ALP Workplace Health and Safety Election Platform November 2007
All workers have the right to a safe and healthy workplace. Every family has the right to expect their loved ones will return home safely at the end of the working day.
Julia Gillard April 29, 2008
The health and safety of Australian workers is a key concern of Australian governments at all levels.
All workers have the right to a safe and healthy workplace.
Lindsay Tanner February 10, 2010
I don’t think it’s right to say we should have sat back … dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s because we were in a crisis situation
Insulation hotline 131792 after 10am AEDT Thursday.
I find this is a typical characteristic, especially amongst Teh Left. Governments shouldn’t be expected to get things perfect and should always be given a second chance. Corporations should he held to higher standards and greater demands should be made of them. Unless every single one of their employees becomes personally wealthy and has an extension to their life expectancy of not less than ten years, the corporation is clearly exploiting them.
It’s backwards; we hold corporations to higher ethical standards than governments.
Michael Sutcliffe
10 Feb 10 at 10:33 pm
It’s backwards; we hold corporations to higher ethical standards than governments.
1. Corporations wield more power in many developing coountries.
2. Corporations don’t even affect the rudimentary representation and democratic standards of our parliamentarians.
3. Some governments behave like sociopaths. Every corporation behaves like a sociopath.
THR
10 Feb 10 at 10:40 pm
I’m betting the the next monthly poll shows the two parties to be almsot next and neck within the margin of error and too tight to call.
The increasing incompetence, the shocking performance by Rudd last night and the other crap that happened recently will begin to takes it’s toll and people also begin to question their competence and the incessant focus group crap we hear almsot every other day begins to take its toll.
My other prediction, Abboot will be around 34% popularity as people begin to fell more comfortable with him.
My outside bet is that Rudd will be gone by June and Gillard takes over.
Final election result. Labor by a whisker looking very unstable.
JC
10 Feb 10 at 10:44 pm
1. Corporations wield more power in many developing coountries.
They do. What power is that? They can’t actually practice gunboat diplomacy. Peru and Huggy Chavez have nationalized large swathes of the oil and gas industry owned by foreigners as a recent example of “power”.
The only thing foreign corps can do is leave before it hails.
Domestic firms in Ven have also been nationalized and almost all the media in Ven is either government owned or government compliant. So what power do they have if their licence is removed?
Firms are given monopoly grants by governments so the power is always vested in the state.
2. Corporations don’t even affect the rudimentary representation and democratic standards of our parliamentarians.
And neither should they. Do you go and tell your baker what bread you demand? If the workers want to set up a steel plant in competition with the one they work for there is nothing to stop them in liberal democracies save for green policy laws which aga9n harkens back to the state.
3. Some governments behave like sociopaths. Every corporation behaves like a sociopath.
Do they? So you’re telling us that if Apple weren’t responsive to consumer demand they wouldn’t go broke?
JC
10 Feb 10 at 10:56 pm
“1. Corporations wield more power in many developing coountries.
They do. What power is that? They can’t actually practice gunboat diplomacy. ”
Ome example is Freeport who pay the Indonesian military for “security services” – there is plenty of evidence of Freeports influence on Indo govt
rog
10 Feb 10 at 11:06 pm
They do. What power is that?
Corporations and their proxies have been implicated in murders in a number of developing countries. You can’t say the same of either the Venezuelan state or the country’s businesses.
And neither should they.
Democracy is one person=one vote. Corporations are one dollar=one vote. Corporate power is inherently skewed against the poor, and corporations themselves are run as centralised, totalitarian dictatorships.
So you’re telling us that if Apple weren’t responsive to consumer demand they wouldn’t go broke?
They’re responsive to demand because if they didn’t, they’d go broke. This is the lowest level of human functioning. It’s dog-like, really, and utterly mediocre. And it’s totally compatible with psychopathy.
THR
10 Feb 10 at 11:08 pm
Very illustrative progression of quotes, Sinclair. Forget about Barny’s eccentricities. Tanner’s remarks were appalling. Just horrendous.
C.L.
10 Feb 10 at 11:15 pm
THR
How can I ask you a personal question? You already said you are a Communist Do you think there is such thing as a “ruling class”?
Peter Patton
10 Feb 10 at 11:16 pm
You already said you are a Communist Do you think there is such thing as a “ruling class”?
Short answer, no. Long answer, yes, but.
THR
10 Feb 10 at 11:18 pm
THR, four workers are dead – one a mentally handicapped kid. Do you think Garrett should resign or be sacked. I thought (and wrote) that Vanstone should have been boned over the Cornelia Rau mess. What say you?
C.L.
10 Feb 10 at 11:25 pm
If Garrett knew of and oversaw shoddy work practices, then he should definitely be sacked, and possibly charged. I haven’t followed this issue closely. I watched Lateline tonight – the blame was shifted onto rogue operators at a local level.
I can’t speak for other states, but in Victoria, the responsibility of maintaining a safe workplace lies, in the first instance, with the employer, not the government (of whom the employer may be a sub-contractee).
I should also say that the Victorian government’s various departments are well known for their abuse of employees, and for their contempt for worker safety. The two worst employers, as far as Workcover claims are concerned, are Vic Police and the Department of Human Services, both wings of the public service.
THR
10 Feb 10 at 11:31 pm
Hmmm.that doesn’t help with my follow up question, but I’ll give it a go, especially as your ambiguity might actually find connections with my own views! I’ve never studied sociology, so I bet I get the terms wrong, but please be patient as I try to explain what I mean by the terms.
Do you see the ruling class as functional, structural, or something else?
By functional I mean a particular society as currently operates but it doesn’t give a toss which particular people are in it, or whether their offspring get into it. The individuals are mere functionaries easily replaced, but the stability and legitimacy of the ruling class qua class is non-negotiable. Such a conception of a ruling class, one might find in a truly meritocratic society
2. By structural ruling class, I mean that the actual peeps who rule are the ruling class, not just its functionaries. Therefore, the ongoing vitality of the ruling class depends on the ongoing privilege of those already in the ruling class. This definition is clearly not meritocratic, and members of the ruling class will go out of their way to defend other members, expecting the same in return The class as a whole will unite to keep any ambitious social climbers out. THis sort of ruling class is most associated with aristocracy, for example.
How am I going so far?
Peter Patton
10 Feb 10 at 11:34 pm
• “1. Corporations wield more power in many developing coountries.
They do. What power is that? They can’t actually practice gunboat diplomacy. ”
Ome example is Freeport who pay the Indonesian military for “security services” – there is plenty of evidence of Freeports influence on Indo govt
Rog, would you have issues if say we had green goons attacking the power plants and the government began to send the police to protect them.?
Freeport bought its property right legally from the Indonesian government, later finding they have problems in the area. Instead of the government actually doing the right thing and protecting their property rights they hit them for security fees. Yet you blame Freeport instead of the Indonesians for not getting their act together but behaving like whores. What illegal act has Freeport been involved in? Can you explain it? Or do you think an empty accusation is sufficient?
They do. What power is that?
Corporations and their proxies have been implicated in murders in a number of developing countries.
Any examples?
You can’t say the same of either the Venezuelan state or the country’s businesses.
Why not? They’re corporations too and the Ven state is simply unreliable so they won’t be attracting foreign investment there until Huggy Chavez is long gone. Brazil on the other hand is a much different story and are now considered a success even with Lulu who’s been an excellent prez so far.
And neither should they.
Democracy is one person=one vote. Corporations are one dollar=one vote. Corporate power is inherently skewed against the poor, and corporations themselves are run as centralised, totalitarian dictatorships.
Of course they aren’t run like that. Corporations are run so as to improve shareholder wealth. I’ve gone very close on two occasions in rolling the chairman by simply spending a few hundred dollars getting the Share register and mailing the other owners. So it’s not as totalitarian as you say.
You still haven’t answered my question. Do you think you should tell the baker to make the bread you want?
They’re responsive to demand because if they didn’t, they’d go broke. This is the lowest level of human functioning. It’s dog-like, really, and utterly mediocre. And it’s totally compatible with psychopathy.
It’s mediocre? By what metric? Capitalist societies have a much higher rate of return on invested capital than other systems. If you consider it’s mediocre then lay down a plan and suggest a better way we could organize ourselves and attract higher rates of return. Return on capital has a 1;1 correlation to standard of living by the way.
JC
10 Feb 10 at 11:38 pm
The clarification is helpful, but I should say that I view class itself in politico-economic terms. Those who own or control the means of production are one class – the business owners, the corporate elite, CEOs, executives, small businessmen and self-employed tradies. Those who don’t control or own the means of production constitute the other class. That isn’t just factory workers, but nurses, waiters, shelf-stackers and (egad!) most public servants and academics.
