Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Snorky

Roosters prove much more warlike than Queens

Recommended Posts

Chicks in power like going

to war more than blokes

Perhaps we’re lucky the Queen is only a constitutional monarch.
 

The idea female leaders are less pugnacious then men has taken a battering from a new statistical analysis of European kings, queens and wars over the 500 years to 1913.

 

The 29 queens, who made up a fifth of the 193 separate reigns in 18 countries, were 27% more likely to engage in war than their male counterparts, according to research from the University of Chicago.

 

“These estimates are economically important, representing a doubling over average war participation,” two political economists said of their research.

 

“Queens were also more likely to gain territory over the course of their reigns,” they found, in a study released by the US National Bureau of Economic Research this week.

 

Latter day feisty female leaders such as Britain’s Margaret Thatcher and India’s Indira Gandhi — 20th-century leaders who fought Argentina and Pakistan respectively — didn't mind bunging it on either.

 

“A common perspective posits that women are less violent than men, and therefore states led by women will be more peaceful than states led by men,” the study said, pointing to other studies that suggested female voters were less supportive of using military force.

 

“Among married monarchs, queens were more likely than kings to fight as aggressors,” they said, suggesting women had greater scope to form military alliances with spouses than men did.

 

Unmarried queens, such as Elizabeth I, who had to fend off a Spanish Armada, were attacked more, though. One theory is they needed to fight to send a message that they were tough. These were sexist times.

 

Frederick the Great, Prussia’s flamboyant 18th-century leader, declared “No woman should ever govern anything” and invaded Austria a month after Empress Maria Theresa took the throne in 1745.

 

Queen Ulrika Eleanora of Sweden simply declared in 1719 that women were unfit to rule and abdicated.

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7MvN7f3B5r8J:www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/stats-show-queens-much-more-warlike-than-kings/news-story/7db0895d52a904a91c36bfd5bf412d7b+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

 

alleged research: http://odube.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Queens_Oct2015.pdf

Edited by Snorky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snorky, you really have to stop reading The Australian. Or consulting any Murdoch outlet, for that matter. It's really not good for you.

 

Well, apart from the Phillip Adams column on the weekend. But you could dispense with that and listen to Adams four times a week on the

ABC, while the valiant old boy's medically enhanced ticker and the ABC are still functioning, which may not be too much longer.

 

Just trying to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning Moomby, how's everything going down in Mexico? Looks like Winter's well and truly on the way here.

 

Thanks for the offer of help, very kind of you. It goes without saying that I need all the help I can get, so I thought I'd mention it.

 

But listening to the mellifluous tones of Philip Adams Esq. would only induce sleep in me. I like his quirky columns and am very fond of his missus, but I couldn't countenance actually listening to his breathy, never-ending tonal meanderings of sweet nothingness.

 

His best work is behind him, apexianing as producer of the iconic The Adventures of Barry McKenzie ​fillim way back in 1972. You may have seen it already, hugely popular. Adams has been on an inexorable decline ever since, excepting when he married Patrice and literally won the lottery.

 

What I like about these warmongering Queens is that, thanks to the so-called researchers, you can punch the Queens into their formula to determine the level of monger in each Queen:

 

Yprd = p + d + d (Queenpr) + X0pr + E(prd)

Queen(pr) = p + d + (First-Born Malepr1) + (Sisterpr1) + X0pr + (w)prd

Brilliant.

 

Even Lise reads The Australian on occasion. It's chock full of interesting stuff. The Weekend Australian's excellent value, much better value than the Financial Times although it does have that natty salmon-coloured paper, which tastes like ordinary newsprint oddly enough. Fancy paying $10 for a newspaper that doesn't taste like smoked salmon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking it well, Snorky. I can sometimes get a bit cranky after my evening...self medication.

I've no doubt there's some worthwile journalism, especially in the weekend version of the Australian. I just think any Murdoch product should be boycotted, on principle.

 

I never did get around to watching The Adventures. And I think Adams is a national treasure, though he hates being called that. Don't know anything about Patrice, but to the extent she helped bring that about,good on her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Lise reads The Australian on occasion. It's chock full of interesting stuff.

Not anymore. I can't stand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no doubt there's some worthwhile journalism, especially in The Weekend Australian. I just think any Murdoch product should be boycotted, on principle.

Yes but one needs diversity of source or one risks becoming myopic, brainwashed, entrenched, unconscionable and ultimately irreconcilably inconsolable.

 

Take Lise for example, I'm pretty sure she linked to a piece from the Oz at ETF within the last six months. I can't imagine what's made her turn her back on Australia's only national broadsheet. Her loss I guess.

 

 

Don't know anything about Patrice, but to the extent she helped bring that about, good on her.

