.. united we can stand ...
.. divided we'll surely fall ...
.. how would you like to go on?
Thesis/Subtitle: whose country is it?
Concomitant: not fat-cat capitalists
Corollary: but ours, we the people
Trigger article 1:
High price for big pay packets in resources sector
Updated October 28, 2012 12:11:09
«The founder of mining services company Worley Parsons has backed claims high labour costs in Australia are putting billions of dollars of resources investment at risk.
He says he agrees with comments from the president of BP Australia that many resources projects are at risk because of costs.
Mr Grill told ABC's Inside Business, minerals in the developing world become more and more attractive as Australia becomes more expensive.
"There's two factors here, one's the cost of the Australian workers in Australian dollars and the second is the exchange rate," he said.
"The exchange rate has had a big effect as well, certainly when the dollar was 72 cents Australia was definitely more competitive."
Mr Grill says massive exports of Australian resources will continue, but the boom of new operations may be over.»
[ausBC/Parsons Oct 28]
Comment 1: Parsons' warning is clear; costs must come down (according to him), presumably because he thinks that the shareholders must get the maximum return possible - and shouldn't be forced to share a single bean from the resources-bonanza with anyone else; certainly not any workers.
Comment 2: Any reference to the $AU-exchange rate is laughable; it is neoliberal-creed that the exchange-rate should be free to float, and the absolute heresy-antithesis would be manipulation. Exactly what is Parsons trying to say here; that we should somehow cripple our currency? Print a few barrows-full, say, like Weimar 'back then' and currently US = QE1, 2, 3, ...? Oh, I know: Tell Swannie to stop balancing the budget; pay us all a squillion - yeah, that ort'a do it?
Comment 3: Costs could presumably come down if the workers take a pay-cut, work faster (as if some were currently bludging?) - or work longer hours, say, for the same or even fewer $s. IF workers work longer hours and/or faster, THEN there could be fewer workers for the same or even increased output, so jobs could go = resulting in increased unemployment. Bewdy!
Comment 4: Best, one assumes according to Parsons, would be a combination of all four, i.e. longer hours and working faster, by fewer workers for increasingly fewer $s overall. Not so funny, since I just happen to *know* that this is *exactly* what some obscenely fat-cat 'lady' mining-magnate wants, see next:
Trigger article 2 (repeat):
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.»
[AusBC/Rinehart, Sep 05]
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 - at least, to the greediest.
Comment 2: She has been called 'the world's richest woman' - a result more due simply to being born (to the 'right' parents = heiress of Hancock Prospecting), as opposed to actually having 'worked' to 'earn' anything. Her threat: Work like a dog and exist on $2/day - or don't work at all (= get lost, if not starve to death - what should she care?)
Comment 3; Summary: $2/day is not far off the neoliberals' wet-dream wishes for us all. Consider yourself well-warned.
Comment 4: You think I'm Joe King? Well, here's some more proof:
Trigger article 3:
Coal companies to cut jobs due to royalty increase
Updated October 14, 2012 17:12:07
«An industry survey shows Queensland's top coal producers all plan to cut jobs and costs in response to the recently announced increase in State Government royalties.»
[AusBC/'news' Oct 14]
Comment 1: This is totally risible; recall "Cutting off your nose to spite your face."
Comment 2: IF they cut jobs THEN they 'earn' less = idiotically self-defeating.
Comment 3: Not only that, if I understand the current MRRT correctly, then any increase in (State) royalties will be compensated for by a reduction in the (Federal) MRRT, so the miners won't see any difference. (A proposal would then see any royalty-increase 'clawed back' from the State's GST allocation, so trying some fancy royalty-grab = perfectly pointless.)
Comment 4: At the same time, IF the miners threaten to cut jobs THEN the workers will probably become fearful, and may be quite happy to work longer, harder and/or accept fewer $s.
Comment 5: IF they actually do cut jobs THEN the laid-off workers will a) starve or b) immediately offer to work for less, hoping to get their jobs back.
We see that (4) and (5) can have the same effect, namely more hours and/or lower wages. The latter may mean that the miners' families have to go on a diet, or at least occasionally 'down-shift' to cat-food. (Yum!)
Comment 6: There's a more cynical side to pressuring workers to work more for same but usually less $s:
Trigger article 4:
Blame game erupts over spate of truck crashes
By Peta Carlyon
Posted October 06, 2012 12:37:53
«"We don't believe that it's engineering that's contributing to these collisions," he said.
"But certainly the heavy vehicle industry is under economic pressure to do more with less in less time and most of these are single vehicle off road, which is usually indicative of fatigue-related."
"We see one in four drivers doing transport work for retailers and their supply chains saying they have to breach driving hours each week to get the work done, to meet the commitments of the retailer, or they don't have a job," he said.
"Now that's a system that's driving people literally to their deaths, and that's a system that has to change."»
[AusBC/'news' Oct 06]
Comment 1; repeat: "driving people literally to their deaths."
Comment 2: There's more to this; as part of out-sourcing/sub-contracting, the industrial plant, here trucks, is often no longer owned by some large-ish company, but by the sub-contractor him/herself. That such plant is expensive is usually a given (exceptions include lawn-mowers, hair-cutters and hamburger-flippers), but having to mortgage the family home to buy it is a *bonus* - to the purchaser of the sub-contractor's services, i.e. lose the contract -> lose the house -> out on the street, with wife red-eyed sniffling and babies outright wailing. That's truly 'under the hammer;' pressure on the contractors here is partly their own, from a system they would hardly, freely, choose.
