Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

What a word, Globalisation. It does mean different things to different people. From the elite standpoint, it means more power and control, whilst for the general populance it means less power and control.
How the proponents of globalisation can say that it is of benefit to everyone really flies in the face of reality. We see more and more confusion with economies, supply being placed in the hands of whoever can produce for the cheapest price and without regard for jobs, or social stability.

It appears to be that the world is turning a full circle and we find ourselves back a couple of hundred years ago when the elite controlled society and the populance slaved to support them. It is true that the ruling class, CEOs and politicians do what they like without regard for anything but their own agenda. What shrikes me as odd, is that it seems that every country has a foreign debt that is just getting bigger and there seems to balance to it at all.

This must lead to the collapse of economies and social structure over time. Another aspect of globalisation is privatisation which is supposed to provide competition. But the reality is, that it removes competition and places a countries strategic assets in the hands of corporations that have but oner aim, greed. We are already seeing the effect of it here and once they have sold telstra and privatised everything else, we will be completely at the mercy of foreigners. This will mean that they can do what they want without fear and can even shut down our infrastructure if it suits them. We see those results happening here already, higher charges, lower service, less social and health resources, stacking the numbers, more casual employment and less full time employment except for the bureaucrats and elite.

We also have entered a period where we have no effective opposing policies that are aimed at benefiting the people and not the ruling class. We have a political system the appears to be totally corrupt and a law unto itself both in federal, state and local governments. The laws only relate to the general population, anyone else gets away with what they want, and if caught, receives a slap on the wrist and more money.

Until we have people in power that are there to look after this country first, then we are doomed to fall further down the drain until we hit the mess at the bottom.

Interesting stuff this globalisation business. Interesting because there’s just so many aspects to it.

Many moons ago, sometime in the last century, I wrote an academic piece which looks at questions of globalisation from a slightly different perspective inasmuch that I touch on the role of the nation-state and ask how compatible it is when considering aspects of globalisation. I’ve posted it on my blog here if anyone is interested but I warn that it is a bit lengthy and hints at sometimes boring theory but overall it may be of some use and it is fully referenced.

If you, Craig, or any other Webdiarists are going to any of these functions where John Ralston Saul is speaking, I for one would be interested in reading some follow-up if it can be managed.

ed Kerri: Me too.

What I admire about John Saul that he admits that the whole purpose of giving lectures or writing a book is not to demonstrate that he has the answers to any of our problems, but to suggest that there are many other ways of thinking about how modern country works and what the constituent parts of it are. The purpose of sharing a story is to demonstrate that there are a number of other ways of imagining the country ...

The following two excerpts were extracted from "The Unconscious Civilization" a series of lectures by Canadian philosopher and writer John Ralston Saul.

The corporatist idea that elected representatives are merely representing interests has led them to apply pressure directly on the politicians. The result has been a remarkable growth of the lobbying industry, which has as its sole purpose the conversion of elected representatives and senior civil servants to the particular interest of the lobbyist. That is, lobbyists are in the business of corrupting the people's representatives away from the public good. (p. 97)

People ask: what kind of government? How much government? I think the primary question is: whose government? If individuals do not occupy their legitimate position, then it will be occupied by a God or a king or a coalition of interest groups. If citizens do not exercise the powers conferred by their legitimacy, others will do so. (p. 78)

Victoria Collins, what an amazing man he must be. Breezing through your Pravda-esqu precis, one pictures this Saul fellow as quite the Messiah! Neo-mercantilism!!?? What a hoot! I haven't heard that one since those halcyon days of left-wingers hissing and moaning in undergrad tutorials in the 1980s. Then in a spasm of solidarity, we'd all vote of a 'Collective' tutorial partcipation mark!

Viva La Revolution!

As someone said to me today: "Since when did society start serving the market, rather than the market serve the society?"

I just heard JRS on radio and I thought "What an uncommon amount of common sense this man is speaking." So, how come he is not running the IMF or the World Bank? Or, why hasn't Canada appointed him to run their Central Bank? Then I came to my senses as I realised it is exactly for the reason that he speaks the truth to power, and the powerful people in the world today don't like those who want to upset their apple cart. But one day this irresistible force must meet that immovable object and topple it.

The evidence which he presented with regard to the Brazil/Argentina position of standing up to the Western financial powers that be; the final absolution of African Debt; and the Nation State economies of India and China, who are refusing to bow to Anglo centric dictates suggests that maybe the tide has already started to turn against the Neo-Mercantilists. For the sake of the little guy all around the world I hope so.

Globalisation doesn't have a chance. There will be little of it left in 25 years, because we simply won't have the energy to waste on sending sardines around the world, importing dunny seats and fishing rods from China, or freighting milk from Victoria to Sydney so that Woolworths can inflate its profits by undercutting Dairy Farmers.

Globalisation is a dead duck. What we are witnessing is the last gasp of the 'economic hit men', as they look further and further afield for the elusive profits necessary to prop up an unsustainable system. Do they have the time to pillage and destroy the globe before the SHTF? I doubt it, but they will be given the best of help by our so-called leaders.

We all know the system is going backwards, destroying the social benefits we used to take for granted, while minimising the potential for consumers and maximising the potential for corporations. It can't last, and will only end in tears for humanity, but a number of very real questions remain.

How much longer will we put up with it? How much more do we need to lose to see that we are losing our way? And how much longer will we continue to support leaders who answer to the prevailing market forces and not to the public?

Dear Webdiarists, I dont know whether any other Webbers heard the Rural report on Radio National this morning. Anyway there was a discussion on the effects of globalisation and trade agreements and the effects on India.

Apparently the Indian agrarian farmers, in fact a large proportion of the population, are under threat because of food being imported. Farmers on a massive scale can no longer afford to keep their subsistence farming going, and people are going hungry (in a big way) despite an excess of food, because people have no currency to buy the food. The Indian minister said the free trade agreement is going to have to be ditched or a large proportion of the population faces inevitable starvation.

Arguing against globalisation makes about as much sense as arguing against gravity.

Craig: Who is arguing against globalisation here Peter? Did you read what was written? What do you think about shaping the way we globalise? What do you think about alter-globalisation, or as they say in French altermondialisation?

Webdiary's own Ann Coulter wannabe.

Craig: Ross, who do you think wants to be Ann Coulter? And, more importantly, why?

Hey Noelene, don't get too carried away, OK?... you're going to go down with the ship too, and right now, you're getting shafted just like the rest of us.

Maybe you're secretly an idiot-savant millionaire, and you're really going to be just fine in the future, on your cushy little lifeboat with your rich, inane relatives... but don't be too sure...

Because when the energy and climate change revolution comes, the corporate scumbags, slum lords and robber barons will be at the top of the list for removal.

I don't know exactly where you're going to stand, when things get serious, but I tend to think you'll crawl right back to your left-wing undergrad roots, without a look behind...

