What a Neat Statement of the Neo-Liberal Intention

Ian Verrender

"policy aims to take money from polluters and distribute it to taxpayers. Direct Action takes money from taxpayers and hands it out to polluters."

This sentence encapsulates the end result of neo-liberal policy. Admittedly the context is Climate Change Policy, but if you substitute 'vested interests', 'big business' or what Paul Krugman is now calling 'the 0.01 percent' for 'polluters' and 'government', 'the people', or, to maintain consistency, 'the 99.99 percent', you come up with a reasonable approximation of reality.

     

This Horse Still Has Some Life In It Yet

Emily Millane

Matt Grudnoff

Alan Kohler

David Ritter

At the risk of flogging the proverbial dead horse one too many times, let's start with the fact that all the necessary information required to recognise the lies expressed in this budget was available to the electorate at the 2013 election. Nothing in the above links is new. Getting access to it simply involves looking around on the internet as one should do when choosing a leader. Don't you need to know what you are voting for?

This would appear to be too hard for the majority of people. They are content to swallow what the mainstream media (MSM) chooses to print and this stuff is not printed, you have to question what is presented to you and look beyond it to find the truth and recognise lies for what they are. If you only look at commercial television and (MSM), accepting it as gospel, as most people do, then you can not help but be hoodwinked into voting for things you didn't think you were voting for.

I could rattle on for ever about the MSM being the mouthpiece of the LNP and its political hue being somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan, but this has already been said. The ABC and SBS remain the last bastion of independent information and their defunding in this fraudulent budget amounts to censorship.

We really need a double disolusion. The problem is and always has been the electability of the ALP.

Let's get this strait. There is no budget emergency. this was always a lie to hoodwink the electorate into electing this swill. There is a medium term problem caused by structural issues leading back to Howard Era tax cuts. These are easily rectified by reinstating the taxes. Instead all we hear about is raising the GST, a regressive impost on those who can least afford it, and will mean hardship for many, while the well off barely notice it. We have a progressive income tax system which is always cut but for ideological reasons is never raised.

Paul Krugman, Economics Nobel Laureate and New York Times columnist, documents the unavoidable result of these ideologically driven austerity measures in Europe. The evidence is plain to the naked eye: generational unemployment representing double-digit  proportions. If you want a recession this is the way to get one.

I've said on this blog we will have double-digit unemployment within a year of this government's policies, and could well be at war with Indonesia. This prophesy is well on the way to fulfillment.

I work at the coal face of the market and interact with people every day. I am getting continuous feedback from people who have lost their jobs or had their hours cut back. Almost every week their is a new story of a factory or business shutting down or shedding jobs. The breathtaking dishonesty of Friar Tuck saying new jobs will magically appear the minute he releases Business from the chains of his mythical 'carbon tax' is noteworthy.

Bring on a double disolution.    

Where did I see that fact....thought I saw it lying around here somewhere

Peter Lewis and Jackie Woods

"Over the years, Essential polls have shown how factual misconceptions can skew public debate. We've found a direct correlation between those who overstate the numbers of people seeking asylum and a belief we are too soft on border protection.

          We have also found that concern about Muslim influence in Australia is directly linked to an   
           overestimate in the numbers of Muslims living in Australia.

And we have established the link between acceptance of climate change science and support for measures to reduce carbon emissions."

Strangely the odd fact has a profound effect on public discourse and debate. The electorate is not supplied with the facts, rather a biased or even blatantly untrue set of facts, and are therefore unable to make an informed decision. Of course an untrue fact is an oxymoron but it makes as much sense as anything else this government says.

Friar Tuck and the Robbing Hood Continue on Their Merry Way

Vic Alhadeff

"The late Justice Lionel Murphy said: 'Freedom of speech is what is left over after due weight has been accorded to the laws relating to defamation, blasphemy, copyright, sedition, obscenity, use of insulting words, official secrecy, contempt of court and parliament, incitement and censorship'."

This mockery of a government continues to send a wrecking ball through much of what is good in this country. Will we now build a tradition of defamation, blasphemy...etc. by removing this clause from the anti-discrimination laws? The drivel issuing from the mouths of the libertine extreme represented by Andrew Bolt is testament to the shallow facade covering these disagreeable elements in our society. Tinkering with this legislation will encourage Boltian bigotry and could 'open a floodgate' as they say. At the very least it sends the wrong message.     

The Saga of Friar Tuck and the Robbing Hood Continues

Robert Simms

"Offensive March in March placards and the controversy over the Carolyn Habib pamphlet demonstrate that both sides of politics are guilty of double-standards when it comes to personal denigration, writes"

If you don't want to be offended, don't get into politics. Democratic processes should be about rational debate, agreement (or the agreement to disagree), consensus. All these things happen under the surface and it is true that the personal stuff highlighted here shouldn't be there but that's life in the big smoke as they say.

The march in march was a success and a message to Friar Tuck. He pretended to shrug it off and ignore it but he will have to take such a large demonstration into account, especially when it is supported by intelligent argument. To criticise it because it included some personal stuff against Friar Tuck is to focus on superficiality. 

Another Conservative Myth Debunked

Paul Krugman

"everybody knew that doing anything to reduce inequality would have at least some negative impact on G.D.P.

But it appears that what everyone knew isn’t true. Taking action to reduce the extreme inequality of 21st-century America would probably increase, not reduce, economic growth."

You really do start seeing conspiracies everywhere. A great conservative tome, in this case Arthur Okun's Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff, was hauled out and touted as proof of the truth and justification for maintaining the concentration of obscene wealth in so few hands and the dire consequences of touching this wealth, much as Hayek has been used to justify austerity policies. Beautifully crafted arguments all with the ring of truth and appealing to common sense. All proven to be completely false, except that the application of these arguments had the underlying effect, in addition to any other effect, of maintaining the status quo.

Balanced and Unbiased but Unjustified and Untrue

Julie Novak

"This week, 70 years ago, Friedrich Hayek's book The Road To Serfdom was first published in the United Kingdom. Dedicated "to the socialists of all parties", the book quickly became a bestseller with five reprints within 15 months in the UK, and with US sales in the first six months exceeding initial expectations 10 times over."

"Our freedom of choice in a competitive society rests on the fact that, if one person refuses to satisfy our wishes, we can turn to another. But if we face a monopolist we are at his mercy. And an authority directing the whole economic system would be the most powerful monopolist imaginable."

I appreciate the commitment of the ABC to balanced, unbiased journalism, and that this involves printing both sides of any story no  matter that it is untrue and proven to be untrue by the application of logic and reason, but publishing this drivel is akin to the radio broadcasts of Lord Haw-Haw in the 1940's or the continuing publication of climate change denialism. 

'Freedom of choice' is a myth. Look around you and you will see the homogenation  of the so-called 'free' market. Many of the houses in my neighbourhood are on the market from time to time, and I walk around and look at the display boards, noting all the time how similar these houses are to mine. Cars are the same. Go out and buy any car on the market and you will find that it does pretty much exactly what they all do with a minor, superficial deviation here and there. Even that bastion of Hayekian economic thought Niall Ferguson notes this problem.

I have deconstructed the Austrian School of economic thought on this blog for the past year or so. In fact it has been one of my favourite themes. The ABC chooses to publish the alternative to this in the interests of balanced journalism. I applaud them on this. Fortunately this drivel is shouted down by the voices of  Greg Jericho, David Llewellyn-Smith, Ian Verrender, and Mungo MacCallum, among others.
This is just a token article which no one with half a brain will take any notice of.