WhatsUp, Australia or wotsup Australia

[nomadpete]

OK

 

So, this forum is for us to debate either title.

 

What is really up with Australia?

 

Too many immigrants? If so, I wouldn't be here to complain about it.

 

Too much regulation ? I don't like being controlled by 'them'. Are our regulators out of control?

 

Too many Greenies? Could be. Tree huggers never made a profit for anyone.

 

You tell me.

 

More importantly, what can we do about it? Dont try to tell me to fix it by voting the other party in. They are all owned by the same multinational interests.

 

Should we lobby the popular parties? After all, they are the ones that will be passing legislation to control us next electoral cycle.

 

What hope do we have, or are we already a banana republic, totally under the control of wealthy lobbyists?

 

 

[spacesailor]

"What hope do we have, or are we already a banana republic, totally under the control of wealthy lobbyists? "

 

England was, and it took an Armed revolution to get rid of it.

 

If Australia becomes a Republic can we retain the "choice" of titles.

 

Say every second government term another referendum,

 

Constitutional Democracy

 

My choice

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

Australia likes to think It's a CLEVER Country. . How up yourself is that?( Hate to see it IF it was a "Dumb" Country then) . . We would like to think we are clever (no doubt). A few individuals may well be bit our "collective" national effective intelligence is not obvious. We are not alone in the world, there. Others are competing vigorously for the Village idiot Title also..

 

Maybe a few more trees (which DO produce oxygen and absorb carbon. How good is that?) would be better than a few quick dollars.

 

Stereotyping … A mechanism for demonizing or vilifying. The Jews know a bit about that. (Sorry to be so pointed)

 

Regulation? Plenty of places where you are completely controlled. we are not there YET Perhaps a bit more CCTV might catch a few crooks, though I don't much like it. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

I really think Labor and the Greens should form a coalition. After all, if it's good enough for the Libs and their strange country cousins, then it should be good enough for the progressive side of politics.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"Regulation? Plenty of places where you are completely controlled. we are not there YET Perhaps "

 

ARE you certain ?.

 

Compulsory, water poisoning (fluoride)

 

Compulsory, NBN (and no home phone).

 

Secret police listening to our phone conversations, reading our snail mail.

 

Facial recognition (in the streets)

 

satellites in space watching your every move.

 

Phone usage camera's raising revenue.

 

Point to point camera's calculating if they can make more revenue out of your road trip.

 

1984 Big Brother IS watching you !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[nomadpete]

Well, politically we basically have a duopoly. In the business world a duopoly provides the illusion of giving the public an alternative, but the two business options must be close to each other to remain competitive, and to keep newcomers out of the competition.

 

In short, it results in no real alternatives.

 

The party system gags individuals from expressing their opinions - they either toe the party line or get removed. Party members are rarely permitted to have a conscience vote in public. The public are considered to be too dumb to be allowed to consider two sides of a debate, so party members must be seen to all share the exact same view on everything, regardless of their actual convictions.

 

The political parties don't seem to publicly state their party policies on issues, except by making vague comments about "trust us, we'll fix it." Or, more often "Well it's all the other party's fault and they're all ratbags!"

 

Seems to me like a system of ruling by bully gangs.

 

My whinge here, is that allowing political parties to exist, actually isn't democratic. Because it stifles individual thought. If all politicians were required to be independent, issues could be voted on collectively and openly without the outcomes getting controlled behind closed party doors.

 

 

[old man emu]

My whinge here, is that allowing political parties to exist, actually isn't democratic. Because it stifles individual thought. If all politicians were required to be independent, issues could be voted on collectively and openly without the outcomes getting controlled behind closed party doors.

So true! But there in lies the problem. A democracy is supposed to be governance by the majority. Therefore to get a majority, an independent member has to convince the majority that the member's idea or plan is better than any other proposal. In Greek and Roman times, this meant that the member had to have a better plan and the oratory skills to convince the rest of the governors to accept the plan. This soon lead to members gaining political supporters, the start of the "party" system. By the time we reach the Present, the party system has become well and truly entrenched in all varieties of government, democratic or otherwise. So to get onto the political gravy train, a person has to pick a group to support.

 

A politician is supposed to be in parliament to give air to the needs and wishes of the small group which elected the person. Even then, just under half of that group don't agree with the ideas of the elected person. It's OK if the politician makes it clear which political group the person is supporting, but the political group should allow freedom of choice in the Chamber to all its members. The best examples of this freedom of choice being stifled are the Same Sex Marriage debate; Euthanasia and any other moral issue.

 

When was the last time you heard your local member of either State or Federal government stand up in public and address the electorate on any current political topic? Most of them just send out a glossy pamphlet praising what the member's Party leader has been up to. If seen at all in public, they are standing behind the Party leader, being a bobble head.

 

[ATTACH]49868._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

 

I wonder why people of New South Wales would return the current Conservative parties in the coming elections when those parties only spend money on Sydney's infrastructure to the detriment of the needs of everyone else living outside the Sydney Basin.

 

[pmccarthy]

At a personal level, my life would be improved most by the following changes:

 

CASA made to encourage flying

 

Reduce the number of grey nomads on the road but leave room for me.

 

Make water affordable so I could have a small lawn.

 

Ban news media from reporting politics unless it is about policy.

 

Remove the power limit on electric bicycles.

 

Provide healthy, whole food takeaway outlets.

 

Come to think of it, I am fortunate and quite happy. But the CASA one is my biggest issue.

 

 

[Yenn]

Make it rain is the improvement I want. Had a massive storm go all round us yesterday and got about 0.25mm.