THR
10 Feb 10 at 11:40 pm
THR
Fair enough. That sounds very much like my structuralist ruling class, as it is very particular about who will allow in – only capital owners. And once you are a capital owner, other capital owners watch your back and vice versa.
Would you say that’s an accurate rendition of your view?
Peter Patton
10 Feb 10 at 11:45 pm
Brazil on the other hand is a much different story and are now considered a success even with Lulu who’s been an excellent prez so far.
If Chavez is murdering unionists that way corporate thugs are in El Salvador, Colombia etc, then he’ll deserve the same contempt. Until then…
And for whom is Lulu a ’success’? Compare him to Morales, for instance. There are many different metrics for ’success’.
So it’s not as totalitarian as you say
It’s fair accompli for almost all shareholders, and it’s utterly totalitarian for most workers. Not that most corporations will shoot you, but they will try to ‘discipline’ (in a Foucauldian sense) every hour of your life.
It’s mediocre? By what metric? Capitalist societies have a much higher rate of return on invested capital than other systems.
It’s not a question of returns, jc. What I mean is that capitalist man is thoroughly and incurably mediocre, a sort of fawning human being (with the requisite amount of controlled go-getterism) striving for results-bases learning and monetary outcomes.
THR
10 Feb 10 at 11:45 pm
Yes Peter, I would say my view is structural, in a manner of speaking. Structuralist has also sorts of connotations – such as being anti-history – that I would hope to avoid.
THR
10 Feb 10 at 11:47 pm
Only insulation, which includes foil, that complies with relevant australian standards has been used under the govt scheme.
The work practices are State matters as is the work place.
The deaths are a matter for relevant State OH&S laws and there is plenty of muscle in them.
So what is Garrett guilty of?
rog
10 Feb 10 at 11:48 pm
“Freeport bought its property right legally from the Indonesian government, later finding they have problems in the area”
Yeah but Indonesia wrongfully invaded Irian Jaya
rog
10 Feb 10 at 11:49 pm
The clarification is helpful, but I should say that I view class itself in politico-economic terms. Those who own or control the means of production are one class – the business owners, the corporate elite, CEOs, executives, small businessmen and self-employed tradies.
This seems confused. Large corporations are mostly owned by large pension funds.
These are the top American owners of BHP
WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLP
1.25%
FMR LLC
0.74%
EATON VANCE MANAGEMENT
0.69%
WENTWORTH, HAUSER AND VIOLICH
0.65%
FISHER INVESTMENTS, INC.
0.57%
NEUBERGER BERMAN GROUP, LLC
0.52%
DEUTSCHE BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
0.34%
Invesco Ltd.
0.28%
Harris Financial Corp
0.21%
NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION
0.20%
They’re all pension funds. Management owns very little by the way. It would be tiny.
Those who don’t control or own the means of production constitute the other class.
So who owns BHP when the vast majority of the owners are pension funds run for people on the factory floor or working in shop? You definition is outdated.
That isn’t just factory workers, but nurses, waiters, shelf-stackers and (egad!) most public servants and academics.
They all have pension funds. They actually own the large corporations.
Do you think a brain surgeon doing neuro-surgery and earnings lots of money is a schlep being exploited? He doesn’t own any means of production. None. He even would rent his office and the furniture in most cases.
JC
10 Feb 10 at 11:50 pm
THR:
It would be totalitarian if you couldn’t leave your job like you couldn’t in the Sov or any of the other places. However to suggest firms are totalitarian is simply redefining what that means.
JC
10 Feb 10 at 11:53 pm
“Freeport bought its property right legally from the Indonesian government, later finding they have problems in the area”
Yeah but Indonesia wrongfully invaded Irian Jaya
Yes but that’s Indonesia’s issue. What illegal act is Freeport guilty of exactly?
JC
10 Feb 10 at 11:54 pm
1963
rog
10 Feb 10 at 11:54 pm
Garrett is guilty of total incompetence.
Furthermore public perception is far more important and if the public thinks he’s incompetent, which he is by the way, then that’s how it flies.
JC
10 Feb 10 at 11:56 pm
I didnt say that Freeport had committed illegal acts – they pay the Indo govt to do that
rog
10 Feb 10 at 11:56 pm
You havent said how Garrett is incompetent – that’s reasonable isnt it?
rog
10 Feb 10 at 11:58 pm
No, they don’t pay the indo government to do anything liek you say. If they did they would also be breaking US laws and if you know about this I’m sure the US DOJ would also be aware. So how come they haven’t brought criminal action?
What they pay the indo government is to protect their property rights. The Indo government is the one doing what it does. Take it up with them.
In the same way we pay our police to protect us.
If you have an intruder in your house and the police end up killing him, you’re in no way responsible.
The same principle applies to Freeport.
JC
11 Feb 10 at 12:00 am
Four people died on his watch. I think he’s a total incompetent as he brought forward a stupid policy that ended up causing 4 people to die.
It was his policy he lives with it and the public feels the same way which is why he’s defending himself.
JC
11 Feb 10 at 12:03 am
Nothing to do with Garrett, says Rog.
“My responsibility is to ensure we have a program that delivers insulation into people homes safely,” he said.
- Peter Garrett today.
Well, he failed and four people are dead.
But, as Barnaby Tanner put it:
“I don’t think it’s right to say we should have sat back … dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s because we were in a crisis situation.”
C.L.
11 Feb 10 at 12:04 am
THR
I actually don’t mind a class society, so long as its ruling class is functionalist (in the sense I mis/used it above). I am less keen on social organization with a structuralist ruling class
Peter Patton
11 Feb 10 at 12:05 am
Jc, it’d be more accurate to say that senior management’s interests are those of the owners. In fact, the former are paid according to how they perform for the latter. So in a big firm, no, the management don’t own the place, but they do control the means of production (whatever it is the firm actually does).
As for totalitarianism – the corporation monitors very closely what each individual is doing. It tries very hard (and in a fashion that is comically ‘Soviet’) to inculcate the corporation’s values into employees. Saying that employees are free to leave is equivalent to saying that Moscovites under Soviet rule are free to move to Tashkent.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 12:06 am
You use the police to protect property, not the military.
SEC and DOJ are currently looking into Freeport
rog
11 Feb 10 at 12:08 am
Nothing wrong with the program it was the contractors (employers) who are at fault
rog
11 Feb 10 at 12:13 am
On the question Federal vs. State roles in life and death matters, Garrett’s blame game kind of rings a bell. Mmm…
Oh yeah:
Rudd promises to end health blame game.
Now his minister is blaming the states for the death toll of his loony insulation policy.
C.L.
11 Feb 10 at 12:14 am
THR: Corporations and their proxies have been implicated in murders in a number of developing countries. You can’t say the same of either the Venezuelan state or the country’s businesses.
So, if given a choice of which one would be least likely to murder in their own interests of:
1. An American company in South America; or
2. Hugo Chavez
THR chooses an American Company! Fuck, that’s funny!
Michael Sutcliffe
11 Feb 10 at 12:15 am
Rog:
As I said it’s up to Indonesia, not freeport who they use.
Furthermore an SEC and DOJ investigation is not a conviction.
Do you have problems with Total going into Iran for instance?
JC
11 Feb 10 at 12:16 am
Nothing wrong with the program it was the contractors (employers) who are at fault
Bad luck the public won’t see it that way is my bet. He’s an incompetent bald fat head and always has been.
JC
11 Feb 10 at 12:17 am
Saying that employees are free to leave is equivalent to saying that Moscovites under Soviet rule are free to move to Tashkent.
Why? Are you saying there are laws preventing people from resigning? Of course there isn’t.
If people don’t like a firm they leave.
Are you actually suggesting there is no job mobility?
JC
11 Feb 10 at 12:20 am
Insulation, including foil, has always been in use – the Govt policy was to help pay for it.
rog
11 Feb 10 at 12:20 am
I think you mean ‘most’ likely, Sutcliffe. There’s solid evidence that says a corporation is far more likely to kill you than Boogeyman Chavez.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 12:22 am
It was a Rudd government policy, for which Peter Garrett was responsible. The scheme has killed four people. If that’s not a sacking offence, nothing is. He also admitted today that he was warned last year that the whole operation was a dangerous mess.
C.L.
11 Feb 10 at 12:23 am
Why? Are you saying there are laws preventing people from resigning? Of course there isn’t.
Sure, they can resign. And where can they move to that is free from corporatism and its mediocrity? Like I said, it’s like moving from Moscow from Tashkent.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 12:23 am
THR
Jc, it’d be more accurate to say that senior management’s interests are those of the owners.
Actually, this is not true. Economists traditionally call it the ‘principal-agent problem’. Performance-based bonuses tried to increase the alignment of interests much more, but as the GFC showed, this has also failed.
