Tolstoy said that happy families are all alike, and it may be true of businesses as well. But while Tolstoy no doubt had an an image of settled domesticity in mind, the 21st century corporate version of happiness is much less appealing.
I thought US-based readers would find this extract from a recent post in the Australian blog MacroBusiness terribly familiar. While America’s extortionate class par none is the too big to fail financial firms, in Australia they have enough of a tradition of regulation that the banks are merely coddled as opposed to completely spoiled (they also never had the opportunity to engage in the wreck-the-economy-for-fun-and-profit exercise we had here that put them firmly in control).
Down under, the cohort that is now at the top of the economic pecking order is the miners. Notice the similarities to behavior we’ve seen over and over again here. From MacroBusiness:
If there’s one thing that bugs me about the Australian economy and business it is rent-seeking. It is that practice of big businesses wielding political power for shareholder and personal gain. It is a doubly toxic pursuit because it not only means that Australians often have to pay extortionate prices for goods but it retards productivity for the economy overall, meaning we all get richer more slowly (except for the protected few).
But, as I have before, I’m going to make one exception to this frustration, for manufacturing.
As we know, manufacturing has been targeted for extermination by the macroeconomic high priests of the RBA and Treasury, to free up resources for the mining boom. To my mind, this is an unacceptable and unnecessary risk for the national economy involving an enormous punt on an untried and untested political and economic model in China. Just why we should allow our export mix to tip completely towards commodities is beyond me.
And so, today, I am going to offer some free advice to the Australian Industry Group, the manufacturers peak body and lobby about how to begin a rent-seeking campaign of their own.
First, however, we must diagnose the problem. And a couple of stories in The Australian do a good job of that this morning. Let’s contrast the rent-seeking maestros, Australian miners, with their manufacturing brethren. First, the miners:
With gold trading at new records, above $US1600 an ounce, and with new projects rushing to come into production, you’d expect to hear few complaints in the booming West Australian goldmining town of Kalgoorlie. But on the opening day of the Diggers & Dealers talkfest yesterday, it became quickly clear that hostility towards the Gillard government’s mining and carbon taxes would dominate discussion among more than 2200 delegates who flew in from around Australia and the world.
Diggers chairman Barry Eldridge set the tone within the first five minutes when he launched a blistering attack on the “extreme” and “superficial” policies of Labor and the Greens, during his opening address. Even Tony Abbott wasn’t spared, with Mr Eldridge predicting a future Coalition government would be unlikely to axe the mining tax, as promised, because it would be reluctant to forsake such a big revenue hit.
In his presentation, Integra Mining chief executive Chris Cairns paraphrased former Beatle Ringo Starr when he said: “Everything the Gillard government touches turns to crap.”
But the biggest talking point among delegates yesterday was the large neon sign outside Kalgoorlie’s historic Palace Hotel that reads: “Carbon tax. Mining tax. Useless Independents. Gillard & Co have to go — ASAP.” The scrolling sign just below the top balcony of the famed watering hole is the most watched in Kalgoorlie as it has long displayed in bright-red print the gold price that has determined the town’s fortunes for the past 120 years.
This is perfect execution. Here we have an industry sector enjoying the greatest boom conditions for 150 years, yet there is NO acknowledgement of the fact. Note the toxic blend of anti-government rhetoric, gutter slurs, universal righteousness, a strong sense of building conflict and division and, above all, a national media brand pumping it out with gusto.
I wonder if this type of posturing originates from a single source, like Roger Ailes, or whether it is an independent but parallel development of a pathology, say a variant of acquired situational narcissism, that is finding fertile ground all over the world now that neoliberal values are widely accepted by Western governments.
The truly influential used to whisper; the Rothschilds, who could topple governments, took great care not to play up their power. The contemporary fad of corporate tantrum-throwing reminds me of the way feline combattants hiss and spit and puff themselves up to look bigger and more intimidating than they are. But since I have an 11 pound Abyssinian who once chased two adult men out of an office, I have to acknowledge that aggressive bluffs are too often effective.
63 comments
Comments are closed.
Yves said: “The truly influential used to whisper; the Rothschilds, who could topple governments, took great care not to play up their power. ”
I think “used to whisper” is the operative term that no longer applies to the global inherited rich that control our world. The corporate tantrum throwing is being done by sociopaths that the global inherited rich hire and direct.
It is way past time to address long term inherited wealth and private ownership of anything and everything around the world. If these rich folk think that the destruction of society that we are seeing will improve things and address populations pressures appropriately they are pretty sick folk and need to be removed from positions of power and control over societal functions.