 

Moomby, it will be my pleasure to bring you the good oil on Patrice Newell, and when I say oil, I do mean oil but not of the Texas tea variety. Boil the billy and pull up a stump . . .

 

Are we ready? Then I'll begin . . .

 

And let's begin by titling her correctly for she is Dr Patrice Newell a conjoined fellowess of the Newcastle Uni with a lengthy dissertive polemic under her belt assessing biomass convertors and how they'll save the world, or something: http://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/uon:20006

 

But firkst, a rather good potted history of Phil and Pat (no video I'm afraid). I'm surprised Phil doesn't talk on air about Patrice rather than sending his listeners to sleep dreaming of his dog which he endlessly yaps about. Apparently he goes on and on about the dog. Do you know of this bloody dog Moomby, and its endless litters of spawn?

 

cattle%20rustlers_zpsdhxvccjw.jpg

 

Here's the transcript of that TV show: http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s377105.htm

 

So we've got murder, big egos and a 10,000 acre ranch in the bush: all the hallmarks of a best seller.

 

Were it not for the shocking revelations in that 2001 TV expose transcript:

 

PHILLIP ADAMS, partner: Patrice hated trading on her looks. She is a good feminist. She read all the feminist texts. She believed in them. They weren't abstracts to her. They were determinants. She hated compliments about her appearance, so I don't think I've actually mentioned her attractiveness for the last 15 years. I think she looks back on all those jobs - and she had lots and lots of different sorts of media jobs - with faint embarrassment.

 

PATRICE: I look back on my modelling career, and sometimes I think somebody else had it. It's so foreign to me, because that image in the magazine is thanks to a hairdresser, a make-up artist, a designer, a photographer and a client, and it is NOT you.

 

And I never, ever, ever got confused about that. I never once looked at that and thought that was me, and I think that saved me.

 

What I really wanted to do back then was be a writer, a journalist.

I met Phillip when I was doing a report for SBS on the film industry. I didn't know that much about him. So I was quite taken aback when I interviewed him and he was...pretty... pretty pompous or quite patronising to me, I remember. He would say things like, "Oh, Patrice, that's a silly question. I mean, the question you really should be asking is..." And I was quite... (Laughs) I was quite taken aback by him. But he was flirtatious as well.

​Even though he sounds like a pig, I understand you can vouch for his character Moomby. You'd think that over a fifteen year period, she may have got dolled up to the nines for some arty-farty do they were attending, warranting and even demanding even the mildest of compliments. Perhaps the pompous, patronising twat was struck dumb and in awe. But I digress . . .

 

Moomby, as an avid fan of SBS, surely you remember Patrice "bringing the world back home" into your home each evening via the so-called SBS News. She then went commercial and joined Steve Liebmann as co-presenter of the Today Show on channel Seven (I understand why you would have missed that).

 

Here she is at SBS bringing the world back home to Brisbane for the firkst time in 1985:

 

 

Ahh the shoulder pads and big hair, whatever became of the 80s?

 

And here's a picture of Patrice in her modelling days (a picture Phil twatted recently on his twat account), which is here https://mobile.twitter.com/PhillipAdams_1

 

phoaaaar%20blimey_zpsfvcelylz.jpg

Yeah, no Phil's certainly punching above his considerable weight. JBF hair was such a good look

 

Having wooed her, Pat and Phil sold up their glorious Darlinghurst pile called Stoneleigh and went bush, purchasing the majestic 10,000 acre Elmswood cattle ranch with an imposing mansion on which the murders Phil spoke of, would have taken place, but didn't. It's at Gundy outside of Scone up in the Hunter Valley. Full of guns and hunters.

 

106ddf0f52.jpeg

The light on the hill of Chez Elmswood's manse . . . garlic country

 

It goes without saying that Phil also produced the fillim of Don's Party ​starring Gra-Gra, Johnny Hargeaves and Graeme "Purple" Blundell. Bewdy Newk was another of Phil's iconic advertising campaigns for Phil's MDA the multi-million dollar advertising agency that made Phil millions of dollars (Monahan Dayman and Adams). Remember "Slip. Slop. Slap." Phil done that too, so money was no problem when it came to purchasing Chez Elmswood.

 

Patrice was restless but, and soon she was off planting grove after grove of olive trees. All biodynamic. The locals thought this good-looking, greenie, do-gooder city-slicker was mad, but how wrong they would be.

 

Pat now sells her Virgo olive oil by the truckload while Phil dithers on the wireless. She's branched off into biodynamic garlic, honey and other stuff. They say there's a drop of Pat's blood, sweat and tears in each bottle and I dare say it can be multi-purposed.

