foreign investment
 cui bono?
  not us

.. our world ...

  .. is being ruled ...

    .. by thieving tyrants

Thesis/Subtitle: by their works shall ye know them

Concomitant: only just law may earn respect

Corollary: do unto others; do no harm


'Guest' quote:

  «If one were asked to prescribe the fundamental condition for a good world, it would be: peace and freedom for all, where "freedom" means personal autonomy and mental liberation from prejudice, superstition, ignorance and fear. Cynics will no doubt think this a saccharine sentiment merely, if only on the grounds that it is unattainable and that one had better stick to the realities of a world in which the majority of people are trapped in economic and intellectual prisons made by history, perpetuated and promoted by demagogues and the greedy and powerful.» 
[guardian/AC Grayling]

Comment: We must all do something new, different and effective, because accepting the current world 'as is' is not a viable option, since 'more of the same' is leading towards catastrophe, both for us as individuals and our once jewel-like planet's relatively comfortable life-supporting biosphere.


Trigger article 1:

Abbott moves to end internal rift over Cubbie sell-off
 By chief political correspondent Simon Cullen
 Updated September 05, 2012 13:56:12
  «"We support foreign investment, we support foreign investment in agriculture, it's important that we continue to support foreign investment but it does have to be in Australia's national interest."» 

Comment 1: By his "We" he means the Aus-Liberal party in particular but the L-NP coalition in general (the current opposition); since the Aus-Labor party has the identical policy then it's bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic.

Trigger article 2:

Aussies must compete with $2 a day workers: Rinehart
 By business editor Peter Ryan and staff
 Updated September 05, 2012 14:56:43
  «Gina Rinehart has used a rare video appearance to repeat her warning that Australians need to work harder to compete with Africans who will labour for less than $2 a day.» 

Comment 1: She refers to 'standard' neoliberal (erring) ideology, here the 'race to the bottom' plank of 'competitivity' whereby local wages and conditions must be reduced to compete with the world's lowest pay and conditions. Makes some sense - to the greediest at least.

Comment 2: She has been called 'the world's richest woman' - a result more due to simply being born (= heiress of Hancock Prospecting), as opposed to actually having 'earned' anything. Her threat: Work = exist on $2/day or starve.

Comment 3; Summary: $2/day is not far off the neoliberals' wet-dream wishes for us all. Consider yourself well-warned.

Trigger article 3:

Ex-Treasury boss defends foreign investment
 By chief political correspondent Simon Cullen
 Updated September 05, 2012 16:33:38
  «Former Treasury boss Ken Henry has delivered a strong defence of foreign investment in Australia, arguing the current public debate has been "frequently misinformed" and skewed by "populist instincts".
"Without confidence in the regime and common sense in the formulation of foreign investment policy, there is the risk of Australia damaging its ability to attract foreign capital and limiting its economic potential in the longer term."»

Comment 1: In the 1st part above, he *must* defend what he did/allowed in practice, but as a 'must,' this 'defence' is more than a bit devalued = circular reasoning = the 'begging the question' fallacy, also known as Petitio Principii (in clear text: Assuming what one wants to prove.)

Comment 2: In the 2nd part above, he outlines the general blackmail policy = today's 2nd threat: Do this (foreign direct investment = FDI) or else. But this is also fallacial, namely 'non sequitur,' since there are other *and better* ways of financing development.

Lemma: To see an alternative to FDI, see Ellen Brown on the BND (and not coincidentally, Ellen Brown on the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.)

Comment 3: Henry gives his own game away: "populist instincts".

Comment 4: In a nutshell, allowing foreign investment means that profits will flow *out* of Aus, leading us towards impoverishment. According to reliable estimates, 83% of mining profits already do so. Since mining is by definition non-sustainable, IF we don't get a fair share THEN we suffer being ripped-off. Contrary to Thatcher/Reagan et al., there *are* alternatives = proper (central) banking (see lemma), allied with proper taxation. I have no basic objection to people getting obscenely rich - to some it's a sport, but when they get rich *by rip-offs*, adequate taxation should be applied to right such wrongs.

I don't consider demanding a just result = ending rip-offs "populist instincts".

Here, consider: No taxation without (adequate, effective, in the people's interest) representation.


Discussion; consider the M/I/C/$4a†-plex:

I = industrial; Rinehart: Primarily as an inheritor (heiress), she is not really an industrialist in her own right - but she does illustrate the greed of her group, and more importantly, she *proves* the wicked rip-off that mining (aka 'resource-harvesting') really is. She got filthy-rich by (mainly her father) grabbing a huge part of the return from *our, we the people's* resources. Labor's MRRT attempts to ameliorate this rip-off by returning a greater share to the sovereign owners = *us, we the people*.

C = Congress (US-speak for parliament); Abbott: As leader of the opposition, Abbott *proves* that our 'democracy' can be and as here often is - a tyranny. When so-called 'representatives' implement policies inequitable to *us, we the people* then that's tyranny.

$ = banksters; Henry: He's an ex-public servant, now shilling[2] for banksters (see lemma).


Fazit: A fair exchange is no robbery; theft is taking something without paying a fair, or sometimes any, price. Those who steal are by definition thieves; those who murder to do so (i.e. US, Zs) are murdering thieves. Those who enable theft (here politicians, bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic, people-antagonistic policies) - are accessories, and make themselves into tyrants. Those who shill for thieves are apologists. All are criminal.



[1] tyrant  n. 1 oppressive or cruel ruler. 2 person exercising power arbitrarily or cruelly. [Greek turannos] [POD]

[2] shill N. Amer. informal
noun an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.
verb [no OBJ.] act or work as such a person.


ELO/Os = hapless erstwhile legal owner/occupiers

I/J/Z-plex; illegitimate IL squats on genocidally ethnically-cleansed = improperly alienated, mainly Palestinian ELO/Os' land/property = IL is an un-remedied crime-scene and *all* I/J/Z-plex (except any actively opposing) are guilty; sole remedy = reparations = revest where possible, adequate = acceptable recompense where not + *sincere* apology

M/I/C/$4a†-plex = military, industrial, Congress (US-speak for parliament); $ = banksters, 4 = 4th estate = MSM+PFBCs, 'a' = academia incl. think-tanks, † = the churches.

MSM = mainstream media (print and broadcast), aka 'corrupt&venal'

neoliberalism = 'economic rationalism,' 'supply-side,' (wicked) privatisations, 'small govt.' = minimised to no égalité etc. + globalisation = wage arbitration etc. = <1% rips off 99%+

PFBCs = publicly-financed broadcasters, like the AusBC

ppp-dd'd = pushed propaganda paradigm dumbed-down

PRopaganda = PR + propaganda, usual qualifier: 'lying'

SQSHsO = snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on

US-MMH = Media (aka press, radio + TV), Madison Ave., Hollywood

US&/Zs = the US of A and/or Zionists; sometimes indistinguishable

XS-CO2-CCC = excess CO2 climate-change catastrophe

No comments:

Post a Comment