Support NeoGAF

[Arksy]

Poppycock. The Labor party removed a sitting prime minister, the mining companies influenced the decision, but they didn't force it.

Tony Abbott is just the prime minister, he has a lot of power but he's not the king. Collectively the government is a lot more powerful than News Ltd for the reasons I said. News Ltd wields a lot of influence, but that's ok because the whole point of democracy is people convincing other people that a specific idea is good.

I will concede though that the Hudson Bay Company and the East India Shipping company were evil and that corporations have engaged in violence in the past, but it doesn't even begin to rate with the atrocities caused, and still being caused, by governments.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Collectively the government is a lot more powerful than News Ltd for the reasons I said. News Ltd wields a lot of influence, but that's ok because the whole point of democracy is people convincing other people that a specific idea is good.

Cool, I'm glad you believe the government should mandate equal coverage of opinions in the news media.

I will concede though that the Hudson Bay Company and the East India Shipping company were evil and that corporations have engaged in violence in the past, but it doesn't even begin to rate with the atrocities caused, and still being caused, by governments.

Largely because in the last century, corporations just paid the government to do it's bidding. See Iran and most of Latin America throughout the 20th Century. Also, the reason corporations can't do as much violence because the government saying, "you can't do this bullshit or we will fine and hurt you."

 

[Dead Man]

Poppycock. The Labor party removed a sitting prime minister, the mining companies influenced the decision, but they didn't force it.

Tony Abbott is just the prime minister, he has a lot of power but he's not the king. Collectively the government is a lot more powerful than News Ltd for the reasons I said. News Ltd wields a lot of influence, but that's ok because the whole point of democracy is people convincing other people that a specific idea is good.

I will concede though that the Hudson Bay Company and the East India Shipping company were evil and that corporations have engaged in violence in the past, but it doesn't even begin to rate with the atrocities caused, and still being caused, by governments.

That doesn't make any sense. An unelected body wields massive influence but that's okay because democracy is about convincing people?

Edit: So you are saying an unelected body having more power to influence people is okay because that is what democracy is about?

 

[markot]

Just look at what the US did in Latin America on behalf of corporations.

 

[Mondy]

Catching up on all the drama surrounding the NBN, it sickens me that such an important infrastructure project has been completely scuttled in a Telstra/Murdoch power game. We all knew the election of the Liberals would be the worst case scenario but there was always that faint optimism that they would wake up to themselves.

Renai of delimiter sums it up perfectly:

The NBN project has truly descended into a political farce at this point. I encourage readers to abandon all hope that it will ever be delivered in any kind of rational fashion. We must face reality: The politicians have royally screwed this one up. It may be a decade or more before the situation resolves itself into any semblance of normality and Australia sees meaningful broadband service upgrades. Hell, it’s taken a decade to get to this point, where virtually nothing has been done.

http://delimiter.com.au/2013/12/18/greens-labor-slam-coalitions-nbn-train-wreck/

 

[Dead Man]

Catching up on all the drama surrounding the NBN, it sickens me that such an important infrastructure project has been completely scuttled in a Telstra/Murdoch power game. We all knew the election of the Liberals would be the worst case scenario but there was always that faint optimism that they would wake up to themselves.

Renai of delimiter sums it up perfectly:




http://delimiter.com.au/2013/12/18/greens-labor-slam-coalitions-nbn-train-wreck/

Yep. But we wanted a change, or something. Fuck people.

 

[Tommy DJ]

Oil corporations are literally the reason why Iran is in the state it is right now (1953 Iranian coup d'état). Also refer to the United States.

All of these politicians have direct connections with major financial, media and manufacturing corporations and guess what, they often conveniently serve their interests. Refer to They Rule.

 

[Mondy]

Yep. But we wanted a change, or something. Fuck people.

People were too interested in teaching Labor some sort of lesson to truly comprehend what they were getting themselves into. Now they know, and it's already too late.

 

[r1chard]

Poppycock. The Labor party removed a sitting prime minister, the mining companies influenced the decision, but they didn't force it.

Sorry, mate, but I think you really need to pull your head from the sand. Corporations control the government (including religious corporations) through campaign finance, think-tank funding, media control, lobbying during term (lobbying accompanied by plenty of gifts) and post-term plum jobs. And that's just the obvious stuff - none of the boys-club stuff.