 

9ebc9795d3.jpeg

Pat's good oil, available by mail

 

4814c46b27.jpg

The boys from Aussie Post find Pat's output painful, bludgers

 

19d27583bc.jpeg

Pat's honey is a super seller

 

7cdc128dbf.jpg

Phil building hives, but Patrice says he's useless with his hands

 

PatriceNewellSoap.jpg

My favourite . . . you can multipurpose this product like buggery (no really)

 

You can read about her product lines and order her products here Moomby: http://www.patricenewell.com.au/

 

News Alert: FoxNews has just reported that NK has tested another missile thingy. Strap us in, Jeeves, there's a good fella.

 

Where was I? . . . Oh yes, Pat's now 60 and while age may not weary them, nor the sun go down in the evening because of NK, she's certainly gone a tad grey unlike her hubby, the perennial man in black:

 

e6320a5655.jpg

Like fine wine . . .

 

All good. Please make a fillim Phil

 

Ahh . . . here's young Aurora, Pat and Phil's spawn:

 

71307f0e09510e2b47316916aec70f68.jpg

Agribusiness giants Patrice, Philip and heiress daughter Aurora

 

Good luck to them.

 

But if it all goes pear-shaped, rest assured they can rip out the olives and garlic and rip up all that biodynamic coal wot lays beneath. It's worth a motza, just as Eddie Obeid said it was when they bought Elmswood. Onya Eddie.

 

Even Pat reckons mining can exist next to biodynamicism:

 

 

And so as Pat walks on down that road, her shadow taller than our soul; because there walks a lady who's turned but all to gold . . . and we're buying her products to heavens-to-betsy.

 

FXJ231407.jpg

Come on Pat, Phil's home

 

This potted feature proudly brought to you by NSW Coal

Edited by Snorky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've no doubt there's some worthwhile journalism, especially in The Weekend Australian. I just think any Murdoch product should be boycotted, on principle.

 

Yes but one needs diversity of source or one risks becoming myopic, brainwashed, entrenched, unconscionable and ultimately irreconcilably inconsolable.

 

Take Lise for example, I'm pretty sure she linked to a piece from the Oz at ETF within the last six months. I can't imagine what's made her turn her back on Australia's only national broadsheet. Her loss I guess.

 

 

Don't know anything about Patrice, but to the extent she helped bring that about, good on her.

 

Moomby, it will be my pleasure to bring you the good oil on Patrice Newell, and when I say oil, I do mean oil but not of the Texas tea variety. Boil the billy and pull up a stump . . .

 

Are we ready? Then I'll begin . . .

 

And let's begin by titling her correctly for she is Dr Patrice Newell a conjoined fellowess of the Newcastle Uni with a lengthy dissertive polemic under her belt assessing biomass convertors and how they'll save the world, or something: http://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/uon:20006

 

But firkst, a rather good potted history of Phil and Pat (no video I'm afraid). I'm surprised Phil doesn't talk on air about Patrice rather than sending his listeners to sleep dreaming of his dog which he endlessly yaps about. Apparently he goes on and on about the dog. Do you know of this bloody dog Moomby, and its endless litters of spawn?

cattle%20rustlers_zpsdhxvccjw.jpg

 

Here's the transcript of that TV show: http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s377105.htm

 

So we've got murder, big egos and a 10,000 acre ranch in the bush: all the hallmarks of a best seller.

 

Were it not for the shocking revelations in that 2001 TV expose transcript:

 

 

PHILLIP ADAMS, partner: Patrice hated trading on her looks. She is a good feminist. She read all the feminist texts. She believed in them. They weren't abstracts to her. They were determinants. She hated compliments about her appearance, so I don't think I've actually mentioned her attractiveness for the last 15 years. I think she looks back on all those jobs - and she had lots and lots of different sorts of media jobs - with faint embarrassment.

PATRICE: I look back on my modelling career, and sometimes I think somebody else had it. It's so foreign to me, because that image in the magazine is thanks to a hairdresser, a make-up artist, a designer, a photographer and a client, and it is NOT you.

And I never, ever, ever got confused about that. I never once looked at that and thought that was me, and I think that saved me.

What I really wanted to do back then was be a writer, a journalist.

I met Phillip when I was doing a report for SBS on the film industry. I didn't know that much about him. So I was quite taken aback when I interviewed him and he was...pretty... pretty pompous or quite patronising to me, I remember. He would say things like, "Oh, Patrice, that's a silly question. I mean, the question you really should be asking is..." And I was quite... (Laughs) I was quite taken aback by him. But he was flirtatious as well.

​Even though he sounds like a pig, I understand you can vouch for his character Moomby. You'd think that over a fifteen year period, she may have got dolled up to the nines for some arty-farty do they were attending, warranting and even demanding even the mildest of compliments. Perhaps the pompous, patronising twat was struck dumb and in awe. But I digress . . .

 

Moomby, as an avid fan of SBS, surely you remember Patrice "bringing the world back home" into your home each evening via the so-called SBS News. She then went commercial and joined Steve Liebmann as co-presenter of the Today Show on channel Seven (I understand why you would have missed that).

