Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Is it reactionary to oppose immigration?
Webdiarist James Sinnamon sent us this piece from Canadian writer Tim Murray. The article raises some interesting questions that are equally relevant to Australia.
Andy Kerr, former president of Alternatives to Growth Oregon, posed these questions, "To those who support generous immigration, I ask you this: Why are you are on the same side as Microsoft and the other huge computer corporations and of Archer Daniel Midland and the rest of the agribusiness lobby? How can you support a policy that helps ensure that our existing poor will never be adequately valued for their labor."
Kerr's questions could well be asked of so many left-wing critics whose first reflexive response to closed border arguments are that they are "right-wing", "reactionary", "racist" or "xenophobic", despite the fact that historically the first beneficiaries of mass immigration to North America, and several other localities, have been cheap labour employers. Naomi Klein, in "The Shock Doctrine" blemishes her excellent analysis with this commonplace attitude.
If Klein wanted to probe the shock therapy applied by big capital by using immigration as a battering ram to break down the working class, she need only have looked to the history of British Columbia, where her brother Seth labours for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
In the nineteenth century Chinese labour contractors imported labour to the point that perhaps one-third of the entire workforce had become Chinese. Working for half the wages, paying no taxes, they were prepared to ignore safety regulations, so the Dunsmuir Coal Company used them to break a pivotal miners' strike in 1883.The Miners Union then presented a resolution to government to restrict Chinese labourers from working underground, and another one stating that these labourers were a menace to underground safety, had lowered wages, deterred other Canadians from seeking employment in B.C., offered unfair competition and were provocative to public peace.
In 1907 five Tokyo immigration companies filled an order to bring 6,000 Japanese labourers to work for the Canadian Pacific Railway (C.P.R.) when the province was experiencing a recession. B.C. workers were against the ropes, so the Vancouver Trades and Labour Council met to form an "Asiatic Exclusion League". Two days later a Japanese ship arrived with 1177 labourers. The chemistry was right for the infamous Vancouver anti-Asian riot of September 7, 1907, an incident which has been retroactively depicted as a simple and despicable act of racism. In fact it was a reaction to B.C. businesses which were then using Japanese cheap surplus labourers instead of their Chinese counterparts. It should be known that Native Indians also seethed with resentment at the Japanese presence.
Chinese immigrant labour had finally been slapped by a "head tax" by the federal government in response to decades of lobbying by the B.C. to level the playing field with Canadian labourers. But they wouldn't they wouldn't follow suit with a similar tax on Japanese labour for fear of jeopardizing trade arrangements with Japan. Hence the end run by employers and the pogrom by B. C. workers. To demonstrate labour's outrage at the collusion between now Lieutenant-Governor Dunsmuir and the C.P.R.to orchestrate the Japanese influx, a Socialist legislator moved a motion in the B.C. House that Dunsmuir be impeached.
It should also be noted ---and this is always omitted by revisionists-the Oriental Exclusion Act was actually a misnomer. It was in reality, the Oriental Labourers Exclusion Act. Chinese merchants and their families continued to enjoy access to Canada. The purpose of the omission is obvious, to foster guilt and shame so that an agenda of "justice" an restitution can be pursued by Canada's immigration industry so that corporate Canada can have its labour requirements satisfied in the same way that robber baron Robert Dunsmuir's was. Just 30 miles from where he used Chinese labour to break the miners strike of 1883, the corporation I was working for used Chinese labour to try and break my strike a century later. As waves of Chinese, fresh from Hong Kong, passed through my picket line, escorted by police, it occurred to me that I was having a "multicultural" experience. I was so enriched. Like the miners were in 1883.
The same misrepresentation and spin was made of the "Komagata Maru" incident where East Indians were denied entry at the Port of Vancouver. Does this mean that racist antagonisms did not alloy with legitimate economic grievances? It would stretch credulity to argue that case, particularly in light of the outrageous internment of Japanese-Canadians in 1942, the fact that Chinese-Canadians were denied the vote until 1948, or the right to own property in the exclusive British Properties among other indignities. But should illegitimate motives discredit and invalidate the very cogent arguments of working people to defend their livelihood?
These arguments have been made by socialists and trade unionists not only in Canada but in America a century ago by Jack London, Socialist Party leader Victor Gerber, and the legendary Samuel Gompers. They were also made by the heroic Cesar Chavez who was committed to restricting immigration. Chavez even picketed the border and reported illegal aliens who served as strike-breakers against United Farm Workers.
Today leading labour economists have carried on the fight. Dr. George Borgias of Harvard University is most notably among them. It is his contention that native-born American workers lose $152 billion annually because of job displacement and wage depression caused by immigration. And yet, how does the labour movement respond? This is what the Carrying Capacity Network asks:
"The AFL-CIO, the biggest labor union in the country, is AGAIN urging Congress to give amnesty to as many as 13 million illegal immigrants. Result: depressed wages and lost jobs for Americans while rewarding lawbreakers with the right to work and potential citizenship. Isn't the AFL-CIO sanctioning lawbreaking by pushing for an amnesty?"
Where does the Canadian labour movement stand? You can guess. In a letter dated May 4/06 to Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day and Minister of Immigration and Citizenship Monte Solberg, Secretary Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) Hassan Yussuf complained about the "zealotry" of the Canadian Border Services Agency. "(They) aggressively deported a number of undocumented residents, particularly those from the Portugese community as well as targeting members of the Asian, Chinese, Caribbean and Latin/Central-American communites. The manner in which those deportations were handled exposed a government acting with excessive zeal, hardness, and in some cases, an inexcusable lack of humanity.
I suppose the more "humane" course of action for the CLC would be just to let everybody who wants to come to Canada stay. Open borders. One world. John Lennon's dream. Just imagine. But that's globalism isn't it? Who will speak for the Canadian workers whose wages and working conditions are being hammered by this vision of brotherhood? Why, the CLC of course. Like its political arm, the NDP, it claims to represent them. Yussuf's letter concludes: "The CLC representing more than 3 million workers, joins with those calling for a moratorium on all CBSA deportation/detention activities."
How about a moratorium on immigration instead? That would do more for those 3 million workers. And more than a swift process, in the CLC's words, to "regularlize undocumented workers.whose skills are in need and who have been contributing to the economy." You have to love the CLC's politically-correct language. Calling an illegal immigrant an "undocumented resident" is like calling a drug-pusher an "unlicensed pharmacist". How does the labour movement like it when people call scabs "replacement workers"? And why doesn't the CLC just call "regularize" what it is---amnesty for law-breakers, or, as Geoffrey Blainey once put it, "an incentive for others to arrive, hoping to benefit from further amnesty."
Contemporary socialist and trade union affinity toward international solidarity even at the expense of national well-being can be traced to a Marxist legacy that sees class, not nationality, as the primary divide. Even social democracy taps into this tradition which combines as one strand in a muddled xenophilia with Christian and environmental thought. The latter mutation is expressed quintessentially in the Canadian Green Party line that since global warming is a global problem requiring global cooperation, to obtain this we must not send out an unfriendly message of "fear" by closing our borders, but on the contrary drop them instead. Presumably a radically downward adjustment in consumption habits and greener technology will compensate for all the extra millions who would swarm in. Instead of "workers of the world unite", the Greens offer us a new rallying cry: "more and more people, consuming less and less".
What is interesting is that American icon, Ralph Nader, Green Party candidate for President, does not share this Canadian love affair with the world. He had this to say in 2000: "We cannot have open borders. That's a totally absurd proposition. It would depress wages here enormously, and tens of millions of people from all levels, including scientists and workers, would be pouring into this country."
Australian political scientist Frank Salter had this to say about the socialist attitude to nationalism. "The Left, as it has evolved over the course of the previous century, looks down on the ordinary people with their inarticulate parochialisms as if the were members of another species. since they care nothing for the preservation of national communities. Ethnies are considered irrelevant to the welfare of people in general. It would be understandable to Martians to be so detached from particular loyalties. But it is disturbing to humans doing so, especially humans who identify with the Left."
Such is the European Left's identification with the Other at the cost of the resident national that, in the name of anti-racism, it was possible for left-wing novelist Umberto Eco to declare his hope that Europe would be swamped by Africans and third world emigrants just so to "demoralize" racists. And such is the identification of the AFL-CIO with 13 million illegal immigrants as potential recruits that it supports amnesty and essentially a corporate welfare program that reduces wages for the lowest of American workers. A scheme which advocates call "liberalism" but American workers call an invasion. The CLC (Edgar Bergen) and its social-democratic parliamentary arm, the NDP (Charlie McCarthy), sing the same tune. Crocodile tears are shed for "undocumented" workers who allegedly make great contributions to the economy, according to their hire-a-left-wing-think-tank. But Statistics Canada's conclusions about the effect of immigration on the Canadian work force echo those of Dr. Borgias for American workers. Except the May 2007 Statscan report showed that in Canada, it was the educated workers who were really taking a hit. Between 1980-2000 their wages dropped 7%. And in Britain, careful analysis revealed that the Trade Union Congress was wrong in its contention that amnesty would net the Treasury one billion pounds annually. Rather it would cost taxpayers 1.8 billion pounds a year.