 

I notice that the major parties are starting to tell us what a bad thing small parties and independents are. They see which way the wind is blowing. More and more people are fed up with them and just looking for an independent to stand.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"CASA made to encourage flying "

 

Easy SACK THE LOT.

 

And put flyers in their place !

 

". Had a massive storm go all round us yesterday and got about 0.25mm."

 

I put in another "rain-diverter" on the guttering yesterday.

 

Storm what storm, nothing but DUST in Sydney sky's.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Litespeed]

Spacey, you utter utter barstard.

 

You must remove that rain diverter. We need rain and your device is causing drought.

 

Where did you divert the rain to? Townsville?

 

 

[Litespeed]

Want to make a big difference?

 

A few easy steps,.....

 

Make it illegal to have commercial in confidence agreements with any government body. If companies refuse to release the total details of the contracts then don't try and get the work. If they have something to hide, we the public are been screwed.

 

Make corporates liable to the law fully as if a human. Kill someone or harm and the company and those responsible gets jail. Prove illegal conduct or unexplained wealth, then the company loses all wealth generated from such actions. If that billions tough.

 

What about the poor shareholders? They loose as they should, they make a gamble the company will be managed well and make money. As such should have complete exposure to the risk side as well.

 

You would be amazed how shareholders would be very activist to ensure proper and legal management of their company.

 

At the moment we privatise the profits and socialise the losses and any hidden costs.

 

 

[nomadpete]

"At the moment we privatise the profits and socialise the losses and any hidden costs."

 

That's how capitalism works !

 

Unfortunately that's also how socialism ends up working, too.

 

And even benevolent dictators work that way.

 

Anyone got a better plan?

 

 

[nomadpete]

My rainwater diverter works great! I installed it a year ago and last winter was our driest ever!

 

 

[storchy neil]

nomad was it one them imported ones :cheezy grin:neil

 

 

[storchy neil]

litespeed having done a government contract for job 82 when in 83 the person that won the same contract was at 50% of my price for 82 work that one out Canberra shore did not have an answer wonder who did not get paid neil

 

 

[nomadpete]

Nah, Neil. Wouldn't buy an imported one - they only work in the northern hemisphere.

 

Everyone knows that water goes down the plughole into the other direction, in the southern hemisphere.

 

 

[Cosmick]

Had a friend she got voted in when Howard won with an increase in Female Members. She had some good ideas but was promptly told to sit down and shut up and follow the party policy.

 

 

[Marty_d]

In Greek and Roman times, this meant that the member had to have a better plan and the oratory skills to convince the rest of the governors to accept the plan.

I believe that the richest senators who bribed both their "clients" (Roman citizens who supported them in exchange for daily handouts) and other senators, got their way. Oratory was appreciated but denarii talked. Not much has changed, really...

 

 

[Litespeed]

"At the moment we privatise the profits and socialise the losses and any hidden costs."

That's how capitalism works !

 

Unfortunately that's also how socialism ends up working, too.

 

And even benevolent dictators work that way.

 

Anyone got a better plan?

Actually that is not how capitalism is ment to work. If the capital they invest is allowed to take the profits they must also accept the losses.

 

Here in AU's. Just like USA if its a helping hand to the society through social benefits or public healthcare or public education then that is derided as socialist. But if it is mega money to big business or big farm concerns then its just good business.

 

 

[nomadpete]

I was rather thinking of how capitalism, socialism, etc, actually play out.

 

Capitalism actually plays out by destroying competition. That's because the bigger businesses swallow up their competitors, one by one, thereby growing larger until there is only one or two monster players left in any field.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I disagree. In most areas of business there is thriving competition between hundreds or thousands of small businesses. There is constant renewal as the less successful strategies lead to stagnation or closure of some, while enthusiastic new entrants test new ideas and business models. This is the basis of western society and it works very well.

 

 

[facthunter]

Small businesses are frequently put out of business by the big ones who don't want COMPETITION. They buy them and close them down. You need constant anti trust action to counter that. They also indulge in predatory pricing long enough to starve the competition of profit and out of business and THEN jack up the prices. The MYTH of a capitalist system being the answer to all of society's ills is a GIANT MYTH, not an absolute truth.. It NEVER plans for the long term either.. Competition is great If we are allowed to have it.. Free market also IF you know what quality the product is . IF you just buy on price, it's a race to the bottom. Cheapest is NOT always the cheapest in the longer term. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Competition works.

 

Woolies and Coles compete.

 

Bunnings and Mitre Ten used to compete, but that seems to be running out.

 

Caltex and BP compete.

 

Electricity supply companies compete, or so I am told, but not in central Qld, only 1 supplier. Funny thing our prices for electricity could be lower than where there is competition from what I hear.

 

When you look at your monthly budget, most of the expenditure is going to end up in businesses where there are only 2 competing players. Of course they will not cut prices too far or the opposition will win, but they are so big they screw their suppliers.

 

Hardware such as Bunnings sell brand name products at low prices. Funny thing if you buy the same tool from one of the independent hardware stores it will probably cost 1.5 times as much and last 20 years instead of bunnings which breaks down in 13 months.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Woolies and Coles are in a race to the bottom. Hardly any Australian product on their shelves. They have crushed almost all the competitors. How long since you had a local grocery store?

 

Bunnings and Mitre 10 have driven most independent hardware stores to the wall.

 

These duopolies are making money but we consumers no longer have much choice of products. Its difficult to find a store that sells a quality product, whether food or hardware or home goods.

 

So these duopolies are not good for me as a consumer.