 

Here she is at SBS bringing the world back home to Brisbane for the firkst time in 1985:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBGjHC43LsI

Ahh the shoulder pads and big hair, whatever became of the 80s?

And here's a picture of Patrice in her modelling days (a picture Phil twatted recently on his twat account), which is here https://mobile.twitter.com/PhillipAdams_1phoaaaar%20blimey_zpsfvcelylz.jpgYeah, no Phil's certainly punching above his considerable weight. JBF hair was such a good look

 

Having wooed her, Pat and Phil sold up their glorious Darlinghurst pile called Stoneleigh and went bush, purchasing the majestic 10,000 acre Elmswood cattle ranch with an imposing mansion on which the murders Phil spoke of, would have taken place, but didn't. It's at Gundy outside of Scone up in the Hunter Valley. Full of guns and hunters.

 

106ddf0f52.jpeg

The light on the hill of Chez Elmswood's manse . . . garlic country

 

It goes without saying that Phil also produced the fillim of Don's Party ​starring Gra-Gra, Johnny Hargeaves and Graeme "Purple" Blundell. Bewdy Newk was another of Phil's iconic advertising campaigns for Phil's MDA the multi-million dollar advertising agency that made Phil millions of dollars (Monahan Dayman and Adams). Remember "Slip. Slop. Slap." Phil done that too, so money was no problem when it came to purchasing Chez Elmswood.

Patrice was restless but, and soon she was off planting grove after grove of olive trees. All biodynamic. The locals thought this good-looking, greenie, do-gooder city-slicker was mad, but how wrong they would be.

Pat now sells her Virgo olive oil by the truckload while Phil dithers on the wireless. She's branched off into biodynamic garlic, honey and other stuff. They say there's a drop of Pat's blood, sweat and tears in each bottle and I dare say it can be multi-purposed.9ebc9795d3.jpegPat's good oil, available by mail

4814c46b27.jpgThe boys from Aussie Post find Pat's output painful, bludgers19d27583bc.jpegPat's honey is a super seller

7cdc128dbf.jpgPhil building hives, but Patrice says he's useless with his hands

PatriceNewellSoap.jpgMy favourite . . . you can multipurpose this product like buggery (no really)

You can read about her product lines and order her products here Moomby: http://www.patricenewell.com.au/

 

News Alert: FoxNews has just reported that NK has tested another missile thingy. Strap us in, Jeeves, there's a good fella.

 

Where was I? . . . Oh yes, Pat's now 60 and while age may not weary them, nor the sun go down in the evening because of NK, she's certainly gone a tad grey unlike her hubby, the perennial man in black:

e6320a5655.jpgLike fine wine . . .

 

All good. Please make a fillim Phil

 

Ahh . . . here's young Aurora, Pat and Phil's spawn:

71307f0e09510e2b47316916aec70f68.jpgAgribusiness giants Patrice, Philip and heiress daughter Aurora

 

Good luck to them.

 

But if it all goes pear-shaped, rest assured they can rip out the olives and garlic and rip up all that biodynamic coal wot lays beneath. It's worth a motza, just as Eddie Obeid said it was when they bought Elmswood. Onya Eddie.

 

Even Pat reckons mining can exist next to biodynamicism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ7mJrkNe3c

 

And so as Pat walks on down that road, her shadow taller than our soul; because there walks a lady who's turned but all to gold . . . and we're buying her products to heavens-to-betsy.

 

FXJ231407.jpg

Come on Pat, Phil's home

 

This potted feature proudly brought to you by NSW Coal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you could rewrite your first paragaph so it actually makes sence.

 

I might then be prepared to deal with the rest of your attempted chara cter assassination of Adams and Newell, but I'm not promising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so " character assassination" was over the top.

 

Congratulations for putting that combined bio together. Fair bit of research there. No, I had no inkling of who Patrice was, or what she did. I may have heard Phillip mention his dog once...though I must admit he alludes to his role in setting up the Australian film industry rather too often. Or used to.

 

There's this former

Jesuit priest who used to run religious broadcasting at the ABC.

His name escapes me , but you might remember the fellow I'm referring to.

He' been on Adams' program a couple of times, and embarrassed the hell out of him by calling him a "secular saint".

 

I agree with him.

 

Anyway, a couple of chores to get through before catching the reapeat of "Late Night Live"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a rather good piece you won't like either Moomby.

 

But it mainly features the thoughts of Chairman PJ Keating, so it's at the very least, entertaining.

 

Here's a teaser:

 

Keating calls last dance

on liberal economics

 

Paul Keating believes we are witnessing the demise of the liberal economic order that transformed the global economy and turbocharged growth, jobs and living standards here and abroad in the 1980s and 90s.