But alas, socialist thought is not monolithic. The Leninists were wrong. For the working class, national identity was as important as class identity, or as Orwell put it, "in all countries, the poor are more national than the rich." If they can't find a voice on the Left, in desperation they will look to the Populist right, as they did recently in Switzerland. But just when it looked like the field was left entirely to globalists, maverick social-democratic and socialist leaders in the tradition of Berger, London, or Canada's J. S. Woodsworth are staking a claim for national, as opposed to international, solidarity. They are doing so after their constituents have been battered by one of the greatest migratory waves in history, that saw the United States for example import the equivalent of three New Jerseys in the 1990s alone, or 25 million people. One would have that Naomi Klein, a Canadian, would have known that the Father of Canadian democratic socialism, the Saint of Canadian politics, the Rev. J. S. Woodsworth steadfastly opposed immigration throughout his leadership in the 1920s and 30s. Woodsworth understood that his constituency was in Canada, not overseas. His motto was no doubt that of Vancouver Rev. Edwin Scott: "We are not universal nations yet. Universal nationality and universal brotherhood are two different things."
The Democratic Socialist Senator of Vermont, Bernie Sanders, has begun to make some noise about the disaster that is the illegal immigration invasion in the United States. His voting record in reducing chain migration, fighting amnesty and unnecessary visas rates B-, B-, and A+ respectively from Americans for Better Immigration. "If poverty is increasing and if wages are going down, I don't know why we need millions of people to be coming into this country as guest workers who will work for lower wages than American workers and drive wages down even lower than they are now." To Sanders the American working, middle class is caught in a squeeze. "On the one hand, you have large multi-nationals trying to shut down plants in America, move to China and on the other hand you have the service industry bringing in lower wage workers from abroad. The result is the same-the middle class gets shrunk and wages go down." Five million people have left the middle class during Bush administration, Sanders observes.
Other social-democratic leaders have spoken out against open borders. Former Social Democratic Chancellor Helmut Schmidt now admits that immigration under his government was excessive and damaging to Germany. In a book published in 1982 he confessed that "with idealistic intentions, born out of our experiences with the Third Reich, we brought in far too many foreigners." Dutch Socialist leader Jan Marijnissen is strongly opposed to the practice of importing East European workers to undermine the position of Dutch workers. East Europeans are hired as "independent contractors" to circumvent labour law. Marijnissen wrote "It is unacceptable that employers pay foreign workers 3 euros per hour and have them live in chicken coops as they were in competition in the nineteenth century of Dickens. The unfair competition and displacement of Dutch workers and small business is intolerable. Therefore we shouldn't open the borders further, but set limits instead."
Setting limits. Acknowledging limits. That is the great divide. In the past those limits have been perceived to be economic by those with the sense to perceive them. Now, some on the left are beginning to realize that the more unforgiving and immutable limits are set by nature. Former Labor Premier of NSW , Bob Carr, and his fellow Laborite retired veteran MP Barry Cohen joined environmental leaders Tim Flannery and Ian Lowe in exposing the myth of Australia as a big empty land begging to be filled up with people. Said Carr, "our rivers, our soils, our vegetation, won't allow that to happen enormous cost to us and those who follow us." Carr and Cohen call for severe immigration cut-backs and a population policy put in place.
In Klein's Canada, meanwhile, the phrase "carrying capacity" is as unknown in the socialist lexicon as it is the corporate. Biologists and ecologists might as well be speaking ancient Aramaic to leftists to make them understand that their human rights agenda cannot be built on an environment that will not sustain it. Canada cannot become the soup kitchen to tens of millions of refugees, nor can vital biodiversity services coexist with a population of 50 million Canadians. In economic jargon, its called "diseconomies of scale". In the language of real science, its called a "limiting factor".
This essay began with two questions from Andy Kerr. It will end with six or seven of mine.
Why? Why has opposition to a policy of mass immigration, a policy that drives down the wages of marginal workers, middle-income workers and professional workers been characterized and vilified as "right-wing" and "reactionary". Why has earlier socialist and trade union understanding of the negative consequences of this policy been overtaken by "love thy neighbour" zeitgeist of the post-war era? Why is the "Left" on the same side as the "Right"? The same side as Microsoft, ADM, the real estate developers and the cheap labour employers?
It is high time to challenge this labeling and to challenge those who use it to prevent thoughtful discussion. The question that needs to be posed today is not the conventional one, is it Left or is it Right? But rather, do we accept that there are Limits, or do we continue to persist in the fantasy that this country, and others, is a massive treasure trove of boundless resources waiting to be unlocked by an endless number of people who can exploit them without ecological consequences?
History shows, sadly, that the latter delusion is shared equally among the devotees of both Adam Smith and the Communist Manifesto and its derivatives.
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006 - 2008, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Stealing from the poor.
It is about time we had a look at the ethics of stealing skilled migrants from third world nations - nations that spend money on educating their young and then have them snapped up by first world nations. Surely the flow should be in the opposite direction. No again we are stealing from the poor because we do not spend enough on education and training.
On the make?
Dr Woodforde, So it’s poor old Hindrup?
I fought it was poor old Hindrup, as long as the exotics is, you know, Moslem girls in pink on the make. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, etc.
I think not! The idea that a stunning young woman, beautifully dressed has to be ‘on the make’ has the same sad ring to it as the remarks of a Judge who said: ‘we all know what being invited in for a coffee means’.
We do! Throughout my lifetime, in my circles, inviting somebody in for coffee, or more likely tea, or being invited in for tea, is literally an invitation to a cup of tea!
The same sad ring to it as did the various males who came into my bar, at a time when I was attempting to my life back together having managed to bring several disasters down upon my head simultaneously, complaining that they had ‘taken that bitch to dinner and she wouldn’t come across’!
They didn’t take my observation that perhaps it was their mistake, as it seemed the me that what they were looking for was a prostitute, as helpful.
Amongst my most treasured memories are the dinners. Whether just for two, or four, or six. Always after nine thirty, exquisite food, superb service, and the conversation! More often than not the wine remained mostly undrunk. The night never ending before three or four am.
What a sad and bleak existence it must be to assume that well dressed beautiful women must be on the make, that an invitation to coffee is a come-on for sex, or that taking somebody to dinner implies an obligation, of any nature.
Who Is He Talking About ?
Who are these "political left" that Eliot always speaks of?
How does one gauge who is a leftie, centre left, extreme left etc?. Are they mentioned in a David Hicks' letter to dad Terry?
Romanticism since the end of the Enlightenment
Dr Woodforde OAM, the political Left are infatuated with the exotic because they have never been able to succeed much with anything amid the familiar or mundane.
There's no harm, of course, in being entranced by the exotic. But to subordinate logic to such an impulse...
Emigration as a solution to global warming
This from the Washington Post, concerning 'global warming':
"The problems of global equity alone may be too much: the Chinese are not going to stop burning coal unless we give them another way to raise people out of poverty. And we simply might have waited too long."
Well, obviously, they should emigrate to countries burning too much oil. Or without enough water. Or, we could just pretend China is not part of the problem, which is the preferred Kyoto/Bali logic.
Turning water into whine - the formula revealed
Fiona: "So, Eliot, do you suggest that we should start hoping for another Wedding at Cana miracle? Or would that just be too too epistemologically retarded for you?"
It would take exactly that sort of miraculous methodology to sustain in Australia for the long term the extra tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of population being advocated by the Cheap Labour, Big Population immigration advocates.
Either they're totally exaggerating the perils confronting our eco-systems from the existing level of population - or else they're prepared to sacrifice the ecological future to indulge their obsession with immigration.
Actually, the epistemologically retarded element in this paradox stems from the conviction that if
(a) environmentalism is good, and
(b) immigration is good, then
(c) they are both good and cannot be in conflict with each other!
Since nothing on the trendy Left could ever possibly be "wrong", then these two cherished shiboleths must both be Right. And since the corporate Right knows this, it's happy to pander to that illusion.
If push came to shove, the Left is so infatuated with exotic ethnicity, it would gladly sacrifice our ecological future for its sake, is my guess.
The question is, which fad is more central to their identity?
ER* - the Bereft is so, so ... epistomically whatsisname
ER* the Left is so infatuated with exotic ethnicity
I fought it was poor old Hindrup, as long as the exotics is, you know, Moslem girls in pink on the make. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, etc.