While I am a fan of Macrobusiness (and H&H, Unconventional Economist and Delusional Economics which came before it), particularly Unconventional Economist (Leith Van Onselen) who’s writing probably the best economic articles in Australia at the moment, this is one of the weaker articles they’ve run recently, and shows David Llewellyn-Smith’s bias against the mining & oil and gas industries, bias I believe he’s quite open about.
The main problems with this article:
-It wasn’t just the so-called fat cats (Andrew Forrest, Gina Rineheart etc) who were against the proposed mining tax – in the mining states of WA & QLD there was a groundswell of popular support against it. To my mind this differentiates it from simple rent-seeking.
-In Australia, the individual states own the resources & collect royalties from the mining companies, not the Federal Government, which was engaged in something of a land grab.
-While it may be preferable in theory to have a minerals tax directed into a sovereign wealth fund similar to Norway (constitutional issues & the fact we operate a current account deficit aside), the larger problem is getting from the current status quo to the desired SWF situation without causing a massive recession in the resources industry (& providers of services to the industry). Mining & oil companies, at least the companies which control the majority of the assets in Australia, are typically multinationals; while they can’t do anything about projects which have already been completed (short of mothballing them out of spite), they generally have development opportunities in many countries. The higher cost of doing business in Australia is generally justified by the reduced sovereign risk. When the government reneges on committments they’ve made & announces a massive tax which will increase the cost of operating here, what are the resources companies likely to do? (I believe LLewellyn-Smith favours this increase in perceived Australian sovereign risk for some reason).
-Encouraging the manufacturing industries to rent-seek is a bit disingeneous – for example, where does he think the tariff on imported cars came from?
Manufacturing (and tourism) in Australia is suffering due to the current strength of our currency, some of which is down to the AUD being labelled a commidity currenct, like the CAD or Brazilian Real. But the RBA is defending the strength of the currency by setting interest rates at 4.75%, which stands out massively in the developed world, and has resulted in a gigantic new carry trade. The main reason interest rates are so high is due to the RBA “leaning against” the Aussie housing bubble, which was propped up by (drumroll…..) the Australian Federal Government! By literally hosing money at young unsuspecting first-home buyers in 2009/2010, they kept the Ponzi scheme going for a while, at the expense of a balanced budget (also at the expense of the same young unsuspecting first-home buyers who are about to get a lesson in the true cost of $21,000 in free government money as the bubble pops). Needing funds to pay for their mistake (and other boondoggles such as a bungled home insulation scheme which resulted fraud, house fires and 4 deaths, and a hugely wasteful school hall building program), the Federal government seized on the resources companies as a source of income to balance the budget. Why they didn’t attempt to tax the banks who inflated the property bubble instead is a mystery to me, perhaps the banksters are better at rent-seeking?
Need I remind you that the (Koch-funded) tea party is also against higher taxes on the rich, even though this does not benefit them in the slightest? Propaganda works.
Propaganda such as “(Koch-funded)” you mean?
It ain’t propaganda if its true, its called fact. Another fact: the Kocks, er, Kochs, are part of the cabal ruining our country with rent-seeking behaviors similar to that described in the post. Now, I don’t think you’ll find an argument here on NC that the Federal govt, either in the US or Australia, wastes inordinate amounts of money and siphons money to banksters… however, if the miners would complain about that instead of a tax that hits them in particular, that’s one thing. But to complain about not making enough money during one of the historic commodities booms and whining and moaning like spoiled little shits, now that’s rich. If the multinational miners think Australian ore ain’t worth digging, I’m sure a national company can be put together in a lick. Those poor multinationals… I feel for their suffering, its so hard for them to pay for their kids’ healthcare and put food on the table. I’m so sick of apologists for the zero sum gamers of international wage and tax arbitrage.
prop·a·gan·da [prop-uh-gan-duh] noun
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. (from dictionary.com)
I also have no opinion on Koch Industries, News International, or any of the other evil tycoons du jour, but I’m pretty sure the use of Koch in this context meets the dictionary definition.
Colin says, “I also have no opinion on Koch Industries, News International, or any of the other evil tycoons du jour”
Well by all means get an opinion. But it seems maybe you already have one, — “or any of the other evil tycoons du jour”.
How did that slip into your propaganda correctness lecture? Apt description, though.
“Well by all means get an opinion.”
Cheers, I’ll be sure to. Will there be a test?
“But it seems maybe you already have one”
I guess sarcasm doesn’t work too well on the internet.
This thread is really cool.
What I love about it is that even though the responses to Colin aren’t terribly effective, Colin decides to self-immolate and completely discredit himself. Thanks, Colin, I was actually fooled by the first post and thought you had something constructive to say!!!
