Discussion Random Discussion

[MUFKilda]

Ah the UN thank god they’ve arrived who else would you have figured out that some people aren’t doing as well as others.

The UN seem to have entered a new stage where you head to western countries and tell them how poorly their doing, they want to remove you from your money and redistribute it to the poor. The joke here is it’s not your poor it’s poverty in the third world or some corrupt country all administered like the great climate fund they hoped to have by ngo’s if you don’t mind. I find it quite insulting which Nicky Haley did as the US spokesperson and finally called them out, bloated fat tick with it’s own agenda.

Climate fund, UNCLOS, patents etc just some of the more recent cash grabs.

Works in the countries which employ a social democratic model out this way: Scandinavia, Germany, France, Benelux countries, to name but a few.

And what decides what is 'your money'? Supply and demand alone seems a very blunt instrument which can't measure how hard someone is working or the value to others of their work. Why shouldn't supply and demand not be subject to democracy? Shouldn't ethics play a role?

 

[Drake Huggins]

I know very little of the history between the indigenous Australians and the white settlers, though I'm aware it is very disturbing, akin to the treatment of the native Americans. As History is my thing, how is it taught in schools today?

How many indigenous Australians were killed by the early settlers?

Nobody really knows, MUF, but the overall figure but the estimates range from 200,000 to 500,000 over the entire span of settlement and displacement. In either case, it passes for genocide. Another notch on the British empire's belt as it went about establishing it's worldwide dominance. That's how empires are built, I suppose. No one gives up their country easily. I worked in India for a while. Don't mention the British there. I was given a severe dressing down by an Indian academic when I suggested that Britain had done great things for India. Boy, did he set me straight! All our histories are presented as attractively as possible.

One of the problems with retrieving evidence that supports or educates is there are no written Aboriginal languages. All their history is passed on orally, so there is always going to be an aspect of inaccuracy and distortion about it. One of the most effective ways of subjugating a culture is to destroy its language and replace it with your own. In the case of Aborigines, this was even more devastating than normal, because once oral traditions were suppressed or eliminated completely, there was no written record to pass on.

I watched John Pilger's documentary, Utopia, again last night. No matter what your position is on this issue, it makes for confronting viewing. Pilger can be an insufferably pompous old bugger, but his work certainly stirs up debate and makes you think. The destruction of Aboriginal culture and population is a crime most Australians would rather not confront. Coming from a German background I can compare the way Germans have confronted their history from 1933-45. We could take a leaf out of their book when it comes to acknowledging and attempting to right past wrongs.

I have spent some time in remote communities and worked for Common Fate, an organisation that supported and promoted Aboriginal advancement in the workforce. One thing I found was that the closer to urban centres Aboriginal populations were situated, the better their health, educational, social, employment and lifespan were. The gap would close, or normalise compared to the general population.

The more remote a community is, the more the gap widens. The last "Closing the Gap" report showed that in 15 of the 16 categories measured, the gap had remained or widened. One third of aboriginal people don't live beyond 45 years of age. Overall life expectancy is around 57 for men, compared to 80 for the general population. Given 38 billion is allocated to the issue every year, one has to ask why is this still the case? Warren Mundine suggests it is because very little of the allocated funds escape the black hole of bureaucracy in Canberra. I have personal experience of this and couldn't agree more. Some of the conditions I saw in remote communities could be described as 4th world. It's a tragedy of biblical proportions happening right under our noses. I don't have an answer.

 

[MUFKilda]

Nobody really knows, MUF, but the overall figure but the estimates range from 200,000 to 500,000 over the entire span of settlement and displacement. In either case, it passes for genocide. Another notch on the British empire's belt as it went about establishing it's worldwide dominance. That's how empires are built, I suppose. No one gives up their country easily. I worked in India for a while. Don't mention the British there. I was given a severe dressing down by an Indian academic when I suggested that Britain had done great things for India. Boy, did he set me straight! All our histories are presented as attractively as possible.

One of the problems with retrieving evidence that supports or educates is there are no written Aboriginal languages. All their history is passed on orally, so there is always going to be an aspect of inaccuracy and distortion about it. One of the most effective ways of subjugating a culture is to destroy its language and replace it with your own. In the case of Aborigines, this was even more devastating than normal, because once oral traditions were suppressed or eliminated completely, there was no written record to pass on.

I watched John Pilger's documentary, Utopia, again last night. No matter what your position is on this issue, it makes for confronting viewing. Pilger can be an insufferably pompous old bugger, but his work certainly stirs up debate and makes you think. The destruction of Aboriginal culture and population is a crime most Australians would rather not confront. Coming from a German background I can compare the way Germans have confronted their history from 1933-45. We could take a leaf out of their book when it comes to acknowledging and attempting to right past wrongs.