Rabbi Dr Jehu McJihad Woodforde, OAM
* Epistemological Retard, apparently. The Queen of Orstaya, uncannily, has the same jolly old initials. But then, she's an exotic ethnic, a WWI Jerry family, reputedly descended from Mohammed! No wonder Pig Iron Bob wanted to give her the good old Bang and Oluffsen until he dye, but not in the mud of Vietnam (nor the Somme).
We're starting to grasp your point, ER*.
Population, immigration & ethics
I came late to this thread and read it in one sitting. I was dismayed by the at times, acrimonious tone, and the fact that the one thread appears to me to be mixing the immigration question with population policies and the question of what population is sustainable, in Australia and world wide.
As nobody defined the question that they are addressing, it seems the firmly held positions are being stated, without actually addressing the arguments being put by others.
Over population?
Is there a limit to the carrying capacity of the earth?
Without a shadow of doubt. Has that level of population already been reached, or surpassed?
Very probably.
Has Australia reached its carrying capacity? Very probably.
Anybody who has grown up farming stock knows well that any section of land has a maximum sustainable carrying capacity. This is usually stated as stock plus replacements.
Eg: 2000 breeding ewes plus their lambs, with the acceptance that all wether lambs will be sold off, as will the ‘old’ ewes, and any excess ewe lambs.
This gets you through the winter without supplementary feeding, or with minimal supplements.
Anybody who has seen a plague of rabbits will know the consequences of overstocking. The sick and dying animals is not a pretty sight.
But then neither is the sight of those people dying of starvation, though the causes may include brutality and mismanagement.
Immigration
Does Australia need to continue immigration at the present rate, take more, less, or none?
Do we include refugees in this figure?
Is the Australian policy of taking only the skilled reasonable or fair to the countries from which they come?
America is supposed to have embraced the following at some past time:
Australia I suggest asks, send us your skilled, your trained, your talented ...
Just as the US makes it abundantly clear that it believes that they have first claim upon all of the worlds resources — and if you cannot see the justice and logic in that, then you are our enemy! — Australia takes the very people that developing countries need to help them develop.
At the national level
Do the more viable areas/countries have a duty or an obligation to take in those from the less viable areas?
If yes, to what extent? Until the influx threatens the lifestyle, the society, or ought there be unlimited access so that eventually all go down, together?
With the world as it is, with the west on the rapidly getting less comfortable box seat, the issues are more or less academic.
However, should we look forward to flooded islands and low lands, mass movements of desperate, starving people, then the questions and various beliefs expressed become really interesting.
At the personal level
Should things in fact come to this, then it is fair to assume that society, even in the less affected areas, will to some extent have broken down.
Assume then, that you have joined a relatively small group of a few hundred. You have taken over a village, prepared for the worst you can imagine, stocking food, adequate water, planted what ever will grow, and outside things getting really desperately bad your food supplies, with rationing, ought to get you through to the next harvest,
A group numbering approximately one third of your number approaches and begs for food, or begs to be admitted to the village, what then?
Do you refuse them food, refuse them access to your village? Or do you assume that if everybody tightens their belt a little more you can afford to take these people in?
If you let them in, what makes you think that they will play by your rules? If they kick you out, they can live well on your provisions.
If you assume that you outnumber them, and are therefore in a position to control the situation, what do you know about theses people? How skilled are your people at self defence, with firearms? How many are prepared to use them?
The reality is that unless you have people skilled in these areas then a far smaller force than one third your number could easily take you over.
But this issue has been argued long ago. Back in the days when many people tiptoed around in fear of a nuclear conflagration there were those who built bomb shelters. Predictably this was mainly the Yanks, who collectively are afraid of their own shadow.
Then the question was, you have built and stocked a shelter which will provide for your family for 12 months or so. The attacks are imminent and the neighbours hammer on the door, demanding to be let in.
Do you open the door?
But then the neighbours have a daughter that your son is sweet on, should you let her in?
Are you looking only to your immediate survival, or are you hoping your ‘line’ will continue?
If the latter, you need breeding stock. Grandpa is getting frail, why not throw him out and let the girl in, after all, he is the past, she is the future — if there is one.
The closer you bring it to home, the more difficult it becomes.
Long ago I read a poem by a black woman; I could never find it again. It was written eloquently proposing the notion that everyone ought to be prepared to assist their neighbours when in trouble.
The last line was:
Civilised
Ian writes:
If it was not the British who came here uninvited, then it would have been some other imperial or colonising race or power: say the French, Germans, Russians, Turks, Chinese, Malays, Polynesians; take your pick. I doubt any of them would have asked humble permission of whichever indigenous occupant to land and raise a flag or two.
If you can't defend it, you don't own it. Sad, but true. The Aborigines had not gone through the social evolution leading to civilisation the way the Europeans had. In 1788 a people with one of the most rudimentary technologies in the world were intruded upon by those with the most advanced. The rest, as they say, is history.
Not much use moralising about it. My concern is that it not be repeated.
Apparently Ian's idea of civilisation reduces to technology. It also doesn't include moralising (or morality - might makes right is the view here). If I don't do it someone else will is a catch all excuse for any barbarity.
That a technology has wreaked havoc should be taken into consideration I think when assessing it eg fire-stick farming vs agri-business.
My hope is that Ian is joking. My fear is that he is not.
The Way The Wheel Works
Angela Ryan
So no doubt say Australian crews, and you can add Canadian crews to that list. However LA crews think differently and they have a case because the filming wouldn't be taking place in such places if it wasn't cost effective. It all depends on who is doing the justification, huh?
I was referring more to the thing known as "runaway filming" http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=3794. Not the cultural aspects of film releases.
I never said that profits from such banks should be outside the tax laws that other companies are subject too. Secret banking laws (which Australia could institute at any time) are client customer related. A bank would presumably charge a premium for such a service. This premium would thus be added to the banks bottom line profit which would then presumably be subject to taxation. Presumably the intended customer would for the majority be foreign based (foreign dollars) adding to the nation in questions current account, adding employment etc.
That is why it is a good idea for governments to encourage a robust economy. Unrealistic laws, and artificial over regulation will not achieve this aim. A person is not forced to put money into anything, and can easily find alternative options for any money they may have.
There have always been the wealthy (powerful) in society, and there has always been the poor (powerless) in society. I do not ever see this particular equation changing. I never said the particular make up of such groups is not constantly changing.
Well you don't actually put a figure on what you think is exploitation. You may believe any profit made is exploitation. Is there a magic cut-off line?
Russia is totally entitled to make whatever laws it thinks are right. Certainly I don't believe it nationally a good thing to default on bond issues, and break contracts. It is also something that does have very real repercussions for future finance/business deals. Though, being as I am not a Russian national that is not really a concern for me. In the world of business the deal of the century comes along weekly. Neither person nor nation is forced to accept finance. An alternative always exists - though that alternative is not always palatable.
PS If you take a cursory glance at the Forbes rich list you may notice the emergence of the third world billionaire - often a person that though a national of the nation in question chooses to take up residence elsewhere - though keeping the business in the original location. Perhaps a number of Vlad's friends fit into that particular mould? I would also presume the banker of choice is not a resident company in the original homeland. I would advise caution finding nationalistic heroes.
A microcosm
Sheila, a good example of your argument is the Bellinger Valley – inland and south of Coffs Harbour.
Late 60's the milk trucks stopped collecting milk from the side valleys, rendering the dairies uneconomic. That, along with the fact that many of the farmers were ageing, opened the way to an influx of 'alternative life-stylers'.
That led to a long and bitter struggle between the newcomers and those farmers who remained. A struggle that even today is not entirely settled.
The newcomers believed, assumed, that the rural life was quiet and peaceful, which of course it is not! Their antics do adversely affect the livelihoods of the farming families.
I suggested that all rural property ought to be sold as 'rural industrial' and that anybody wanting to move into the area should have to sign stating that they had read and understood the associated documentation.
The newcomers believe that Bellingen was always an idyllic little arts colony, while in fact it was a rip-roaring timber town, two newspapers, five pubs and seven brothels if I remember correctly.
The farming community is not too keen on remembering the brothel bit, either!
The change has seen the Bellinger Valley go from being a really prosperous community to an area with high unemployment, many on low incomes, and which has become a dormitory for those who work in Coffs.
Peak water
"In 2006-07, Sydney Water supplied households and businesses with 510 billion litres, nine billion litres less than it supplied in 1974."
It's not just the oil that's running out...
Fiona: So, Eliot, do you suggest that we should start hoping for another Wedding at Cana miracle? Or would that just be too too epistemologically retarded for you?
Publicans' magic
Fiona, it is well known what sort of "magic" publicans in Australia resort to, to solve liquidity problems. It is therefore pointless to quote scriptural as to the wedding at Cana when hoteliers are routinely alleged to perform such miracles as turning beer into water in our own very and contemporary society.