 

[Jintor]

Obviously we're not up to crypto-cyberpunk-futurist Private Police Forces and Corporations literally acting as franklins of their own company towns or whatever (yet or anymore, take your pick) but don't discount the immense power that corporations wield in regards to the democratic process. I don't know how huge lobbying is in Australia, but if it's anything like it is in the States, it's pretty much nonsensical.

 

[Dryk]

I'd say that corporations don't wield anywhere near as much power here as in the US. Otherwise there'd be stability regarding carbon pricing one way or the other. Currently we're in for what, a decade plus of successive governments and global influences fucking them around?

People were too interested in teaching Labor some sort of lesson to truly comprehend what they were getting themselves into. Now they know, and it's already too late.

And they didn't even learn their lesson in the end

 

[Myansie]

That's a really odd argument. Governments wield power, real power. The power to make laws. Think about what a law is, it's a way of compelling people to act a certain way using violence or the threat of violence if you refuse.

Governments can raise armies, forcibly expropriate money from people, they can place people in solitary confinement and on occasion have engaged in mass violence and genocide.

Corporations can't do any of that. They are therefore in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM analogous to a government. Until a corporation can enact laws and engage in violence, this analogy remains quite silly. The best a corporation can do is fire someone, or give money to a political cause. They're not angels but I can't really see a corporation on the world scale as evil as our own government, which has invaded a number of other countries and has engaged in a campaign of eugenics, forcibly separating young children from their mothers.

Who do you think is pushing the government to do that? Those are not popular moves in the polls.

Corporations absolutely are powerful. There are solutions that need to be applied to them as well as governments, but currently with the weakoning of democracy, capitalism is dominating. It is the driving force behind the invasions you're talking about. A really awesome academic to listen to about this is Naomi Klein author of the Shock Doctrine. She explains how the shocks your describing work in favour of corporations very clearly and how they've manipulated our system to do that. You can find her lectures on youtube easily enough.

 

[Dead Man]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-18/funding-cut-to-environmental-defenders-offices/5164934

A nationwide network of legal centres providing representation for environment-related cases deemed to be in the public interest have had their funding cut by the Federal Government.

The government cut $10 million in funding to Environmental Defenders Offices (EDO) in the budget measures outlined in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO).

It means the EDOs will not receive any federal funding after July 1 next year.

EDO lawyers have provided help on a raft of environmental cases, including advising the Lock the Gate campaign and fighting to protect Leadbetter's possum habitat from logging.

But they have been accused of conducting "a campaign of economic sabotage" by the Minerals Council, which represents the mining industry.

Brendan Sydes, chief executive of the Victorian branch of the EDO, says he was telephoned by the Commonwealth Attorney-General's department yesterday afternoon and told that funding would be terminated immediately.

The office was scheduled to receive $350,000 each year for the next two years, which was around half of its funding.

Environmental groups have rushed to decry the saving, describing it as an attack on environmentalism.

"This is not a matter of government budget savings," Kelly O'Shanassy, chief executive of Environment Victoria, said.

"If the Federal Government can give $10 billion to wealthy mining corporations every year in fossil fuel subsidies, they can spare some change for the Environment Defenders Offices.

Yeah. Gotta keep those fossil fuel subsidies in place, and fuck over renewables while gutting the legal aid for environmental causes. Nice work.

Edit: And just some more great things the Abbott government has achieved so far.
http://www.independentaustralia.net...cy-disasters-one-blunder-every-five-days,6001

1. Timor Leste document seizure

Without doubt, the most unforgivable act of bastadry in Australia’s modern peacetime history was this month’s ASIO raid of the Canberra office of the lawyer for Timor Leste [East Timor] and removal of his files.

Both countries are preparing for a court battle in The Hague over resources. Now one side possesses the legal documents of the other.

International lawyers believe that if no nation ever trusts the Abbott government again, this will be reason enough.
2. China

Bishop’s embarrassingly inept criticisms of China’s defence zone – made to the media instead of through diplomatic channels – have hindered trade negotiations and endangered the strategic partnership.

This was compounded when Abbott arrogantly announced a one-year deadline for the free trade agreement. Raoul Heinrichs at ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre described this as

'... a blunder of the first order.'

Trade deals, he said, ‘are among the most exacting form of diplomacy’ and cannot be rushed.
3. West Papua

West Irian activists scaled the wall of Australia’s consulate in Bali in October seeking help for 55 political prisoners in Indonesia.

