure, that’s why Americans are far greater private donors to charities than Australians. Because they care so little for their poor.”
You know I was going to fact check that claim but I decided it’d be nice if just once you actually offered proof for at least one of your claims.
While you’re doing that, I’ll merely note that I don;t think mosrt Americans “care so little for their poor”.
I do think far-right ideologues such as yourself, while they care for the poor, consistently advocate policies which are incredibly harmful to the poor.
Fortunately, the kicking of their flabby whiter arses which commenced in the 2005 elections is likely to continue a pace this year.
I also find it both amusing and very predictable that a discussion that started with you attacking Australia and claiming American superiority, turns as soon as your claims are shown to be at best questionable, into “you hate America!”.
“Of course, every Australian is born knowing just how horrible and mean and nasty America is, so really, there’s no need to check these things Simmo. It will be a lot easier for you if you can just continue with your prejudices.”{
And there you have it: “Amerca is great and fantastic. It is utterly perfect and you scum aren’t worthy to suck our migthty cocks”
“Umm, that doesn’t sound quite right.”
“Oh my God, who do you hate us so? Wasn’t 9-11 enough for you people?”
“As for violence and poverty being concentrated in poor black communities: it reflects as badly on the US as the violence and poverty of Aborigines does on Australia.”
Except that indigenous Australians make up around 2% of the Australian population while African-Americans make up about 10% of the US population.
Terje, I’ll state the bleeding obvious:
Of course cars, bricks and chainsaws are capable of killing people, but they were designed for other (perfectly valid) purposes. Guns on the other hand are designed for only one purpose, to kill and maim, and they do so very effectively. It would certainly be much easier to kill a dozen people with a gun than it would with a brick.
(I can’t believe I’m having this conversation. Tighter gun control was the most popular thing Howard ever did, and support for liberalising gun laws would be tiny, smaller than Brendan’s preferred PM rating).
Of course you’d also be against compelling people to wear seatbelts, and would much rather society bear the horrendous costs of deaths and injuries to idiots who don’t wear seat belts.
Such a tiny inconvenience for such huge benefits, but you’d be against it wouldn’t you Terje?
Come on, admit it, libertarianism is like some kind of fundamentalist religion where all common sense goes out the window.
“Of course you’d also be against compelling people to wear seatbelts, and would much rather society bear the horrendous costs of deaths and injuries to idiots who don’t wear seat belts”.
Now turn that round. “Society” doesn’t own individuals a priori, and didn’t buy them that way. Such people should be left to their own resources or to individuals’ charity; that “cost” to society is self-incurred – by “society”.
carbon, I’d agree many libertarians seem to be somewhat lacking in the common sense department (or more accurately, they have a rather naive view of human nature). But the basic philosophy of preferring reduced government wastage and control over our lives is supportable enough.
There are certainly still many areas in which Australia could benefit from further liberalisation. Unfortunately neither of our major parties seem to agree.
P.M., carbonsink’s point is that people who don’t wear seatbelts put others at risk just as much as themselves. As long as there exists a foolish minority that think they don’t need to wear seatbelts, then their right to use public roads exists on the condition that they drive responsibly, including wearing seatbelts.
Yeah, lets have a dog-eat-dog world where the poor idiot who doesn’t wear seat belts is left to die on the pavement. Perhaps the ambo could check their wallet first to see if they have health insurance?
Don’t get me wrong, many libertarian ideas have merit, but its the hard-core, no comprimises attitude that many libertarians exhibit that reminds me of a cult.
Well the no-compromises crowd will never have any political influence, so I’d suggest they’re pretty harmless.
Carbonsink – I compromise all the time. I may not like the compromise position but thats beside the point. I don’t go around routinely breaking laws merely because I disagree with them. And if we decriminalised half the things that I think should be decriminalised I still wouldn’t do them. I wouldn’t take heroin as a matter of course even though I think it should be legal. I wouldn’t but a semi-automatic rifle even though I think they should be legal (and even though you’d have them on your roof). I wouldn’t offer my workers $2 per hour even though I think it should be legal. I wouldn’t sleep with every prostitute in town even though I think it should be legal. Favouring liberty when the evidence against it is weak is not fanatical or cultish. It is in fact reasonable and tolerant. Banning things merely because you don’t like them or because your afraid of people seems more perverse (IMHO). The law should not be used to regulate taste (IMHO).