No More Future Fund Is Water Boarding Optional????
Angela Ryan: "PS JPMorgan is a great concern in this current housing crisis and credit crunch. Where exactly right now is our Future Fund, what have JPM invested it in and how secure is it? That is what no-one is asking. See no evil. Just lose lots of other people's money to the gravy train."
You must have some kind of web voodoo magic. I just can't believe you have got me researching this - one big tick for you; you have, and I did! (Paul shaking his head in shock, dismay, and despair)
Firstly your concern with J P Morgan (a very good fund manager incidentally) is unfounded. J P Morgan has nil involvement with the Australian Future Fund. The corporation you are writing of is the investment manager Northern Trust.
Northern Trust is not however the fund manager - that particular role remains the obligation of the Australian Future Fund. Northern Trust will be offering custodial services. In real speak: It will be the bookkeeper, and will have as much say, over the placement of the funds monies, as you will have.
As to how the fund is performing, my quick opinion is that this fund is highly conservative (though a bizarre set up around one company). In basic speak: If it goes broke the western world has gone broke.
I would comment on the rest of your post; however, after reading more about this fund than I ever wished to know, my mind draws nothing but blank:-)
The Chinese Apologize For Making Your Life Tough
John Pratt: "Looks like a disaster to me. You might be happy that GDP is growing. I am sure that many would like to go back twenty years especially the 16 million or so that have died already."
The Chinese GDP growing is not something that overly concerns me; I am not Chinese.
I would be interested in the gender breakdown for the 16 million or so deaths caused
Have a look at this statistic:
Though you know what they say about statistics?
No, living in a nation of a billion plus people would be difficult. The environmental problems alone would cause considerable problems - not to mention the damage inflicted by thousands of years of society.
Perhaps Chinese in search of a better life could get in touch with their inner selves? Forget such silly notions as fun, dreams, education and self expression. Get all social minded and go and live with nature. Perhaps they could call it something like the cultural revolution or the great leap forward? Anything would be better than the current nightmare, huh?
An inconvenient truth for Greenies
I also happen to believe Australia's level of population is unsustainable, as do people like Tim Flannery.
Tim's in an awkward spot. On the one hand, he sounds like many other environmentalists. On the other hand, he thinks what is true for others is also true for environmentalists and their political fellow travellers.
This makes him a very awkward proposition.
hey Eliot, whatcha mean?
Hi Eliot, what did you mean? I don't understand your statement:
"...... This makes him a very awkward proposition..."
Don't most environmentalists agree about population levels being probably too high and definitely needing control at the domestic and world level?
Cheers
Straw man
In most places, it means that you have falsely attributed to your interlocutor some indefensible proposition which you subsequently dispute, easily 'defeating' them.
Often, however, I have noticed that people with indefensible propositions cry 'straw man' once they have to defend them against criticism.
That too, Eliot
Eliot Ramsey, thanks. I was already aware of the generally understood meaning of the term 'straw man', and was doubtful it could be applied to my contention in this instance. I was interested in finding out precisely what James Sinnamon meant by it, as it seems likely that his personal definition is something else again.
When one builds an argument on the basis of sweeping assertions and generalisations, as Sheila Newman has done on this thread, it becomes its own 'straw man'. To put it mildly.
Immigration and Population
I, and I guess most contributors to this discussion, believe our planet's population level to be unsustainable.
This isn't exactly the same as immigration.
Sheila Newman makes the point about commentators supporting capitalists and their self-interest. I would like to quote Henry Kissinger (from his academic days): experts are those who repeat the elites' opinions back to them. An excellent study of this is the recent book exposing the role of 'supply-side economics' in the Republican Party.
I don't see why we can't support both (national) immigration and (global) population lowering policies.
Only The Brave Can Ever Endure The Pain
Angela Ryan: "And those stuck there by their companies for as brief a time as they have to endure away from home."
At my first place of employment, and in my early twenties I did spend rather a lot of time in South America. Yes, I remember thinking on one particular stint in Rio de Janeiro: Will this hellish nightmare on earth ever end :-)
Future Fun Times?
Angela Ryan: "Tariffs upon the goods and services supplied in exploitative and environmentally damaging ways. Not hard to work out."
It is hard to work out minus a definition. I could say that going from the above some Australian goods and services would have tariffs applied to them by North American, and European trading partners - and it would take place in all kinds of fields. One such field would be the film industry where LA professionals have long since complained about under cutting by Australian production houses (lower paid and more efficient workers). Along with LA communities suffering from Australia's savage habit of local communities charging much less for filming permits (often due to currency exchange). So does the Australian film production industry need to be tariffed out of existence to save Australian film crews and communities from exploitation?
So for places such as China, and India the growth of late has been a disaster for these people? You would like a return to pre 1990?
You're probably right. And the Caribbean (some of the most expensive real estate and resorts in the world) does need the extra funding. And anyway why would a national bank need to bring such things home (to benefit of the locals) when they can own such things (arms length of course) abroad?
Typical; point out a world trend, and end up accused of being the Man Who Would Be King.
Certainly have this part right.
No working class jobs in society huh? Interesting, and a view you may care to share with say the local plumber next time he hands you the account. Interestingly, the two great growth industries have been the self employed service industry, and non union contract based industries. That is why "finance types" get so excited about the words: Christmas bonus. In another era many of them would not have earned much more than an experienced teacher, nurse etc. And they say super modals don't get out of bed for ten grand pfffttt.
Tell that to the North Americans heading to Mexico, and South America - or the Brits going to Spain, Greece, and now Turkey. Cost of living I suggest would be the number one issue - given there is only so many pedophiles and other assorted loons in this world.
I guess it depends if you're Chinese or not. I also guess that Brits probably wonder if it were such a good idea not moving their nation to Australia or the United States before that. Certainly I don't see Australia offering up free minerals as a consolation prize.
I don't have much knowledge about this fund (thank you Goggle). I suggest you read this http://www.futurefund.gov.au/.
I am not here to reinvent the wheel. I can tell you how the wheel works but that is about it. My original point was that Australian manufacturing will suffer from a top down centralized employment program. This should be apparent to any person that bothers to give even a cursory thought to the situation. It is so apparent that even the people making the promises, for such a system, are back tracking on them faster than the speed of their voices.
The golden periods of the 20th were post two major wars. It all culminated in the final major growth spurt of the last century and into this century with the coming together of a fractured world (end of the cold war). The period used as the template 1950 - 1970 for idealists is the exception of world history not the rule. What this period did was put the final touches on a very real and very stable middle-class. The rich have always been rich, and the poor have always been poor; this equation will not be solved in the foreseeable future. The question is will there still be a middle-class? My answer would be yes, but we are seeing the beginning of its contraction. And as to which direction many of those in the middle-class are headed? Only time will tell.
Fair trade. Nationalism containing gloablism. Love of the illusi
Hi Paul Morella, I agree with much of what you write and see your greater experience in these areas. What you say about the middle class is similar to a lecture I remember recently about the Shrinking Middle Class in the USA on the ABC RN. I am not really sure how a purchasing driven economy can sustain if it loses the MC and their purchasing power. Many also say that MC are essential for a vibrant stable society and Putin gave a speech about this, elaborating on his plan to increase house ownership and thus build the MC there to complete the transition to a stable market society. Do we lose this stability with the loss of the MC?
You say "It is hard to work out minus a definition." I agree, but definition building is the food of diplomats and pen pushers. You alluded to a rivalry between Hollywood and Aussie cinema production; I would think Bollywood would be a greater worry for Hollywood once they get an open market into the USA, but currently the domestic theatres are shutting them out – along the lines of Michael Moore’s film being shut out, yet it is done. Note Mel Gibson’s latest didn’t even get a showing despite its formula of extreme violence and good looking stars that usually gets male bums on seats. He aint too good at chick flix, behind the camera. Certainly once Bollywood buys the cinemas or DVD distribution as Hollywood has there will be far greater penetration and concern at how one competes with their costs. After all, most of the services from the USA are going to India at present, aren't they?
Australian crews are/were unionized, have award working environments usually with a good safety record and are not environmentally polluting. That kind of fair wages etc is what I mean by a level playing field and so justify no tariffs.
This is in contrast to mining industries where local constraints here are laughed at once out of the country. Gushing copper filaments/tailings down rivers make companies like Rio Tinto stinky – that is where tariffs should be laid by those importing that or the stock market where they are listed as they should establish a fund to clean out the mess and pay the locals for their future health distress. Hardies is an example of the very worst behaviour, arrogant and vile by their leadership and now jumping overseas to escape paying the price to those suffering. Scum.