This demanded careful negotiation and measured public responses. Abbott offered neither. He rejected the appeals out of hand and defended the indefensible:

“People seeking to grandstand against Indonesia, please, don't look to do it in Australia, you are not welcome. The second point is the situation in West Papua is getting better, not worse.”

Not true, according to experts such as Dr Jim Elmslie:

'Many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people have perished directly as a result of conditions that have been enforced upon them … we characterise what is going on there as a genocide or a potential genocide.'

17 more amazingly inept actions in international relations at the link.

 

[Arksy]

Either I'm jet lagged to hell or as soon as we start talking about corporations all the good reasonable people in here I've been arguing with for months have put on til foil hats the moment we start talking about corporations. Touche, I guess that's what I'm like as soon as we start talking about governments.

I'll try to go through some points you guys made to show that it was actually governments here that were either equally or more complicit in those acts....because the fact of the matter is that corporations can only wield power through governments.

It wasn't BP that lead a coup d’état in Iran, it was the CIA. BP or whatever may have been heavily lobbying for this to happen (I don't know if there's any evidence or not) but to me a more likely explanation is that the US government got scared about its energy security.

It wasn't Hancock Prospecting who threw out Kevin Rudd it was the Labor Party.

Someone mentioned something about think-tank funding, campaign finance, etc. This really comes down to the way you view groups. I think that they're groups of people and therefore have legitimate political interests. They're allowed to finance the causes that they believe strongly in. There's no logical difference between a corporation engaging in the political process and a union engaging in a political process. There are those who think that neither should be part of the political process (Barry O'Farrel for one, but the High Court disagrees, which means I'm two-for-two but quite embarrassed as the High Court has just made a ruling in favour of Lange!!!).

Like I said, corporations can be good or they can be scummy evil, but their power is limited because they are (mostly) unable to engage in violence. The most logical solution to me is to limit the power of the state so that these things can't happen, rather than try to limit the power of corporations.

Again, sorry for my nonsensical ranting as I'm quite groggy and tired despite just waking up (3:45am) and can barely see past my nose.

 

[lexi]

Either I'm jet lagged to hell or as soon as we start talking about corporations all the good reasonable people in here I've been arguing with for months have put on til foil hats the moment we start talking about corporations. Touche, I guess that's what I'm like as soon as we start talking about governments.

I'll try to go through some points you guys made to show that it was actually governments here that were either equally or more complicit in those acts....because the fact of the matter is that corporations can only wield power through governments.

It wasn't BP that lead a coup d’état in Iran, it was the CIA. BP or whatever may have been heavily lobbying for this to happen (I don't know if there's any evidence or not) but to me a more likely explanation is that the US government got scared about its energy security.

It wasn't Hancock Prospecting who threw out Kevin Rudd it was the Labor Party.

Someone mentioned something about think-tank funding, campaign finance, etc. This really comes down to the way you view groups. I think that they're groups of people and therefore have legitimate political interests. They're allowed to finance the causes that they believe strongly in. There's no logical difference between a corporation engaging in the political process and a union engaging in a political process. There are those who think that neither should be part of the political process (Barry O'Farrel for one, but the High Court disagrees, which means I'm two-for-two but quite embarrassed as the High Court has just made a ruling in favour of Lange!!!).

Like I said, corporations can be good or they can be scummy evil, but their power is limited because they are (mostly) unable to engage in violence. The most logical solution to me is to limit the power of the state so that these things can't happen, rather than try to limit the power of corporations.

Again, sorry for my nonsensical ranting as I'm quite groggy and tired despite just waking up (3:45am) and can barely see past my nose.

I sort of feel like I should be wearing a tinfoil hat when I'm saying it, in any other context this would be conpiracy theorist-level drivel, but this shit is fucking real. The TPP will open the floodgates for corporations to sue a fucking COUNTRY FOR FUCKS SAKE. Corporations are only getting more powerful.

 

[Dead Man]

Either I'm jet lagged to hell or as soon as we start talking about corporations all the good reasonable people in here I've been arguing with for months have put on til foil hats the moment we start talking about corporations. Touche, I guess that's what I'm like as soon as we start talking about governments.

I'll try to go through some points you guys made to show that it was actually governments here that were either equally or more complicit in those acts....because the fact of the matter is that corporations can only wield power through governments.