I have spent some time in remote communities and worked for Common Fate, an organisation that supported and promoted Aboriginal advancement in the workforce. One thing I found was that the closer to urban centres Aboriginal populations were situated, the better their health, educational, social, employment and lifespan were. The gap would close, or normalise compared to the general population.

The more remote a community is, the more the gap widens. The last "Closing the Gap" report showed that in 15 of the 16 categories measured, the gap had remained or widened. One third of aboriginal people don't live beyond 45 years of age. Overall life expectancy is around 57 for men, compared to 80 for the general population. Given 38 billion is allocated to the issue every year, one has to ask why is this still the case? Warren Mundine suggests it is because very little of the allocated funds escape the black hole of bureaucracy in Canberra. I have personal experience of this and couldn't agree more. Some of the conditions I saw in remote communities could be described as 4th world. It's a tragedy of biblical proportions happening right under our noses. I don't have an answer.

Great post, many thanks for the information. I wasn't aware that written history is so sparse - no accurate figures of deaths kept by the early settlers, for instance?

 

[Yawkey way]

Works in the countries which employ a social democratic model out this way: Scandinavia, Germany, France, Benelux countries, to name but a few.

And what decides what is 'your money'? Supply and demand alone seems a very blunt instrument which can't measure how hard someone is working or the value to others of their work. Why should supply and demand not be subject to democracy? Shouldn't ethics play a role?

I’m all for progressive taxation etc. my point was the cheek of the U.N. and their desire ultimately for your cash for distribution to third parties in other countries.

I think I’m going to stick with my elected government thanks, as to what’s your money well for us as well as the countries you mentioned it’s your earnings after taxation on a personal level.

What other method to determine payment for work performed would you suggest, that’s a slippery slope into previously failed communist rule. I hear talk of universal payments free from any obligation or qualification but I have never seen that costed or an explanation of how it would be funded and the supposed benefits.

This system as it currently sits has many indicators that would suggest it’s not working for a lot of people and needs some change. The problem is that the solutions will require someone to pay more be it business or individual tax increases etc, that’s not generally popular governments have lost office on the scare campaigns of increased taxation.

It’s funny I hear how young people here can’t afford to buy housing but I see young people buying all the time including some of my own kids. They worked saved and Purchased a place they could afford in the area they wanted to live in. I look at the demographics of this area which is expensive and it’s young, it’s full of millennials. I hear how unions have been decimated but you will get $150 thousand a year as a labourer in a government negotiated deal on a major project here. This suburb is also full of rich millennial tradies so the housing boom has benefited more than just people with negatively geared properties.

Melbourne is one of the fasted growing cities in the world the kicker is we have a shortfall of public housing with a massive waiting list but a lot of our new arrivals have gone straight into public housing, I’m sorry but I just can’t see how that makes any sense at all.

None of this is as straight forward as it seems someone will feel aggrieved no matter what policy decisions are made, there’s a heading today about cutting immigration rates. I have read countless articles on how it’s being driven by business and government desperate for growth, the comments sections are full of people complaining about how it drives up property prices and the infrastructure can’t cope which I believe is true. I open up the comments section and it’s full of open borders globalists complaining about the as yet unspecified cuts.

Let’s try adjusting the system before we take an axe to it.

 

[MUFKilda]

I’m all for progressive taxation etc. my point was the cheek of the U.N. and their desire ultimately for your cash for distribution to third parties in other countries.

I think I’m going to stick with my elected government thanks, as to what’s your money well for us as well as the countries you mentioned it’s your earnings after taxation on a personal level.

What other method to determine payment for work performed would you suggest, that’s a slippery slope into previously failed communist rule. I hear talk of universal payments free from any obligation or qualification but I have never seen that costed or an explanation of how it would be funded and the supposed benefits.

This system as it currently sits has many indicators that would suggest it’s not working for a lot of people and needs some change. The problem is that the solutions will require someone to pay more be it business or individual tax increases etc, that’s not generally popular governments have lost office on the scare campaigns of increased taxation.

It’s funny I hear how young people here can’t afford to buy housing but I see young people buying all the time including some of my own kids. They worked saved and Purchased a place they could afford in the area they wanted to live in. I look at the demographics of this area which is expensive and it’s young, it’s full of millennials. I hear how unions have been decimated but you will get $150 thousand a year as a labourer in a government negotiated deal on a major project here. This suburb is also full of rich millennial tradies so the housing boom has benefited more than just people with negatively geared properties.

Melbourne is one of the fasted growing cities in the world the kicker is we have a shortfall of public housing with a massive waiting list but a lot of our new arrivals have gone straight into public housing, I’m sorry but I just can’t see how that makes any sense at all.