Victoria Collins | 23/08/2005 5:21:27 PM: “I just heard JRS on radio and I thought ‘What an uncommon amount of common sense this man is speaking.’ So, how come he is not running the IMF or the World Bank? Or, why hasn't Canada appointed him to run their Central Bank? Then I came to my senses as I realised it is exactly for the reason that he speaks the truth to power...”

Nevertheless, he is the spouse of the Governor-General of Canada, and as such has managed to remain a loud and much-needed voice of common sense while both accruing honours in his own right and presumably carrying influence in high circles by association. Would that we had a Mrs G-G of similar stature.

Noelene Konstandinitis’ attempt at irony (23/08/2005 6:09:49 PM) backfires dismally. “Victoria Collins, what an amazing man he must be...” she sneers, failing to comprehend that Saul is indeed a bit of a phenomenon, and a Canadian National Treasure.

I’ve just got out of the Canberra lecture, which was fascinating, funny, informative, upcheering, and went on for over an hour and a half including a couple of questions. May write more about it later, but it’s all in the book, which is heavily recommended.

Jozef, I'm a fan of Saul's too - but I think it's important to take him with plenty of grains of salt. JRS frequently draws a negative message from a piece of analysis without fully covering things off. In light of his "questions not answers" style it's important to take his views as that - views.

Example: You quote him on the lobbying industry. He states here that lobbyists' intent of converting representatives to their views necessarily means that they are actng against the good of society as a whole.

Not true, well not necessarily true all the time as it's pitched here.

I'm no fan of the lobby industry but it's been around for a long time. What are trade unions but the mothers of all lobbies?

Fact is that representatives frequently act for reasons spurious that pitch at a particular constituency over society as a whole. Is a lobbyist agitating against a politician's naked pork barreling of their own electorate necessarily acting against the interests of society? No!

It irritates me that opponents of globalisation seize on half truths such as this and make them whole truths to suit their arguments. Sort of what lobbyists do, in fact.

You know, Noelene Konstandinitis, I've read quite a few of your comments on politics here and have yet to find an actual argument among them. All you seem to manage are snide ad hominems and quaint arguments from authority.

Do you have any original ideas, or is this smugness the best you can manage?

'I just heard JRS on radio and I thought "What an uncommon amount of common sense this man is speaking."'

Victoria, every time I read his books or hear him on the radio, I think exactly that.

"So, how come he is not running the IMF or the World Bank?"

Hmm, maybe because the likes of Wolfowitz better serve the corporate folk JRS is talking about?

Craig asks of Ross Kent: "Ross, who do you think wants to be Ann Coulter? And, more importantly, why?"

I think we all know to whom he's referring.

As to why, do you mean why he thinks Noeline is doing the Coulter impersonation, or why is she doing it?

Hmm, as for the first, I'd suggest that it's something to do with the absence of actual argument and the plethora of vitriol and stereotypes. Very Coulter.

For the second, who knows? Maybe she's a perfect being whose position on everything is so self-evident it needs no support whatsoever, apart from "Oh, when I was chatting with Bob..." and, "Of course, I thought that way too when my politics were uninformed and infantile".

But I doubt it.

" Pravda-esqu precis", "left-wingers" "hissin" "moaning" "solidarity", 'Collective' "Viva La Revolution!"

Noelene, what do these words mean?
What am I meant to do with them?
How do they contribute to the debate?
Is this normal for you to talk about this
What would you like me to do?

My intuition tells me that you will direct the same words at me, as a reply. Hmmm, interesting.

Your words told me nothing about what you think of Saul. You words said nothing you felt about what he believes in the fall of globalism.

I didnt feel enriched by your words.
I didnt feel that you have researched and can critique what he says.

More to the point, I dont hear any optimism for a positive future. Why spend time baiting others?
Is that the most you feel you can aspire to? Baiting, labelling and tarring with slurs, accusations and names?
What are you getting out of doing that?

Yes, an answer to all of these questions will assunge my curiosity. A non-answer will do the opposite.

Thank you

Victoria Collins, you quote 'someone' as saying "Since when did society start serving the market, rather than the market serve the society?"

Sounds to me like Senator Fielding of Family First, only he used families instead of society (families in aggregate).

It could just be that Family First represents the same kind of opportunity we had with One Nation to make new alliances across the class and geographic boundaries - based on a shared interest in humanitarian society.

I'm very pro Globalism. World music, cultural exchange, art and communication from all over the planet. What about the internet as an organising tool worldwide?

It's a shame we've let ‘globalisation’ the word be captured by global capitalists with their extremely narrow focus on private profit at any cost to others/environment.

Jozef Imrich, what apposite quotes from JRS, and in your opening piece. It's up to US, individually and collectively to ensure that government responds to the forces we build/build on in our communities.

Professional lobbyist like it best when operating in a vacuum. Let's not give them one.

A few major points presented by John Ralston Saul in his lecture today, as I interpret/remember them:

1.Globalisation is “collapsed”, not “dead”
Early in the lecture, JRS pointed out how unwise it is to declare anything “dead”. His examples were Nietzsche’s declaration, disproven by the way that over a century later, God appears to be alive, well, and running the USA (in addition to inspiring fundamentalists of diverse mutually antagonistic complexions), and the more recent declaration by the asinine Francis Fukayama, disproven by the current liveliness of history-in-the-making.

Globalisation will probably always retain a few adherents, but over the last decade it has lost influence. The predictions and assertions of the neoliberal-globalisation model have been proven wrong again and again. The endless succession of “one-off exceptions to the rules” have embarrassed major proponents in politics, business and economics into recanting. Globalisation is not universal or inevitable, however much it’s True Believers want to think otherwise. It has become just one of a number of different paradigms competing for dominance as The New Dominant Politico-Economic Ideology. If we develop and maintain debate about what we want to replace it, we stand a chance of getting a more humane, constructive, realistic paradigm in place.

2. Cyclical model of ideological transition
JRS proposed a historical model in which Prevailing Thought cycles generationally between phases of “certainty”, in which the Power Elites are in the thrall of a specific ideology, and phases of “transition/vacuum” where the old order crumbles and potential new orders jockey for position. We are now just into one of the transitional periods, and those who remain in denial, cling to the old status quo, will have the hardest time adjusting to whatever comes next.

Saul’s mechanism for the inevitable degeneration of each phase of certainty is a change in the nature of the people in power. Whereas each new phase is initiated by creatives, visionaries and leaders, the successor generations tend to be “technocrats”, who know how to talk the talk, wear the suit, and press the buttons that maintain the status quo, but who are deeply indoctrinated into a narrow ideology and are unable to think outside it. Eventually, they cease to be able to cope with the changes in the external environment, and their machine collapses in chaos. JRS identifies the collapse of a pseudo-Keynsian technocracy in the early 70’s, triggered by the Vietnam-induced USA debt (and presumably the OPEC-induced Oil Crisis), as producing the power vacuum into which the Neoliberal/Globalist ideology could expand.