It wasn't BP that lead a coup d’état in Iran, it was the CIA. BP or whatever may have been heavily lobbying for this to happen (I don't know if there's any evidence or not) but to me a more likely explanation is that the US government got scared about its energy security.

It wasn't Hancock Prospecting who threw out Kevin Rudd it was the Labor Party.

Someone mentioned something about think-tank funding, campaign finance, etc. This really comes down to the way you view groups. I think that they're groups of people and therefore have legitimate political interests. They're allowed to finance the causes that they believe strongly in. There's no logical difference between a corporation engaging in the political process and a union engaging in a political process. There are those who think that neither should be part of the political process (Barry O'Farrel for one, but the High Court disagrees, which means I'm two-for-two but quite embarrassed as the High Court has just made a ruling in favour of Lange!!!).

Like I said, corporations can be good or they can be scummy evil, but their power is limited because they are (mostly) unable to engage in violence. The most logical solution to me is to limit the power of the state so that these things can't happen, rather than try to limit the power of corporations.

Again, sorry for my nonsensical ranting as I'm quite groggy and tired despite just waking up (3:45am) and can barely see past my nose.

I think your focus on violence is what is a bit tin foiley. An entity doesn't need to do violence to be very harmful to people.

 

[r1chard]

I think your focus on violence is what is a bit tin foiley. An entity doesn't need to do violence to be very harmful to people.

Indeed.

How many times has the Australian government used its armed forces to control the population? I can't think of any. I do recall the government using its police force to quash protests about corporations and trade deals. Hmm.

How many times in recent memory have corporations caused the government to do something that's clearly at odds with the good of the population? I've got a meeting to go to so I'll leave it as a relatively trivial exercise for the reader

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Either I'm jet lagged to hell or as soon as we start talking about corporations all the good reasonable people in here I've been arguing with for months have put on til foil hats the moment we start talking about corporations. Touche, I guess that's what I'm like as soon as we start talking about governments.

I'll try to go through some points you guys made to show that it was actually governments here that were either equally or more complicit in those acts....because the fact of the matter is that corporations can only wield power through governments.

It wasn't BP that lead a coup d’état in Iran, it was the CIA. BP or whatever may have been heavily lobbying for this to happen (I don't know if there's any evidence or not) but to me a more likely explanation is that the US government got scared about its energy security.

It wasn't Hancock Prospecting who threw out Kevin Rudd it was the Labor Party.

Someone mentioned something about think-tank funding, campaign finance, etc. This really comes down to the way you view groups. I think that they're groups of people and therefore have legitimate political interests. They're allowed to finance the causes that they believe strongly in. There's no logical difference between a corporation engaging in the political process and a union engaging in a political process. There are those who think that neither should be part of the political process (Barry O'Farrel for one, but the High Court disagrees, which means I'm two-for-two but quite embarrassed as the High Court has just made a ruling in favour of Lange!!!).

Like I said, corporations can be good or they can be scummy evil, but their power is limited because they are (mostly) unable to engage in violence. The most logical solution to me is to limit the power of the state so that these things can't happen, rather than try to limit the power of corporations.

Again, sorry for my nonsensical ranting as I'm quite groggy and tired despite just waking up (3:45am) and can barely see past my nose.

I agree that groups have legitimate political interests. The problems arise when the structure of our society and economy gives certain groups disproportionate power and ability to lobby for and represent those interests. Financial wealth should not be the primary factor in a contest of ideas.

 

[Arksy]

I feel like I wasn't really clear, my bad.

When I say violence, or the threat of violence, I'm talking about it in a broader sense. I guess I should be using force but I'm using violence in the sense that it is the monopoly on violence that defines a modern nation-state.

When you don't follow a law of the state, the state is able to use violence against you. They can arrest you, they can detain you, rob you of your liberties or even kill you. This is talking about the most ideal of situations. A lot of the time the state has no legal basis for using violence on the populace.

Corporations don't have anywhere near that power. A corporation can not break into a lawyer's office and raid his computers. A corporation can not place thousands of people in indefinite detention without legal recourse. A corporation can not arrest someone.

Corporations can cause immense amount of damage, but their power pales in comparison to the power of governments. If a government is doing a corporations bidding, then they are both complicit in the act.