Comment 3: There's still more; the sub-contractor is usually alone, s/he has to negotiate with possibly very big companies. Recall the Howard/Reith et al.'s IWAs = individual work agreements; what are the chances of a fair deal with a huge company, or worse, a (mainly US, MBA-infested) multi-national? Hence "Serf Choices."
The pressure comes from multiple directions, see this one:
Trigger article 5:
Australia losing race for Asian business
By Emily Bourke
Updated October 23, 2012 10:21:57
«There are some stark warnings today about Australia losing the race to stay competitive in Asia.
A survey has found Australia's innovation, competitiveness and engagement with Asia are falling behind the regional powerhouses of India and China.»
[AusBC/'news' Oct 23]
Comment: Work harder, longer, for less, you lazy bludgers! Asians will work all day and half the night, all for not much more than the smell of an oily rag!
Just one more for now:
Trigger article 6:
Exports lift gas price more than carbon tax: report
By online business reporter Michael Janda
Updated October 17, 2012 09:00:43
«A report commissioned by industry groups warns gas prices on the east coast could triple due to the surge of LNG exports to Asia.
The report prepared by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research says such gas price rises for power producers would see cost increases three times bigger than those from the carbon tax.
It says the gas price rises would be due to a potential shortage of domestic supply, despite eastern Australia's abundant gas reserves, due to much of the new production already being sold on long-term contracts to Asia.»
[AusBC/'news' Oct 17]
Comment 1: We've had 'totally risible;' this one is total madness.
Comment 2: Not just madness, but a wicked rip-off racket.
Q: What's a fair price?
A: What it costs to dig it up, plus a fair mark-up (and a fair share to the owners = us, we the people), after recouping development costs (over the full life of the project).
Q: What price are we charged?
A: What the market will bear (= the sky's the limit; or just before the user says "Stuff off; we'll do without, thank you!")
Comment 3: It illustrates the capitalist mind-set; whatever the highest they can get, all others must pay as well - or they'll leave in the ground, say.
Comment 4: It has a background; some years ago (60s, say), when Bass Straight was 1st coming 'on-stream.' The producers demanded WPP = world parity price (usually some large number, otherwise why request it?), which was agreed to - at the eventual cost (to the miners) of a *proper* PRRT = petroleum resources rent tax. I can't find an original reference, only a slightly later one. But a 'proper' resource rent tax should ensure that the true resource-owners (in Aus = us, we the Aus-people), get their fair share = (IMHO) about 100% of the proceeds, less (max.) 2* the interest-costs, and that after *reasonable* expenses = *not* executive helicopters at the drop of any random hat, say. Anything less is an *unfair rip-off*! Oh. So why don't our so-called 'representatives' ensure we get such fair conditions? Oh, again; corruption? Surely not. Oh, a 3rd.
Comment 5: It brings up another problem, redolent of "whose country is it?" - namely, who has 1st call on any resource. Here, I'm thinking of prime-beef, lobster-tails, abalone etc. - or even just fresh garden produce. Who should get 1st pick, and at what price? I have heard horror-stories, to do with beef, that Aus-producers were (probably still are) selling off some of the best bits, at a price (however slightly) higher than 'domestic,' only to see our best beef turned into hamburger-mince (only in the US, natch.) Grrr. In contrast, a few years ago, Howard was crowing about selling gas to China - large amounts, huge; ~$25bio - at a delivered price of about 1/3rd of what we were being charged at the local service-station. Work all that out?
Now, not an article but just a quote:
«In 1992, 20 years ago, unions represented about 40 per cent of the workforce. Today only 18.4 per cent of Australia's employees are union members.»
Comment: '92 is already 12-13 years after Thatcher/Reagan et al. declared their serious intention to completely knacker all unions. Plan going well (for them & their running-dogs), then.
Argument: Even if you've only read my extracts, you should be able to see a trend: it's all one-way. The worker must submit = reduce his/her wages and conditions - or starve. That's actually what was always behind Thatcher's TINA! The results are coming in, some have been for a while, and what we see is borderline to ruinous devastation. Fiddled statistics of US' unemployment, quoted at 8%+, is more likely ~25%, all up. Look at EU; the PIIGS + UK, BE, who else & who's next? - being forced into austerity, aka spiral-down = mass unemployment + drastically falling incomes. US medical plus anywhere else they push 'medicine for profit,' costs sky-rocketing & at least in the US, life expectancy for the 'less well off' falling. Privatised electricity prices sky-rocketing. All in all, truly a scandal.
Then, Q: Who is pushing all this? A: first, we don't know, because whoever it is stays well hidden. All I can say is M/I/C/$4a†-plex + I/J/Z-plex. The 'front wo/men' = our so-called 'representatives' are mostly smooth-talking spivs, actually puppets. See my "the prima facie conspiracy."
Fazit: Neoliberalism is an erring ideology, seemingly developed in 'think-tanks' and/or universities, certainly taught in universities, 'pushed' upon us by 'the hidden rulers,' with the connivance and active assistance of our so-called 'representatives.' Enmeshed is the (corrupt, venal, lying) MSM+PFBCs, all should a) hang their heads in shame, b) on their way to gaol - and for those who order the aggressive, war-crime invasions of foreign lands, on their way to the gallows.
Our so-called 'leaders' have sold us down the river, headed down the gurgler. There is a solution: People-power. We, the people, can overturn the crooks, freeing ourselves from tyranny, at the one stroke: 50%+1 of us must demand that *we* are to run our country, and the only way we can do that is to speak the truth amongst ourselves, and govern by the only true, popular mandate = 100% CIRs = citizen-initiated referendums.
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
the Enlightenment well summarised by liberté, égalité, fraternité
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
race to bottom
.. united we can stand ...