3.Globalisation is neither new nor unique
JRS points out that most of globalisation’s supposed benefits for The Rest Of Us (easy access to foreign goods, out-of-season food, travel etc) have in fact always been available when there has been the demand, the supply, and the spare cash. The modern pattern of gigantic transnational companies shuffling goods and capital between their various outposts is very similar to that of European Empires doing the same in the late 19th century (while pretending to operate “free trade” between the affluent cores of those empires), or the mercantile trading companies of the 17th-18th century. This is a recurrent pattern that comes and goes frequently, and only by denying history can one claim otherwise.

4. The ill health of globalisation is indicated by its fuzziness
In the 1970’s, the writers who defined “globalisation” were unambiguous in what they meant (if, apparently, unusually poor writers). They meant the surrender of economic and social policy-making by national governments to transnational market forces, which was supposed to bring on Utopia for all. Naturally it did not, which is why their successors try desperately to make “globalisation” mean all things to all people. Gullible and irresponsible politicians declared themselves to be “Political Castrati” (JRS’s words), who had ceased to have any power over global economic forces beyond their control. This idiotic stance has been proved wrong time and again in the last few years, eg by Argentina’s reneging on their national debt, which has been great for Argentina and has harmed no-one and nothing else except the credibility of Globalist Doctrine.

5.The National State is now stronger than ever
The greatest wrong prediction of the globalists is that the Nation State and its government would become powerless and wither. The collapse of the USSR has produced 25 new states, each with a century of frustrating non-independence to make up for, and hence ardently nationalistic. Countries from Argentina to Brazil to Malaysia have shown that the World Bank, WTO and IMF can be ignored with impunity, and that it is beneficial to ignore them. The Nation State has never been more powerful.

PS: a sinister aspect of point 5 that he did not mention is the creeping totalitarianism that is currently threatening civil liberties here, in the UK and the US. Central governments in all three countries are using any excuse to increase their powers over the rest of us.

Bryan Law, you live in a dream world. How can you believe in globalisation when it has been so distorted by corporate interests? The US controls the central computers that underpin the internet. If they withdraw their use, there is no more internet. Are you starting to see? This whole argument is about empire. Globalisation is just the tip of the empiric sword...

Joe Smith started the day early having set his alarm clock (MADE IN JAPAN) for 6am.

While his coffeepot (MADE IN CHINA) was perking, he shaved with his electric razor (MADE IN HONG KONG). He put on a dress shirt (MADE IN SRI LANKA), designer jeans (MADE IN SINGAPORE) and tennis shoes (MADE IN KOREA).

After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet (MADE IN INDIA) he sat down with his calculator (MADE IN MEXICO) to see how much he could spend today.

After setting his watch (MADE IN TAIWAN) to the radio (MADE IN INDIA) he got in his car (MADE IN GERMANY) and continued his search for a good paying Australian JOB.

At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day, Joe decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals (MADE IN BRAZIL) poured himself a glass of wine (MADE IN FRANCE) and turned on his TV (MADE IN INDONESIA), and then wondered why he can't find a good paying job in Australia.

Andy Christy, thanks for a thoughtful assessment. BUT, once again a gaping hole in either JRS's argument, or your analysis of it.

You write, "This idiotic stance has been proved wrong time and again in the last few years, eg by Argentina’s reneging on their national debt, which has been great for Argentina and has harmed no-one and nothing else except the credibility of Globalist Doctrine."

Sure that was great for Argentina, but where did the money come from? It came from the taxpayers of the countries that contribute to the IMF and/or World Bank lending pool.

So, without getting into debate about the worth of the IMF or World Bank, let's just observe Argentina's default means these lenders now have less funds to support other deserving causes, and hence Argentina's default has come well and truly at the expense of other developing nations.

One could also argue that the taxpayers of the nations that have contributed these funds have also therefore been defrauded by Argentina, and that these taxpayers (that's you and I) will now be hit for further contributions to these - or their lending or aid vehicles - to fund other developing world needs through their domestic tax contibutuion to aid.

So - who got harmed?

1) Citizens of other deserving nations who miss out on funding and aud through Argentina's default;
2) Taxpayers in nations that contribute aid and lending funds to trans-national institutions;
3) Argentina's citizens, because the country's credit rating now looks much shakier and the interest rate on whatever future debt it takes on will carry a new risk premium.

It is simply WRONG to say that Argentina's default harmed no-one!!

Damian Lataan: "Many moons ago, sometime in the last century, I wrote an academic piece which looks at questions of globalisation from a slightly different perspective..."

Oh, hello Damian.

Talking about globalisation and the nation state, you were recently in SMH Webdiary expounding a certain view on Iraq, a nation state which has just drafted a new constitution.

You were promoting the argument there that the Sunnis are an oppressed minority, brutalised by Kurdish and Shiite militias.

In fact, you flicked us to a Washington Post article quoting a Sunni "human rights" worker making this tell-tale quote:

(Nahrain) Toma said the (Kurdish and Shiite militia) tactics were eroding what remained of U.S. credibility as the militias operate under what many Iraqis view as the blessing of American and British forces. "Nobody wants anything to do with the Americans anymore," she said. "Why? Because they gave the power to the Kurds and to the Shiites. No one else has any rights.

No one “else” other than the Kurds and Shiites has any rights?

So, suddenly the Kurds and Shiites – who represent the overwhelming majority of Iraq’s population – are the “only” one with rights?

Kurds and Shiites are 80 per cent of the population of Iraq, no?

So, would you say this brutal oppression of the Iraqi Sunnis is a manifestation of globalisation?

That seemed to be the line you were taking there.

Good to see you again, by the way.

Margo: CP, I crossed my fingers hoping you'd check out the new Club Chaos. Thank you! It wouldn't be the same without you by a long shot.

C Parsons, good to see you here! I have never agreed with your thoughts, as far as I can recall, but it's still good to have you back... it must be a Webdiary thing :)

As to the Iraq Constiution, as far as I can tell it's BS. Most of the real negotiations are going on over the oil revenue. Check out Amy Goodman's take on the matter:

After trashing the previous socialist welfare state plan which required the state to retain control over Iraq's oil, Iraq's new Constitution now opens up the industry to the multinationals, complete with a new law that officially eliminates the state's control over the oil industry.

Also, from the Associated Press in March 2005: "Britain's BP agreed last month to analyze Iraqi oil ministry data on the Rumailah oil field near the southern city of Basra, in the zone patrolled by British forces. Such studies are vital when preparing to launch new drilling operations. Exxon Mobil has an agreement covering technical assistance, training and possible studies, while Royal Dutch/Shell won a contract in January to carry out study work on Kirkuk, a major oil field in the north."

We (the coalition of the willing) wanted 'in' on the Iraq oil reserves. That has happened. Winner takes all. Should it make us happy though? I bloody well hope not!

Ian McPherson: "As to the Iraq Constiution, as far as I can tell it's BS."

Hi, Ian. Actually, it's good to see you too.