If we were politians engaged in horse trading I’d agree to let you keep bazookas on the prohibited list if you’d agree to allow self defense as a reason for gun ownership and if you would agree to remove the prohibition on bullet proof vests. That would be a compromise. I would make that compromise for the sake of modest reform. I’d even let you retain the ban on bullet proof vests if you could provide solid evidence to show that legalisation had significant negative consequences for third parties. I’d let you keep seat belts illegal in exchange for allowing cyclists travelling at low speed to ride without a helmet. I’d let you retain the minimum wage if you’d agree to lower it in high unemployment regions. I’d let you keep income tax if you’d agree to increase the tax free threshold. I’d let you keep most government spending if you’d help puts some serious checks on the growth in spending. I’d be prepared to compromise in lots of ways to achieve modest incremental reform.
Having an opinion different to you does not mean that I am unable or unwilling to compromise. I compromise all the time.
p.s. Personally I lament the mindset of socialists always wanting to make rules for everybody about everything on the basis of weak evidence, flawed or fanciful arguments or for very little benefit. So in so far as I frequently find the worldview of some people to be frustrating I suppose I can relate to your frustration.
Terje, and if all human beings were like you, we wouldn’t need the regulation that outlaw all sorts of obviously harmful behaviours.
The unfortunate fact is that there will always be a percentage of the population that “do the right thing” more because of fear of punishment than because they recognise the dangers (to themselves and others) of certain behaviours.
The labor market in particular is regulated purely because of the fact that their are employers would would think nothing of paying someone stupid or desperate enough as little as they possibly could, or making them work under unsafe or cruel conditions. The vast majority of employers would agree that the regulated minimum conditions are just “decent common sense”.
This is not unlike the situation recently where new regulations were introduced for solarium operators. All the businesses that agreed to be interviewed supported the regulations, because they were just “basic common sense”, and having regulations drove out the cowboys from the business that was giving the industry a bad name.
In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need regulation. But for the most part, regulation benefits the good guys and forces the “bad guys” to clean up their acts. You can question whether the State should have the ability to make a decision who are the good and bad guys, but realistically no other body can make such a decision, and having a functioning democracy with plenty of checks and balances generally acts as a check against too much obviously stupid regulation.
Actually democracy seems to have failed this test but I don’t have a ready alternative.
Lots of bodies besides the government have a say in labelling operators as good guys and bad guys. And the government certainly has a role. But being a bad guy should not merely mean providing people with a poor offering which they are free to reject. If you offer me $2 an hour to clip your toe nails that does not make you a “bad guy”.
If I know you were in a desperate enough situation you’d do anything for money, then yes, I’d say paying you $2/hour for clipping my toe nails does make me a bad guy, especially considering what professional pedicurists charge.
Especially so if by working for me at $2/hour full-time you never get the opportunity to improve your skills and find a truly worthwhile job.
$20 for a pedicure: http://www.bodylingo.com.au/services.html
According to my wife, it takes about 20 minutes.
Aww, where’d mugwump go? pretty much exactly the same ‘conversation’ was had here just a little while ago – a bunch of wild assertions about the wonderfulness of life in the USA grinding heavily against the rock of facts. Such a pretty shipwreck it was – and we didn’t even get onto healthcare.
Terje, you are about as moderate, articulate and reasonable a libertarian as we come across on these (government invented) internets. To which I say thank you. It’s still a crock of a theory unfortunately, one which the sensible, commonsense overwhelming majority of Australians reject out of hand, for which I am entirely grateful, but good on you for having a go. One thing I particularly like is that you don’t come at it from a socially conservative ‘right wing’ position. It makes a lot of people’s heads explode that the previous conservative government was the biggest waster of government money on godawful middle class welfare schemes. Puts a real stake through the old left/right divide.
Modern centre-left governments are far more about targeting welfare to what works and evidence based policy than their right-wing populist opposition. It is only because of a complicit dumbed down media that the modern right can get away with all of their rubbish.