I actually think LA has enough local problems with its writers and exploitative big industry to keep it too busy to worry about the occasional Aussie film about deserts or kangaroos or both. Naturally I was alluding more to the gross exploitation of third world workers and their safety and environment as kindly linked later by a vigilant WD. I am certain you are aware of that. Still it is interesting that you think the LA film industry (surely not the real big one there, the Porn industry eh?) is fearful of the Downunder threat. Actually I understand NY is pissed off by the Toronto takeover threat too, plenty filmed there pretending with yellow cabs. I actually had to go up there for a Jackie Chan shooting with lots of "ka-booms" in the city centre and trailers littering the inner suburbs. They can keep it all.
Perhaps the guys here should just take out US citizenship and take over the film industry – after all, it was done in the media..... :) Rupert better watch out Hollywood doesn't do a Citizen Kane on him.
"Why should a national bank"...I guess I don’t share the world exploitative view that you have and think that if a bank gains from the stability and security and expertise of a society for its banking and profit then it should put back taxes etc. That is the common view of taxes – gain and put back – rather than hide it away and be proud that one has never paid tax...despite then being given a state funeral, pig behaviour of a man and family that but for that man do those mills grind finely now....
You wrote: "No working class jobs in society huh? Interesting, and a view you may care to share with say the local plumber next time he hands you the account. Interestingly, the two great growth industries have been the self employed service industry, and non union contract based industries...”
But Paul, none of these are working class. The beneficiaries are all lower or middle middle class as either tradesmen (plumbers) or small businessmen. The unskilled workman has no particular advantage being employed by a small contractor businessman and is probably worse off as he doesn’t have the long term benefits from large scale company employment, and the cost saving is usually at the bottom not to mention the risk of summary dismissal under the new dismissal laws.
And as for "super models” – well, I don't know how much it takes to get them in or out of bed but funds certainly seem to be in the equation. My mum and sister were in the industry for a while and told me plenty from the inside.
As for going there to live, versus the many who go to holiday, I think you will find there is only a small number who emigrate to these countries permanently and if not for work or family/marriage they usually fit the previously mentioned misfit/missionary/madman category. I can think of three I know. Same applies to the central desert here.
Spain and Greece are hardly third world countries like Central Africa etc ... although their plumbing is. Most North Americans go to Florida for their third world warm experience of living. It is interesting how many are taking to the floating geri boats. Anywhere warm with good cardiac facilities and clean toilets. That doesn't mean living with the natives in Mexico in general, methinks, but I take your point that there are areas specially designed for such people by clever entrepreneurs targeting the grey well-heeled.
And finally I do not think the rich have always been rich, but rather there have always been rich. The landed gentry of Britain lost their riches last century to the banking and merchant classes, all still so keen to marry back into those titles. Even vulgar soccer players now have the landed sites that knight and barons would have had when lands brought the wealth. The next rich group? Who will they be? Interesting how poor doctors are in Soviet Russia. Studying how the rich became rich in recent Russian times is certainly an eye-opener to modern ripping off with mates backing you OS. The rich may not be rich if the government whims it so.
Anyway, is a society better with a stable and growing middle class or a faltering and collapsing one? Perhaps it should be of great concern to America what is happening. Does it matter to the globalists who just move their mansion and factories and are always homeless and locally friendless?
It does matter to nationalists and if there are further rises in nationalism this century I think there will be changes. Nationalism is the enemy of the global capitalist and the friend of the stable community. Not fascism, there is the danger.
The Russian model is an example. Where Putin stops exploitation by the foreign financiers and gaols their local puppets, now that is an example I suspect others will follow with the usual same protests from the homeless-exploiting-Globalists. IF there was no Wal-Mart et al the world would be a far better place in so many ways and places.
There is a difference between exploitation trade and fair trade and that is what I am trying to say. FT is best for the entire world and ET is best for the pockets of a very few. The difficulty is to define what is "fair" trade and that is what is being debated – and a concept that Paul is struggling with. And what real wealth is for a community and society.
Tough for the homeless. Their love is only money. An illusion that can disappear in a puff...
Cheers
PS JPMorgan is a great concern in this current housing crisis and credit crunch. Where exactly right now is our Future Fund, what have JPM invested it in and how secure is it? That is what no-one is asking. See no evil. Just lose lots of other people's money to the gravy train.
China looks like a disaster to me.
Paul Morrella: "So for places such as China, and India the growth of late has been a disaster for these people? You would like a return to pre 1990?"
Looks like a disaster to me. You might be happy that GDP is growing. I am sure that many would like to go back twenty years especially the 16 million or so that have died already.
Controlled immigration
"You are talking about invasions, not free travel or immigration.
Indeed, immigration controls were placed upon indigenous people like the American Indians, Canadian Indians, and Aboriginals once the invasions were complete and, as usual, the white man broke every promise or treaty."
American and Canadian Indians, Aboriginals, Pacific Islanders, Africans, Celts, and early English ALL controlled immigration. So do all species. Normal free communities, organised along kinship lines in clans and tribes, have very clear adoption and immigration rules, involving agreement by the whole community. This, plus strict observance of incest avoidance laws keeps small communities at a stable population level.
What most of us have come to believe, that Africans, Pacific Islanders etc., had out of control populations, is simply observation of what happened when colonisation stuffed up the traditional land-use planning and population organisation. First there was a die-off among the dispossessed, then if anyone survived, a population explosion followed due to destruction of normal land-tenure, gender and incest avoidance codes. Plus coloniser ideology which promises jobs for plenty of children. (Remember these people have lost their land, so they now have to work for others and, if there are no child labour laws, child-labour is the only fast way to increase your income).
The Aboriginals and Indians and Pacific Islanders and Africans would never in a pink fit have encouraged wholesale immigration as the industrialised anglophone world does. Because they would have seen that it was anti-democratic and socially (in the sense of stuffing up land-tenure) disorganising. Unless, of course, those Aboriginals, Indians et al., had been on a small island that had been disorganised by invasions, where the invaders had set up a caste system and had put the original inhabitants to work for them, followed by which the upper castes, having run out of trees for charcoal, discovered a way to smelt iron using coal (conveniently contiguous), leading to a big population explosion and diaspora as colonisers into the rest of the world - in a movement which would have been called 'capitalism'.
Those castes controlling capital would have continued to foster overpopulation and cheap labour because the system benefited them; inflating the cost of land, water and food, continually through population pressure, so that capital might make more out of those resources, and so that labour might never have enough land to get out from under capital.
To anyone who protested they would have said, "But you must let all the poor overpopulated peoples join us in this happy land." Some wise people might have said, "Why don't you just give them back their land and stop interfering and while you are at it, how about sharing the land here equally." Those people would have been called communists or racists or impractical and the capitalists would have got journalists in the major newspapers which they owned to write articles about how great economic growth was because everyone got to own beads and baubles instead of land and jobs instead of freedom. And they would have added that it was very important to keep population growth going to keep economic growth going, and, as well, because high immigration is an enobling thing. Pretty soon the wise people would have got drowned out. The not-so-wise people, hearing the dominant classes champion economic and population growth would have wanted to believe that such well-dressed, well-spoken people wanted and knew what was best for everyone else. And they would have figured that by saying and doing what the rich people did, they might be invited to join the dominant class. So the not-so-wise would have started repeating what the rich said. The wise people would have attempted to reason but they would have been accused of naughtiness and selfishness by the not-so-wise, and, eventually there would have been a civil war, or maybe only a very strong dictatorship and a very big prison, with lots of jobs for prison guards due to all the growth...
But I sense that you have all stopped reading...:-)
Newmanic naturalism
Sheila Newman, can we take it then that you regard all human migration as undesirable, and at all times?
On one view that would leave the whole present human race confined to the Land of Nod (east of Eden, as told in Genesis 4). On another, we would all cohabit along the Rift Valley in Africa.
Each OK I suppose, except that by now real estate prices would be sky high. The apartment houses also.
Sustainable societies, democracy, and immigration
No, Ian, you cannot take it that way.
I said all sustainable societies democratically controlled immigration. Immigration and emigration were rules, still are rules among apes, humans, birds... you name it.
At the most basic level a creature seeking a mate has to leave its family and go far enough a) to find territory (house, shelter), and b) to find a mate not too closely related.
In some societies it is the woman who marries out. In others it is the man who marries out. Whoever marries out is emigrating to a new clan; whoever marries in is immigrating to a new clan.
Clans make the rules about whether they can afford to accept a new person or not. In normal societies, not everyone marries. Marriage means having the right to raise inheritors. That means you must have enough territory available for them to inherit and survive off.
Similar rules apply for adoption. There are a lot of other ones too; they are predictable and found in a kind of runcible recognisable format in every society. Our society, however, is very disorganised and the people in it have lost their say about their environments, both social and physical. That is because there is a kind of corporate caste in control, which doesn't care about the living conditions of those they seek to exploit.