Now, about Iraq's constitution, I am sure there'll be plenty of debate about that in Iraq. And even the oppressed, downtrodden Sunni will doubtless have a view.

If I were Iraqi, I'd be definitely supporting the clauses enhancing Kurdish autonomy.

I can image the Sunnis will be upset because the largely Sunni controlled parts of Iraq don't have much access to oil.

And as you know, that's what the 'resistance' is about. Oil.

Andy Christy, many thanks for your notes and observations from the JRS lecture. The tone seemed to me to be a mixture of doom and gloom on the one hand but a bit of optimism about the possibilities for globalism [as against globalisation (I think, as I’ll explain, there is a difference)] for the future if we plod away at it. I think many people could find themselves sympathising with Ian McPherson’s not entirely unwarranted pessimistic sentiments outlined earlier in this thread, but there are also a lot of positives in some aspects of globalisation that many are not aware of or have not yet woken up to. Bryan Law alludes to some of these.

For example, Bryan Law touches on communications as a very important component of globalisation. What’s happening here on Webdiary is a facet of that component. Your words can be seen around the World by just about anyone with a computer, a modem and an ability to read English. There is a lot more to life than simply using ‘globalisation’ to pursue wealth. We can use it to pursue ideas. We can use it to cross cultures (once everyone’s shrugged of this idea that it can only be used to push one’s own). We can indeed, as Bryan Law suggests, also use it to organise. Importantly, we can use it to hack away at the coalface of politics to reveal the truth behind some of the activities of our governments. In this way we can demand honesty, one of the essential ingredients required to ensure a real functioning democracy. For those that have cultures that prefer to exist with a system other than ‘democracy’, the ability to communicate is essential as we grow to tolerate rather than confront each other with ideologies neither ‘side’ have much understanding of.

The economic aspects of globalisation are an important component overall but it is just a component – one of many. To a certain extent the word ‘globalisation’ has been hijacked by elite capital and for many the word has almost become derogatory for both the Left and the non-capital orientated Right. ‘Anti-globalisation’ is simply a reaction to that which is why I think the word ‘globalism’ is more appropriate today than ‘l'altermondialisme’. The word ‘l'altermondialisme’ still has a leftie-greenie feel about it which, while appealing to the likes of me and I suspect many others here, is not so appealing as ‘globalism’ which may be more acceptable to those more central and right of centre who would go along with some of the more social-liberal aspects of the potential of globalism.

We still have a very long way to go but we can’t abandon it now. What we need to do is massage it into life in a shape that we can all live with.

C Parsons, I didn’t write the Washington Post article, I merely linked to it to demonstrate the complexities of the problems that have befallen Iraq since the US and Coalition invasion, occupation and plundering of that country, problems which you seemed unable or did not want to understand. Your simplistic views then were irrelevant and purely designed only to be distractive – as, indeed, they continue to be.

This link to Paul Kelly’s piece in today’s Australian may provide a few more clues for you as you face the realities of life and death in Iraq that falls outside of your safe cuddly arm-chaired world of Anglospherian make-believe.

Perhaps an enlightened reader/s could tell me why in this 'free' market world of 'free' competition within markets, that the world's biggest market is any thing but 'free'? ...I am off course referring to the oil market.

Competition seems to be non existent and no one seems to mind one bit!

How can you have a 'free' market world economy when the biggest player is exempt ? When is it going to be 'freed'... or is 'free' market theory just a big con? I'd be interested in any answers.

Just couldn’t resist linking to this story as a classic example of more scare and fear mongering from the lunatics that run our governments. I’m pretty convinced that there is probably a think tank out there that has the specific task of dreaming up scenarios for ‘terrorist’ attacks.

A week or so ago we were being told that ‘terrorists’ could use road petrol tankers as weapons with which to ‘terrorise’ us. It would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that there may well one day be a real ‘terrorist’ out there that thinks ‘Gee, that’s a good idea. I’ll give that one a go!’

All part of the globalisation of fear?!!

Well hello C Parsons! Thought you hadn't found the new site. Would be like a black and white movie minus the black without you!

Meanwhile: "...Iraq, a nation state which has just drafted a new constitution."

You'd be better off addressing that here.

David Eastwood 24/08/2005 9:26:36 AM: “Andy Christy, thanks for a thoughtful assessment. BUT, once again a gaping hole in either JRS's argument, or your analysis of it.”

Neither. See below.

DE: “Sure that was great for Argentina, but where did the money come from? It came from the taxpayers of the countries that contribute to the IMF and/or World Bank lending pool.”

No it doesn’t, actually. That’s just what they let you believe, in order to keep you in line. The banks create money for loans out of nothing. It is just computer numbers. The interest payments that come back to the banks, on the other hand, are real hard cash that comes out of the pockets of real people, in Argentina or Australia. Loans are a fantastic method for banks to enslave people and whole countries. In fact, that appears to be the main function of loans that are too big to pay off practicably. Defaulting on them does not hurt anyone else unless the banks compensate by creating new revenue streams elsewhere.

I was already aware of this. JRS explicitly made the point in his lecture. Geoff Davies also describes the system pretty well in his book “Economia”, which ought to be The Required Economics 101 Text for the 21st century.

In the meantime, Simon Dennis asked (24/08/2005 10:51:52 AM): “Perhaps an enlightened reader/s could tell me why in this 'free' market world of 'free' competition within markets, that the world's biggest market is any thing but 'free'? ...I am off course referring to the oil market. Competition seems to be non existent and no one seems to mind one bit!”

JRS touched on this issue as well, which is much broader than oil. Globalisation and deregulation have allowed the agglomeration and growth of several very large corporations whose power transcends that of nations. Most of these entities wield monopoly or oligopoly power. Members of oligopolies frequently collude. This has happened on every occasion in history when institutions have attained global reach, whether they have been corporations, empires or mercantile trading companies.

To return to the case of oil: ccollusion happens explicitly between the oil-producing countries (OPEC) and almost certainly between the refining/distribution companies as well. The only reason that OPEC is allowed to exist is that the US (a minor producer and non-member) is too dependent on their oil to close them down. The relative abundance of other commodities within the US, combined with the Monroe Doctrine that led them to have established early the infrastructure to run Latin America as a colony, is probably the reason that corresponding organisations for other commodities such as base metals have never formed. If there was an OMEC (organisation of metal-exporting countries) that enabled Australia to jack up the prices of raw nickel, iron and copper ore, we would all be being chauffeured around in stretch limos by now.

JRS stated that Western-style oligopolistic, collusive capitalism is actually very far from the free market ideal, however much its proponents which to delude themselves otherwise. When they encounter Real Competitive Individualistic Entrepreneurial Capitalism of the whatever-it-takes-to-make-a-buck-out-of-anything variety, as practised in the faster-growing parts of Eastern Asia, Western pseudo-capitalists tend to object to it strongly. Look at the whinges about how the Chinese have no respect for Western IP Law, copyright and other protectionist mechanisms, for instance.