Peter Patton
11 Feb 10 at 12:24 am
Always been in use, but not to fast track a policy that involves untrained types getting into the racket then killing themselves as they don’t know what they doing.
Garrett’s policy was directly responsible for that.
He was also advised by an electrical trades association and he essentially ignored the advice.
He’s an incompetent bald hammer head.
JC
11 Feb 10 at 12:24 am
Sure, they can resign. And where can they move to that is free from corporatism and its mediocrity? Like I said, it’s like moving from Moscow from Tashkent.
THR … A corporation is a legal construct that allows a bunch of people to work under that legal umbrella. It is nothing more than that.
People can move to other firms or they could work for themselves.
JC
11 Feb 10 at 12:26 am
There’s solid evidence that says a corporation is far more likely to kill you than Boogeyman Chavez.
According to Green Left Weekly. What solid evidence? If we take the broadest view that we all have some oversight of, how many people have been killed by government and how many by private industry? The mining industry might be the worse single industry worldwide (at a guess), but that would have been overshadowed just about any single war, let alone something like Russia under Stalin. Just what types of getting killed are you referring to?
Michael Sutcliffe
11 Feb 10 at 12:30 am
Actually, this is not true. Economists traditionally call it the ‘principal-agent problem’. Performance-based bonuses tried to increase the alignment of interests much more, but as the GFC showed, this has also failed.
That’s true, but only to a point. The managers still control the means of production, even if they don’t strictly own, and even if they sometimes pursue goals contrary to those of the owners.
THR … A corporation is a legal construct that allows a bunch of people to work under that legal umbrella. It is nothing more than that.
Then let the legal construct of ‘corporation’ be abolished.
On a positive note, it’s heartwarming to see all these supporters of Workchoices pledge their allegiance to unions, worker rights and the local tradies’ alliance when it comes to Garrett being smacked.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 12:32 am
Then let the legal construct of ‘corporation’ be abolished.
Why? You realize that’s what Bird wants?
On a positive note, it’s heartwarming to see all these supporters of Workchoices pledge their allegiance to unions, worker rights and the local tradies’ alliance when it comes to Garrett being smacked.
Why does anyone want people killed as a result of bad policy?
JC
11 Feb 10 at 12:36 am
What solid evidence? If we take the broadest view that we all have some oversight of, how many people have been killed by government and how many by private industry
‘Private industry’ would, in its broadest sense, include 99% of murders in the history of history.
More specifically (and I’m happy to provide non-Green Left links another time) there’s plenty of evidence of corporations murdering unionists. I mentioned Colombia and El Salvador for a reason – it’s because I know there’s loads of evidence implicating those two places as being particularly bad for this in the past couple of years.
As for war – the biggest war of recent times (Iraq) was largely privatised. You systematically and mistakenly take brutality as a property of government, when it is as much, if not more, a property of private power.
From previous comments, I take it you are an Americaphile. There is a long history of US corporations liquidating their own workers when profitable. Woody Guthrie and Malcom X weren’t protesting against a re-branding exercise.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 12:38 am
Why does anyone want people killed as a result of bad policy?
What I’m saying, not to put too fine a point on it, is that those in favour of Workchoices no longer have the right to be taken seriously when they start talking about workers’ rights.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 12:39 am
THR
Well I think we can at least agree that managers act in the interests of the owners, rather than the workers.
Peter Patton
11 Feb 10 at 12:42 am
THR
Workchoices never touched even one signal point to do with work safety regulations.
JC
11 Feb 10 at 12:46 am
Workchoices never touched even one signal point to do with work safety regulations.
Not officially, no, which just goes to show the gulf between officiality and reality.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 12:50 am
THR
Where you and I will depart is that I do not see ‘capital’ and ‘labor’ engaged in a zero-sum conflict – dialectical or otherwise.
Peter Patton
11 Feb 10 at 12:51 am
Private industry’ would, in its broadest sense, include 99% of murders in the history of history.
Not true. Most murders are domestic violence matters or people that knew each other socially. Can you point to one single charge of a fortune 500 companies where the CEO has ordered a hit or some else?
More specifically (and I’m happy to provide non-Green Left links another time) there’s plenty of evidence of corporations murdering unionists. I mentioned Colombia and El Salvador for a reason – it’s because I know there’s loads of evidence implicating those two places as being particularly bad for this in the past couple of years.
Those are hardly place I would use to exemplify capitalist leaning liberal democracies, THR. Not by even by one inhc to a mile.
As for war – the biggest war of recent times (Iraq) was largely privatised.
That’s not true. The vast sums of money spent by the US has been to finance US military operations there.
There is a long history of US corporations liquidating their own workers when profitable. Woody Guthrie and Malcom X weren’t protesting against a re-branding exercise.
Who exactly pulled the trigger on these people?
JC
11 Feb 10 at 12:53 am
Even though I am an official swinging voter, it was Workchoices that ensured I voted Labor in 2007.
Peter Patton
11 Feb 10 at 12:54 am
Most murders are domestic violence matters or people that knew each other socially
i.e. by definition private.
Those are hardly place I would use to exemplify capitalist leaning liberal democracies, THR. Not by even by one inhc to a mile.
True. Yet they’re very big recipients of US aid. Bigger than the ‘communist dictatorships’ in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Are we to believe that that has nothing to do with corporate interests?
That’s not true. The vast sums of money spent by the US has been to finance US military operations there.
At least 50% of the troops were private (i.e. Blackwater and other). Almost all of the ‘rebuilding’ effort and auxiliary personnel were private.
Who exactly pulled the trigger on these people?
I’m not saying that corporations assassinated these people. I’m saying that what these people were protesting against was, in part, the long tradition in the US of bosses liquidating workers. You have to go to left wing sources to find the evidence, but it certainly happened. Time and again, workers were attacked and corporations moved scabs in. It’s partly what drove the anger that eventually lead to the New Deal, which was, in the final analysis, a bulwark against socialism, not an attack on free markets.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 1:02 am
Even though I am an official swinging voter, it was Workchoices that ensured I voted Labor in 2007.
Turns out many Australians agreed, hence we got rid of Howard. The seats that changed hands weren’t from Vic or NSW, but poor seats in QLD, IIRC.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 1:04 am
More specifically (and I’m happy to provide non-Green Left links another time) there’s plenty of evidence of corporations murdering unionists.
Look, in the United States of all places there’s an example of a mining company employing machine guns against rioting miners in a full-on battle that would make any military proud. But to suggest that the handful of people who were killed is anything like what governments have done in terms of war, government induced famine, screwing up people’s healthcare or just general regulation of people’s lives with unintended consequences is absurd.
I’ll await your links. Meanwhile read ‘Killed by Government’ (I haven’t read it).
Michael Sutcliffe
11 Feb 10 at 1:14 am
As for war – the biggest war of recent times (Iraq) was largely privatised.
The sum spent on private industry solutions within theatre is orders of magnitude less than what is spent on the US military. Are you referring to private industry in terms of providing hardware over the last 20 years? Because you’d need to go to that level just to meet the expenditure in executing the war in Afghanistan alone.
Michael Sutcliffe
11 Feb 10 at 1:16 am
And probably Iraq, but I don’t know.
Michael Sutcliffe
11 Feb 10 at 1:17 am
THR
I cannot understand why he did it. The economy was booming; historically low both unemployment and nearly inflation There was actually a skills shortage No constituency was making much noise.
Sure, people might say it was his “ideology” but surely he wanted power more? It will probably go down in history as the second silliest political mistake ever made; after the Ottomans sided with Germany in WWI!
Peter Patton
11 Feb 10 at 1:17 am
As for war – the biggest war of recent times (Iraq) was largely privatised.
And anyway, THR, what is this shit? When I spend your money on military hardware and supporting services (spent around AUD$56M last year) form private companies I only do so because government has taken money off the citizenry and told me to spend it on specific items and services. The private companies are good people acting in good faith, falling over backwards to deliver good value (and admittedly make a reasonable profit) from those dollars. Their efficiencies are the reason you have a half reasonable Defence Force.
Michael Sutcliffe
11 Feb 10 at 1:23 am
THR
As for war – the biggest war of recent times (Iraq) was largely privatised
You might have to spell this one out a bit more slowly for this slow learner
Peter Patton
11 Feb 10 at 1:28 am
Look, in the United States of all places there’s an example of a mining company employing machine guns against rioting miners in a full-on battle that would make any military proud.
Similar things have happened in Australia, too. But the short answer is that capital is not a replacement for government in terms of delivering a civil society.
When I spend your money on military hardware and supporting services (spent around AUD$56M last year) form private companies I only do so because government has taken money off the citizenry and told me to spend it on specific items and services.