For what it is worth I think Australia offers a better policy deal to it’s people than the USA. The USA is neither less regulated nor less taxed. They do seem to have more clarity in terms of constitutional defined civil liberties and property rights but they get around that by ignoring their constitution. They do seem to have a better go at federalism but they suffer a federal government interested in funnelling money to the four corners of the globe in pursuit of military glory. However I do think the original USA was a glorious thing in it’s heyday.
As for social conservatives I am one through and through. I rarely drink, I’m faithful to my wife, I avoid illicit drugs, I almost never gamble, I don’t smoke and I’m not into tatoos or body piercing. Most days I wear a tie. The fact that I don’t wish to mandate this worldview or behaviour on others via legislation just seems like basic goodwill.
Terje, for me it’s not a matter of “goodwill”.
I have no interest in smoking, recreational drugs, tattoos or piercing either, but given they are things that people like to do, that cause relatively little harm to those partaking of such activities and, with the exception of smoking indoors, virtually no harm at all to others, then banning such activities invariably ends up being counterproductive – people take up the activities anyway, but make use of unregulated illegal suppliers.
As usual, you seem only capable of thinking in stereotypes. Let me remind you Simmo that it was you who stated that my claims were uncheckable, all I did was counter.
Ok Ian, “breeding like rabbits” was hubris, but you still haven’t shown white birthrates in the US to be lower than their western brethren, despite your smug claims to truefact. I’d be very surprised if they are.
You really should get over your irrational hatred of the US, Ian.
How do you arrive at that conclusion? I am pretty moderate for a right-winger: I believe in universal healthcare and universal education. If having the temerity to suggest that the US is not the hellhole Australians believe it to be makes me a far right ideologue, then so be it, but I am in some awfully moderate company.
I find it remarkable how threatened Australians are by the thought that the US might possibly be a better place to live. And how comfortably racist they are towards the US. Actually, not really that surprising. A good dose of tall poppy, cultural cringe, and a national identity that requires Australia to be the best of all worlds will do that.
No, those liberties and rights are fought for on a daily basis. I reckon you hear about the constitution at least once daily. Debate about liberty is part of mainstream culture here. I love it.
terje, it’s not what you do that defines you as a social conservative, it’s what you think of other people who do that.
I’m never going to marry another man, but for the life of me I cannot work out why anyone would object to the proposition.
In principle I am somewhat libertarian – with marriage (standard sort) for example I struggle to think of a decent reason for the government to even be involved. Leave it up to the churches if they want to. Repeal the marriage act.
But pragmatically I find most libertarians to be selfish middle-class “I’ve got mine so the world can f**k off now” tax-avoiding moral pygmies. The world is a hard place and we’re not all created equal, so it is up to us as a community to better everyone. If we could do it without governments that may be some utopia, however there are far too many selfish freeloading gits and just plain evil people out there to ever take government out of the picture. Government is ultimately just a tool, something we’ve constructed together to help us stay together without anarchy. It works, it’s a compromise, it’s imperfect, but it’s the best we’ve got and I don’t think there’s much evidence to say we’d be better off without it. I observe that the happiest and longest lived peoples on the planet are typically those with fairly strong government sectors.
Yeah. But I extend that logic to sports shooters, bicycle riders and people who want to keep the wages and profits they earn. Don’t ban anything or take anything unless there is a really good reason based on really good evidence and real significant benefits and minimal downside. Ultimately I’m a consequentialist. Libertarianism just seems to have the better arguements in terms of consequences. Again and again.
wow mugwump, you’ve really tried to turn your arguments around, haven’t you? Not good enough though, you were the one spouting all this wonderful crap abotu teh US, you got called on it, Ian et al provided facts, now you can’t backpedal fast enough.
Simple fact of the matter is, despite our crushing totalitarian government, we’re doing fine, thank you very much, and our poor are doing a lot better than in the grand US of A.
My point exactly: it is disingenuous laying claim to social superiority when your dysfunctional subculture is 1/5 the size.
Huh? which facts? what backpedaling? My views are pretty constant.