SD: “How can you have a 'free' market world economy when the biggest player is exempt ?”

You simply cannot have a free market. Markets of any significant size do not stay free for long. There are several reasons for this, but the main one is that if there is no regulation, some competitors will grow and others fail or become absorbed, until a collusive oligopoly is obtained.

SD: “When is it going to be 'freed'... or is 'free' market theory just a big con? I'd be interested in any answers.”

It’s all a big con. Countries promulgate 'free trade' doctrine for others once they have protected themselves long enough to secure a robust advantage. Rich people, similarly, promote 'free market' economics in order to entrench their own position.

Michael Park: "Well hello C Parsons! Thought you hadn't found the new site."

Yeah. You can run. But you can't hide.

I've posted a response to Damian at the other thread too, and I'm looking for Bill Avent and Marilyn now.

I want to know if Bill Avent thinks the United States existed before Alaska joined the Union.

His answer might have serious repercussions for any history of the Roosevelt and Truman presidencies.

And I mean, what happens if Puerto Rico joins up?

I mean, the present USA would suddenly cease to exist. And Iraq would have been invaded by British North America or Rhode Island Colony or the Dakota Nation or something.

And what's the bet I can make Marilyn disappear within five minutes of her showing her face?

I'll ask her something. And puff. She'll be gone.

Anybody given any thought to how much the Forbes Global CEO Forum at our Sydney Opera House on 30 August will cost Australian taxpayers? Anyone wonder how much the Federal Government is paying as 'sponsorship' of this event? Any thought to the cost to NSW taxpayers (on a double dip into their wallets)? How much contribution to security costs will the Forbes Corporation chip in?

One NSW government source has suggested to a SMH reporter that the state and federal governments were putting about $1 million each into the event. The NSW Liberal Opposition are criticising a cost to the NSW taxpayers that they currently put at more than $500,000.

The standard spin will be that this event brings 'insert number with lots of zeros' into our economy. Can anyone explain how?

Between 350 and 400 chief executive officers and senior executives will attend the three-day event starting on Tuesday, and the delegates will no doubt need to spend a dollar or two whilst here.

They'll need to pay for flights to get here, but do you think they will only fly with Qantas? And, if they do, will Qantas quickly cancel plans to lay-off yet more Australian staff?

They'll need to pay for accommodation, but will they stay only in hotels owned by Australian companies? And, if they do, will these companies employ more Australians (strictly as casuals of course) to clean the jet-set chiefs' rooms and carry their bags?

They'll need to eat too; perhaps we'll make a few bucks there. Let's see: three days of conference, say two big spend dinners outside the conference provided meals, at say $200 a head (they'll drink some of our glut of wine no doubt) multiplied by 400 delegates. Wow, that would net nearly enough to cover the security!

But hang on; the tax revenue spent on the security is replenished with just the little proportion of tax paid on profits made by the lucky businesses that attract some trade from the hungry global CEOs. Let's hope they buy a souvenir or two as well.

Wait - am I being too rash? The consultants paid to write reports showing a big net benefit from hosting such a conference will point to other gains like new investment in our local economy by the big guns attending. Well, I can see how they attribute such investment to those three very productive days these guys spend shielded behind that costly security lock-out surrounded only by their own kind. Yep, I reckon it happens when the incoming planes full of the head honchos circle over the Sydney suburbs. They look down and think, "Gee, I've got to have a piece of that, preferably one with a harbour view and well away from the flight path."

The pro-globalisation crew seem oblivious to the fact that their rush to 'efficiency' has rapidly transformed US and Oz from manufacturing power-houses in the mid 20th Century to outsourcing retail power-houses in the 21st. The feature of globalisation that best differentiates it from globalism is the indecent haste with which the former has been implemented.

Thus the cold-blooded slaughter of manufacturing capability in US and Oz, merely to buy short and sell long in a high-income economy, has been so rapid that the nations to which this work has been out-sourced have rapidly rising per-capita income while incomes in US and Oz are in decline. If the pace of this change continues, along with a lack of management and foresight, then we could find ourselves qualifying as third world economies within two or three decades. Then manufacturing might slowly migrate back to the 'New' Third World. However, this may not happen...

60 Minutes did a feature on a highly mechanised Korean shipyard on 21 August. According to the report an average Korean shipyard worker is paid US$50K pa for a 42hr week and Korea is now the biggest ship builder on the planet. It's worth noting that Korea is ahead of the game because they've invested heavily in both planning and technology rather than that lazy Western cop-out 'immediate return'. This long-term approach could well see the Koreans stay ahead of the game for the forseeable future and ship-building may never return to the West.

In my opinion, globalism's first task should be to address the issue of a global wage and global hunger. While addressable inequities exist, there will continue to be a stage-managed tide of migration of industries to low-wage economies, orchestrated to benefit relatively few individuals out of nothing more noble than self-interest. Something is very wrong when farmers in the back-blocks of India are starving because they can't sell their dirt-cheap output in competition with produce 'dumped' on the market there merely to compromise India's self-sufficiency in food.

The most ridiculous flaw in Globalisation is it's pretense that it's about free markets, when it consumes $billions in subsidies (corporate welfare) to producers who will NEVER be competitive with the people they're trying to put out of business.

Human Rights and Australia's Mental Health Policy
The third National Conference on Human Rights and Mental Health
Federal Parliament House, CANBERRA ACT 2600
Thursday 8, Friday 9 September 2005

This conference focuses on the important relationship between mental health and powerful social, legal, health, justice, immigration and government institutions - all of which have a profound influence over people's individual human rights.

There is a fragile relationship between mental health and human rights as demonstrated by the failure of some institutions to uphold the human rights of individuals struggling with mental health issues. In turn, failures to uphold human rights can be seen to impact adversely on people's mental health.

So this is the time to lift our voices in the heart of the national capital to ensure that Australian institutions treat people with mental health issues with dignity and respect and to examine the capacity of these institutions to uphold important human rights values.

The conference aims to make a timely contribution to significant contemporary Australian debates on mental health and human rights.

In addition, this conference will endeavour to initiate an appetite for action within Federal and State Governments and Parliaments, so that policy makers take immediate steps to ensure that people with mental health issues are treated fairly and humanely.

To be proud of Australia as a nation we must afford the most vulnerable people in our society their most basic human rights.