I didn't say immigration was a bad thing. I did mean to say that immigration without the consent and knowledge of the community experiencing it is bad. Any population stream which is large enough to change the norms of the incumbent population, despite that population, is not a democratic or friendly phenomenon.
This even applies at the local level, where people sell up in the inner suburbs and migrate outwards to the outer suburbs, to new infills, which the incumbents there hate. It is irresponsible of those immigrants and wrong of those governments which permit it and it leads to long-term resentment and depression as people lose control of their surroundings and their governments.
An Inevitable Aboriginal Loss
Sheila: "I didn't say immigration was a bad thing. I did mean to say that immigration without the consent and knowledge of the community experiencing it is bad. Any population stream which is large enough to change the norms of the incumbent population, despite that population, is not a democratic or friendly phenomenon."
I think you and former PM Howard would agree on this point: "We will decide who comes here, and the circumstances in which they come." Despite all the fulminations over that from various sources in punditry, I cannot see how one can disagree with it, particularly if one wishes to avoid the fate of the original settlers of this continent (probably the negritos whose descendants finished up in Tasmania) under the waves of Murrayans, Carpentarians, Europeans etc who followed them in. (I disagree with Keith Windschuttle's thesis as set forth in his Fabrication of Aboriginal History, and am putting the finishing touches to a lengthy critique of it, but on this I'd say he's probably right.)
If it was not the British who came here uninvited, then it would have been some other imperial or colonising race or power: say the French, Germans, Russians, Turks, Chinese, Malays, Polynesians; take your pick. I doubt any of them would have asked humble permission of whichever indigenous occupant to land and raise a flag or two.
If you can't defend it, you don't own it. Sad, but true. The Aborigines had not gone through the social evolution leading to civilisation the way the Europeans had. In 1788 a people with one of the most rudimentary technologies in the world were intruded upon by those with the most advanced. The rest, as they say, is history.
Not much use moralising about it. My concern is that it not be repeated.
A straw man
Ian MacDougall: "Sheila Newman, can we take it then that you regard all human migration as undesirable, and at all times? ..."
That's a straw man argument.
Definition please
James Sinnanmon, sorry, you've lost me. You will have to be more specific as to what yoiu mean by a 'straw man'.
Going by Sheila Newman's post, I think what I said is a reasonable inference as to her thoughts. One searches in vain through her post for any hint of migration, present or past, that she actually approves of.
Definition of 'Straw Man' argument
Ian, to me it seemed that you were attempting to imply that because Sheila Newman opposes the out-of-control migration that we see in the crowded gravely environmentally stressed world of the 21st century, that she necessarily must have opposed all human migration at all points in human history.
I don't see why that should have followed from what Sheila was arguing.
In past human epochs, when human activity was considerably less destructive of the world's environment, gradual human migration on a modest scale would not necessarily have put our planet's ecology at risk. The same could be the case once again, but this is definitely not the case with the current level of global migration.
Fiona: Some Webdiary style points, James. First, it is not customary to provide a hyperlink to another Webdiarist's comment on the same thread, especially if, as you did, you use the "reply" function to the comment concerned. Second, it is customary to bold any Webdiarist's name that you mention in your own comment the first time that you use it. Hope this helps.
The Straw Question
James Sinnamon, my 'straw man' was actually only a simple question to Sheila Newman. I would be most interested in finding out, given her sweeping condemnation of so much past migration, just what bits and pieces of it she approves of.
I suspect that she would strongly disapprove of any migrations out of Europe into lands already occupied by whomsoever, but as for the rest, who knows?
Question was reasonable and not a "straw man" after all
Ian MacDougall,
Upon reflection, I can see that yours was a reasonable question to ask in response to Sheila's post after all, although the answer seemed obvious to me. Nevertheless, I was hasty in my judgement. So please accept my apologies.
To anticipate what I think Sheila's response would be, there probably was not that much difference between many past human migrations and invasions. Had I been in a part of the world that already been inhabited and was subject to a large sudden influx from elsewhere, I would naturally have opposed it. Clearly our societies are largely the result of such past mass migrations/invasions, so we would tend to want to retrospectively justify them and regard the resistance to those migrations/invasions as against progress. However, my view is that these upheavals did not aid human progress. I am inclined to agree with those who see the achievement of harmony with the environment, and not technological 'advancement' at the expense of the environment resulting from such upheavals, as the pinnacle of human achievement.
If industrial society pulls back from the brink and somehow manages to bring about a new age of peace and environmental stability, as I hope it will, then I will have been proven wrong. However, I still don't see how this can occur unless we control our population and get immigration under control.
Fiona, what's wrong with hyperlinks to other posts? Wouldn't they make the forum more useful, especially where they may be viewed as flat lists, rather than threaded lists? Of course I will abide by the policy if that is what the administrators prefer, but I fail to understand the sense of it.
Hyperlinks to other posts
James, there is nothing "wrong" with providing links to other posts - it's more a matter of what can be seen as a user-friendly post.
In the case of the "straw man" discussion, if the comments are viewed in threaded form they obviously form a seamless account. Even in flat form, the relevant comments rarely have more than two other posts between them. So in the present case it seemed to me that including hyperlinks was more of a distraction than a help to other readers.
Of course, where one is referring to a post made a considerable time ago (or on a different thread), a hyperlink is entirely appropriate.
Jealous of your succint summary
James: "However, my view is that these upheavals did not aid human progress. I am inclined to agree with those who see the achievement of harmony with the environment, and not technological 'advancement' at the expense of the environment resulting from such upheavals, as the pinnacle of human achievement...."
Beautifully said.
I wonder how many would come if it were not regulated by laws and reinforced by our "power". I suspect it would be mainly the poor and insecure who can travel as there is, as Paul was pointing out, a good lifestyle when one is well-heeled in a third world country that is stable.
Cheers
Tariffs To Poverty
Angela Ryan: "Bring back "tariffs" where exploitation occurs, thus the foreign producers will make a better nation there."
Actually, not such a good idea if this is the outcome you seek. If repeated across the globe it will mean these places return to pre-growth days - pretty shitty I would suggest, and one reason labor costs are for the moment so relatively cheap. You will also largely add to your own citizen's cost of living, and by doing this will have a large impact on the industries that do in fact work for the nation. The Gov-ment will save us you may say: Unfortunately no because the Gov-ment like the rest of society unlucky enough to have funds left in the place - will eventually be suffering from a decrease of them, funds that is (and that means cost cuts). Borrow them you may say: But from whom? And at what rate of interest? Welcome to the dilemma of the third world.
Future fund sunk with JPMorgan housing losses?
Tariffs upon the goods and services supplied in exploitative and environmentally damaging ways. Not hard to work out. Usually the corrupt exploitative practices are only benefiting a small group anyway and the damage to whole community lasts generations as we are seeing in China where whole factories are relocating (not with the now unemployed and polluted workforce). Thus there would indeed be slower growth but it would be sustainable change and with a growing better off population and permanent gains that don't disappear when Walmart moves to a more corrupt regime location in Africa, again with no labour protection or environmental limitations.
And just because other pretend nation states are no more than the bagmen for organised criminals that parade as bankers and globalists now doesn't mean that it would benefit our nation. Your idea of exploiting the locals due to money gained from our economy here is rather repugnant and typical of those with colonial ruthless using and exploiting mentality.
In every community there will always be those for whom digging trenches and factory work is the option, despite computers on desks or whatever drivel Rudd went on about. It is not lack of computers that holds back kids; it is the entire mentality of some areas and the abuse and neglect that goes on there.
No working class jobs in a society soon make things rather unpleasant. Especially when the "haves" are not all sealed away in walled housing estates with security guards and the advertising continues to let them know what they cannot ever have. WCj that fail to pay a living wage are just as bad as the cycle of hopelessness becomes unending. Rudd would be better to spend the computer money (yes, of course they are imported – the local industry was destroyed by cheap OS imports at least a decade ago as would be the car industry if so much taxes were not pumped into it instead of developing and building drop in replacement electric motors) on TAFE training and stop these ridiculous school based TAFE courses, multiplying the same resources, albeit in the privatised hands of Howard mates.
So, no, Paul, as I have a home here I want it to be as beautiful and happy for as many as possible and do not contemplate moving to a third world country to be waited upon by locals – the Raj days are over. Usually it is only pedophiles and misfits from their own society that do such. (We used to say missionaries misfits and madmen) And those stuck there by their companies for as brief a time as they have to endure away from home. If such a life appeals to you – well, regards. Do you really have no "where your heart is"? That you call home? That you treasure and want to keep beautiful? Improve and nurture?