He honestly thinks that “dropping bombs” on us like “leftist diatribe” and “ivory tower” are smackdowns that close all rational discussion about the issue. Hilarious, buddy. Hilarious.
What exactly goes on in that determined little mind of yours that convinces you that wild application of “evil-sounding” labels actually make coherent argument? Probably because your arguments were formed by people who were selling “propaganda” to miners all day. [Sorry, the labels are, of course, way too encompassing and oh, yeah, just happen to be part of an acknowledged plan over the last few decades to demonize words like “liberal”. Resorting to these semantic shenanigans is embarrassing to the thoughtful.]
Listen, I’m not sure what the exact answer is here, but your assertion, without any sort of proof, that the public has some sort of rational self-interest in avoiding this tax is, hmmm, how should I say this, highly questionable.
That people should suffer the societal burdens that attend a rising division of wealth (increased disparity in relative consumption and political power) just because, on the margin, a *few* of them *might* lose their jobs? I’m sorry, I’m not a leftist, and I’m not a radical, but you said that you take the world as it is, and I’d like to as well – and basically, well, in reality, an apt description of this situation seems to be that this is a divide, conquer and enslave strategy from the top to make the class of workers concentrate on their own peculiar situation so that the class as a whole can be impoverished.
This is not a complicated concept I am raising. I can acknowledge that the actual state of the margins and how each policy will affect each owner and miner is indeterminate. One would think that you could acknowledge a little that your ideas are hardly proven, but I guess that wouldn’t fit in too well with the very pointed ideology you’ve committed to writing here today.
How about that rent seeker extraordinaire, George Soros?
‘It wasn’t just the so-called fat cats (Andrew Forrest, Gina Rineheart etc) who were against the proposed mining tax – in the mining states of WA & QLD there was a groundswell of popular support against it.’
Which was funded by the fat cats, orchestrated by the organs of a certain R Murdoch, aided and abetted by a minions like Alan Jones and a serried host of lesser media tarts and not as strenuously opposed by former bulwardks against rentier rule (notably the ALP and the ABC) as it would have been in happier days…
‘To my mind this differentiates it from simple rent-seeking.’
Why? Can’t rent-seeking co-exist with groundswells of popular support (or opprobrium), real or imagined?
‘While it may be preferable in theory to have a minerals tax directed into a sovereign wealth fund similar to Norway (constitutional issues & the fact we operate a current account deficit aside), the larger problem is getting from the current status quo to the desired SWF situation without causing a massive recession in the resources industry (& providers of services to the industry).’
On what evidence do you base the theory that the originally proposed tax would have caused such a ‘recession’? The idea, in the current boom, is ludicrous. I saw a mining type on Tony Jones one night in the middle of the fracas trying manfully to refute his interlocutor’s claim that if the miners carried out their threat to take their marbles and leave in high dudgeon, there would a line-up of replacement investors and miners the very next day. It is a literal goldmine for these companies even under the supposedly draconian Rudd tax, but that’s not enough, it has to diamond-plated.
And even my old local rag the SMH cannot be relied upon any more, with Gina Rinehart doing a Carlos Slim for them. She has run at least one laughably self-interested piece that I’ve seen, but I don’t visit the opinion pages much these days and I do wonder if the influence of your Rineharts is partly to blame.
‘Mining & oil companies, at least the companies which control the majority of the assets in Australia, are typically multinationals; while they can’t do anything about projects which have already been completed (short of mothballing them out of spite), they generally have development opportunities in many countries. The higher cost of doing business in Australia is generally justified by the reduced sovereign risk.’
Which other countries offer the ‘development potential’ of the Australian continent, in terms of both quality and quantity? We are where the stuff is at, other places aren’t, which is why these companies are so keen to partake.
They pay a higher premium because we have a shedload of what they need, and yes also because of less sovereign risk, but why is is it less risky? Might it partly because we still have decent regulatory mechanisms and legal systems, a well-paid as well as skilled workforce, reliable infrastructure, etc etc. What paid for all this? A reasonably responsible and proper exercise of power over time, which understood the value of husbanding the natural resources of the country and using them to help cement future prosperity. Further lining pockets of people like Andrew Forrest (or Twinky, or whatever the hell it is they call him) will not achieve these outcomes for us.
‘When the government reneges on committments they’ve made & announces a massive tax which will increase the cost of operating here, what are the resources companies likely to do?’
Stay and grow, or sell and piss off.