Conference Program
Day One
0730 - 0830 : Arrival and Registration
0830 - 0855 : Welcome and Opening
Welcome to the Country: Matilda House (TBC)
Welcome by the Host: Senator Claire Moore, Labor Senator for Queensland

0900 - 1100 : Policy and Politics of Mental Health and Human Rights
*Keynote Speakers:
Senator Lyn Allison (Leader of the Australian Democrats),
Senator Kerry Nettle (The Greens), Senator Gary Humphries (Liberal Party),
Tony Burke MP (Australian Labor Party), Mr Steve Mark (Chairman, Australian Section of the International Commission of Jurists, and the Legal Services Commissioner of NSW),
Dr Sev Ozdowski OAM (Human Rights & A/g Disability Discrimination Commissioner).
Facilitator: Maqsood Alshams (Human Rights Activist - Chair of the Conference Organizing Committee)

1100 - 1130 : Morning Tea

1130 - 1300 : The State of Indigenous Mental Health…
*Special Guest Speakers:
Mr Patrick Dodson (Aboriginal Leader),
Dr Carmen Lawrence MHR (Federal Member for Fremantle, former Premier of WA),
Professor Lowitja O'Donoghue AC (Aboriginal Leader - TBC)
Facilitator: The Hon Linda Burney MP (First Indigenous Member of Parliament in NSW)

1300 - 1400 : Lunch Break

1400 - 1530 : Community Concerns on Mental Health and Human Rights
*Guest Speakers:
Bishop Patrick Power (Auxiliary Bishop of Canberra),
Rev Bill Crews (The Exodus Foundation),
Merinda Epstein (National Mental Health Consumer Network),
Margo Kingston (Columnist, Sydney Morning Herald),
Howard Glenn (Executive Director, Rights Australia Inc)
Facilitator: Dr Rowena Daw (Human Rights Legal Adviser, ACT Human Rights Office)

1530 - 1600 : Afternoon Tea

1600 - 1730 : Break-out Sessions:

*Torture in the Present Day
Katie Wood (Human Rights and Security, Campaigner, Amnesty International Australia), Jennifer Zheng (Writer & survivor of Chinese labour camp),
Sue Hoffman (WA Refugee Alliance) Facilitator: The Hon Louise Pratt MLC (Parliament of Western Australia - Conference Organizing Committee)

*Human Trafficking and Slavery in Australia
Jill Rowe (Trafficking Victim Support), Jennifer Burn (Human Rights Lawyer and Anti-Slavery campaigner)
Facilitator: Louise Kovacs (S A V E - Australia Inc / Conference Organizing Committee)

*Mental Illness and the Prison System
Michael Strutt (Prisoner's Rights Activist), Debbie Kilroy OAM (Director of Sisters Inside),
Facilitator: Greg Barns (Writer and Barrister)

*Mental Health, Legal System, Industrial Relations
Isabell Collins (Director, Victorian Mental Illness Awareness Council),
Tony Miller (Founder, Dads in Distress),
Joanna Scellier (ACTU OHS Training and Project Officer)
Facilitator: David Patch (Barrister, Industrial and Criminal Law)

1830 - 2130 : Conference Dinner
*Guest Speaker : Ms Lillian Holt (Aboriginal Thinker)
"The Human Condition and the Five H's (History, Honesty, Humanity, Humour and Hope)".
*Thanking the legends (appreciation to the volunteers)

Day Two

0830 - 1030 : Health and Human Rights are Fundamental Rights

*Rights to Mental Health:
Ms Julia Gillard MP (Shadow Minister for Health), Community and Mental Health:
Amanda Gordon (President, Australian Psychological Society), Keeping Government Accountable:
Lachlan Harris (GetUp - Action for Australia), Disability and Mental Health:
Senator Jan McLucas (Shadow Minister for Disability and Ageing), Mental Health Policy and Politics:
John Mendoza (CEO, Mental Health Council of Australia)
Facilitator: Senator Linda Kirk (Labor Senator for South Australia)

Short Film Screening: 10 Minutes

1030 - 1100 : Morning Tea

1100 - 1230 : Break-out Sessions:

*Young People
Craig Comrie (National Union of Students), Emmeline Agars (Young adult)
Facilitator: Dr Susie Burke PhD (Australian Psychological Society)

*LGBT Communities
Rachael Wallbank, (Lawyer & Activist for People with Transexualism),
Scott Berry (Director Client Services, AIDS Council of NSW),
Stephen Couling (S A V E - Australia Inc / Conference Organizing Committee)
Facilitator: The Hon Louise Pratt MLC (Parliament of Western Australia - Conference Organizing Committee)

*People who have come to Australia as Refugees and Asylum Seekers
Kaye Bernard (Refugee Advocate, WA),
Andrew Bartlett (Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats),
Phil Glendenning (Director, Edmund Rice Centre and ANTaR)
Facilitator: Dr Nina Burridge PhD (Academic, and National President, Australian Democrats)

*People with Disabilities and Ageing Communities
James Condern (Stand up and be Counted Mentoring Group), Bernette Redwood (PhD Student, UNSW)
Facilitator: Emanuel Tsardulias (Political Activist)

1230 - 1300 : Report Back

Summarized report from all break-up sessions to formulate "Actions and recommendations" to be presented to the House of Representatives by Dr Carmen Lawrence MHR, and to the Senate by Senator Claire Moore at the first available opportunity as an adjournment speech.

1300 - 1330 : Conference Conclusion

Where to from here: Conclusion Statement by the Conference Organizing Committee

****************

Conference enquires should be directed to:
Ms Louise Kovacs 0410 648 200 (AEST),
The Hon Louise Pratt MLC 08 9275 7000 (WA),
or by Email to: director@save.org.au

Advance bookings essential. Please register by the 31 August 2005.
The registration are available at: http://www.save.org.au/events/Conf2005.pdf

Accommodation: Rydges Capital Hill is conveniently located near Parliament House. The conference discount rate is $175 per night with Full Buffet Breakfast. Contact Reservations before 31st August on 02 6295 3144 or 1800 020 011 and quote block code CX-0609SAV

You may also find more affordable accommodation browsing the internet.

Don't worry, Noelene, I'm still on your side here. There is so much trash written on globalisation its best to ignore it, unless there is some convincing reason to give an author some credence. I've spent hours trawling through it, in whole sections of university libraries. I've wasted enough time on mediocre leftists. The best is Naomi Klein, because she's a cutie-pie and she's funny and she uses professional advertising techniques. Even then I struggle to care.

If you look at the functioning of Democracy in Britain/Australia/America, there are two right-wing, conservative populist parties, that are practically identical. During elections, the public sets up a bidding war between the two and wield considerable control over them. Leftists find it difficult to accept that "the people" may really be in control, and they blame an Orwellian media, or they blame a specific class of people and try and accuse them of shallowness or "materialism", which is a bit of a joke, since Marx was a staunch materialist.

The way forward is to get back to grassroots, local, community-based politics. The biggest concerns for most people in Australia have to do with childcare/education/health, all of that traditional stuff. The way to reach people on issues of a global scale, is to interpret it to them, with reference to their own experience.

When the school bombings in Beslan broke out, my local newspaper was full to the brim with letters in despair that this could happen. Horrific events happen all the time overseas but this one struck a chord, because it was about school children. The use of "Children overboard", or "Kids in detention", or "Dead children in Iraq", is strategic, because it relates to people's own, local, real-world experience.