Very true, but this is an argument in favour of the populace deciding how money is spent, not for privatising everything in sight.
The private companies are good people acting in good faith, falling over backwards to deliver good value (and admittedly make a reasonable profit) from those dollars.
‘Good faith’ and profitability are mutually exclusive. The private people are basically an extension of your boogeyman government, but with the riches in private, rather than public hands.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 1:31 am
Peter, the US Government paid for more notionally ‘private’ troops than it did its own soldiers. The so-called rebuilding effort was largely private. From a domestic US point of view, the Iraq war was the government handing billions to private corporations and saying ‘play with this’.
This was also reflected in the way the US dictated legislation to the Iraqis. Everything that was a state asset was privatised. Iraqis had no say, since there wasn’t a ‘Don’t privatise stuff!’ party on the ballot. That’s ‘democracy building’, apparently.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 1:35 am
Very true, but this is an argument in favour of the populace deciding how money is spent, not for privatising everything in sight.
Sure, but my point is it’s not private industry making this call – they’re just the servants doing the beck and call of their masters. It’s government making this whole process go ahead,] and they in no way remove any of their accountability. So, no moral decisions have been privatised (assuming the private company stays within the law), it all sits in the government domain.
‘Good faith’ and profitability are mutually exclusive.
No, you need to get over this. Profit is when I offer my services to make your life better and I get something in return. It’s not a bad thing, and it’s completely moral.
The private people are basically an extension of your boogeyman government, but with the riches in private, rather than public hands.
Only when they are put there by government. Private companies can’t make the government give them any more money than the government wants.
Michael Sutcliffe
11 Feb 10 at 1:42 am
Peter, the US Government paid for more notionally ‘private’ troops than it did its own soldiers. The so-called rebuilding effort was largely private.
Well, if they did it was barely the case. At one stage there was nearly 130,000 American troops in Iraq. Contractors can’t have been too much above this!
Furthermore, I bet the contractors cost less than the American military. That’s kind of the point.
Michael Sutcliffe
11 Feb 10 at 1:49 am
Insulation has been around for sometime.
Why is it the government’s fault that ill qualified people in organisations that had little experience in this had problems.
Surely a consumer would investigate the history of the organisation before commencing work perhaps even a few calls from previous customers
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
11 Feb 10 at 9:15 am
The so-called rebuilding effort was largely private.
.
THR, I’m not sure where outsourcing should stop, or whether it’s a good idea for things like defense. However, many on the left saw the widespread use of outsourcing as evidence of some kind of capitalist conspiracy. “These people were war profiteers,” they claimed, and you seem to also think so.
Well, yes, in a sense I suppose it’s true, in that such people ‘made a profit’ during wartime by taking on various contracting roles. But if the government wanted to avoid that charge completely, they’d have to do everything in-house.
It’s just not how things are done these days.
daddy dave
11 Feb 10 at 9:44 am
Homer wanted Vanstone sacked over the Rau bungle but he’s OK about four people being killed thanks to Peter Garrett’s monumental incompetence.
You’re beneath contempt, Homer.
C.L.
11 Feb 10 at 11:59 am
You are an idiot and a hypocrite.
Peter Garret didn’t buy the service the consumer did.
If someone is going to put insulation in your home then you need to do your homework about the people doing it.
I do note the people who were killed were inexperienced.
Why were they doing it and why were they hired in the first place
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
11 Feb 10 at 12:41 pm
I do note the people who were killed were inexperienced.
Why were they doing it and why were they hired in the first place
Homer, do you not see the connection? We have a government program designed to ramp up production in a sector of the economy that had insufficient capacity and so in order to qualify for their slice of the stimulus pie, they took short cuts. None of that would have occurred if the stimulus spending on insulation were not present.
Skuter
11 Feb 10 at 3:31 pm
Peter Garret didn’t buy the service the consumer did.
.
honestly Homer does have a point here (for once). You can’t hold Garrett responsible for the actions of the individuals concerned.
daddy dave
11 Feb 10 at 3:41 pm
You’re beneath contempt, Homer.
I quite happy to leave simply at “contempt”. That’s good enough for me. Any lower and Debbie would hit the bottom of the cliff.
You are an idiot and a hypocrite.
Debbie, you realize that most people say that about you.. openly to you face if they could.
Peter Garret didn’t buy the service the consumer did.
Garrertt fast tracked something we had no hope of achieving without causing undue risk. He’s the senior executive in charge of that policy unless you think it was Howard’s fault.
If someone is going to put insulation in your home then you need to do your homework about the people doing it.
Umm doofus. You can’t get the rebate unless the crap is laid by stimulation-approved firms
I do note the people who were killed were inexperienced.
Great to see you’re getting the point, Deb.
Why were they doing it and why were they hired in the first place
Debbie you really are thick, aren’t you? They were “doing it” because someone called them to “do it” as a result of the inducement to “do it” from the rebate that Garrett introduced. They were hired because of increased demand flowing from Garrett’s end of the stimululation rebating people money to insulate their homes. Is that clear now, Debbie?
Skuter, Debbie is the bluntest brick on the block. if you choose not to ignore him then treat him with the contempt he truly deserves.
JC
11 Feb 10 at 3:44 pm
Dad’s:
You needed to be on the approved list so people couldn’t necessarily discriminate. Debbie has no point to make at all.
Garrett should have realized that a sudden jerk in demand like that would have ramifications through the installation industry.
In fact Halloween mask was informed of the dangers by the electrical trades association last year which he either ignored or above his mental capacity to understand.
The first rule, especially in the job of government is the Hippocratic oath…. “First do no harm”.
He did cause harm.
JC
11 Feb 10 at 3:50 pm
The first rule, especially in the job of government is the Hippocratic oath…. “First do no harm”.
He did cause harm.
.
yep, I guess so. For political expediency too. just like all those businessmen out there committing manslaughter at will.
daddy dave
11 Feb 10 at 4:07 pm
that was an in-joke by the way.
daddy dave
11 Feb 10 at 4:07 pm
I think there’s some misunderstanding about OHS laws in this country.
If you drive recklessly and kill somebody, you will be charged, and are likely to receive a custodial sentence.
If you running a building site/factory etc in a reckless and unsafe fashion, and somebody is killed as a result, you won’t be dealing with a police investigation, but with Worksafe. You won’t receive a criminal record no matter what, and you can expect nothing more than a fine. So yes, industrial manslaughter is not technically permissable, but is trivialised and treated with kid gloves compared to non-industrial manslaughter.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 4:59 pm
ALso, this idea that Peter Garrett is directly responsible for the deaths of these 4 workers is incorrect. Responsibility sits with the workers’ immediate line management, and, beyond that, with those formulating the specific plans to install the insulation (not the person who merely signs off on the stimulus package). Blaming Peter Garrett would be like blaming the CEO of Toyota for work practices in one section of one warehouse in Adelaide.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 5:02 pm
THR – then he’s got nothing to worry about.
Sinclair Davidson
11 Feb 10 at 5:04 pm
Blaming Peter Garrett would be like blaming the CEO of Toyota for work practices in one section of one warehouse in Adelaide.
That’s actually an excellent example. IF a worker in Adelaide died as a result of shoddy work practices directly caused by the lack of care by the CEO after he had been informed of such shitty practices then he would be forced to take the rap.
JC
11 Feb 10 at 5:07 pm
IF a worker in Adelaide died as a result of shoddy work practices directly caused by the lack of care by the CEO after he had been informed of such shitty practices then he would be forced to take the rap.
Forced by who? Shareholder activists could take it up as an issue, but that’s about it.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 5:15 pm
THR:
No, THR, not the shareholders but the laws governing wok safety.
If you could directly chart a criminal negligence going right up to a CEO of any Fortune 500 company they wouldn’t last and show s/he shirked work safety in the same way as Garret has.
The stock would tank and the Board would act. No question. They wouldn’t have a choice.
JC
11 Feb 10 at 5:19 pm
My point is, jc, there isn’t such as thing as ‘criminal negligence’ in our health and safety system, and the laws are state-based anyway. A CEO interstate or overseas could not be made accountable, no matter how culpable he/she might be.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 5:21 pm
THR – Garrett doesn’t have a legal problem. He won’t front a court of law, he is fronting the court of public opinion.
Sinclair Davidson
11 Feb 10 at 5:31 pm
THR:
I presume you’ve watched the James Hardie case where the entire board and senior management are gone and their reputations ruined …..and for some there is the possibility they will go to jail. In some cases s few of the executives were only tangentially involved.
James Hardie was a foreign firm by the way and our international actions carried right through to where they were domiciled which that week was in Holland.
