Chinese imperialism and future Australian sovereignty

[David]

[5 from the wing on debut]

Authoritarianism actually has a lot going for it when important decisions have to be made and things have to be achieved. In China a decision is made and it is carried out. Dissent isn't tolerated.

In the free west we are too busy debating the big issues - Should I be ashamed to be white? Was Meaghan lying? Are you racist if you think that she was? How many sexes are there now? Should chicks with dicks use the mens or womens toilets?


In theory a benevolent dictator would be the most effective form of government. In reality, that has never existed.

[David]

[5 from the wing on debut]

Are you saying that you have actually spoken to more than one person that has voted for One Nation? I find that hard to believe.

[5 from the wing on debut]

I have always taken the Winston Churchill position in relation to democracies. I won't repeat it because every one knows what it is.

Democracies have big failings though, especially here with only 3 year election cycles. The concern of federal governments and opposition isn't about policy, that's just generally a side issue. The concern is about gaining, and holding, power. With all of the big issues on the table at the moment, what is taking up the federal politician's time? A relatively minor side issue relating to Porter (that is, in the context of the issues surrounding us as a country). Great PR for the ALP, so that's what the focus is.

When I was a uni student in the early 80's one of the degrees I completed was in economics. The lefties there were pushing strongly for a broad based consumption tax - that is, a GST. The right was against it. Fast forward to Hewson flipping the Libs to the other side and proposing a GST. That really caught the left and the ALP by surprise as it is what they had wanted. So what did they do? They opposed it, and won an election by doing so. Maybe my cynicism is shining through, but we have a system here where the politicians main concerns are power and then pensions schemes and everything they do is directed at that.

[David]

[pietillidie]

[Tannin]

"Lefties in favour of a broad-based consumption tax."

Bullshiite of the highest order. No left-winger anywhere, ever was in favour of an increase in regressive taxation. (Any person in favour of an increase in a regressive tax to replace a progressive one is not left wing. The whole reason for being of the left wing viewpoint is that it favours a fairer, more even distribution of wealth and labour and income. Regressive taxes are the opposite of that and, by their very nature, cannot ever be "left wing" policies.

[pietillidie]

^Yeah, that was a bizarre reworking of history. Most of the left rejected it on the grounds you mention, which is why it failed to become left policy, contrary to the earlier poster's parallel universe experience. On faction does not a party make.

[Tannin]

Come to think of it, I also studied economics when I was at university. This was the mid-80s. And I remember the other economics students. In particular, I remember their political views: they were .... well, "rabid" would be too mild a word for it. An average one was hard right, then you got the extreme rightists, and what they probably thought were "lefties", who were straight-down-the-line right-wingers.

[pietillidie]

An update on the Biden approach:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/26/us/p ... cracy.html

[pietillidie]

The Xinjiang cotton boycott:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-as ... a-56535822

If something is on the nose let it be judged accordingly, but now let's apply some consistency to our actions.

[5 from the wing on debut]

"Lefties in favour of a broad-based consumption tax."

Bullshiite of the highest order. No left-winger anywhere, ever was in favour of an increase in regressive taxation. (Any person in favour of an increase in a regressive tax to replace a progressive one is not left wing. The whole reason for being of the left wing viewpoint is that it favours a fairer, more even distribution of wealth and labour and income. Regressive taxes are the opposite of that and, by their very nature, cannot ever be "left wing" policies.

The fact that you and others within your echo chamber do not have knowledge of something does not mean that it did not occur. I understand that this is how internet forums work though. If you don't like something just say it's not true and set out senseless arguments to support a false conclusion. Some may be swayed by what you have said, but then children of kindergarten age are quite trusting.

I have no dog in the fight, I despise politicians and the fools that have strong political allegiances but I stand by my comments. I am certainly not going to be cowed by someone that most likely never studied the topic in question and has such a limited knowledge of history.

Economics wasn't my interest but I thought that as I was already at uni a double degree wasn't much more work than one degree, so that's what I did. You may care to pretend the world is as you would like it to be, but unfortunately for you, it isn't. Can you not recall the ALP faction in support of GST and the battle that took place between Treasurer Keating and PM Hawke over the issue? Apparently not.

Part of the argument of the "left" back then was that due to tax minimisation/avoidance systems and structures, the "rich" were not paying sufficient income tax, so they were being subsidised by the poor who did not have those options available tom them. They wanted to catch the rich on expenditure so a GST was their proposed way of doing it.

Of course, your response will be a simple "bullshit". Then you will perform a google search to look for information in relation to a topic in which you have no first hand knowledge.

[David]

[5 from the wing on debut]