Its not enough just to be right, you've also got to provide a reason for people to care. Its no use getting angry at people because they don't care, they are under no obligation to do so. All the people that are harping at you don't seem to have gotten this point. Yes, you probably didn't provide any in depth analysis, but I think like me, you've already been down this road a hundred times and have been led on too many wild-goose chases.

If someone has an idea they want to spread, its their responsibility to convince. That's what you do when you're a serious political activist, rather than someone that treats it as a hobby or as a small business.

CP "Yeah. You can run. But you can't hide."

Wasn't doing either actually. Was wondering whether you'd located the site thought. It is good to see you return though.

The tone of that post sounds very Eastwood! "Ahm lookin' for Bill...."

Bit more user friendly this site, eh?

Game's on!

After a self imposed ban on commenting, I feel I have to after this comment from Andy Christy: “The banks create money for loans out of nothing. It is just computer numbers. The interest payments that come back to the banks, on the other hand, are real hard cash that comes out of the pockets of real people, in Argentina or Australia”.

Are you serious? Well that must be a relief to the banks. They no longer have to compete with each other, after all, they could just make up profit margins, out of thin air. Also, the interest payments are paid by the banks, not to the banks, and are based on the banks using the collective savings to invest in profitable enterprise. If we were to use your model, how do you think it would effect inflation? I remember the ridicule a member of One Nation received when asked how they would pay for all of their election promises, he replied “we will just print more money”. (I forget who this genius was, but he was quickly corrected by his red headed overseer).

The fact is that by Argentina defaulting on its loan repayments, in the short term this has been good for Argentina. In the long run, this is a disaster, as who will lend money to a government or country in the future? For example, when the Labor Party was in power, the level of government debt was $96 billion dollars. Do you think Australia should not have paid this? After all, they are just made up numbers in a computer, aren’t they? And how would that impact Australia now, if we didn’t pay that back?

Craig, I guess you’re aware that the owner of Forbes Global is, of course, arch-neoconservative Steve Forbes of Forbes Magazine, ex-Presidential candidate and signatory to the
Statement of Principles of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Craig: Yes, I was aware of that.

What perhaps is less well known is the fact that, while Steve Forbes owns the Forbes group of companies (Forbes Magazine, Forbes Global, Forbes Autos, etc.), most of which was inherited from his father; Rupert Murdoch finances its often quite large losses directly despite Forbes’ own personal wealth.

Craig: No, I didn't know that and will now look into it..

So who’s paying for this bash? Will Murdoch be attending? Are you saying we, the people, have to pay to protect these people? Bloody iniquitous!!

Craig: Yes, it looks like we are paying and that we'll not be told what it really costs us by those who profess to be accountable for our shared resources.

Solomon Wakeling, you talk a lot, but do you ever actually say anything?

C Parsons, what has Alaska got to do with anything? A lot of states have come into being since the end of the civil war. And here is something that will be a major revelation for you—the continent now called North America existed long before anyone named it that.

Get back to me when you have evidence that ‘United’ means the same as ‘disunited’.

Two days of the new Webdiary and things are looking grim. After a load of boring and self-congratulatory 'opening statements' on Monday, we've since had this one thread (barely) worth reading. This is not a good time to be asleep at the wheel, guys, give us some content! Enough mutual admiration already, where is the insight, where are the issues? You're losing me.

Michael Park: "Wasn't doing either actually."

Oh, no. I realise. Definitely. Was thinking more the others.

Actually, I have never quite understood what the difference is between 'globalisation' and the more time-honoured lefty concepts of 'international finance capitalism' or 'cultural and economic imperialism' or various other bogey-man concepts dragged out whenever academics are feeling marginalsed by the course of world events. As indeed they should.

I mean, back in the '50s when they were fretting about Horror Comics or promiscuous American cinema or Jazz, or even earlier when Fritz Lang was frightening them rigid with images of the alienation of the individual within the hegemonic structures of the mechanized global capitalised work-place, wasn't that just globalisation they were wetting themselves about?

In fact, is the "globalisation menace" just 19th Century Marxism writ large and lately re-packaged in an attempt to make it look like the Pinkos have finally had a new idea?

Like how they recently "invented" feminism and the "wilderness"?

Again?

What do you think?

Same old CP, did you ask me a question sunshine? Didn't hear it if you did.

To date you haven't asked a question of me that makes an ounce of sense but this thread is about globalisation.

It's odd. People used to move around the globe to whereever the resources were - for millions of years - and stay where the food and water was.

Since the invention of the so-called nation state it seems that only the goods are allowed to move and the people must stay put.

Why can't the people still go where the goods are? What is the point of Australia growing enough food for 50 million people and then saying "we have too many people you cannot come here and eat our food".

What is the point, as I asked after the tsunami of letting millions of people starve in Africa and Asia while stockpiling millions of tonnes of food?

35,000 children die every day through a lack of food, Australia has way too much food.

Share it around I say.

James Squires, I've been labouring under the same misapprehension as Andy Christy. I recall reading about bank Lending Ratios and Deposit Ratios, or similar terms. My understanding is that there is a ceiling regulated by the RBA, but that banks may indeed lend more than 100% of funds on deposit. There is also an RBA statute requiring all banks to keep a small percentage of depositors funds with the RBA.

I've had a look at APRA and RBA's sites, but haven't found anything related to ratio of loans to deposits, possibly because I'm not familiar with the jargon. Andy and I think banks can lend more than 100% of depositors funds, you say it's less. Do you know the actual percentage? I'm sure there is a precise number.

Andy Christy, your knowledge of finance and economics is on par with my 1 year old nephew. Perhaps you should wow us with some or your other talents. Only Marilyn could have done better mate.

Andy Christy - sorry but you have it very, very, VERY wrong in one respect. "The Banks" - which I sense you are positioning as elements of an evil cartel of multinationals DO NOT create money electronically as they see fit. They cannot.

It is, and has been for centuries, a fundamental tenet of the global economy that the ONLY, and I repeat O-N-L-Y entities that create meaningful money are governments, via their central banks, be they independent or not. "Legal Tender" is what it's all about.

In Australia the Reserve Bank is the sole creator of money. The Reserve Bank is 100% owned by the Australian Government. In our case, because we are a democracy, that means it's 100% owned by you and me, and acts on our behalf via its charter, which also makes it independent of political interference.

The money that was lent to Argentina was very, very real, as were the interest payments, as you quite rightly point out.

So, where did it go? I don't know, but likely a chunk of it went into the pockets of a cabal of domestic and foreign political cronies and interest groups (lobbyists, trade unionists, tycoons et al...) and likely too that more was disseminated to the Argentinan population by way of political bribes of various sorts over the years.

It's fair to say too that an amount of it went to legitmate domestic and foreign businesses as payments for infrastructure projects of various sorts as decided by the sovereign Argentine government.