Oxfam has the right kind of projects where locals are empowerd and their goods valued as does the Fair Trade organisation. Such products would not attract the kind of tariffs I am talking of – crikey, a split infinitive – pamsplat pucnhghsopetras[ujrg. there, fixed. Walmart however would be "tariffied" out of the water as far as I am concerned. And with proper value put upon a product we would be less of a throwaway society and create more jobs in the repair and refurbish industries. If instead of tossing your computer you had it repaired or enhanced each time what a blessing for the environment that would be.
The world would be such a better place in so many ways if the Walmarts of the Globalisation Mighty were tariffied to pay for the havoc and destruction that they leave in their wake in so many exploited communities. And has it really been such a good thing to make China, a fascist totalitarian state, the mighty powerful monied up entity it is now?
And Paul, the Future Fund, despite strenuous local opposition from investment groups, was put in the hands of JP Morgan which has just posted huge billion dollar losses and injected billions of funds (whose????OURS???) into the US’s floundering economy.
So I say it again, where are the Future Funds now? What are they worth? And what guarantees does our government have about their security?
Cheers
Future Funds
I'd love a job where the government passes a law saying people have to give me money. And then doesn't hold me to account for what I do with it?
How do the rest of us get these kinds of jobs?
A Life Down By The Lead Smelter
Angela Ryan
I would suggest where the funds were put in the first place - only worth a lot more. Consider the growth of the last fifteen years, and the current complaints about immigration taking from the wealth of the Australian citizenry.
Mr Rudd might like to start with his computer policy? This leads me to my second point:
What sort of education revolution ends with a percentage of the population say stitching shoes? Does Australia even produce rubber??? And why would somebody wish to pay half a weeks wage for this product to keep it "local"?
Australia could always have secret banking laws - the Belize of the Pacific. Working in an air conditioned bank sure would beat stitching shoes.
Many of the poor places in the world are not the worst places to be if one has funds. Maybe middle-class Australians (rich in many of these places) could think about having unlimited immigration (good rent return) and moving to some of these undiscovered paradises? Would be ironic knowing somebody is paying high taxes to keep one in the standard of living (through pensions and such) one has come accustomed too. And with free health services offered to citizen's one could always return in the case of emergency - and enjoy even further spoils.
Richard: 10 micrograms of lead per decalitre of kids' blood is the WHO standard. Perhaps a bit of the fund could be spent in Port Pirie?
Illegal immigration keeps millions alive.
Here I go again, the atheist pointing to the religious among us, pleading for more compassion. Pleading for those who profess to be followers of Jesus to take his words and actions seriously.
Although I do not believe in the claims made by Christians that Jesus is the son of God. I do believe that his wisdom and leadership could be our salvation.
We must be willing to risk our "wealth" to make the Earth a planet where all can live in peace. Millions are desperate and most of us still call for more consumer goods and walls to make sure we keep them. Immigration is necessary so others may survive.
is wealth that expensive?
Hi John, how lovely the world would be if Christian philosophy was acted upon by the leaders. Rather than encouraging dislocation, leaving the home of one's foreparents, having only memories of one's childhood and no longer being able to climb that tree or see one's children doing so because the tree was burned, the house was bulldozed by tanks and the fields contaminated so one immigrates. Then, unable to use one’s unrecognised skills, one lives in poverty taking whatever base job one can and living in hope for one's next generation, one should look at the root cause of the problem.
Why are countries devastated by war, why are people unable to support themselves, why are their lands ravaged, why are bombs dropping upon their families, why have their leaders taken all the profits, why is their basic infrastructure destroyed or never built? ... Yet so often these lands from which people come or want to come ,have so great natural wealth and cultural richness and historical significance.
Immigration is a band aid. Seeking the problem and lancing the poison that causes it is the only real solution.
Start with why are 2million plus refugees fleeing Iraq? Afghanistan? Somalia? Back one goes in history and the same reasons are there, again and again.
The solution? Not take in more refugees but stop the war mongers, hold those who are war criminals to account, take out the corrupt companies and officials and businesses, take down the exploiting multinationals that rape and pillage almost just as effectively as any war can, and apply proper regulations that promote openness and responsibility to the corporate and banking sectors at – yes indeed – the cost of the tiny elite but to the benefit of the huge majority who do the real work and pay the real prices.
Wow, I am starting to sound like a Socialist. A libertarian responsible socialist capitalist with open and accountable leadership in all fields of business and banking and government, domestic and international. Start with the reason BHP Billiton is not so keen on Rio Tinto merger.
All can be "wealthy" when the real idea of what wealth is is firmly established in everyone's minds. Freedom, health, beautiful environment and happy families. That does not need a huge amount of money really.
Cheers
The more mouths to feed the better, I say
Paul Morrella: "What I was attempting to make clear (poorly done I admit) was that the Australian workforce is highly dependent on the domestic spending (retail, building etc)."
Indeed, and it's these sectors which are the engines behind the 'Big Populations are Good' lobby. Purely out of concern for the cultural and material welfare of future migrant communities, of course, and not for any selfish, short term economic reason.
Paul Morrella: "New York, the richest city in the world, was made great by immigration and tolerance. No walls were needed." [Fiona: Actually, Eliot, John Pratt wrote this.]
Well, there was a wall, actually. To keep out the Native American people. That's how Wall Street got its name. New York got big after the native people were clear-felled along with those pesky forests of beech, maple and elm.
The name Manhattan is derived from a Native American word for 'sparkling waters'. Dutch settlers there made mention of porpoises frolicking in Hudson Bay. Gosh. I wonder where they all went?
Just because the American immigration programme of the 19th Century was based around massive, mostly European settlement, there's no reason why ours should in the 21st Century. Especially given we don't have a resource base comparable with continental North America.
Marilyn Shepherd: "Talk about bloody selfish when there are 2 billion people who genuinely cannot get enough water."
What would be your suggestion, Marilyn, as to how we could provide the water for them here? Nuclear powered or coal fired desalination plants? Or what?
turning wine into water.
Actually, it would apparently not be all that difficult or costly, Eliot.
At the turn of the century it emanated from the UN, I think, that about $50 billion would do the trick as to basics ( this figure was in an international relations course I was doing at uni, too), as to basic water for Marilyn's 2 billions. Presumably gold taps are not an option here, but basic water out of a tap from a bore or piped from a river or lake not contaminated by sewage and hence gastro - nasty thing, gastro - would be a welcome change for many wretched people.
Especially when compared to the $trillions wasted on wars in the Mid East alone, since the new century began.
Basic water, food, shelter, health, justice and education (also accessible family planning??) would do a lot to ease pressure to emigrate elsewhere for many of the suffering billions, yes?
And be achieved more easily than by the arcane means currently employed, although the likes of Lockheed-Martin and Halliburton who have a vested interest in just such current methods might not be pleased.
I get your drift as to water shortages and the increasing rarity of natural resources. Much could be done to encourage more efficient use and distribution of these, to counter current ecological damage.
And, of course, bloody birth control - why the idea bothers a certain type of person will always baffle this writer.
But the world so bloody dysfunctional, often seeming like a giant open-air concentration camp, that little wonder many give up even hoping for real change and retreat behind the safe walls of nimby. (Hopefully) I am not a (total) hypocrite, so freely admit to despair and the alluring temptation to disengagement and isolationism myself. But the idea that a solution does exist and ought to be advocated for remains powerful also, even if the reasons for this are conceivably selfish, although also derived of sympathy for and horror at the plight of billions of people who live under condition we could not dream of, which would destroy us Westerners within weeks.
My Error
Ian MacDougall: "The "3% of the population" who work in the (unspecified) "industries" that bring in "69% of export dollars" are merely the last links in a production chain, which can be broken down into 'industries' as defined by whatever criteria one may choose. Such categories can be both illuminating in some ways and misleading in others."
Yes, I've made a slight error. It should have been the agricultural and mineral industry caters to 3% of Australian domestic consumption yet makes up 69% of Australian exports. What I was attempting to make clear (poorly done I admit) was that the Australian workforce is highly dependent on the domestic spending (retail, building etc). This is what makes such things as consumer spending and house prices so critical. It is also an economy that is inter-woven into the world economy. Things such as labor costs in many areas will be affected because of this.
Give me your tired and your poor.
New York, the richest city in the world, was made great by immigration and tolerance. No walls were needed.
TW yeah, just like NY
Sorry but bullshit that NY was
1. made great
and
2 made rich by immigration. A tiny group was. And it postponed British workers getting fair pay for generations and crashed their business.