None of this is as straight forward as it seems someone will feel aggrieved no matter what policy decisions are made, there’s a heading today about cutting immigration rates. I have read countless articles on how it’s being driven by business and government desperate for growth, the comments sections are full of people complaining about how it drives up property prices and the infrastructure can’t cope which I believe is true. I open up the comments section and it’s full of open borders globalists complaining about the as yet unspecified cuts.

Let’s try adjusting the system before we take an axe to it.

Scrap the money system and go straight to anarchism - Spain 1936, The Paris commune 1871, Bavaria 1919

 

[Drake Huggins]

Great post, many thanks for the information. I wasn't aware that written history is so sparse - no accurate figures of deaths kept by the early settlers, for instance?

there is,

Great post, many thanks for the information. I wasn't aware that written history is so sparse - no accurate figures of deaths kept by the early settlers, for instance?

There is a body of writing on the Aboriginal wars, between the original inhabitants and the settlers. There are versions that come from very disparate points of view. There is what is described as "Black Armband" History, which presents the genocide and systematic destruction of the culture. Then there is the opposition camp that refutes this version and states large tracts of the history are exaggerated or false. Keith Windschuttle and Geoffrey Blainey are generally respected historians who hold to this view. They became the darlings of the Howard government when it sought to debunk so-called myths of the Black Armband version of events.

The middle ground is held by moderates who believe the British, German missionaries and successive governments systematically converted Aborigines to Christianity and in doing so undermined, or even openly banned all aspects of traditional "godless" culture. Displacement was common, with reservations and institutions set up to integrate aborigines into white society. Many children were taken and placed in foster homes, adopted out, institutionalised and schooled in the ways of white people. This was seen as a desirable outcome for all concerned. It resulted in many aborigines publicly denying their racial and cultural history for fear of discrimination. Since aborigines were given the vote in 1962 and were finally included in the census as citizens and not flora and fauna in the 1967 referendum on aboriginal rights, there has been a push for many to reclaim their heritage.

The defenders of the taking of the children point to the appalling conditions these children lived in. Poverty, disease, disadvantage and discrimination were a daily reality. Missionaries and the various social services felt that the children's best chance of living full and productive lives lay with integration. They were well-meaning but misguided. The effects of separation still haunt many individuals today. It was most definitely a very different era.

As for the question of genocide, I ask a simple question. If there were an estimated 500,000 aborigines in Australia when the First Fleet arrived, what happened to them? If they inhabited most of the east coast, where did they go? What happened to the Tasmanian Aborigines? The traditional lifestyle has been extinguished in most areas and is now practiced in more remote areas. It wasn't only bullets that killed them. Disease, malnutrition, displacement, environmental destruction of traditional hunting grounds, social dislocation and of course, alcohol have all played their part.

 

[MUFKilda]

there is,


There is a body of writing on the Aboriginal wars, between the original inhabitants and the settlers. There are versions that come from very disparate points of view. There is what is described as "Black Armband" History, which presents the genocide and systematic destruction of the culture. Then there is the opposition camp that refutes this version and states large tracts of the history are exaggerated or false. Keith Windschuttle and Geoffrey Blainey are generally respected historians who hold to this view. They became the darlings of the Howard government when it sought to debunk so-called myths of the Black Armband version of events.

The middle ground is held by moderates who believe the British, German missionaries and successive governments systematically converted Aborigines to Christianity and in doing so undermined, or even openly banned all aspects of traditional "godless" culture. Displacement was common, with reservations and institutions set up to integrate aborigines into white society. Many children were taken and placed in foster homes, adopted out, institutionalised and schooled in the ways of white people. This was seen as a desirable outcome for all concerned. It resulted in many aborigines publicly denying their racial and cultural history for fear of discrimination. Since aborigines were given the vote in 1962 and were finally included in the census as citizens and not flora and fauna in the 1967 referendum on aboriginal rights, there has been a push for many to reclaim their heritage.

The defenders of the taking of the children point to the appalling conditions these children lived in. Poverty, disease, disadvantage and discrimination were a daily reality. Missionaries and the various social services felt that the children's best chance of living full and productive lives lay with integration. They were well-meaning but misguided. The effects of separation still haunt many individuals today. It was most definitely a very different era.

As for the question of genocide, I ask a simple question. If there were an estimated 500,000 aborigines in Australia when the First Fleet arrived, what happened to them? If they inhabited most of the east coast, where did they go? What happened to the Tasmanian Aborigines? The traditional lifestyle has been extinguished in most areas and is now practiced in more remote areas. It wasn't only bullets that killed them. Disease, malnutrition, displacement, environmental destruction of traditional hunting grounds, social dislocation and of course, alcohol have all played their part.