The World Bank and IMF's emerging, and far less politicaly correct positions of tying new loans to political reform in currently corrupt developing nations recognises that if the money is to do good and benefit people who really do need help, then sometimes we have to accept that the local polticians simply can't be trusted. This is a breach of their sovereignty on one hand, but on the other hand - would you lend Mugabe money on the basis that it was to feed Zimbabwe's poor, or set them up as self-supporting farmers?

James Squires (24/08/2005 2:19:49 PM): “After a self imposed ban on commenting, I feel I have to after this comment from Andy Christy: ‘The banks create money for loans out of nothing. It is just computer numbers. The interest payments that come back to the banks, on the other hand, are real hard cash that comes out of the pockets of real people, in Argentina or Australia’. Are you serious?”

Yes, I am. Deadly so, James. There is this convenient trick called “fractional reserve banking” which means that, once a bank has got your physical cash into the system, it claims the right to use it several times over in different places simultaneously, in order to leverage even more hard cash their way. This only becomes embarrassing for the banks if everybody wants their deposits back at once. Have a look here or here.

JS: “They no longer have to compete with each other, after all, they could just make up profit margins, out of thin air.”

Now you are being silly, James. The banks are extremely interested in obtaining hard cash profits, and in obtaining more of them than other banks. This does not stop them using virtual money in order to steer real money in their direction.

JS: “Also, the interest payments are paid by the banks, not to the banks,”

Funny. I thought that, if I got a loan from a bank, then the bank charged me interest on the loan, which I had to pay to the bank. I must have been wrong. Oh well.

JS: “I remember the ridicule a member of One Nation received when asked how they would pay for all of their election promises, he replied ‘we will just print more money’.”

The whole point is that the :”multiplied” virtual money is never printed, which is why I refer to it as “computer numbers”. It shows up in some measures of quantity of money and velocity of flow, but definitely does not appear as hard cash in the hands of the hoi polloi. It functions as an informational signal to get that cash out of those hands and into the bank. You are right about printing more cash, but that is not relevant.

JS “The fact is that by Argentina defaulting on its loan repayments, in the short term this has been good for Argentina. In the long run, this is a disaster, as who will lend money to a government or country in the future?”

How is this a disaster? . Have a look at Wikipedia article on Economy of Argentina. Three years of “irresponsible” behaviour from 2001 got them into trade surplus and turned their poverty rates around from trending up to trending down. By late 2004, the Big Boys wanted them back in the system again.

JS “For example, when the Labor Party was in power, the level of government debt was $96 billion dollars. Do you think Australia should not have paid this?”

Yes, actually. Running down our local infrastructure in order to pay this off was stupid.

JS “After all, they are just made up numbers in a computer, aren’t they?”

Yes.

JS “And how would that impact Australia now, if we didn’t pay that back?”

It would have been unfortunate if we had wanted to get ourselves further into hock, which, presumably, we do. If we wanted instead to build our nation properly, it would be irrelevant.

Money means more than one thing. While dollars and cents, and even millions, have physical significance and hard quantitative values, the same is not true of billions.

Craig, I’ve been unable to find anything on the net just yet that would back my assertion that Murdoch underwrites Forbes Magazine losses but I did find this which would go part way to explaining why he would.

I remember thinking to myself at the time when I first saw this piece of information; why would Murdoch carry Forbes Magazine losses when Forbes himself could write off those losses against his other assets that do make him bucket loads? Never did find an answer.

Craig: That is a very interesting article by Rupert Murdoch on WSJ Opinion Journal. Note the bit where he says: "we'll never fix the problem of illegal immigration simply by throwing up walls and trying to make all of us police them" and then goes on to promote a policy that would "help the economy by providing America with the labor and talent it needs." Note the distinction between labor and talent he makes, following a specific reference to Mexicans. Thanks Damian.

Pravda, Noelene? I'd suggest it has more in common with samizdat.

Jozef Imrich: yes, the notion of someone inciting us to think is rather admirable, and sadly too uncommon these days.

Margaret Morgan and Eric Vigo, I'm so glad: I thought I was the only one being irritated by Noelene's content-free posts. Although this one is remarkably empty, even by her standards.

And Solomon, there's quite a difference between you and Noelene. I respect anyone who has opinions, shares them, discusses with others, and uses logic and evidence to prove a case. You've even achieved that blessed nirvana of thought, which is to recognise when you're not right, you treasure you. ;-)

Then there's Noelene, who simply declares that she's had the argument with herself, and she won, so nerny nerny ner.

With regard to the topic at hand, Neil Maydom mentioned a Korean shipyard. The Koreans did the same forward-thinking thing with their film industry, and it's incredibly strong now. They invested in it, set up local quotas, and did all sorts of clever protectionist things, and now they produce some of the best films in the world. The winner of the Palme d'Or (I think. May have been the Grand Prix. I'm chronically fuzzy on detail) last year was a Korean film, and an absolute stunner. (In my meagre spare time I'm a reviewer of Asian films)

The Japanese did the same thing with their hybrid cars. Instead of waiting until they become economical under current conditions, the Japanese industries thought about what they saw in the future. When they began selling their hybrids, they were losing money on every one. But they were establishing a market, and refining the product, and now they've got the market cornered, they're making a profit, and they're way ahead of the US, who may never catch up. The US faith in market fundamentalism means that they've cut themselves out of a rapidly growing market.

In fact, back to Korea: this was one of the few economies to survive the Asian meltdown a few years ago. All the countries that followed the World Bank 'suggestions' had their economies evaporate like morning mist, whereas Korea and a couple of others (I think Malaysia was one) weathered the storm and recovered.

Back to Solomon. You said that Leftists find it difficult to accept that "the people" may really be in control, after saying that Oz/US/UK all have two basically identical right-wing parties. I must admit, I find it difficult to see why we should believe that the people are in control: if the only choice we are given is between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer, how does that make the people in control? That might sound fatuous, but I'm trying to make a serious point. I'll attempt to explain.

I've known people who belong to the two main parties, and they've all eventually grown disillusioned. This was not because of any difficulties with the people: rather, it's because those two parties are basically controlled by one or two cliques who see party politics simply as a cross between a career and a game. In other words, they don't give a toss about the people, they don't give a toss about the welfare of the country, they simply want to win (there's that word again), and preferably be paid huge sums of money and get a lavish pension.

And one final note, for James Squires: Andy Christy is essentially right, although I couldn't explain it properly even if you held a knife to my throat. I've read it explained very well somewhere, and it all made sense at the time. Perhaps if you're interested in a related topic, you may want to read Funny Money, by Mark Singer. It's about how a small shopping centre bank in Oklahoma nearly brought down some of the biggest banks in the country (Chase Manhattan was only one). The US government of the time (80's ish) had to step in with millions of dollars to stop their entire economy from swooshing down the plughole. It's really quite a funny read, and provides insight into how much fiscal naughtiness people can get into. And this was pre-Enron, and they weren't so much greedy as stupid.

Lordy lordy, what a jumbled post. Please forgive me, folks, I've had a brain-scrambling day at work...