After years of low interest rates, capital investment is declining because there remains excess capacity. Central banks seeking to stimulate demand are mainly inflating the value of assets where companies are distributing gains rather than reinvesting them.

The remedy, Keating argues, is for government to lead the way in the building of new wealth-generating infrastructure such as airports, roads and railways that can become the assets in a new economy to energise growth, jobs and productivity.

 

“Infrastructure, both government and private or government-induced private investment, is the missing ingredient in the demand equation. Fifteen years ago, US companies invested twice as much into their businesses as they distributed to shareholders. Today that ratio is near one-to-one. This has underwritten a change from capital investment to capital distribution. Capital expenditure is declining and dividend distributions are rising," Keating said.

 

“We are living in a post-capex world — the problem is aggregate demand. We are not in need of a growth in supply. So central banks seeking to simulate a demand environment have had the effect of pushing up asset prices. Shareholders are now cynical about big capital investments or mergers. This is why the value of dividend-paying stocks has risen.”

The former prime minister (1991-96) and treasurer (1983-91) argues that low interest rate settings are “the butt-end of liberal economics”. Monetary policy, or reliance on monetary policy following the 2008-09 global financial rescue, “has failed to stimulate investment”. The consequences are asset prices escalating, households building up excessive debt and those relying on a return from savings “being decimated”.

“Just as we changed the policy back in the 80s, we should be changing the policy now. The point is that policy is not changing any more. It has stopped. The reformation, which I induced in the 1980s and 90s has stopped. The policy ideas have stopped.

“We are now in a world where there is no capital intensity of the kind after the war. A lot of the services we provide now don’t require a lot of capital or employment. General Motors at its peak had 900,000 employees; Facebook has 56,000. And Facebook has a bigger market capitalisation than General Motors. The deregulation allowed fungibility — the free movement of money to the right places in the economy — and that underwrote our competitiveness with the help of the exchange rate as our international income changed. But with the inability of monetary policy to stimulate new private investment, one has to ask: what should we do now?

“The first thing we do is not return to the sclerotic economy we had before 1983. We don’t return to the industrial museum. We don’t return to protectionism. We don’t return to centralised wage-fixing. We don’t return to a regulated exchange rate. We don’t return to regulated interest rates. We bank those nation-changing measures, but we then think: what should be the policy settings for the new order?”

He points to Australia’s system of minimum award rates, where the minimum wage is $17.70, whereas in the US it is just $7.80. Neither the US nor much of Europe enjoys a social welfare net that includes superannuation coupled with access and equity in health and education. Australia does not have the entrenched poverty or inequality on the scale experienced overseas.

“Of course some on the left might see my remarks as falling into line with their prejudices in the 1980s and 90s,” Keating says. “But the problem with these people is that they were dumb then and they remain dumb — they are resolutely determined to learn nothing.”

#ends

Read the kit and caboodle here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EgNKodeH0vIJ:www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/last-dance-of-liberal-economics-keating-advocates-for-investment/news-story/3f3d3545451ce0215473276834b98530+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

Onya PJ.

Avagoodweegend Moomby

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now, Snorky, seeing you posted this for my benefit, I did make an attempt to comprehend this, but did not quite succed. Which might be as much Keating's fault as mine.

 

So he's finally woken up to the fact that liberal economics (I would append a "neo" in front of that) is not working. Taken him a long time.

What I would say is that his analysis does not get to the core of the issue of the neo liberal revolution which he helped to institute on this country, or why this has been so damaging:deregulation, privatisation, globalisation, and I keep forgetting the fourth one.

 

I'm one of those on the left who remain opposed to what he and Hawke did. I call the, traitors to the working class.

 

Keating is the clown who sold off the Commonweath Bank. And Qantas_was that him as well?

 

How dumb was that? He was dumd, and remains dumb, though he still suffers from the illusion he's the smartest guy on the joint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a shame, Moomby. You probably need to read the full version at The Australian as linked.

 

What I believe PJ was saying is that deregulation, the wages accord and all the other goodies Hawky and PJ dreamed up were the policies for their time back in the 80s and the proof was in the pudding as tasted.

 

Things have changed since then and so must our policies, but they haven't . . . much.

 

As I've explained before, selling off mature "government" assets at a premium price in a fiscally responsible way, is fine, dependent on the timing and a suitable structure to ensure their successful departure into the real world. Qantas, the Commo Bank and Telstra were just asking for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The free market isn't "the real world", it's a mythical realm where things never turn out to work the way human intuition and ideology expects it to. It's easy enough to say that wealth will trickle down, and maybe even believe that, but it just hasn't. It has gushed upwards.

 

Keeping mature assets in government hands means they are owned by every taxpayer and we get to have our say about how they are run via the ballot box. This keeps them grounded in the real world of real people with real problems and challenges in their lives. Fuck privatisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Privatis

 

ation is bad, mkay?