Striking parallels to the American experience, including reservations. Then of course there is the long term effects of dispossession and racism: the native Americans still have higher unemployment, higher rates of poverty, suicide and substance abuse. It's one hell of a 'coincidence', given the similar history.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians

It certainly wasn't a systematic culling by the Government at the time.

We had settlers killing the Aboriginals for acts such as "stealing corn" or more often Livestock. ( the old lynch mob was alive and well in those days ).
There seems to have been no repercussions for such acts.
Later it seems that settlers who killed Aboriginals were often arrested , but not necessarily charged.

The government troops seemed to get mainly involved in the cases where a settler or settlers were killed. Governor Macquarie in particular seemed to take a very heavy handed approach often seeking to "Set an example"

Brisbane was probably a lot more progressive, but perhaps not so popular amongst his peers.

The "blind eye " that the government turned made things progressively worse, and 80 years on, there were settlers charged with crimes such as mass poisonings. Usually dismissed in court due to "lack of evidence".

These two paragraphs say a lot about the way things failed to progress, and given the time frames and the people involved you can hardly blame the "British".

• 1824. Bathurst massacre. Following the killing of seven Europeans by Aboriginal people around Bathurst, New South Wales, and a battle between three stockmen and a warband over stolen cattle which left 16 Aborigines dead, Governor Brisbane declared martial law to restore order and was able to report a cessation of hostilities in which 'not one outrage was committed under it, neither was a life sacrificed or even Blood spilt'. Part of the tribe trekked down to Parramatta to attend the Governor's annual Reconciliation Day.[23][24]

• June 1926. Forrest River massacre: Western Australian police constables, James Graham St Jack and Dennis Hastings Regan led a month long punitive expedition against Aboriginals living in the Forrest River region. After the local mission station reported around 30 people missing, a police investigation was organised. This investigation found that at least 16 aboriginals were killed and their remains burnt in three purpose-built stone ovens. The police investigation led to a Royal Commission the following year. During the proceedings of this Commission, the suggestion of the evidence of a native being equal to that of a white man was openly mocked. Despite this overt attempt to protect the perpetrators, the Commissioner still found that somewhere between 11 and 20 people were killed and St Jack and Regan were subsequently arrested for murder. Instead of going to trial, the men were brought before police magistrate Mr. Kidson who, in spite of the findings of the two previous investigations, deemed that the evidence was insufficient to go before a jury. Regan and St Jack were released and the Premier, Philip Collier, even re-instated them to their previous positions in the Kimberley.
• 
  

I think it was only in Tasmania that the government under Arthur was "openly" complicit.

And the prevailing attitude by the "non bogans".
Gippsland squatter Henry Meyrick wrote in a letter home to his relatives in England in 1846:
The blacks are very quiet here now, poor wretches. No wild beast of the forest was ever hunted down with such unsparing perseverance as they are. Men, women and children are shot whenever they can be met with … I have protested against it at every station I have been in Gippsland, in the strongest language, but these things are kept very secret as the penalty would certainly be hanging … For myself, if I caught a black actually killing my sheep, I would shoot him with as little remorse as I would a wild dog, but no consideration on earth would induce me to ride into a camp and fire on them indiscriminately, as is the custom whenever the smoke is seen. They [the Aborigines] will very shortly be extinct. It is impossible to say how many have been shot, but I am convinced that not less than 450 have been murdered altogether

 

[sunny3193]

Yeah good thing you treat aboriginals like sensitive snowflakes that can't think for themselves or take a joke, I'm sure that's making a world of difference to humanise them when you aren't willing to treat them like a regular person. Also, *ETPF

I treat people with respect.
Perhaps you might like to do the same.

 

[gringo2011]

If its wrong to inflict physical pain as a punishment...ie spanking children, strapping kids at school, whipping convicts. Then its wrong.
The same goes for psychological pain.
It can't be wrong for some people and ok for others.

In general our society has recognised the wrongness and sought to eliminate it over time.
Is it really the case that its OK for some to suffer this wrongness because that's how it was for their ancestors?

What is incarceration then? It's depravation that is meant to inflict mental torment in Australia.

 

[gringo2011]

I’m all for progressive taxation etc. my point was the cheek of the U.N. and their desire ultimately for your cash for distribution to third parties in other countries.

I think I’m going to stick with my elected government thanks, as to what’s your money well for us as well as the countries you mentioned it’s your earnings after taxation on a personal level.

What other method to determine payment for work performed would you suggest, that’s a slippery slope into previously failed communist rule. I hear talk of universal payments free from any obligation or qualification but I have never seen that costed or an explanation of how it would be funded and the supposed benefits.