“Which was funded by the fat cats, orchestrated by the organs of a certain R Murdoch, aided and abetted by a minions like Alan Jones and a serried host of lesser media tarts and not as strenuously opposed by former bulwardks against rentier rule (notably the ALP and the ABC) as it would have been in happier days…”
I don’t remember getting any money from Gina Rinehart, or from R Murdoch’s organ for that matter. And the ALP & ABC as bulwarks against rentier rule – are you serious?
“Why? Can’t rent-seeking co-exist with groundswells of popular support (or opprobrium), real or imagined?”
I’m sure it can, and I’m sure the management of the mining majors is quite adept at lobbying for it’s own interests. it’s my judgement that the popular support I witnessed in WA was more based on self-interest than the evil mining companies brainwashing us, or whatever you think the mechanism is.
“On what evidence do you base the theory that the originally proposed tax would have caused such a ‘recession’? The idea, in the current boom, is ludicrous. I saw a mining type on Tony Jones one night in the middle of the fracas trying manfully to refute his interlocutor’s claim that if the miners carried out their threat to take their marbles and leave in high dudgeon, there would a line-up of replacement investors and miners the very next day. It is a literal goldmine for these companies even under the supposedly draconian Rudd tax, but that’s not enough, it has to diamond-plated.”
On the evidence of the mining project in the Mid-West that one of my clients did extensive work on, which is so marginal it looks unlikely to go ahead (even under the watered-down tax). On the evidence of the mining project which a friend was due to start work on last month, which was recently mothballed. Or the dramatic reduction in oil & gas exploration in the decade after the similar PRRT was imposed. Take your pick.
Also, this was all playing out during the immediate aftermath of the GFC, not during the current boom. It’s impossible to prove a counterfactual, but I have been in resource towns when the work suddenly stops, it’s not pretty.
“And even my old local rag the SMH cannot be relied upon any more, with Gina Rinehart doing a Carlos Slim for them. She has run at least one laughably self-interested piece that I’ve seen, but I don’t visit the opinion pages much these days and I do wonder if the influence of your Rineharts is partly to blame.”
Not my Rinehart. Like I said, she hasn’t sent me any money.
“Which other countries offer the ‘development potential’ of the Australian continent, in terms of both quality and quantity? We are where the stuff is at, other places aren’t, which is why these companies are so keen to partake.”
I didn’t claim other countries have the same quality or quantity of assets. The “stuff” is widely distributed though. It’s difficult to argue sensibly against the existence of overseas development opportunities.
“They pay a higher premium because we have a shedload of what they need, and yes also because of less sovereign risk, but why is is it less risky? Might it partly because we still have decent regulatory mechanisms and legal systems, a well-paid as well as skilled workforce, reliable infrastructure, etc etc. What paid for all this? A reasonably responsible and proper exercise of power over time, which understood the value of husbanding the natural resources of the country and using them to help cement future prosperity. Further lining pockets of people like Andrew Forrest (or Twinky, or whatever the hell it is they call him) will not achieve these outcomes for us.”
Leftist diatribe aside, do we really want to increase the perceived sovereign risk of investing in Australia vis-a-vis investing anywhere else?
Also, they’re the natural resources of each state, not the country – it’s in the constitution.
“Stay and grow, or sell and piss off.”
I was thinking more along the lines of them preferring overseas projects at the margin. The desirability of this is debatable, but the chances of doing this without dislocation (ie people out of work) are slim.
“They pay a higher premium because we have a shedload of what they need, and yes also because of less sovereign risk, but why is is it less risky? Might it partly because we still have decent regulatory mechanisms and legal systems, a well-paid as well as skilled workforce, reliable infrastructure, etc etc. What paid for all this? A reasonably responsible and proper exercise of power over time, which understood the value of husbanding the natural resources of the country and using them to help cement future prosperity. Further lining pockets of people like Andrew Forrest (or Twinky, or whatever the hell it is they call him) will not achieve these outcomes for us.” Glenn
‘Leftist diatribe aside, do we really want to increase the perceived sovereign risk of investing in Australia vis-a-vis investing anywhere else?’ Colin
I appreciate informed people discussing these issues from a variety of perspectives, especially when the arguments make it clear who is correct, as Colin’s non response here does. We must let the multinationals have their way. Jobs, jobs, jobs.
“I was thinking more along the lines of them preferring overseas projects at the margin. The desirability of this is debatable, but the chances of doing this without dislocation (ie people out of work) are slim.”
If I’m sitting on a pile of something somebody else wants, do I sit around thinking “oh, praise the Keynesian messiah–just think of ‘the job’ they’re going ‘to give’ me to dig it up for them”?
No, what I think is “thanks, but no thanks, on that slave labor bridge to nowhere. Now, how much of a premium am I going to get out of these Socialists?”