They used the labour as cheap slaves to destroy the British manufacturing/weaving at the time. Just as is always done. Move the factory, exploit the vulnerable workers wherever they are, then move on the factories. One of my ancestors was just such a person who did this, sadly. I am surprised we don't have fold out versions yet. Have we forgotten Gangs of NY? The violence and race wars that went on there, sanitised by history and Hollywood? It was just as grubby as any other city of high immigration and crime with the added nastiness of being the boss centre for banking and money moving and controlling rivalling Europe and Britain until WWs sorted them out. Interesting how the Russian economy was taken on when Putin threw out a banker's puppet – 30% stock market fall in one day apparently, but I may have misread the Russian – I am awfully rusty there. Further developments going on now as he is kept behind bars. Putin, like Hitler, on the front of Time. I wonder.
NY had power by the right of the banking mafia well established there and sucking off the Fed reserve scam, after killing off the opposition to it, and then reinvesting that money to gain further power and influence owning the railways, media, running wars and banking for both sides, running oil grabs like Standard Oil, probably banking for other organised crime networks, funding government changes and revolutionaries like Trotsky who destroy their social and financial enemies, and now running modern day government from there, apparently.
Don't give me that NY crap, sanitised by Hollywood and music industry puppets. Pity the whole place doesn't slowly sink into the sea with tide rises. NY is everything that Jefferson warned about. New Amsterdam would have been a better place without bankers. And I wonder how many wars would have been avoided. Jap and Russia for one and all the product of that is well documented and recently no doubt the Iraq war. Certainly USA entry to WW1 and WW2 was supported by that group according to Lindenburgh's addresses.
NY be damned. A pustule that should have been popped centuries ago. Cannot think of a more spinned about city, can you? Ever asked who does the spinning? Be like Macquarie bank funding songs and movies about tollways. Tollwaytollllllllway. TW yeah. ILUVTollways. Just as stupid.
Cheers
One Hell Of Year On The Horizon
Angela Ryan: "The aging population issue is part of what drives this immigration, as does the need for increasing house prices (to fund consumerism) and cheap labour willing to do physically hard work. For motivation to succeed see how many HSC achievers were only second generation."
Given that many aging people in western nations expect that the best and most expensive things such as health are a natural right this is to be expected. There is no hope of having one without the other.
Given also that Australia has two industries that comprise of 3% of the population yet 69% of export dollars it is a fair assumption that consumerism and house prices keep a lot of people in jobs - and paying taxes. Bringing an end to this consumerism (which may come a lot sooner than many think) will have some consequences that many may not have thought fully through.
Our own communities have unskilled people, and without a manufacturing base (currently our growth is about -4% and the fourth worst in the world) there may be no work for them. Consider how that will affect society when the "lowest" elements are without work and hope.
These people become the folly for unfortunately believing centralized top down industrial regulations can ever be effective. As the cost of labor (in low to middle skilled fields) rises so will the ranks of the unemployed.
Christmas cake catharsis
Hi Paul, you as a homeless globalist (ie source labour from the cheapest and least socially and environmentally regulated sources to max profits that are skimmed off at the top by pyramid scheme paid hegemonic nepotised company director scam propped up by worker fed compulsory super funds ... and WHERE ARE OUR AUSTRALIA FUND MONIES RIGHT NOW????IN THE US UNDER JPMORGAN – ALIAS HONEY I LOST THE FUNDS NOTORIETY NOW????), who supports capitalist anarchism, ie unfettered exploitation of anyone by anyone with money and power, are expected to write what you do but a simple disclaimer like the one above before you do might clear the murky waters. :)
As long as products are locally sourced there will be a comprehensive multilayered system. When one removes employment for the least able / uneducated / factory worker then one creates huge stratification and a poverty class. This is not from fair wage morality in our society but from ruthless outsourcing by globalist power networks who pillage foreign societies and then move on when their workers get too expensive, consequently dislocating that society. This has been going on since slaves were brought in and continued with British importing of Irish workers to break strikes and now the NAFTA with the Mexico sourcing of jobs of the US. With our own industry we see coal and iron exported to Vietnam for our own companies to smelt there and export back here, opened by John Howard. Globalistaion and offshore hidden banking allows huge profits to be made with no feeding back to any society in the form of taxes or local education or jobs. We see companies import their entire skilled work force as they move their apparatus and then move them all onwards when the political or tax or social or security environment is no longer suitable to max profits.
It is long past time that the Friedman system of greed and profits for some at the expense of so many people, societies, cultures – and even making war to their ends. Naturally the homeless care not for these issues as they just move camp to another rich field to be exploited and pillaged. And then leave the carnage for fallow mending.
Every economy can become richer with less exploitation and pillaging of their valuable assets and education at the local level. Certainly less consumerism is needed and this can be replaced with other monied valuables such as services, education or better quality – yes, more expensive – locally produced products where the long term benefit make them considerably cheaper. South Africans say that the best thing for them was the embargo as it made them independent in all industries (except defence where they allied with other pariah nations at the time like Israel to gain nuclear weapons. Exploded off Cape Town in the 80s. Eyewitness, moi sais.)
There is a huge train crash coming for societies that is totally avoidable by realizing that economic rationalism is a toy for fascist capitalism and global exploitation by a hugely monied and powerful relocatable few parasites.
There now, that was cathartic. Bring on the straw – I still have my Christmas sparklers, made in China. Would have paid a dollar more for made in Australia.
Bring back "tariffs" where exploitation occurs, thus the foreign producers will make a better nation there, bring open banking and taxes on money shifting so there wont be Belize barons donating a million to our Liberal party coffers. And there won’t be Cayman Island schemes and Bahamas billionaires and casino laundered scams. There is so much money out there to be manipulating whole economies by bankers who have had it in their favour for far toooo long. Remove the Fed monopoly for the bankers who skim off it. remove the likes of G-S employees from places of monetary decision making and prevent such home loan crises as the US now have and make them accountable when it does happen. Funny how you can rob someone of a hundred bucks and get jail for a decade but a billion bucks means a slap.
There, amazing what result Christmas pudding has upon Catharsis. especially when one has candle feasts with those who boast of how it is all so well rigged just before as well. Pissed me off no end.
Now back to the beach. Enjoy our true wealth, a beautiful environment, our health, and happy children. No nuke mushrooms off our horizon I hope today. Actually I guess the cloud could well have dumped on Aus with the Roaring Forties picking it up. Cute. Thanks, Apartheid regimes.
Cheers
Misleading Statistics, Paul
Paul Morella: "Given also that Australia has two industries that comprise of 3% of the population yet 69% of export dollars it is a fair assumption that consumerism and house prices keep a lot of people in jobs - and paying taxes."
As Mark Twain once said, there are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. In the global human economy, of which Australia's is merely a part, everything connects to everything else, which is why the US subprime mortgage crisis is causing such concern in Australia.
The "3% of the population" who work in the (unspecified) "industries" that bring in "69% of export dollars" are merely the last links in a production chain, which can be broken down into 'industries' as defined by whatever criteria one may choose. Such categories can be both illuminating in some ways and misleading in others.
For example, I work in an 'export industry', namely beef cattle. The land the cattle graze would be useless without fencing wire, made of zinc-coated steel, and fence posts, some made of rough cut wood and others of tar-coated or painted steel. The tools I use to maintain the fences were made in Australia, the US, China, Japan and elsewhere. The computer I am typing this into is also essential to the business, and was assembled in Australia from parts sourced from many foreign countries. The electricity that runs it, the farm water system and a whole lot more is put into the power lines at many generation points, involving power station operators, electrical engineers, coal truck drivers, coal miners, etc. I could go on ad infinitum in this vein, except that I am sure it is not news to you. Every textbook on economics probably goes into it somewhere.
I remember reading somewhere that any nation's economy could theoretically get itself out of recession if everyone took in everyone else's washing. Similarly, there could be a perfect cyclone in the housing market if every house owner sold their own and bought someone else's.
Worth considering if all else fails.
NEOIGHBORLY SELL-OFF, LUBBERS! LUFF! LUFF! YE BILGE RATS!
Ian McD Similarly, there could be a perfect cyclone in the housing market if every house owner sold their own and bought someone else'
Or should everybody in the land to move in next door (or the nearest analogue) and start paying agreed rent. It'd be worth it for the Reality TV programs alone. Forget the washing, thou economists.
And at Xmas, everybody bake a turkey for the neighbours anchored on the Port side, and a ham* for those to Starboard. All ye doubloons, varlets, or ye'll feel the taste of me cutlass! That's the free market, fer yer, shipmates! Now sell, sell, sell, or ye'll dance at the end of the plank!
Dr Sir Robert Gordon Woodforde, OAM, 2008 Commonwealth Rent Control Board, Lord Moorhen of the Zinc Ports, Mother of the Nation 1849AD until the Vietnam Police Action put an ends to the Victorian Era and brought in Mr Whitlam and Medibank, both of which crushed Australian Civilisation forever.
* excepting those of Jewish, Mohammedan or Vegan faiths, once again only to make the stupid k'n reality TV shows get mega-wheelspin.