 

[roosters93]

Renai of delimiter sums it up perfectly:
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/12/18/greens-labor-slam-coalitions-nbn-train-wreck/

"and has recommended that up to a third of Australian premises theoretically already covered by HFC cable networks effectively receive no infrastructure upgrade at all under a drastically revised deployment scheme."

this is contradicting the blog post wonzo posted earlier.

but I'm using violence in the sense that it is the monopoly on violence that defines a modern nation-state.

I can't put my finger on why, but this narrow view of what defines a state is unsettling.

or even kill you. This is talking about the most ideal of situations.

Sounds ideal. When can the government kill you?

 

[Jintor]

Well, you're just talking about the enforcement- or threat of enforcement- action, right?

 

[JesseEwiak]

The thing is, what you don't get Arksy, is most of us are far more worried about the actual actions corporations are taking all around the world and actual policies they support and will try to enact via lobbying and legalized bribes than the possible horrible actions states can attempt in theory, especially since most of us live in liberal democracies with Constitutional protections.

 

[Arksy]

Well, you're just talking about the enforcement- or threat of enforcement- action, right?

Yes, that, and all the atrocious things that have happened due to the fact the government has this monopoly on violence. Which is why I'm so adamant on reducing both its size and its scope on power.

I can't put my finger on why, but this narrow view of what defines a state is unsettling.

Well it's widely held view. Even Obama thinks so.

The thing is, what you don't get Arksy, is most of us are far more worried about the actual actions corporations are taking all around the world and actual policies they support and will try to enact via lobbying and legalized bribes than the possible horrible actions states can attempt in theory, especially since most of us live in liberal democracies with Constitutional protections.

Yes, those liberal democracies with constitutional protections that are still engaging in drone strikes, arbitrary detentions and the stuff like that? Mind you that does sound a lot less harmful than lobbying and bribing.

 

[Tommy DJ]

Yes, those liberal democracies with constitutional protections that are still engaging in drone strikes, arbitrary detentions and the stuff like that? Mind you that does sound a lot less harmful than lobbying and bribing.

That's the United States of America. As far as I know, no other country is so adamant to kill brown people.

Its the country that basically funnels a stupid percentage of their GDP into private military industries who basically want America to be in a perpetual war so they can keep buying planes that can't fly in the rain.

America is pretty much governed by private industries. Even their gaols are privatized, which obviously results in operation that is clearly profit driven. The government is complicit because there are no safeguards to prevent such a thing and the involved politicians are all part of the big boy's club. If you decreased government power overnight, it'd just be replaced by military contractors who may not be any better if Academi/Blackwater/Xe are anything to go by. They're already kind of doing that in the United States.

By the way, what do you think of the big government hellhole that is Norway? The point is you have to be critical of both governments and corporations. You can't just say "all government involvement is bad, I trust corporations to do a better job" because history would suggest that its not remotely true. Rio Tinto and Nestle still don't give a fuck about people's rights if there aren't laws to prevent them from abusing workers.

 

[Jintor]

You know it's not a binary thing right? Just cos the government does a fucktonne of bullshit doesn't mean you can't also be critical of massive corporate interference in the democratic process

 

[Arksy]

You know it's not a binary thing right? Just cos the government does a fucktonne of bullshit doesn't mean you can't also be critical of massive corporate interference in the democratic process

Absolutely.

By the way, what do you think of the big government hellhole that is Norway?

I think it's clear you know nothing about Norway.

Government spending was incredibly high in 1992 at 51.6% of GDP but has been constantly cutting its size and is now a much more managable 39.8% of GDP. This is a difference so drastic it would be like the US government halving spending in the same period.

Norway also has a regressive tax system. The top 10% make 28.9% of the income but only pay 27.4% of taxes. Contrast this with the US, which has a progressive system, where the top 10% make 33.5% of the income but pay 45.1% of total income tax.

This is a country that's hugely wealthy (that's to north sea oil) and incredibly jealous of their sovereignty (not in the soul sucking EU). They are foreign relations hawks (Oslo Accords, Nobel Prize, and a huge history of being mediators in disputes) and small.

Edit: Should've picked Sweden.

 

[Dead Man]

Arksy, I mean no disrespect to you when I say this, so apologies if it offends, but your thinking is what happens when American media dominates the discourse. Government is not a monopoly on violence, governments are not inherently bad, and corporations are not a balance on the power of governments.

America is a broken system, and the only ways to fix it are very hard and at the deep structure. Look to countries that are less broken for your examples.