JC
11 Feb 10 at 5:32 pm
THR, didn’t you write this above?
“If Garrett knew of and oversaw shoddy work practices, then he should definitely be sacked, and possibly charged.”
He did know. He did oversee.
Why have you flip-flopped?
C.L.
11 Feb 10 at 5:33 pm
THR – you should check out the OH&S law – you can go to jail for the misadventure of an employee on your premises
rog
11 Feb 10 at 5:34 pm
THR lives in some Dickensian world of child labour and bosses with gold fob watches and canes.
Infidel Tiger
11 Feb 10 at 5:37 pm
James Hardie was a foreign firm by the way and our international actions carried right through to where they were domiciled which that week was in Holland.
James Hardie was a bit more of a complex problem. It wasn’t merely OHS issues for which the firm were responsible, but also issues of dishonesty, compo claims, etc.
Why have you flip-flopped?
I think that ministers and CEOs absolutely should be held accountable for overseeing dangerous work practices. Under the current system, I can’t see how Garrett has any legal case to answer. As Sinclair says, he has a political problem, but no case to answer with respect to the relevant OHS legislation.
THR – you should check out the OH&S law – you can go to jail for the misadventure of an employee on your premises
The possible sentences are much shorter, and never happen in practice.
THR lives in some Dickensian world of child labour and bosses with gold fob watches and canes.
I’m looking forward to the day when we see a libertarian defence of child labour on this site. I’m surprised there hasn’t been one already.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 5:45 pm
I’m looking forward to the day when we see a libertarian defence of child labour on this site. I’m surprised there hasn’t been one already.
I would. In some parts of Africa there is no choice or the entire family will perish.
JC
11 Feb 10 at 5:47 pm
And child prostitution?
THR
11 Feb 10 at 5:48 pm
THR
You’re a freaking idiot. Child labour is not child exploitation. Go and actually talk to some people, maybe some economists etc who had upbringings in 3rd world countries.
Wanker.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 Feb 10 at 5:52 pm
THR you can’t be serious
tal
11 Feb 10 at 5:52 pm
No. Most 8 year olds really want to work in a sweatshop. Good one, SRL.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 5:53 pm
“…but the laws governing wok safety.”
Yes. Wok safety is a serious business JC.
BirdLab
11 Feb 10 at 5:55 pm
so are children growing up in and helping out on the family farm in australia considered exploited? what about the family shop?
jtfsoon
11 Feb 10 at 5:55 pm
This is UNICEF:
An estimated 158 million children aged 5-14 are engaged in child labour – one in six children in the world. Millions of children are engaged in hazardous situations or conditions, such as working in mines, working with chemicals and pesticides in agriculture or working with dangerous machinery. They are everywhere but invisible, toiling as domestic servants in homes, labouring behind the walls of workshops, hidden from view in plantations.
In Sub-Saharan Africa around one in three children are engaged in child labour, representing 69 million children.
In South Asia, another 44 million are engaged in child labour.
The latest national estimates for this indicator are reported in Table 9 (Child Protection) of UNICEF’s annual publication The State of the World’s Children.
http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_childlabour.html
Yet apparently, this is somehow not ‘exploitative’, and we should be defending this system.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 5:56 pm
I’ve held down paying jobs since I was a kid – to support my comic habit. Packing beer into plastic bags on a Saturday morning as a ten year old and then running out just before 1 (when the shops closed in those days) to buy Tornado and 2000AD.
Sinclair Davidson
11 Feb 10 at 5:56 pm
Yes BirdLab that hot oil can splash you
tal
11 Feb 10 at 5:57 pm
Lab:
Ever felt safe even standing around a wok….not that I travel to the kitchen that much. LOL.
JC
11 Feb 10 at 5:57 pm
so are children growing up in and helping out on the family farm in australia considered exploited? what about the family shop?
Are you seriously comparing a kid helping out a business owned by his/her parents with sweatshop child labour?
THR
11 Feb 10 at 5:57 pm
THR;
Everyone would like to see it end. However in nearly all cases the family would starve if the kids didn’t work.
You shouldn’t be as concerned about this aspect as you should be about seeing and supporting faster development in these hell holes.
If you stopped child labor in these parts you’re referring it would cause starvation for lots of people.
JC
11 Feb 10 at 6:00 pm
“No. Most 8 year olds really want to work in a sweatshop. Good one, SRL”
You really can be a muppet. Collecting firewood or gathering food, or God forbid working in agriculture/fishing can hardly be considered “exploitation”. It is survival to these people. This is how they get educated. This offends your sensibilities so you’d prefer them to starve.
Just like your busted ideology, it isn’t feasible that they all drive around in Ladas and enjoy public art. These people need to frigging eat.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 Feb 10 at 6:01 pm
Women and children in third world economies often face one of three choices. Starvation, prostitution or a job in a sweat-shop. People who agitate against ’sweat-shops’ want to take one of those choices away.
Sinclair Davidson
11 Feb 10 at 6:02 pm
No, people who agitate against sweatshops are agitating against the system that makes child exploitation necessary.
But by all means, continue with the ringing endorsements of child labour. Perhaps the CIS in conjunction with the LDP can come up with a policy initiative – send poor kids to work instead of school. We’ll increase our taxation revenue whilst being able to cut spending on schools in poor areas. Sounds like a winner to me.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 6:04 pm
THR – you’re being silly. Capitalism and rising prosperity has done more to eradivate explotitive child labour than has anything else. If you want to abolish child labour you have to act so as to improve the economic prospects of their parents. That means free markets, easy taxes and tolerable rule of law.
Sinclair Davidson
11 Feb 10 at 6:07 pm
“But by all means, continue with the ringing endorsements of child labour.”
Stop bullshitting and actually talk to some people from 3rd world countries. “Your children must starve to satisfy my vanity” won’t go down too well.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 Feb 10 at 6:08 pm
Actually THR child labour indicates that there is useful work that they can do – therefore they have a value – otherwise they can be sold off
Unfortunately child prostitution is a growing market – plenty of cashed up baby boomer pedophiles around
rog
11 Feb 10 at 6:11 pm
And why do children have to work, you wilful buffoon, SRL? It’s because companies won’t pay adult wages. Nobody is arguing that children should starve. What you’re arguing is that profit margins are more important than paying adult workers a decent wage.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 6:12 pm
That means free markets, easy taxes and tolerable rule of law.
I haven’t seen any research on it, but I’d be willing to bet that there’s a correlation between child labour and countries with ‘free markets’ and ‘easy taxes’.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 6:13 pm
No, people who agitate against sweatshops are agitating against the system that makes child exploitation necessary.
Yes, THR, but the ’system’, whatever that is, has always necessitated some form of child labour in anything but advanced industrial societies. So to the extent that you have agitated for an end to all child labour in less than advanced industrial societies has meant that you have given them nothing but two choices: starvation or prostitution.
But by all means, continue with the ringing endorsements of child labour. Perhaps the CIS in conjunction with the LDP can come up with a policy initiative – send poor kids to work instead of school. We’ll increase our taxation revenue whilst being able to cut spending on schools in poor areas. Sounds like a winner to me.
No one on this thread has endorsed ‘child labour’ as an alternative to school in Australia or any other advanced industrial society, THR, so that is straw-man of your own invention.
dover_beach
11 Feb 10 at 6:16 pm
Really THR? Compare India to Taiwan.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 Feb 10 at 6:17 pm
I haven’t seen any research on it, but I’d be willing to bet that there’s a correlation between child labour and countries with ‘free markets’ and ‘easy taxes’.
Think I read an article last week on this in the Green Left Weekly’s business section. It was just next to the good news about Tractor Factory no. 7 getting a new toilet plunger.
Infidel Tiger
11 Feb 10 at 6:19 pm
Dover, several commenters have suggested that a child slave on a cocoa farm is comparable to an Australian kid with a paper round, or one who helps out the family business. And you want to talk about straw men.
The child slaves on farms in West Africa, for instance, hail from countries where labour and agriculture has been deregulated. ‘Free markets’ ought to be identified as the problem, not the solution to child labour.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 6:21 pm
Yes, THR, but the ’system’, whatever that is, has always necessitated some form of child labour in anything but advanced industrial societies
So Britain would never have industrialised if not for child labour? You can’t seriously believe that. And child labour is an impediment to economic growth, since kids would be better off (in the longer term) going to school and getting some actual skills.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 6:23 pm
Dover, several commenters have suggested that a child slave on a cocoa farm is comparable to an Australian kid with a paper round, or one who helps out the family business. And you want to talk about straw men.
No one, except yourself, has done that THR, and that is because child labour for you is synonymous with sweatshops.