Throw a hissy and go dig in Africa, you say? Fine, you betcha. Go dig in Africa. With plenty of mooseburger out in the outback, work is overrated to us real Australians.
I should know. I can see it from my home office.
Perhaps you are right that the tax in question may lead to some of these marginal projects being abandoned. However, what makes you think that the social cost of losing these projects is greater than the social costs of lost revenues from not having the tax?
Without wanting to buy into the rest of what Colin says, yes, this is one of H&H’s weaker efforts. Since when has RBA/Treasury decided to “exterminate” manufacturing? That goes far beyond dramatic licence.
Because Australia doesn’t have a lot of idle capacity (unemployed workers, underused capital like factories), there isn’t room for both manufacturing AND mining to boom. But that doesn’t mean manufacturing has to outright contract. It just has to grow more slowly than trend.
Unemployment is 5% but mining doesn’t employ many people. Two-speed economy, yes, but neither of them is reverse.
Speaking of the two speed economy – ‘worst retail results in NSW for 50 years’
http://www.smh.com.au/business/worst-retail-results-for-50-years-20110803-1ibvc.html
Um, you are never at the mercy of the multinationals in MINING of all industries. Nationalize it.
There’s no special expertise held by multinationals. Mining is dirt simple, to make a pun.
Colin, give me a break. There was only a “groundwell” of opposition to the mining tax because the mining companies ran a political campaign (including massive advertising) against the Australian Government and basically ran a Prime Minister (Rudd) out of town.
I agree with the contents of this article. IMHO it is simply a matter of time for the populace to understand the present situation all over the world as politicians are presently avoiding to address the real problems and consequently use language to rather confuse than enlighten. Once the populations the world over really start to understand what is going on, the following elections will produce leaders that will change matters. Originally, we thought we have in Obama such a person but he failed miserably.
‘Once the populations the world over really start to understand what is going on, the following elections will produce leaders that will change matters.’
Not sure I can share the optimism Linus, but I sure do appreciate it.
‘Originally, we thought we have in Obama such a person but he failed miserably.’
For us. He succeeded beyond the widest expectations of others, very few in fact and if you had to call them something, I guess ‘rentiers’ is as good as anything.
As to his own opinions or indeed motivations, who knows. I’m not sure he does and he can’t exactly vent on Facebook. In fact I bet he couldn’t even secretly visit Naked Capitalism on his iPhone sitting on the bog. The Secret Government Situation Room would light up if he did. He’s captured, he’s a pet, but he seems to adore his captivity.
“Once the populations the world over really start to understand what is going on, the following elections will produce leaders that will change matters.”
Ha. Really? By the time the selected candidates are put on our list of choices, and the money pumped into the propaganda machine, there is no hero to vote for. Obama is case in point.
I forgot who posted yesterday that our political system is like professional wrestling (great analogy), the outcome is predetermined. The paid clowns just get to ham it up for the clueless to be entertained by the show.
I think our only way out is if the building falls down or if the audience starts throwing bottles and chairs into the ring.
Metaphorically speaking, both of the things you describe (building collapsing, audience throwing bottles) are already happening.
What, you thought voting would replace these corrupt governments? Well, we are giving voting the best shot we possibly can because it’s peaceful (big plus) and has legitimacy (big plus) but I certainly don’t expect it to work in the US, not after the Presidential election was openly stolen in 2000.
In Australia it may well work. The Labor Party seems to have a bit more understanding of what they’re dealing with and to be a bit less corrupt than our parties in the US.
‘The Labor Party seems to have a bit more understanding of what they’re dealing with and to be a bit less corrupt than our parties in the US.’
That’s faint praise damnation if ever I heard it! Australia has the big oligopoly problems that always beset small economies (and large ones nowadays too) and the political influence that follows, but the political class here is not yet completely staffed by elite operatives and stooges the way it is on both sides of the aisle in the US (with of course the odd Bernie Sanders style exceptions) The conservatives too have plenty of mavericks, in fact more probably, who are quite happy to take on powerful lobbies against the grain of their party’s stance (Bill Heffernan and Barnaby Joyce supporting Olivia Newton John and Cate Blanchett’s opposition to fracking the other day comes to mind)
Labor has veered way to far to the right but it has at least instituted the mining tax (however neutered) and the carbon tax, which most people hate but which most sensible people agree is necessary and at the very least an attempt to secure the future rather than the Coalition’s myopic focus on present stakeholders, especially those who fund and support them, at the expense of what’s good for the nation as a whole.