 

[Arksy]

Arksy, I mean no disrespect to you when I say this, so apologies if it offends, but your thinking is what happens when American media dominates the discourse. Government is not a monopoly on violence, governments are not inherently bad, and corporations are not a balance on the power of governments.

America is a broken system, and the only ways to fix it are very hard and at the deep structure. Look to countries that are less broken for your examples.

No offence taken at all. Although I do want to point out that a state having a monopoly on violence comes from a German, not a yank.

Also, I used drone strikes as one example, with our own government being the one that engages in arbitrary detentions.

I can use other governments if you'd like but I'm not so sure which government you'd like me to use? Russia? Syria? The EU? Sure there are some governments, like New Zealand's which aren't so bad in the grand scheme of things but they are the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Dead Man]

All about that freedom of speech :/

No offence taken at all. Although I do want to point out that a state having a monopoly on violence comes from a German, not a yank.

Also, I used drone strikes as one example, with our own government being the one that engages in arbitrary detentions.

I can use other governments if you'd like but I'm not so sure which government you'd like me to use? Russia? Syria? The EU? Sure there are some governments, like New Zealand's which aren't so bad in the grand scheme of things but they are the exception rather than the rule.

I could say the same about large corporations. It is not really an argument. Shall we ignore Scandinavia? The point is that most of your talking points come from America and those who have bought into the American ideals. They are far from universal truths. Your reply here is a fine example, Russia? Syria? As if those are representative of good governance. And yet you use statements like that to reinforce your idea that governments are inherently bad.

 

[Karakand]

The Syrian government enjoys a monopoly on violence within its jurisdiction? When did the civil war end?

 

[markot]

He is an anarcho libertarian, theres no reasoning with them >.<

He is also purposely misquoting the definition of a state its "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force".

If you genuinely think states are evil, you are free to not live in one.

You want the benefits and freedoms that only states can provide, you just dont want to be seen as grateful in any sense and dont do anything like move to one of the many areas in the world that you can live freely and without a state.

 

[Arksy]

He is an anarcho libertarian, theres no reasoning with them >.<

He is also purposely misquoting the definition of a state its "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force".

If you genuinely think states are evil, you are free to not live in one.

Not at all. That's a pretty classic straw man. Misrepresenting my position.

I never said we should dissolve nation states. They might be evil, but they're definitely a necessary evil. The idea is to limit their power so they can't engage in bullshit, not to get rid of them all together.

 

[Tommy DJ]

I knew you were going to bring up oil and I knew you were going to grab those figures from some shitty conservative blog.

Its a dual taxation system. They pay a 28% flat tax on income but the sources you got those numbers no doubt conveniently left everything else out. They also pay a 9%-12% surtax if they have high gross income, plus social security contributions consisting of 7.8%. Wealthier people, proportionally, pay a shitload of money to the government.

Then don't forget about shit like VAT, which is like GST.

 

[markot]

Not at all. I never said we should dissolve nation states. They might be evil, but they're definitely a necessary evil. The idea is to limit their power so they can't engage in bullshit, not to get rid of them all together.

Theyre not evil. Theyre what we make of them. They can do immense evil, they can do immense good.

Theyre not innately one or the other.

 

[Arksy]

I knew you were going to bring up oil and I knew you were going to grab those figures from some shitty conservative blog.

Its a dual taxation system. They pay a 28% flat tax on income but the sources you got those numbers no doubt conveniently left everything else out. They also pay a 9%-12% surtax if they have high gross income, plus social security contributions consisting of 7.8%. Wealthier people, proportionally, pay a shitload of money to the government.

Then don't forget about shit like VAT, which is like GST.

Well starting off with an ad hominem on the source. Nice quality argument right there.

Your argument is doubly hilarious because I was talking about income tax, and you brought in all these other taxes that apply to the citizens of Norway, seemingly on the assumption that people in the US are only taxed through their income. Why you brought up flat taxes, such as VAT is beyond me.

The point is that Norway isn't the big government hellhole you're talking about.

 

[Tommy DJ]

Your argument is doubly hilarious because I was talking about income tax, and you brought in all these other taxes that apply to the citizens of Norway, seemingly on the assumption that people in the US are only taxed through their income. Why you brought up flat taxes, such as VAT and social security contributions is beyond me.

Because that's how the taxation system works in Norway. You cannot just look at income tax because that's not how it works at all.