This system as it currently sits has many indicators that would suggest it’s not working for a lot of people and needs some change. The problem is that the solutions will require someone to pay more be it business or individual tax increases etc, that’s not generally popular governments have lost office on the scare campaigns of increased taxation.

It’s funny I hear how young people here can’t afford to buy housing but I see young people buying all the time including some of my own kids. They worked saved and Purchased a place they could afford in the area they wanted to live in. I look at the demographics of this area which is expensive and it’s young, it’s full of millennials. I hear how unions have been decimated but you will get $150 thousand a year as a labourer in a government negotiated deal on a major project here. This suburb is also full of rich millennial tradies so the housing boom has benefited more than just people with negatively geared properties.

Melbourne is one of the fasted growing cities in the world the kicker is we have a shortfall of public housing with a massive waiting list but a lot of our new arrivals have gone straight into public housing, I’m sorry but I just can’t see how that makes any sense at all.

None of this is as straight forward as it seems someone will feel aggrieved no matter what policy decisions are made, there’s a heading today about cutting immigration rates. I have read countless articles on how it’s being driven by business and government desperate for growth, the comments sections are full of people complaining about how it drives up property prices and the infrastructure can’t cope which I believe is true. I open up the comments section and it’s full of open borders globalists complaining about the as yet unspecified cuts.

Let’s try adjusting the system before we take an axe to it.

The capitalist system is like a dog chained to a hill's hoist, it runs around and around until the rope gets so short it chokes it's self. The system is starting to show signs of stagnating and that's lead to the rise of the populist autocrat that claims to have easy fix answers. Big corporations have syphoned off money and the way they operate means that share holders and corporate administrators expect more every year. The public are milked to cover the ever increasing costs while there is less work and fewer resources to go round. Billionaires have found ways to get out of being taxed and they tend to take money out of the system and stash it away which leaves less to recirculate.

The UN isn't the best model but it's a model. It needs to get better but if we want to save the system it needs a rebuild with a lot more access for a lot more people. It means more wealthy nations probably have to spread some of the money elsewhere. The world really can't support an environment that is built on selling new stuff all the time. I think most governments know a cliff is coming but no-one knows how to start the changes.

The universal basic income has been around for a long time. I remember hearing that it was being put up by the Nixon government before he came undone.

The trades are still well paid because of demand though, there are a heap of graduates who can't get jobs because there are 10 for every job. We still have shortages of trades people, that's capitalism how it is meant to work. Don't know if that's union, walking off the job at 4 in the afternoon or getting paid overtime might be though. Funny enough corporate jobs are no longer 9 to 5, you are expected to work about 4 extra hours a day now with no extra pay. They need unions, that would make more jobs if they were unionised.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

What is incarceration then? It's depravation that is meant to inflict mental torment in Australia.

Fine then allow whipping, its quicker and cheaper.
But you can't hold double standards.

 

[Yawkey way]

The capitalist system is like a dog chained to a hill's hoist, it runs around and around until the rope gets so short it chokes it's self. The system is starting to show signs of stagnating and that's lead to the rise of the populist autocrat that claims to have easy fix answers. Big corporations have syphoned off money and the way they operate means that share holders and corporate administrators expect more every year. The public are milked to cover the ever increasing costs while there is less work and fewer resources to go round. Billionaires have found ways to get out of being taxed and they tend to take money out of the system and stash it away which leaves less to recirculate.

The UN isn't the best model but it's a model. It needs to get better but if we want to save the system it needs a rebuild with a lot more access for a lot more people. It means more wealthy nations probably have to spread some of the money elsewhere. The world really can't support an environment that is built on selling new stuff all the time. I think most governments know a cliff is coming but no-one knows how to start the changes.

The universal basic income has been around for a long time. I remember hearing that it was being put up by the Nixon government before he came undone.

The trades are still well paid because of demand though, there are a heap of graduates who can't get jobs because there are 10 for every job. We still have shortages of trades people, that's capitalism how it is meant to work. Don't know if that's union, walking off the job at 4 in the afternoon or getting paid overtime might be though. Funny enough corporate jobs are no longer 9 to 5, you are expected to work about 4 extra hours a day now with no extra pay. They need unions, that would make more jobs if they were unionised.

Things have definitely run aground in some respects, I just hope it can be reined in without something catastrophic happening.

I see the treasurer has a fairly radical plan for energy companies, maybe if he can get it through it will be the start of a swing away from companies ripping us off at will. Maybe we can actually get a return for the country on all the gas we export. I see Woodside are gearing up to massively expand what’s being exported.

I think this is the problem in general there’s plenty of money but who has it and where’s it going. I imagine at some point a left wing trump won’t have much of a problem convincing people that the 1 percent and multinationals are antisocial devils. They won’t have anyone to blame but themselves imo surely they can see that this can’t go on as it is, the problem always seems to be what comes after that.