C’mon Terje, if compulsory seat belt wearing doesn’t fall into that category what does? Zero downside, real benefits in terms of lives saved and injuries avoided. Proven in study after study after study.
You say you make compromises, lets see you make one here.
Terje, no disagreement with “Don’t ban anything or take anything unless there is a really good reason based on really good evidence and real significant benefits and minimal downside.”
But I see “high taxes on those that can afford it” as giving significant benefits with minimal downside. Above a certain income, quality of life simply isn’t improved by more money.
@ mugwump:
“As usual, you seem only capable of thinking in stereotypes. Let me remind you Simmo that it was you who stated that my claims were uncheckable, all I did was counter.”
counter with information that is completely irrelevant and didn’t prove anything.
Carbonsink – I would not make seat belts compulsory. However I’ve never expended any energy arguing against seat belt laws. So can we allow self defense as grounds for a gun license.
Pr Q says:
Wrong, and silly hyperbole. The Howard-Hater moniker was used mostly by bemused centrists (such as myself) to describe the derangement of political commentators who frequently compared Howard’s govt to Nazi Germany. A google search records more than 150,000 pages in this vein. Although the H-H attitude was not, strictly speaking, mad it will do until the real thing comes along.
Pr Q says:
Howard’s national security and cultural identity policies were generally successul for most people most of the time. These were the ones that drew the most ire from the Howard-haters.
Howard was hated because he rubbed the cultural elites nose in the cultural mess they made. MOreover he made a political success of this conservatism amongst the populace. This made a mockery of cultural elites claim to represent the demos.
Worse, his conservative “corporalist” approach is apparently working as a cultural program. The UK is turning against multi-cultis. And the me-tooism amongst various AUS authorities on such substantive policies such as war on drugs and the indigenous intervention is now a common-place.
How embarassing is it for all of these egg-heads to have a politician show them a clean pair of intellectual heels by running with a cultural philosophy not far off their grandmothers?
Pr Q says:
Blatantly false. Howard won four elections on the trot. Second most successful PM in AUS history. He was also voted the most popular PM of all time, in a recent Newspoll survey.
He also commanded record breaking popularity well into his final term. Lebovic As Sol Lebovic put it:
“For a third-term prime minister, that’s remarkable.â€?
More germane to this post, Lebovic ridiculed the shallow-base and narrow-mind amongst Howard-hating cultural elite:
“There is a lot of noise generated in a segment that is passionately anti-Howard, but you have to understand how big that segment is – you have to take a sample across the whole electorate.â€?
Pr Q says:
Again, more psephologic mythology. Leaders are not nearly as important as most commnetators assume. Latham’s electoral result was not much off Crean’s two-party preferred polling. Rudd’s victory was average sized, about what you would expect for this phase of the electoral pendulum’s periodic cycle.
I correctly predicted Rudd’s modest success and Costello’s political failure of nerve. Those who want to indulge in historical revision should put up their prediction record for credibility reasons.
Pr Q says:
The disgruntled Libs did not challenge Howard because Howard was the best thing the LN/P had going for it. He was loved by Liberal party voters – the conservative base. Politically, that counts for ten times more than a bunch of spineless ninnies, vaultingly ambitious and chronic whingers.
Pr Q says:
True. Work Choices was Howard’s biggest loser and all the LN/P’s deserve a kick in the bum for their folly. If he had just followed his conservative philosophy and left well enough alone he might still be PM.
Mugwump: My point exactly: it is disingenuous laying claim to social superiority when your dysfunctional subculture is 1/5 the size.
Ah so it’s all the bad black people’s fault.
See I look at on society which mistreats two percent of its population and at another which mistreats 10% and can;t help thinking this reflects unfavorable on the latter.
You, of course, realise that the only true victims are middle class whites such as yourself forever borne down by the oppre3ssive shackles of the Gub’mint.
You know if you find Australia’s social democracy so morally repugnant I suggest you calculate the amoutn the Australian taxpayer expended on child endowment payments, public education and Medicare on you and send Treasury a cheque for that amount (not forgetting the interest).
Me:
Simmo:
Me:
Simmo:
Me:
Simmo:
Summary: I pointed out the existence of healthcare and other programs for the children of the poor, you claimed that was uncheckable, so I told you where you could check. After that, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Believe me Ian, they’ve been repaid many times over.