A breaking story threatens the delicate political balance here, as a new Labor MP has been found to have spent public money on prostitutes. A by-election could bring the Gillard government down. I have lost almost as much respect for Julia as I have for Barack but the prospect of that buffoon Tony Abbott in charge is a worry:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/dpp-urged-to-act-against-thomson-20110803-1ibrq.html
Oh, and Colin, how do you explain the fact that, despite a carbon tax and a mining tax the Australian mining industry has $174 BILLION worth of projects in the pipeline
http://www.petermartin.com.au/search?q=resource+projects
Not exactly on the topic of Rentierism, but also about Australia and abuse, is this article (the eXile), titled “HOW AN AUSTRALIAN OLIGARCH IS USING DIRTY TRICKS AND LIBERTARIAN LIES TO FLEECE ABORIGINES OUT OF BILLIONS” — about the practices of the above-mentioned Andrew Forrest.
Fred, I disagree – I lived in Alberta when the provincial government there tried to do something similar (though less onerous) & there was popular support against it too. I think it’s more self-interest that drives it (ie if I’m likely to lose my job, or my house price is likely to be impacted) – obviously advertising influences people, but more so if it rings true.
The Prime Minister who was run out of town – was this the same one who’s ministers told BHP & Rio management there would be nothing to worry about from the mining tax? What would you do if you were in their position, roll over and wait to be tickled?
Ah I see, so the tax was going to come out of the pay of the locals anyhow… either that or the ad campaign was propaganda… see how Suttie never addresses the issue that multinational conglomerates squeeze everyone and their grandmother in order to never take even the slightest hit to their profits no matter how much said profit is increasing? Of course they will expense a ridiculous ad campaign, but god forbid they should pay better and fairly distribute the increased wealth during a boom… or isn’t it the mine workers who actually dig up the stuff? Nah that would be SOCIALISM!!!
Why should I address whatever your problem is with multinationals? Despite your opinion, a great many mine workers, and employees and contractors in related industries, have been doing extremely well out of the mining boom in WA.
Should I complain because the CEO of one of my clients has much more money than I do? I thought we had a 70 year ideological war against that type of thinking last century?
You seem terribly comfortable with the notion that your livelihood can be yanked away from you with no notice at any time, and you’ll just happily go along with it because hey, the multinational guys have to do what’s right for the bottom line, as you starve and wither away. No social safety net, no, not for Suttie!
You also set up straw men and never deal with the meat of my argument — no one mentioned resentment or envy at those with more money — the idea that you seem all too comfortable with is the notion that the monopoly multinational conglomerate dominated capitalism we are currently experiencing is the best and only way the world should be organized. As if the richest ruling elite hasn’t been waging a war for the past 40 years to make this current reality what it is, and to convince boobs like you that it has always been, and indeed must be, thus.
“You also set up straw men and never deal with the meat of my argument — no one mentioned resentment or envy at those with more money”
I’m the one sitting on all the money. And mooseburger tastes gooood. When I see some Keynesian messiah socialist scaremongering about how I’m going to lose “my job” digging up my own money and the money of real Australians like me, I know it’s time to mark another little target down on my hunting map.
Are they envious of me? You betcha.
What would you do if you were in their position, roll over and wait to be tickled? ROTFLOL
Fred
“Oh, and Colin, how do you explain the fact that, despite a carbon tax and a mining tax the Australian mining industry has $174 BILLION worth of projects in the pipeline”
You are aware the mining tax was watered down aren’t you?
Colin – You basically seem to accept that major multinationals tried to knock off an Australian Prime Minister, and succeeded. You may think that’s OK. I don’t. I don’t think corporations should be allowed to engage in political advertising, particularly when they are foreign owned multinationals. But you obviously think that they are. I’m afraid there is no way for us to bridge that gap.
Fred, I don’t have an opinion about corporate advertising, nor do I think that multinational corporations are altruistic, however that’s not really my point. The mining tax, as originally presented, was a dog, dreamed up by the stereotypical academic in an ivory tower (do you remember Ken Henry’s claim that the RSPT would not affect investment decisions? Did you seriously believe that?).
Colin – biggest boom in 150 years and the Australian government was only asking for chump change. But big multis don’t like being pushed around, so they showed it who was boss.
Chump change to you, and to the academics in Canberra who’ve never worked in private industry. A bit more than chump change to the workers who don’t get a job on the marginal mine development that now doesn’t go ahead (and plenty of them are extremely marginal).
As I’ve said already, I have no problem with the idea of a mining tax paying into a SWF, however the hamfisted execution was likely to cause big problems, particularly in WA and QLD.
Colin – just remember that no matter how much you love the mining companies, they won’t love you.