I’m not a fan of the UN their about as rotten as an organisation can possibly be imo. It’s also something out of the old world order, have a look at the permanent members of the security council. The rest of the world if their good and suck up can have a turn sitting with the adults, #### off. The big boys use it when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn’t on every issue of importance. FIFA and the IOC have nothing on these guys.

The universal wage as I understand it was a suggestion that people were essentially paid a set amount no strings attached and were required to do zero in return, every man woman and child was to be included. I think it was trialled in some part of Canada for a brief period with mixed reviews. I don’t know if we’re talking about the same thing it certainly doesn’t sound like something Nixon or the republicans would have considered, hell i don’t think the dems of that time would have.

 

[gringo2011]

Fine then allow whipping, its quicker and cheaper.
But you can't hold double standards.

I'm not asking for us to adopt it.

 

[gringo2011]

Things have definitely run aground in some respects, I just hope it can be reined in without something catastrophic happening.

I see the treasurer has a fairly radical plan for energy companies, maybe if he can get it through it will be the start of a swing away from companies ripping us off at will. Maybe we can actually get a return for the country on all the gas we export. I see Woodside are gearing up to massively expand what’s being exported.

I think this is the problem in general there’s plenty of money but who has it and where’s it going. I imagine at some point a left wing trump won’t have much of a problem convincing people that the 1 percent and multinationals are antisocial devils. They won’t have anyone to blame but themselves imo surely they can see that this can’t go on as it is, the problem always seems to be what comes after that.

I’m not a fan of the UN their about as rotten as an organisation can possibly be imo. It’s also something out of the old world order, have a look at the permanent members of the security council. The rest of the world if their good and suck up can have a turn sitting with the adults, #### off. The big boys use it when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn’t on every issue of importance. FIFA and the IOC have nothing on these guys.

The universal wage as I understand it was a suggestion that people were essentially paid a set amount no strings attached and were required to do zero in return, every man woman and child was to be included. I think it was trialled in some part of Canada for a brief period with mixed reviews. I don’t know if we’re talking about the same thing it certainly doesn’t sound like something Nixon or the republicans would have considered, hell i don’t think the dems of that time would have.

Just double checked the Nixon thing

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/richard-nixon-ubi-basic-income-welfare/
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ded-from-introducing-a-universal-basic-income

I actually heard a really interesting radio segment with an author saying that Nixon going down lead to a chain of events that lead to the rise of the Neo Con power base that started with Regan and lead us to Trump. It was a very convincing piece that had real evidence to back it up. The basic premise was that the moderate branch of the Republicans were shunned and the hard right of the party used the disruption to take over the party with no opposition.

 

[StCicatriz]

Shit day was shit. Ahhhh atleast the drafts almost here

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The capitalist system is like a dog chained to a hill's hoist, it runs around and around until the rope gets so short it chokes it's self. The system is starting to show signs of stagnating and that's lead to the rise of the populist autocrat that claims to have easy fix answers. Big corporations have syphoned off money and the way they operate means that share holders and corporate administrators expect more every year. The public are milked to cover the ever increasing costs while there is less work and fewer resources to go round. Billionaires have found ways to get out of being taxed and they tend to take money out of the system and stash it away which leaves less to recirculate.

The UN isn't the best model but it's a model. It needs to get better but if we want to save the system it needs a rebuild with a lot more access for a lot more people. It means more wealthy nations probably have to spread some of the money elsewhere. The world really can't support an environment that is built on selling new stuff all the time. I think most governments know a cliff is coming but no-one knows how to start the changes.

The universal basic income has been around for a long time. I remember hearing that it was being put up by the Nixon government before he came undone.

The trades are still well paid because of demand though, there are a heap of graduates who can't get jobs because there are 10 for every job. We still have shortages of trades people, that's capitalism how it is meant to work. Don't know if that's union, walking off the job at 4 in the afternoon or getting paid overtime might be though. Funny enough corporate jobs are no longer 9 to 5, you are expected to work about 4 extra hours a day now with no extra pay. They need unions, that would make more jobs if they were unionised.

One of the big problems is that not too many of the big corporations have ties to Australia.
There are plenty of them sucking money out of Australia into other places like the USA though.
Then the highly paid execs in the USA splurge their cash on things like luxury cars, yacht's and private jets, further stimulating their economy.

The less we have big corporations here the more we need to reconsider the way that imported goods and services are taxed.