The child slaves on farms in West Africa, for instance, hail from countries where labour and agriculture has been deregulated. ‘Free markets’ ought to be identified as the problem, not the solution to child labour.
Oh, yes, child labour was absent in Africa until the arrival of free markets.
dover_beach
11 Feb 10 at 6:26 pm
Swaetshops are just one example, dover. I supplied a link with more detail.
Oh, yes, child labour was absent in Africa until the arrival of free markets.
What an idiotic example of special pleading. You don’t seem to apply this same logic to say, famine in China during the Maoist period.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 6:29 pm
“‘Free markets’ ought to be identified as the problem, not the solution to child labour.”
Ideology, not analysis.
“‘Free markets’ ought to be identified as the problem, not the solution to child labour.”
LOL The Europeans didn’t buy slaves off other Africans either!
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 Feb 10 at 6:29 pm
I haven’t seen any research on it, but I’d be willing to bet that there’s a correlation between child labour and countries with ‘free markets’ and ‘easy taxes’.
Yes. It disappears. The correlation is as close as you can get to 1.
JC
11 Feb 10 at 6:30 pm
The correlation is as close as you can get to 1
Which is why it’s much worse in free market El Salvador and Honduras than ’socialist’ Venezuela…
THR
11 Feb 10 at 6:31 pm
So Britain would never have industrialised if not for child labour? You can’t seriously believe that. And child labour is an impediment to economic growth, since kids would be better off (in the longer term) going to school and getting some actual skills.
Well, yes, I don’t seriously believe simply because that wasn’t what I said. As to the second, kids are better off staying alive. If their parents can meet the needs of subsistence, then school is preferable to labour. I don’t really care how this might effect economic growth. So far as skills are concerned, an apprenticeship at an earlier age never hurt anyone or their skills.
dover_beach
11 Feb 10 at 6:32 pm
THR
You seem focused on South America these days.
Brazilians gals are very pretty
JC
11 Feb 10 at 6:36 pm
What an idiotic example of special pleading. You don’t seem to apply this same logic to say, famine in China during the Maoist period.
Really, special pleading is it? After a series of your bare assertions you found that simple point an instance of special pleading. Applying the same logic, one would ask whether previous famines (and droughts) in China were as intense as those experienced following collectivization. Further, the fact that collectivization was followed by severe famines in the USSR and China suggests a ‘nexus’.
dover_beach
11 Feb 10 at 6:38 pm
What is Holodomor?
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 Feb 10 at 6:46 pm
Something from Harry Potter I think SRL
tal
11 Feb 10 at 6:49 pm
It was Stalin’s means of liquidating perceived enemies. It’s also a mass-famine of very little relevance to this thread. And whilst you’re very quick to point out the atrocities of the USSR and China, you seem to suffer amnesia when it comes to those committed under capitalism. The potato famine in Ireland, for example, which caused starvation and forced people to leave the country, was a direct result of Britain’s economic policies, which were capitalist through and through.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 6:50 pm
You are very confused THR.
“I haven’t seen any research on it, but I’d be willing to bet that there’s a correlation between child labour and countries with ‘free markets’ and ‘easy taxes’.”
Please tell us if you’re referring to free enterprise or something else when you use this spray-gunned dead fish napalm of “capitalism”.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 Feb 10 at 6:53 pm
I thought it was because of the Potato Blight
tal
11 Feb 10 at 7:00 pm
Please tell us if you’re referring to free enterprise or something else when you use this spray-gunned dead fish napalm of “capitalism”.
My point was the child labour is almost certainly worse in places with low taxes, low spending, and laissez-faire attitudes to economics and labour, like El Salvador or Honduras. If that isn’t capitalism, what it?
THR
11 Feb 10 at 7:03 pm
Um no please answer the difference between Taiwan and India.
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 Feb 10 at 7:04 pm
I thought it was because of the Potato Blight
The Engish didn’t cause the potato disease, but is was their policies that contributed directly to mass starvation.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 7:04 pm
Um no please answer the difference between Taiwan and India.
It’s a poor comparison, since Taiwan started development before India, and since India has very wide regional variations in policy.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 7:06 pm
“The Engish didn’t cause the potato disease, but is was their policies that contributed directly to mass starvation.”
Not to be confused with free enterprise.
“It’s a poor comparison, since Taiwan started development before India, and since India has very wide regional variations in policy.”
How much earlier?
Does it account for that difference?
What regional variations?
Semi Regular Libertarian
11 Feb 10 at 8:23 pm
Not to be confused with free enterprise.
We’re talking about actually existing capitalism here, not the Disney version spruiked by idealistic and confused libertarians. Britain was capitalist at the time of the famine, though their version of capitalism was one dependent partly on colonial enterprises.
How much earlier?
A few decades.
Does it account for that difference?
It would account for some of the difference.
What regional variations?
There are significant regional variationsin India in terms of politics, economic policy, drought, poverty levels, etc.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 8:36 pm
We’re talking about actually existing capitalism here, not the Disney version spruiked by idealistic and confused libertarians. Britain was capitalist at the time of the famine, though their version of capitalism was one dependent partly on colonial enterprises.
Yes, THR is concerned with ‘actually existing capitalism’, SRL, which can count as any mode of government that has existed since Adam that has also involved markets and private property, and can include England under King John, Cromwell, Pitt the Younger, Peel, Disraeli, etc. You know, a definition so broad that you can conveniently, at least for any “idealistic and confused” Marxist ashamed of every instantiation of their mode of government since Lenin, accuse ‘capitalism’ of the most heinous of crimes at the drop of a hat.
dover_beach
11 Feb 10 at 8:54 pm
Typical ideological doublethink from Dover here. I only use the term ‘capitalism’ with reference to the modern era. Are you purporting to demonstrate that England in 1848 was not a capitalist country? If not, what are you actually going on about?
You know, a definition so broad that you can conveniently, at least for any “idealistic and confused” Marxist ashamed of every instantiation of their mode of government since Lenin, accuse ‘capitalism’ of the most heinous of crimes at the drop of a hat.
Let’s get this straight – the crimes and failures of communist regimes are inextricably linked to communism itself, but the crimes and failures of capitalist regimes are somehow incidental, merely a bit of bad luck, and nothing else?
THR
11 Feb 10 at 8:58 pm
Typical ideological doublethink from Dover here. I only use the term ‘capitalism’ with reference to the modern era. Are you purporting to demonstrate that England in 1848 was not a capitalist country? If not, what are you actually going on about?
Ah, only with reference to the modern era? THR, I’m not pretending or purporting to demonstrate the England was ‘capitalist’ in 1848 but not in 1748 or 1648; that is what you’re intimating. I would, however, suggest that the Potato Famine had less to do with ‘capitalism’ then it did with the particular decisions of the English government, local Irish & English merchants, etc.
Let’s get this straight – the crimes and failures of communist regimes are inextricably linked to communism itself, but the crimes and failures of capitalist regimes are somehow incidental, merely a bit of bad luck, and nothing else?
Yes, to the first because a communist regime is in fact a political regime; and, yes, to the second only because there is no such thing as a ‘capitalist’ regime. There are liberal regimes, socialist regimes, fascist regimes, etc. all of which have different varieties of economic orders that we might otherwise describe as ‘capitalist’.
dover_beach
11 Feb 10 at 9:19 pm
I would, however, suggest that the Potato Famine had less to do with ‘capitalism’ then it did with the particular decisions of the English government, local Irish & English merchants, etc.
The local merchants etc. could only act as they did because firstly, Ireland was a colonial conquest of Britain, and secondly, the British government (consisting of Whigs and laissez-faire Tories, and supported by the Irish landowning class) passed laws in favour of them.
Yes, to the first because a communist regime is in fact a political regime; and, yes, to the second only because there is no such thing as a ‘capitalist’ regime.
Evasion by semantics. Is Australia a capitalist country? And as for communism being a ‘political regime’ – pray tell, what sort of economic order is apolitical?
THR
11 Feb 10 at 9:31 pm
THR
It is completely vacuous to dump 2010 Australia, 1989 Japan, 1910 USA, and 1848 England all as merely capitalist. And equally so, given the blood, sweat, and tears you will spill slicing and dicing XXXXliberals, XXXXconservatives, socialXXXX, neoXXXX to describe the character of eveb only one of these nations in 2010.
Peter Patton
11 Feb 10 at 9:34 pm
t is completely vacuous to dump 2010 Australia, 1989 Japan, 1910 USA, and 1848 England all as merely capitalist.
Why? I’m not saying that all are identical, but they all share some common features, so why should we go in for selective nominalism?
THR
11 Feb 10 at 9:39 pm
Let’s get this straight – the crimes and failures of communist regimes are inextricably linked to communism itself, but the crimes and failures of capitalist regimes are somehow incidental, merely a bit of bad luck, and nothing else?