For the record, I don’t find social democracy morally repugnant: every western nation is essentially a social democracy (the US included). It is the victim culture, not taking responsibility for your own circumstances, and the expectation that the government should take care of you that I find morally repugnant.
White US treats its blacks just fine. Most ghetto violence is black-on-black.
mugwump, so you’re saying that blacks are such a lost cause that there’s no point in the rest of the country even trying to help them out?
At any rate, it’s not true that whites treat blacks just fine – look at incarceration rates. While blacks commit somewhat more crimes, they are thrown in jail (or executed) at far far higher rates, and for much longer periods. Which just perpetuates the cycle of crime and poverty by tearing apart families, increasing contact with other criminals etc. etc.
Actually carbonsink, weirdly, having looked at a few of the seatbelt laws facts (not comprehensively, so I sure could be wrong), there’s some decent evidence that seatbelt laws really seem to have displaced injuries from bad drivers onto pedestrians, and the clear and unambiguous reduction in trauma for drivers has at least in part been picked up by ‘more innocent’ victims. It’s a bit like 4WDs being safer for the driver (except even then they’re not) but far worse for the opposing vehicle.
Gun laws are far less ambiguous and remain an absolute albatross around the neck of libertarian philosophy. Hand guns and assault rifles have one primary purpose, which is killing people. The only reason civilians could be allowed one is self defence against criminals. However, it is entirely clear that having readily available guns means
a) far more armed criminals than law abiding folks,
b) far more accidents with children, etc
c) more successful suicides,
d) a more fearful interaction between strangers
From a utilitarian perspective there is simply no argument – people can’t be trusted with free access to hand guns.
Of course, it’s still quite easy to get a gun licence in most of Australia – I have had one – so what’s the point anyway?
The overwhelming majority of guns in the country have never been used to kill a person and never will be. Most are used for hunting or sport. Some are collectors items. A lot are used by police and other security workers as a deterent and a means of self defense.
So all those soldiers and police should be rounded up and disarmed. Not to mention the body guards and security workers.
The reality is we trust all manner of people to carry guns for the protection of person and property. And we would not have a better or safer society if we stopped doing so. We would have a better and safer society if we were more inclusive in who we trusted. Countries like Norway and Sweden and Switzerland have widespread ownership of firearms and they have not yet descended into hell holes. About 30% of households in Norway have a gun and the homicide rate in Norway is about half what it is in Australia. The Netherlands has guns in only 2% of households and their homocide rate is higher than Norways.
The reality is that when it comes to murder “means” matters very little compared to “motive”. If you have the motive to kill somebody the means can always be found. The reason that we are not knocking eachother off every other day is because we lack sufficient motive. It is not because the government limited our access to guns.
So the suicides, the child accidents?
You know the points about soldiers etc are a straw man, that is not the reductio ad absurdum of my argument.
mugwump and simmo, US Birth rates by race are here . The Crude Birth Rate (CBR) for non-Hispanic whites is 11.5.
A minute’s googling, mugwump, will often save you from making statements that are clearly not true. Assuming, that is, that you care about truth.
But they’re still the most optimistic and positive bunch of people in the universe.
The ignorance about guns, by those who are anti-gun, has at times to be seen to be believed.
Almost every time they open their mouth, (or put fingers to keyboard) they display an appalling ignorance.
Terje@139,
You need to correct for population densities, with homicide – because you are always more likely to fight with neighbours than people you rarely see!
yeah, like totally whatever steve. You’ve shown yourself to such an expert on so many subjects.
Wilful,
Suicide is an interesting topic. Some studies have suggested that the 1996 buyback has reduced the number of people killed by guns. A big part of this reduction relates to reduced firearm suicide. Which perhaps bodes well for your anti-gun argument until you engage your brain and ponder some basic physics and biology.
Firstly the buyback did not reduce the number of guns in Australia even assuming that the semi-automatics that were confiscated were all destroyed (many went to the black market instead of the smelter). Those that had their guns confiscated were compensated financially and many used the funds to buy a replacement weapon. There is in fact no evidence that the number of guns in Australia has declined. We might assume that the type of guns has changed assuming that the ban has been effective.