Its a dual taxation system. If you earn more money, you have to pay more taxes in the form of social security contributions and surtaxes. Does this graph help:

People with more income pay a higher percentage of that income in tax than do those with less income. That is what most would consider to be a progressive taxation system.

 

[Arksy]

. Does this graph help:

A little, although I prefer tables!

 

[Dryk]

I noticed something reading the paper today. The same people that seem to be jumping on the midyear financial report to say "Yeah, finally we're going to have to dig down and not have handouts" are a) Fortunate and more importantly b) The same group of people who are complaining about carbon pricing raising their cost of living. Are they actually the same people or two very closely related ones?

 

[markot]

Norway is small government guys

 

[Arksy]

Norway is small government guys

 

[markot]

Norway makes loads of money from its oil and doesnt need to spend as much of its gdp on its small population as a %?

Also, do you bookmark every terrible anti government website out there?

 

[Arksy]

Also, do you bookmark every terrible anti government website out there?

LOL. No I don't bookmark any. I just googled size of government and graph.

Plus I had assumed a website called "Work and wealth for All" would be a Marx approved source.

 

[Tommy DJ]

Norway is an extremely wealthy country that taxes everything, even the exploitation of natural resources in the form of resource rent taxes (mining tax? what's that?). I brought up VAT before because its like GST but 25% or something huge. They're also not stupid, they invested their oil bucks on better sources of energy like hydroelectric.

Per capita, I'm fairly sure Norway still spends one of the highest amount on welfare and government services especially if we include their infamous public funded education system. The government still has an immense control over the lives of Norwegians that not one can really avoid.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

So basically what I'm getting from this discussion is that everybody agrees that the government should tax resource wealth more and spend more. Glad to have you on side Arksy

Norway is an extremely wealthy country that taxes everything, even the exploitation of natural resources in the form of resource rent taxes (mining tax? what's that?). I brought up VAT before because its like GST but 25% or something huge. They're also not stupid, they invested their oil bucks on better sources of energy like hydroelectric.

Per capita, I'm fairly sure Norway still spends one of the highest amount on welfare and government services especially if we include their infamous public funded education system. The government still has an immense control over the lives of Norwegians that not one can really avoid.

Yep. Despite being a small country, Norway has one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world (pretty sure it was the 2nd largest at one point, may still be), funded through its relatively high taxation of resource revenues. It has federal budget surpluses without especially low spending or especially high (domestic) taxation due to the size of its trade surplus. This also allows periods of aggregate private saving. If Australia were to match Norway in private saving and government spending it would have to run larger federal deficits consistently. For example, Australia had both growth and federal surpluses during the Howard government, but the surpluses, when combined with the current account deficit (both being net financial outflows), meant that the private sector had to rack up large amounts of debt in order to grow.

Because trade surpluses, especially resource based ones, can in a large part be attributed to little more than good fortune and because by definition they can not be had by everyone, any economy based around them should not be considered a universal exemplar.

 

[r1chard]

All about that freedom of speech :/

Dude, he's the Freedom Fries Commissioner. I don't know why they keep leaving that exta word out of the announcements...

Plus I had assumed a website called "Work and wealth for All" would be a Marx approved source.

Oh wow at that website.

 

[Myansie]

Not at all. That's a pretty classic straw man. Misrepresenting my position.

I never said we should dissolve nation states. They might be evil, but they're definitely a necessary evil. The idea is to limit their power so they can't engage in bullshit, not to get rid of them all together.

That's a big improvement on your previous position.

Remember you voted for the party that has promised to increase military spending. This hard violent power is found on the right. The NDIS and Gonski can hardly be defined as violent government.

There isn't an absolute line between what is government and corporate power. The revolving door is alive and well, have a read into Turnbull's relationships with the current nbn board. Everything from running companies together (ozemail) to shared ownership of a yacht.

 

[Dryk]

There isn't an absolute line between what is government and corporate power. The revolving door is alive and well, have a read into Turnbull's relationships with the current nbn board. Everything from running companies together (ozemail) to shared ownership of a yacht.

They also just let themselves have shares in private companies while in office

 

[wonzo]

Plus I had assumed a website called "Work and wealth for All" would be a Marx approved source.

Nothing quite says Marx like Ronald Reagan quotes.

 

[Arksy]

Nothing quite says Marx like Ronald Reagan quotes.

LOL. Touche. My bad.

 

[Arksy]

Oops double