But what crimes are actually consistent with capitalism? This is the issue with communism: an action ends hurting a subsection of society but the communists justify it as necessary to protect the ‘common good’ i.e. unfortunate but necessary and not a crime. The outcome ends up being pretty grim and then the next generation declare what was done actually was a crime. Then they choose something else and the cycle starts again. With capitalism, before it happens it’s considered a crime, when it happens it’s considered a crime, and after it happens – you guessed it – consistent with capitalistic theory it’s still a crime.
Michael Sutcliffe
11 Feb 10 at 9:48 pm
But what crimes are actually consistent with capitalism?
Think of the tens of millions who die each year rich, content and happy. That’s no way to die.
Infidel Tiger
11 Feb 10 at 9:53 pm
With capitalism, before it happens it’s considered a crime, when it happens it’s considered a crime, and after it happens – you guessed it – consistent with capitalistic theory it’s still a crime.
I think communism was more complex that you’ve portrayed it here. If a White Army had emerged to challenge any government, that government would have attempted to bring it down. Then you have Kruschev’s ’secret speech’. I don’t think that everything done in the name of communism was a product of blind fanaticism.
And the recent invasion of Iraq would appear to throw your theory out the window. Iraq probably should have been considered a crime, at least morally (if not legally), but its architects are still walking free.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 9:55 pm
I personally think that the Iraq War will be vindicated. Just as it was reasonable to consider the Japanese did intend to invade Australia in WWII, despite the fact historians say this wasn’t the case, the passing of time will release more and more evidence suggesting the common international consensus was really that Saddam was up to no good and had WMDs.
Michael Sutcliffe
11 Feb 10 at 10:02 pm
I think Japan was a little different. I can see how people would have been fearful of the Japanese, despite us now knowing that they had no chance of conquering Australia.
I don’t see how the invasion of Iraq will be vindicated. The country was ‘on its knees’, as Hans Blix put it on Lateline the other night. It was surrounded by no-fly zones, and had already had much of its military infrastructure destroyed. The invasion of Iraq was not just disastrous for the Irqis themselves, but signalled a dark time for the West. Suspension of civil liberties, people advocating torture, and the use of massive pre-emptive thoughts on the off-chance one’s perceived enemy might have some unpleasant intentions.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 10:09 pm
And in addition to all of that, history will also reveal that there was no convenient answer to the rise of Islamofascism. Which will further mitigate the outcomes of the things you’re describing to future generations.
Michael Sutcliffe
11 Feb 10 at 10:16 pm
“The Engish didn’t cause the potato disease, but is was their policies that contributed directly to mass starvation.”
Well, yes. Including the anti-capitalist laws that were aimed squarely at preventing Irish Catholics from developing, the anti-capitalist lack of property rights for tenants, the semi-feudal (ie non-capitalist) relationship between tenants and landlords (without the cultural-moral underpinnings of true feudalism), the anti-capitalist ‘public works’ (that ironically were the epitome of Keynes’s “digging holes and filling them again” mantra), the anti-capitalist clauses of the Poor Laws, and on and on it goes.
Jarrah
11 Feb 10 at 10:18 pm
“the passing of time will release more and more evidence suggesting the common international consensus was really that Saddam was up to no good and had WMDs.”
And people talk about the falsity of the scientific consensus on AGW!
I can’t think off the top of my head of a more egregious abuse of intelligence-gathering, a more politically-driven deformation of cautious and contradictory and conservative reports, a more blatant dismissal of countervailing evidence, than the lead-up to the Iraq war.
Though, sadly, there probably is one.
Jarrah
11 Feb 10 at 10:27 pm
And in addition to all of that, history will also reveal that there was no convenient answer to the rise of Islamofascism.
I think ‘history’ will be curious as to why the Middle East, once more secular than the US today, took a turn towards Islamism.
And Jarrah, you’re having a bet each way here. Yes, there were some interventions into the market at this time, but there were also laisez-faire policies in place. You raise property rights for instance – would it have bene ‘capitalist’ to embark upon a ‘land reform’ or redistribution program (assuming it could have been done)?
THR
11 Feb 10 at 10:29 pm
Sometimes I don’t think I’m on the same planet as you two! And I’m not the one who’s comet surfing!
Michael Sutcliffe
11 Feb 10 at 10:37 pm
Yes, I’m having a bet each way, because the complex evolution of the terrible events that comprised the Great Potato Famine can’t be boiled down to “it’s capitalism’s fault” or “it’s the government’s fault”.
The Whigs made a shockingly bad mistake in assuming the market could fix what had been a massive failure to put in place the requirements markets need to function, while not even implementing emergency aid measures.
“would it have bene ‘capitalist’ to embark upon a ‘land reform’ or redistribution program (assuming it could have been done)?”
The mere extension of property rights to tenants would have been ‘capitalist’, and done some good. There are parallels with the changes in Russia’s peasantry.
Jarrah
11 Feb 10 at 10:48 pm
Jarrah, it isn’t difficult to look at the various policies during the famine and tie them to aspects of capitalist ideology – profit, ‘enlightened’ self-interest, comparative advantage (i.e. starving peasants exporting food to England) etc. It’s not that the specifics of the famine (and other disasters) can be reduced to capitalism, but neither can capitalism be neatly exculpated. Certainly, nobody on this site would dream of performing the same circus act of casuistry for any other political/economic ideology.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 10:52 pm
I can’t think off the top of my head of a more egregious abuse of intelligence-gathering, a more politically-driven deformation of cautious and contradictory and conservative reports, a more blatant dismissal of countervailing evidence, than the lead-up to the Iraq war.
Which is itself concocted, untrue, hysterical hogwash. In fact, every major intelligence agency in the world and every major politician from Kevin Rudd and Kim Beazley to Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden believed and said that Saddam had WMD. The US Democrats were the most militantly opinionated on the subject. (This was part of the reason why Bill Clinton made regime change in Iraq official American policy). The writs for war as presented to the US Congress DID NOT, in any case, revolve exclusively (or even proponderantly) around WMD. The resolution was voted on and passed.
Saddam Hussein, the worst mass murderer of the late twentieth century, was overthrown.
We won.
Now Obama is running the left’s Good War in Afghanistan.
How’s that working out?
C.L.
11 Feb 10 at 11:03 pm
CL, it was utterly implausible that Iraq posed any immediate threat to anybody. The fact that this might have been bipartisan policy in the US doesn’t alter this fact.
Speaking of partisan politics, it was Reagan who provided Saddam with finance and intelligence, and Reagan and Bush Snr who opposed attempts by Congress to rebuke Saddam, after he was caught out mass murdering Kurds. It was also Bush Snr who turned a deaf ear to the pleas of Shi’ite muslims in 1993, when they requested support for a mass uprising (and were later brutally suppressed). The mass murdering Saddam had done pretty much all of his mass murdering with US complicity for a long time before Dubya got the idea that Iraq needed a ‘humanitarian’ shock and awe campaign.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 11:10 pm
every major intelligence agency in the world and every major politician from Kevin Rudd and Kim Beazley to Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden believed and said that Saddam had WMD
.
I read somewhere once that Saddam himself believed he had WMD. The problem was that none of the scientists or relevant commanders had the guts to explain that the program had been abandoned.
This is why the outside world thought they existed: because the Iraqis themselves thought they existed.
daddy dave
11 Feb 10 at 11:22 pm
This is why the outside world thought they existed: because the Iraqis themselves thought they existed.
It’s worth noting that there was not exactly a consensus on Iraq’s WMDs (notably, the UN weapons inspectors were not convinced, and they ought to have known), and there was even less of a consensus on pre-emptive bombing as a means of dealing with the problem.
THR
11 Feb 10 at 11:28 pm
Evasion by semantics. Is Australia a capitalist country?
No, I’m not being semantic, but you are being extremely loose with your use of words for polemical purposes. What a silly question, yes, it is, and yet so is Venezuela and China because they both have markets and private property and yet this tells us nothing about the political character or features of each of these states.
And as for communism being a ‘political regime’ – pray tell, what sort of economic order is apolitical?
I’m not arguing that the economic order of a state is independent of its political order, THR; I freely admit that they are interdependent. But when I say that communism is a political order I mean that it is a genuine political order, like liberalism, socialism, etc. So far as the economic order that obtains under communism is concerned, it is indistinguishable from the political order simply because the state has been converted into an industrial enterprise where the managerial class are indistinguishable from the political class; they are in fact synonymous. When St Simon remarked that under socialism/ communism, the government of men will be replaced by the administration of things, he wasn’t joking. You bang on about corporations and yet fail to recognise that social/communism transforms the state into a corporation itself, where all other corporations, associations, etc. are subdued and made it’s subsidiaries.
dover_beach
12 Feb 10 at 9:59 am
Hussein was not a threat to any country.