LOL
I don’t work in the mining industry (I work for eeevil oil companies), and I’m under no illusions about corporate love…
But you do apologize for them and act as if the world can be no other way. How about this — break up multinationals — no more multinational corporations — and the newly national corporations must act in the best interest of their nation, and must not influence politics or break up unions or their license will be revoked, their corporation will be taken over, reorganized and sold off a la the FDIC. Now that is a corporate law I can live with. After all, corporations only exist because governments of and by the people permit them so its in our interest to bring them to heel. Why don’t you push for something like that instead of apologizing for these evil scum?
Good luck with your fantasy world. While we can all dream of utopias, I find it more productive to deal with the world as I find it.
As for the “evil scum”, is that just Andrew Forrest? All executives of mining companies? All company owners? The Bourgeoisie?
Evil scum are those who would take a crust of bread from the mouths of the poor, or healthcare away from children, mothers and the elderly. Also the apologists who say the world must be like it is, instead of those who say the world can be better, and in fact was better, not so long ago. I really don’t know much about Australia, but I do know it was a penal colony. By your way of thinking, if all those who were shipped to Australia as prisoners would’ve been enslaved, and their children treated similarly, because some multinational made more money that way, that would be just fine with you. That’s what they do ya know — when they can get away with it — use slave labor (see North Korean labor camps, prisoner work programs, etc.). But I guess they know best because they have all the money. I guess in your world there is no morality, no right or wrong, just powerful and powerless, and that is just fine.
Every sane country has nationalized its mineral extraction industries at least once. Usually successfully. Clement Atlee is the most extreme example.
Acquired Situational Narcissism Syndrome – Yves, you’ve coined a new meme.
No, I saw that in a year end NYT “100 ideas of the year” feature maybe 10 years ago and it seemed to die that year! Or maybe it so aptly describes what is happening now but the MSM is afraid of annoying our lords and masters by describing their behavior accurately.
The fact is, the rentier are the best people and we should worship them. We should worship all the capital owners and all the economists that worship free market intellectual’s as gods. Hayek is god and I won’t commit to anybody else.
My wife and myself are disgracefull. She is nothing more than a horrible public school teacher. She should be punished for her greed and lust. I am a tech salesman. I should be punished for my envy for the rich. Kids, line up, changes are coming.
1.No more internet.
2.No more air conditioning. We are what? Bankers?
3.No more cell phones. One landline will do
4.We are liquidating down to one very used car
5.No more fresh fruit, we are driving up the price of a product we don’t deserve. Can will do.
The fact is, I feel horrible about even paying taxes for public police,fireman or engineers. Matter of fact, if we didn’t have these expensive losers and their overbloated salaries and ego’s, the world would be a better place. We wouldn’t have the horrible debt problems we have now. People would learn to live within their means. If that isn’t enough than electricity and plumping are next. No more hogging up medical care either, I blame myself for the skying costs. Wealthy prove by their wealth, they deserve it more.
Time for laborers, small businesses and professionals to stop with their glutton lifestyles which will return balance and a real sense of wonder in our country. I would also propose selling New York City to the Koch’s and rename it New Koch City. Who was the “York” guy anyway? Matter of fact, lets sell off all the public assets. We don’t need no damn public sector. Time to renew Rumsfield’s Pentagon previtization plans.
Gotta go, my neighbor’s house is on fire. I hear the fire trucks coming, I will intervene and send them back. My neighbor doesn’t deserve this costly benefit. He should take reponsibility of the fire himself.
That last paragraph, in particular, is priceless.
Clearly you won’t mind if I just steal that, right?
lol…My morning coffee always tastes a little better with cream, and two cubes of sarcasm… thanks for the chuckle.
Maybe even better with Tea than coffee.
‘the large neon sign outside Kalgoorlie’s historic Palace Hotel … The scrolling sign just below the top balcony of the famed watering hole is the most watched in Kalgoorlie as it has long displayed in bright-red print the gold price that has determined the town’s fortunes for the past 120 years.’
A ‘neon’ sign that scrolls and displays changing gold prices?
This amazing Outback techno innovation — seen nowhere else on earth — ought to be patented and shared with the rest of the world.
Smarter than the average miner!
“A bit more than chump change to the workers who don’t get a job on the marginal mine development that now doesn’t go ahead (and plenty of them are extremely marginal).”
If it was a marginal project at current commodity prices, and all it took was the a RSPT to send it over the edge, I doubt the employees were in for long term job security anyway.
Perhaps it could be argued that beginning development of such a marginal project was personal rent seeking by those involved…
Really! Two sides of an argument each of which includes propaganda is propaganda squared. And, today, on this blog, it is bullying.