Corporatisation was the one I forgot, thus completing the full catastrophe.

 

Sounds to me like Keating is retrospectively trying to justify his and Hawke'policies which have evidently led us this unsatisfactory situation. Increasing inequalities, and so on.

 

The much vaunted accord was the first step in selling out the workers to the big end of town.

Mandatory superanuation was another, basically a diversion of funds into the stock exchange. A capitalistic enterprise if ever there was one.

 

Hawke, Keating and Blair have a lot to answer for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You lot never cease to amaze me with your incorrect labelling and general ignorance.

 

Consider these facts:

  • Thatcher and Reagan were the architects of high deficit budgets and so-called trickle-down economics, not Hawke and Keating
  • Call Hawke and Keating anything you like but your one-size-fits-all definition of "neo-liberal" just doesn't fly
  • Neither Thatcher, Reagan, Blair, Clinton, Bush or Obama set up a significant separate wealth fund in addition to existing pension funds and an existing social welfare
  • Keating's legacy in respect of superannuation is now worth some $2.2 trillion with an annual Australian GDP output of $1.34 trillion p.a. and we have a government-funded pension system still in place, welfare and Medicare
  • About half (or one trillion) of that superannuation investment pool is controlled by industry super funds
  • At least $400 billion is invested in property and infrastructure projects (and rising as opportunities arise)
  • Government assets mature, always have done. When fully ripe sell them and do something else with the otherwise stagnant proceeds for the overall benefit of the country
  • How much say did you have running Telecom (pre-cursor to Telstra) when it was 100% owned by the Government?

You two should stop reading the same bullshit talking points memo and in Moomby's case, singing from the Commie Hymn book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say "Commie Hymn book" you are referring to the Marxist critique of Capitalism?

 

Now, if anything, more relevant than when Karl penned hi s "Das Kapital", which I would commend to your attention. Has to do with tne exploitation of working class.

 

Which goes beyond the specifics of this discussion, though not entirely irrelevant. I would not tar Keating with the same brush as Thatcher and Reagan, but he was gung ho for economic rationalism, as it was called then, so effectivally complicit in the neo liberal revolution that initiated the mess we're now in.

 

I'm not able at tnis time, to address some of the persuasive counter arguments you offered, and good on you, owing to general ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call Hawke and Keating anything you like but your one-size-fits-all definition of "neo-liberal" just doesn't fly.

Keating calls his policies "liberal economics" himself. Are you saying there's a significant difference between liberal economics and neoliberalism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe PJ is a self-described Economic Rationalist ​whatever that is.

 

He let our currency off the leash so we could join the real world, he got business and the unions together and moving in the same direction, and he famously brought home the bacon.

 

What's not to love about the man? Unless it's his gender, or frequent use of the deadly bon mot, the Italian suits, or exquisite taste in women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from your own copy and paste a few posts ago:

 

Keating calls last dance

on liberal economics

 

Paul Keating believes we are witnessing the demise of the liberal economic order that transformed the global economy and turbocharged growth, jobs and living standards here and abroad in the 1980s and 90s.

"The liberal economic order". Are you seriously telling us this has no relation to neoliberalism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia:

 

Economic rationalism is an Australian term often used in the discussion of macroeconomic policy, applicable to the economic policy of many governments around the world, in particular during the 1980s and 1990s.

 

Economic rationalists tend to favour neoliberal policies: deregulation, a free market economy, privatisation of state-owned industries, lower direct taxation and higher indirect taxation, and a reduction of the size of the welfare state. Near-equivalents include Thatcherism (UK), Rogernomics (NZ), and the Washington Consensus. To a large extent the term merely means economic liberalism, also called neoliberalism. However, the term was also used to describe advocates of market-oriented reform within the Australian Labor Party, whose position was closer to what has become known as the 'Third Way'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rationalism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously suggesting I didn't read the last par of your post above, namely:

 

From Wikipedia:

However, the term was also used to describe advocates of market-oriented reform within the Australian Labor Party, whose position was closer to what has become known as the 'Third Way'.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rationalism

 

 

Let's have a chat about the so-called "Third way".

 

Keating schooled both Blair and Brown on what he did and how he did it, but Blair and Brown only got bits of it right.

 

While Thatcherism and Reaganism are often held up by economic wonks as exemplary administrations, they were not in the same league as Hawkey and PJ.

 

The Hawke-Keating economic performance was far superior to anything that so-called high deficit ‘trickledown’ economics from Reagan or Thatcher could conjure up.

 

Let's compare Hawkey with Thatch, shall we?

 

Are we ready? Good-o, then I'll begin . . .

 

In terms of GDP, Australia outperformed Britain ever since Thatcher began her reign.