He possessed the slowest planes in the area, couldn’t even service his gas guzzling tanks, his soldiers had no equipment to fight at night and the best rockets he had dropped out of the sky halfway to Israel or thereabouts.
Actually Howard was briefed by the ONLY two Aussies who would know as they worked in the UN inspectors team that any chemical weapons Hussein had from 1991 were too old to be any good and he had no up to date chemical weapons.
True to form Howard next day said the West had to ensure Hussein never used his dangerous chemical weapons.
No wonder CL loves him.
If Bush had have any brains he would have ensured the forces in Afghanistan had sufficient resources to complete their mission.
He didn’t. He didn’t care that this Government helped AQ attack the US.
He let AQ off the hook.
He was a traitor to all Americans.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
12 Feb 10 at 10:09 am
He didn’t. He didn’t care that this Government helped AQ attack the US.
He let AQ off the hook
Which government, Homes? The Taliban govt has been toppled.
jtfsoon
12 Feb 10 at 10:10 am
the toppling was pretty poor as the present government tells anyone.
How is it the Taliban are so strong at present?
Why weren’t they and AQ annihilated a short time after 11/9?
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
12 Feb 10 at 10:16 am
I’d like to see them annihilated too Homes but there are all those mountains and caves to hide in, not to mention the Pakistani tribal areas. Short of nuking the whole blasted place what do you suggest?
jtfsoon
12 Feb 10 at 10:21 am
imagine if those resources were sent to Afghanistan and not to Iraq.
They also had the chance to get rid of Bin Laden and let it go.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
12 Feb 10 at 11:04 am
THR is shameless.
A good working example of laissez faire is said to be non existent as some Disney fantasy. Taiwan and Hong Kong don’t exist. The Irish reforms don’t matter. But then the British oppression of Ireland is “capitalist” all in thew same way.
India and Taiwan have a similar history. India and Taiwan can be said to have roughly the same starting point, unless you wish to ignore World War II and Chinese history. The British ultimately treated the Indians arguably better than the Japenese did the Formosans.
Regional variation, like capitalism, becomes endogenous as it is convenient to THR.
Semi Regular Libertarian
12 Feb 10 at 11:10 am
They also had the chance to get rid of Bin Laden and let it go.
.
what utterly disingenuous, hypocritical crap.
daddy dave
12 Feb 10 at 11:13 am
DD read up on Tora Bora you ignorant fool
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
12 Feb 10 at 11:27 am
DD read up on Tora Bora you ignorant fool
.
my point was that when social-democrat-eurolefties such as yourself try to sound tough on foreign policy, it’s never convincing.
daddy dave
12 Feb 10 at 12:00 pm
Debbie isn’t s social-democrat euroleftie, DD. He’s and Eastwoodleftie with little understanding beyond those borders.
JC
12 Feb 10 at 12:06 pm
you two do not know what a lefty or a righty is.
It could be worse I might think Fannie Mae was a bank!
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
12 Feb 10 at 12:10 pm
actually there are lefties who are convincingly hawkish on war, Hitchens is one of them.
I don’t have a problem with their sincerity, nor do I have a problem with the argument that Afghanistan is a more important war than Iraq. But now we only know that from hindight re the Iraq business and it’s too late to do anything about Afghanistan. AQ and the Talibans are evil bastards and should be annihilated but if we want to really get rid of them that will involve among other things invading part of Pakistan.
jtfsoon
12 Feb 10 at 12:13 pm
Good one Debbie. You’re now telling us we don’t don’t the difference between left and wing by posting some incoherent hogwash about Fannie Mae.
You really are jawdropping idiot.
JC
12 Feb 10 at 12:13 pm
But now we only know that from hindight re the Iraq business and it’s too late to do anything about Afghanistan.
This isn’t true. There wasn’t consensus on Iraq at the time. To the extent that there was a pro-war position, the CIA etc, must have had some inkling that it was based on flimsy, selective, ’sexed-up’ evidence. There were a number of options potentially available to the US and UK.
We shouldn’t forget the extraordinary lengths the US took to ensure that war came to pass (like bugging the personal emails of UN delegates when it was thought the war might hinge on a UN vote).
This idea that Iraq was an imminent risk of nuking LA and London was always extremely unlikely, whilst the notion that a US invasion would cause mass death and suffering was not. You don’t need hindsight for this – plenty of people were articulating this position in 2002 and 2003.
THR
12 Feb 10 at 12:20 pm
Forrest the only thing you specialise in is idiocy which is why you thin Fannie Mae was a bank.
Bush had every right to invade Afghanistan as that government had helped AQ in 11/9.
not only that but most Countries wanted to help.
Without even bedding down that problem Bush then illegally invaded Iraq for which reason we will never know.
Perceptive people realised Iraq posed no threat.
Bush wasting resources in Iraq whilst Afghanistan had not been completed merely shows his incompetence
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
12 Feb 10 at 12:21 pm
Joe Biden claims victory in Iraq for the Obama administration.
Perceptive people realised Iraq posed no threat.
The most militant advocates of action against Iraq were the Democrats.
But the war was actually won by Bush.
C.L.
12 Feb 10 at 12:27 pm
Debbie:
I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned that I thin (sic) was a bank. However now that you mention it.
Yea, it was close to being a a bank I “thin” (sic).
Can I suggest you stay away from geo-political discussions as you don’t know enough about the subject and it would be best if you just focused your Nazi views in the area of economics rather than foreign relations
thanks debbie.
JC
12 Feb 10 at 12:27 pm
Ratty on the nose:
Business losing faith in Rudd.
C.L.
12 Feb 10 at 12:32 pm
THR
One trait of human beings that has never let up since we left the trees is violent warfare. Your challenge is to somehow link capitalism to enticing and provoking a more virulent expression of that innate human trait. It is very easy to so link ideologies of utopian eschatology such as Communism, but I can’t imagine how can you tie something that is very difficult to identify – this “capitalism” that so peeves you.
Peter Patton
12 Feb 10 at 12:32 pm
Idiot you thought Fannie Mae was involved in CRA lending.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
12 Feb 10 at 12:37 pm
No Peter. It’s just that some on this thread are as blindly fanatical as your average Soviet Commissar (but with the background in history or logic). Britain’s prosperity depended, in part, on extracting exports from Ireland, leading to the devastation of the latter. We’re supposed to believe that this sort of thing is purely incidental to Britain’s economic and political system at the time. It’s a ludicrous form of doublethink.
THR
12 Feb 10 at 12:39 pm
Debbie:
Oh I get it. Only the banks were involved in CRA lending. That’s what you’re trying to tell me I “thin”.
Look dopey, this isn’t the thread to be discussing this.
CRA was part of government policy to increase home ownership in minority groups. Fred and Fannie were an integral party of that policy.
Now stop ruining good threads and go away, Debbie you dope.
JC
12 Feb 10 at 12:40 pm
THR
But again, it is in the nature of man to go looking for more energy. Capitalism got nuffin’ to do with it.
Peter Patton
12 Feb 10 at 12:42 pm
But again, it is in the nature of man to go looking for more energy.
Really? Humans have an ‘attack and exploit the neighbours’ gene/brain function?
THR
12 Feb 10 at 12:45 pm
Britain’s prosperity depended, in part, on extracting exports from Ireland, leading to the devastation of the latter. We’re supposed to believe that this sort of thing is purely incidental to Britain’s economic and political system at the time. It’s a ludicrous form of doublethink.
Oh, boy, and you accuse other people of doublethink. No, there was nothing incidental about “Britain’s prosperity depended, in part, on extracting exports from Ireland”, THR, but England and other colonial powers have been routinely enriching themselves in this manner since before the on-set of modernity yet you think that ‘capitalism’ is the key. By your own reckoning, to distinguish between a variety of economic policies such as mercantilism, etc. that might obtain in any economic order that might be pursued by various governments is to engage in what you fantastically call ‘doublethink’.
dover_beach
12 Feb 10 at 2:32 pm
*What they said XII* V 2.0
“Has id Garret responsible in this?”
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
12 Feb 10 at 2:22 pm
Semi Regular Libertarian
12 Feb 10 at 2:36 pm
THR
Human beings definitely are unbelievably inquisitive, filled with wanderlust, and yearning for the security of property and shelter, and distributed unevenly among us lusts for recognition, fame, and power. Humanity has been a bumpy but exciting romp since we first stood upright and our larynx descended. You are never going to get anywhere near understanding humanity with your magic box of interminable “isms” as your only asset.
Peter Patton
12 Feb 10 at 2:42 pm