Now for the physics and biology. If you put a semi-automatic rifle to your head and pull the trigger and fire a bullet into your brain the fact that this particular weapon will then allow you to pull the trigger a second time without requiring a bolt action does not offer any notable advantage in terms of suicide. And the reason is that having a bullet lodged in your brain impares your ability to pull a trigger just as readily as it impares your ability to use a bolt action or to reload the weapon.
One more time for emphasis. A semi-automatic gun placed to the head and fired will not kill you any more effectively than a convential firearm. Dead is dead is dead. Basic physics. Basic biology. Banning semi-automatic weapons in and of itself can not reasonably be attributed to reduced rates of firearm suicide.
But hey we all know that like blacks and gays and immigrants, shooters are a minority group. So if they upset our asthetic sensibilities who gives a shite. Ban the lot. Especially now that we have compelling evidence that without tight gun laws Carbonsink would be routinely mounting weaponry on his roof and spraying the pavement in front of his house with bullets. 😦
Carbonsink, when you write “Yeah, lets have a dog-eat-dog world where the poor idiot who doesn’t wear seat belts is left to die on the pavement. Perhaps the ambo could check their wallet first to see if they have health insurance?” you have shown the usual tunnel vision. You have completely ignored the role of individual charitable effort in the stuff of mine you quoted (‘Such people should be left to their own resources or to individuals’ charity; that “costâ€? to society is self-incurred – by “societyâ€?’), and you have completely ignored how much personal dependence is created by present arrangements’ burdens crowding out, from their reducing disposable personal resources. Do you think Britain, say, was that sort of a dystopia in the ’30s, before the NHS when many hospitals and the St. John’s ambulance service were private charities in more than name? And do you think the truly helpless are helped by governmental provision even today, when one of the marks of their condition is that they cannot make the few simple personal efforts needed to access it? They can only be helped by others going to them, which is just what charity still does (think of church feeding programmes in Melbourne).
Back in 1960, my parents, my brother and I were living in Luluabourg in the Belgian Congo, just before independence. Right after independence we were very lucky that all the other white families had weapons for self defence, because they were able to lend my father a pistol while we were all besieged in a block of flats by the mutinous Force Publique for three days until a Belgian paratroop colonel ignored orders and arranged a drop to rescue us (we were also lucky that the mutineers didn’t get the mortars from a nearby arsenal). I remember seeing one of the men on guard with a Sten gun as we went in.
Before anyone says that circumstances were different, well, they always are until suddenly they aren’t. Australia today is less peaceful and secure than the Lebanon in the ’60s. You are only ever two turns of the road away from such things, just enough so you can’t see them.
“yeah, like totally whatever steve. You’ve shown yourself to such an expert on so many subjects.”
So erudite of you Wilful. Do you ride a skateboard all or somethin’ man?
Steve at the pub,
Now that you have finally reappeared, I would refer you to my previous comments.
Apologise, explain, or piss off.
It is highly amusing that mugwimp and his discredited heroes find it hard to accept that they have lost the debate, and they are in the MINORITY. I’m very hopeful that we will be able to move onto sensible discussions about how we deal with the fact that it is no longer a shortage of labour but a shortage of resources that will drive future economies.
To that end, I beg everyone to ignore the discredited laize faire economists and stop feeding their pathetic egos. They simply refuse to accept the people’s rejection of the Howard/Bush enthusiasm for global opression to protect corporate interests. That is sad for them but we need not massage their egos by discussing it.
The international economic institutions are retreating. Having bankrupted most of the world to prop up the New York stock exchange they are now renouncing their decades long support for free markets and recognising the need for strong governance. The (somewhat vague) connection between the libertarian/authoritarian arguments about behaviour (that so obsesses Terje) and the laize fair/regulation arguments about economics must give way completely, to the overriding consideration that markets are incapable of dealing with the reality that we cannot allow consumption to continue to expand.
GE – you have my permission to ignore me.
Giovanni! I thought you were going to win Richmond. What happened? Did Tweed Heads not deliver?