Apple , after they were called out , started showing more profit and paying around paltry $100 or so per I-Phone. ( $230 000 000 total )
Now Iphones have a fair old development cost , but that's amortised all around the world.
I'd be amazed if the actual production and shipping cost is more than $50.00.
So we have a company selling 2.5M phones which cost them $125M for 3.5 Billion ( 3500 million ). They pay maybe 250 million tax. ( after they are caught out paying way too little and the tax department is watching them . )

Apple are just a really easy example of what they all do.

 

[Yawkey way]

Just double checked the Nixon thing

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/richard-nixon-ubi-basic-income-welfare/
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ded-from-introducing-a-universal-basic-income

I actually heard a really interesting radio segment with an author saying that Nixon going down lead to a chain of events that lead to the rise of the Neo Con power base that started with Regan and lead us to Trump. It was a very convincing piece that had real evidence to back it up. The basic premise was that the moderate branch of the Republicans were shunned and the hard right of the party used the disruption to take over the party with no opposition.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/7ae91901c856ca697ed6b30e18cbba00

That was interesting but without some research it’s impossible to know if it was ever more than an idea that was discussed.

I had a quick look at Speenhamland it was a fairly complex system and lead to some unexpected outcomes. It also wasn’t a set basic income for all, the payments were dependent on several things.

A universal basic income is all very interesting but the costs for it’s introduction across the board would be massive increases in taxation. I have long argued that Centrelink, job service providers (don’t get me started) are to a large extend just poking the unfortunate because it makes some sections of the community happy. If you believe that full employment and for the purpose of this exercise we’ll forget that 1 hour now constitutes being employed so we’ll also forget the underemployed as well. So what is it about 5% of that 5% about 3% are unemployable through illness, disability, mental heath problems and addictions. Do we as a society acknowledge that, oh no we spend vast sums to effectively monitor and harass these people. Why? To what end?.

That’s the place to start with a no strings attached payment, if they make some money or manage to have productive periods then great, the payoff for us is a better fairer society. I imagine we’d get a return on a range of social measures, better mental health and less crime etc. Then beauty of introducing it amoung that group is we pay them anyway and may actually end up with a net saving.

 

[Yawkey way]

One of the big problems is that not too many of the big corporations have ties to Australia.
There are plenty of them sucking money out of Australia into other places like the USA though.
Then the highly paid execs in the USA splurge their cash on things like luxury cars, yacht's and private jets, further stimulating their economy.

The less we have big corporations here the more we need to reconsider the way that imported goods and services are taxed.

Apple , after they were called out , started showing more profit and paying around paltry $100 or so per I-Phone. ( $230 000 000 total )
Now Iphones have a fair old development cost , but that's amortised all around the world.
I'd be amazed if the actual production and shipping cost is more than $50.00.
So we have a company selling 2.5M phones which cost them $125M for 3.5 Billion ( 3500 million ). They pay maybe 250 million tax. ( after they are caught out paying way too little and the tax department is watching them . )

Apple are just a really easy example of what they all do.

Haven’t Britain amongst others just had some sort of landmark ruling that requires them to pay according to their activity in the country.

I seem to remember reading the US were pissed off and a court challenge was almost certain. It’s a massive scam at present and a huge problem, pay up you bastards.

 

[gringo2011]

One of the big problems is that not too many of the big corporations have ties to Australia.
There are plenty of them sucking money out of Australia into other places like the USA though.
Then the highly paid execs in the USA splurge their cash on things like luxury cars, yacht's and private jets, further stimulating their economy.

The less we have big corporations here the more we need to reconsider the way that imported goods and services are taxed.

Apple , after they were called out , started showing more profit and paying around paltry $100 or so per I-Phone. ( $230 000 000 total )
Now Iphones have a fair old development cost , but that's amortised all around the world.
I'd be amazed if the actual production and shipping cost is more than $50.00.
So we have a company selling 2.5M phones which cost them $125M for 3.5 Billion ( 3500 million ). They pay maybe 250 million tax. ( after they are caught out paying way too little and the tax department is watching them . )

Apple are just a really easy example of what they all do.

Yeah, there was an infographic of where the money for a pair of Nikes go. They record the cost at about 99% of the retail price of a pair of $120 shoes by invoicing in about 10 countries each one adding a reason for sending the invoice there but mostly through tax havens. They pay around 50 cents Australian in tax on the $120 by the time they launder their profits away and that's the ones that do it legally.

And most of our utilities are sold to overseas interests too. It really is a free for all in Australia, we have no real legislation to protect us and greedy politicians who have little reason to change.

 

[gringo2011]

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/7ae91901c856ca697ed6b30e18cbba00

That was interesting but without some research it’s impossible to know if it was ever more than an idea that was discussed.

I had a quick look at Speenhamland it was a fairly complex system and lead to some unexpected outcomes. It also wasn’t a set basic income for all, the payments were dependent on several things.