“The rich” is relative. You need to specify who you mean by ‘the rich.’ How many Kochs are there?
Taxes from smaller groups like local or state interests to go to the federal government, unaccounted for, has proven to be money down a very dark hole.
Leveraged into infinity for the benefit of bankers, we get the US disaster spread all over the world. That money also acts as an incentive for wars all over the world. Given to the US military/industrial complex has provided the incentive for wars all over the world that is non productive except for SOCIALISM for its recipients; the MIC.
LeeAnne,
Where to start.
I am sorry that you cannot seem to differentiate bullying from multiple people providing counterfactual information to Colin’s defense of multinational corps.
The SOCIALISM you talk about with the MIC or Military Industrial Complex is another example that you seem ignorant about. That socialism thing really is the MIC supporting the raping and pillaging of all the 3rd and some of the second world over the past 50 years by multinationals….its called Imperialism and just because that word is never uttered by the REAL economists of our world does not mean that it isn’t operative at this moment.
And then there is your define the rich question….how many Koch’s are there? You asked that sounding like it was something to aspire to and with somewhat total ignorance about the disparity of wealth and social control of our world.
Some of us pond scum think that perhaps society should exist for the greater public good instead of rent seeking for the global inherited rich. Evidently you don’t agree and think we are bullying anyone who defends the status quo.
Have a nice life.
““The rich” is relative. You need to specify who you mean by ‘the rich.’ How many Kochs are there?”
Less than 100,000 superrich (billionaires with million-a-year incomes) in the US; not sure how many in the rest of the world. Of the superrich, not all are greedheads, perhaps 75% are. Of the greedheads, not all are tantrum-throwing fascists.
The tantrum-throwing fascists are a problem.
Let’s see the Abyssinian cat please!
At eleven pounds, not another fat cat.
The cat, Blake, as a kitten is on my Twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/#!/yvessmith
It amuses me that in this photo he came out with Dune eyes rather than the usual cat redeye.
If Geithner Leaves, Here’s One Clue To His Replacement
“Jon Corzine is the CEO over at MF. Jon is ex Goldman and ex governor of NJ. A very powerful guy. He is also a solid Democrat and big supporter of Obama.
Corzine is a big shot (he had equal responsibilities at Goldie as did Hank Paulson). He would not consider a low level job in DC. So it has to be Tsec that he is after.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/corzine-treasury-secretary-bond-2011-8#ixzz1TyOYk1LW
Nice, I love the smell of GS-flavored hope and change in the morning. Mmmmmm, delicious squid.
On the bright side we are the eve of a newly defined human activity being born. Namely how to keep sociopaths out of power.
To keep sociopaths out of power, the first condition is to stop electing republicans and democrats. If one who aspires for more power is a member of Team Red/Blue, they cannot advance beyond local office without concrete evidence of innate sociopathy.
Of course, once you admit that Australian banks ARE better regulated than US banks were or are, then it gets a bit hard to buy into some the nonsense narratives that macrobusiness and others push about the allegedly teetering state of the Australian housing markets and therefore banks.
So Australia is like America if the Confederates won the war. Strong State’s rights, a local aristocracy and nobody wants to share. Except when there is a drought or the price of wheat drops and the farmer’s are starving, then it is a government problem.
Exacerbating the problem is that the capital of the State does not get circulated. Raw materials are exported and finished goods are imported, profits are globalized. The rest of the country can go to hell when times are good. Very neoliberal. Is that a fair summary?
Ransome – actually, not quite right. In our federal system, the Federal Government has a lot more power than the states. Indeed, where the mining companies are concerned, the states sat around and imposed fairly low and regressive royalty taxes. Then the Federal Government stepped in and said it was going to impose a profits tax on top of that. No constitutional impediment to it doing that. However, then some States decided they wanted to increase the royalties, etc etc etc.
Overall, I think Australia has a good deal less inequality than the US. Further, we’ve got a good universal health system which means that anybody with a serious ailment (e.g. a heart attack) will get treated for nothing. But if you want elective surgery and don’t want to wait it’s best to have private insurance (though I know people who self-insure). I’ve certainly never heard of someone going bankrupt in Australia because of health bills.
There are two great threats to our system:
1. Complacency: we’ve had more than 20 years of continuous prosperity and are starting to think that any fool can run the country. Certainly, if the Liberal Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, wins the next election, that proposition will definitely be put to the test. He talks in five-word slogans, and that’s all.
2. Scumbag multinationals trying to throw their weight around in our political system as they did over the mining tax. For some reason we let multis engage in political advertising in this country.