 

Australia had a lower inflation rate than Britain for more than half of Thatch's reign.

 

In terms of the labour market, the UK's unemployment rate was 6.5 percentage points higher than Australia, with a higher proportion of long term unemployed people in the UK than Australia for every bloody year of her reign.

 

Hawke and Keating's success at a time of prevailing Conservative wankery in the Anglo-American world did not go unnoticed.

 

In fact, future British Labor Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown while in Opposition were so impressed with Australia that they regularly visited our wide brown land to rejuvenate the intellectual capital and future policy agenda.

 

As Paul Keating recalled in an interview at the time: “I said to Tony Blair, I said Tone: our way was not the third way, but the only way”.

 

But selling “The Third Way” in Australia was like trying to sell “The Joy of Sex”. To quote Paul Keating: “We were more interested in doing it than finding a label for it.”

One of the great lessons of this historically successful period of Labor government was the balance struck between the wealth creators and wealth distributors.

 

To govern successfully and continuously, Labor needed both to function in tandem. Hawke and Keating knew this, the business leaders knew this and the Australia Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), led by Bill "Farkin" Kelty knew this through the forging of the successful Prices and Incomes Accords.

 

Bob Hawke knew the importance of encouraging businesses to invest through stable macroeconomic conditions, wage restraint and employment creation.

 

Hawkey could build consensus with business while ensuring workers received improvements through the social wage with Medicare, Education and Skills Development and tax cuts.

 

Paul Keating, the son of a boiler maker – knew that financial markets needed to be conducive to growth and regional expansion. His own Bankstown-based father had been knocked back for a loan from an established bank when wanting to expand to Malaysia, so as Treasurer Keating democratised finance so all Australians could embrace the opportunities of the coming Asian Century.

 

Bill Kelty, not only forged the Accords with both Hawke and Keating, but also created the Australian superannuation policy framework that has become the envy of the world.

 

In a stroke of genius, as union membership fell in the 1980s, the workers instead became owners of capital in the 1990s through industry super funds, much to the chagrin of ailing, forgettable and unwashed Marxists.

 

The workers took control of the commanding heights of capitalism – that are now jointly managed by employer representatives – and provided pools of savings for sustainable investment.

 

However, in today’s Australia, there is a polarising of our political economy. Some on the right with large mining and media interests want to create wealth but don’t want to redistribute it. Sometimes it seems they would prefer an oligarch friendly government protecting their vested interests. They are suspicious of trade unions, NGOs, environmental and consumer groups and sometimes it seems democratic government itself.

 

On the other hand, some on the left want to redistribute wealth but have no interest in how it is created. They want to ban mining but at the same time claim they have the tax revenue from the resources industry to spend. The cheek. They are suspicious of business and entrepreneurs in general. They have no interest in economic policy. They can GFT.

 

But the Australian polity should not be a battle between wealth creators and wealth distributors as the Hawke-Keating-Kelty reform period showed. You need both to function effectively as an economy and as a society.

 

In essence, a growing economy allows you to pay for a national disability scheme, for superannuation, Medicare, better occupational health and safety, and it enables you to take better care of the environment.

 

A growing economy with high employment, high wages and rising living standards helps improve productivity and competitiveness.

 

Growth and employment creation is not about mean industrial relations laws like the farkin Libs' Workchoices.

It is not about destroying the environment.

It is not about locking generations out of quality education and employment.

It is not about attacking the contribution of our newest Australians nor the culture of our oldest Australians, our indigenous people.

 

Growth and employment depends both on wealth creation and wealth distribution.

 

It was Labor that melded a magical combination of divine goodness incorporating the right to ‘have a go’ by our entrepreneurs and the right to a ‘fair go’ for workers, middle and low income families, not to mention the retarded, perennially lazy and skint foreigners.

 

But now we've ended up with Shorten because not all stories have happy endings like The Keating Miracle.

Edited by Snorky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe PJ is a self-described Economic Rationalist ​whatever that is.

 

He let our currency off the leash so we could join the real world, he got business and the unions together and moving in the same direction, and he famously brought home the bacon.

 

What's not to love about the man? Unless it's his gender, or frequent use of the deadly bon mot, the Italian suits, or exquisite taste in women.

I believe PJ is a self-described Economic Rationalist ​whatever that is.

 

He let our currency off the leash so we could join the real world, he got business and the unions together and moving in the same direction, and he famously brought home the bacon.

 

What's not to love about the man? Unless it's his gender, or frequent use of the deadly bon mot, the Italian suits, or exquisite taste in women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic Rationalism would be adherence to the same Chic

gago School economic theories that informed Thatcher and Reagan, as if you didn't know.

 

Keating might have have had a modified version for local consumption, which no one could understand, and for good reasons, but it amounted to the same thing: the onset of neo liberalism in Australia.