A universal basic income is all very interesting but the costs for it’s introduction across the board would be massive increases in taxation. I have long argued that Centrelink, job service providers (don’t get me started) are to a large extend just poking the unfortunate because it makes some sections of the community happy. If you believe that full employment and for the purpose of this exercise we’ll forget that 1 hour now constitutes being employed so we’ll also forget the underemployed as well. So what is it about 5% of that 5% about 3% are unemployable through illness, disability, mental heath problems and addictions. Do we as a society acknowledge that, oh no we spend vast sums to effectively monitor and harass these people. Why? To what end?.

That’s the place to start with a no strings attached payment, if they make some money or manage to have productive periods then great, the payoff for us is a better fairer society. I imagine we’d get a return on a range of social measures, better mental health and less crime etc. Then beauty of introducing it amoung that group is we pay them anyway and may actually end up with a net saving.

It's also suggested by economists that it's better to give a dollar to a poor person as every cent goes back into circulation than the rich because they use the money to either lock up for interest or send it to a haven for laundering. Trickle down economics hasn't tended to work for that reason. The idea is good because it gives motivation to still strive but de-stigmatises welfare.

I have read a bit of stuff on Sam Harris who has some ideas on UBI, I heard him first on Russel Brand's podcast, he's quite interesting, it might be where I heard the Nixon reference but can't be sure.

http://www.podelight.com/podcast_episodes/26306/the-russell-brand-interview/details

 

[gringo2011]

I’m all for progressive taxation etc. my point was the cheek of the U.N. and their desire ultimately for your cash for distribution to third parties in other countries.

I think I’m going to stick with my elected government thanks, as to what’s your money well for us as well as the countries you mentioned it’s your earnings after taxation on a personal level.

What other method to determine payment for work performed would you suggest, that’s a slippery slope into previously failed communist rule. I hear talk of universal payments free from any obligation or qualification but I have never seen that costed or an explanation of how it would be funded and the supposed benefits.

This system as it currently sits has many indicators that would suggest it’s not working for a lot of people and needs some change. The problem is that the solutions will require someone to pay more be it business or individual tax increases etc, that’s not generally popular governments have lost office on the scare campaigns of increased taxation.

It’s funny I hear how young people here can’t afford to buy housing but I see young people buying all the time including some of my own kids. They worked saved and Purchased a place they could afford in the area they wanted to live in. I look at the demographics of this area which is expensive and it’s young, it’s full of millennials. I hear how unions have been decimated but you will get $150 thousand a year as a labourer in a government negotiated deal on a major project here. This suburb is also full of rich millennial tradies so the housing boom has benefited more than just people with negatively geared properties.

Melbourne is one of the fasted growing cities in the world the kicker is we have a shortfall of public housing with a massive waiting list but a lot of our new arrivals have gone straight into public housing, I’m sorry but I just can’t see how that makes any sense at all.

None of this is as straight forward as it seems someone will feel aggrieved no matter what policy decisions are made, there’s a heading today about cutting immigration rates. I have read countless articles on how it’s being driven by business and government desperate for growth, the comments sections are full of people complaining about how it drives up property prices and the infrastructure can’t cope which I believe is true. I open up the comments section and it’s full of open borders globalists complaining about the as yet unspecified cuts.

Let’s try adjusting the system before we take an axe to it.

I thought I'd respond a bit more on the UN. It's definitely an old world order thing and the way they try to se positions to bring misbehaving nations in is embarrassing at times. They are a messy unwieldy beast but the options are pretty limited. Would you hand sheriff duties to one group?

I'm a bit biased because I have a cousin who works for the UN as a a project manager and the money they spend they spend pretty thriftily. He's worked in everything from rebuilding Sri Lanka after the tsunami, containing ebola in Africa, setting up camps in Sudan and even building an internet capacity and digitising the nations records in the Solomon Islands. If there was no UN there would be no-one taking an interest and he's just one of heap of people making big differences in some places that are going to be better off from what they do. If people hate refugees then what they do helps stop them landing on your doorstep more than sending them to pacific islands as punishment.

 

[Crusty Undies]

I treat people with respect.
Perhaps you might like to do the same.

No you treat some people with respect.

 

[ScrappyDo]

U.N. slams poverty levels in Britain. I hope you guys haven't reached this point yet; you're not as far down the neoliberal track as we are. We've had forty years of this trickledown bullshit.

Fortunately our Tory branch is doing a good job of self destructing at the moment. There's a good chance we can shake them off in the next couple of elections. Of course though the money men will always survive..

 

[sunny3193]

No you treat some people with respect.

True.
I’ll rephrase.
I try to treat people with respect.
Why not try that as an option?