 

You left out his refined taste for Richard Strauss symphonic poems, French clocks, and commmercially successful piggeries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously suggesting I didn't read the last par of your post above, namely:

 

 

From Wikipedia:

 

 

However, the term was also used to describe advocates of market-oriented reform within the Australian Labor Party, whose position was closer to what has become known as the 'Third Way'.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rationalism

Let's have a chat about the so-called "Third way".

 

Keating schooled both Blair and Brown on what he did and how he did it, but Blair and Brown only got bits of it right.

 

While Thatcherism and Reaganism are often held up by economic wonks as exemplary administrations, they were not in the same league as Hawkey and PJ.

 

The Hawke-Keating economic performance was far superior to anything that so-called high deficit trickledown economics from Reagan or Thatcher could conjure up.

 

Let's compare Hawkey with Thatch, shall we?

 

Are we ready? Good-o, then I'll begin . . .

 

In terms of GDP, Australia outperformed Britain ever since Thatcher began her reign.

 

Australia had a lower inflation rate than Britain for more than half of Thatch's reign.

 

In terms of the labour market, the UK's unemployment rate was 6.5 percentage points higher than Australia, with a higher proportion of long term unemployed people in the UK than Australia for every bloody year of her reign.

 

Hawke and Keating's success at a time of prevailing Conservative wankery in the Anglo-American world did not go unnoticed.

 

In fact, future British Labor Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown while in Opposition were so impressed with Australia that they regularly visited our wide brown land to rejuvenate the intellectual capital and future policy agenda.

 

As Paul Keating recalled in an interview at the time: I said to Tony Blair, I said Tone: our way was not the third way, but the only way.

 

But selling The Third Way in Australia was like trying to sell The Joy of Sex. To quote Paul Keating: We were more interested in doing it than finding a label for it.

One of the great lessons of this historically successful period of Labor government was the balance struck between the wealth creators and wealth distributors.

 

To govern successfully and continuously, Labor needed both to function in tandem. Hawke and Keating knew this, the business leaders knew this and the Australia Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), led by Bill "Farkin" Kelty knew this through the forging of the successful Prices and Incomes Accords.

 

Bob Hawke knew the importance of encouraging businesses to invest through stable macroeconomic conditions, wage restraint and employment creation.

 

Hawkey could build consensus with business while ensuring workers received improvements through the social wage with Medicare, Education and Skills Development and tax cuts.

 

Paul Keating, the son of a boiler maker knew that financial markets needed to be conducive to growth and regional expansion. His own Bankstown-based father had been knocked back for a loan from an established bank when wanting to expand to Malaysia, so as Treasurer Keating democratised finance so all Australians could embrace the opportunities of the coming Asian Century.

 

Bill Kelty, not only forged the Accords with both Hawke and Keating, but also created the Australian superannuation policy framework that has become the envy of the world.

 

In a stroke of genius, as union membership fell in the 1980s, the workers instead became owners of capital in the 1990s through industry super funds, much to the chagrin of ailing, forgettable and unwashed Marxists.

 

The workers took control of the commanding heights of capitalism that are now jointly managed by employer representatives and provided pools of savings for sustainable investment.

 

However, in todays Australia, there is a polarising of our political economy. Some on the right with large mining and media interests want to create wealth but dont want to redistribute it. Sometimes it seems they would prefer an oligarch friendly government protecting their vested interests. They are suspicious of trade unions, NGOs, environmental and consumer groups and sometimes it seems democratic government itself.

 

On the other hand, some on the left want to redistribute wealth but have no interest in how it is created. They want to ban mining but at the same time claim they have the tax revenue from the resources industry to spend. The cheek. They are suspicious of business and entrepreneurs in general. They have no interest in economic policy. They can GFT.

 

But the Australian polity should not be a battle between wealth creators and wealth distributors as the Hawke-Keating-Kelty reform period showed. You need both to function effectively as an economy and as a society.

 

In essence, a growing economy allows you to pay for a national disability scheme, for superannuation, Medicare, better occupational health and safety, and it enables you to take better care of the environment.

 

A growing economy with high employment, high wages and rising living standards helps improve productivity and competitiveness.

 

Growth and employment creation is not about mean industrial relations laws like the farkin Libs' Workchoices.

It is not about destroying the environment.

It is not about locking generations out of quality education and employment.

It is not about attacking the contribution of our newest Australians nor the culture of our oldest Australians, our indigenous people.

 

Growth and employment depends both on wealth creation and wealth distribution.

 

It was Labor that melded a magical combination of divine goodness incorporating the right to have a go by our entrepreneurs and the right to a fair go for workers, middle and low income families, not to mention the retarded, perennially lazy and skint foreigners.

 

But now we've ended up with Shorten because not all stories have happy endings like The Keating Miracle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×