Society/Culture Gina Rinehart says "jealous" poor should have less fun/wants minimum wage cut

[Clay Davis]

In short, yes. I'll be the first to put my hand up and admit I'm not a billionaire, so in pure dollar terms I guess I fail. What other determinant of human worth is there in 2012, sooking on a footy forum about the price of petrol and your lot in life?

Is there a determinant of human worth?

If Gina Rinehart vanished tomorrow, I doubt anyone would miss her.

 

[RUNVS]

Is there a determinant of human worth?

If Gina Rinehart vanished tomorrow, I doubt anyone would miss her.

Tony Abbott would

 

[Contra Mundum]

A very articulate post. You've eloquently said nothing, and even took the time to make edits. Gina should add srp posters to her stop drinking, smoking, work harder campaign. Excuse me while I get back to work. I'll check back in later, in the meantime could you list 7 things everyone can do to initiate 'change'.

I'll get the ball rolling

1. Start a revolution

Ah yes whinge about people that debate on internet forums by debating on an internet forum. As for Gina she had a fair head start as against the average wage slave. I can't stand that St Hilda's Perth posh voice - I had a girlfriend who went to school there and its giving me bad memories!

Terry McCrann was doing his bit for fearless journalism today by saying people that have criticised her are intent on ruining the economy - fancy minimum wages and environmental regulations - its a conspiracy against Capital!

Terry never met a plutocrat he did not like (except for Mal Turnbull)

 

[Pessimistic]

Is there a determinant of human worth?

If Gina Rinehart vanished tomorrow, I doubt anyone would miss her.

She doenst even think her own relatives are deserving, so what chance do the poor have

Some people need reminding that in this country at least, theres plenty to go around

 

[Clay Davis]

Tony Abbott would

I doubt it, the public statements Rinehart has made is the best material the Labor party has had in years.

 

[Monniehawk]

I doubt it, these public statements Rinehart have made are the best material the Labor party has had in years.

Inclined to agree.

And I'm forced to work for an income less than a million dollars a year. Its the same rational (sic) you are using.
Wages are lower in Africa for the same work because there isn't the same capital in the economy.

Come on!
Key points.
1. Apples with economic apples, please.
The argument can't be the same when the amounts are so disparate.
There is more than a marginal difference between $2 a day ($730 p.a.) and a million a year!

2. Geographic apples.
"IN AFRICA"!
Gina wants Australia's economic and societal structure, but Africa's wages.
In Australia.
For Australians.
Other than her, of course!

Get it?

 

[Seeds]

Inclined to agree.

Come on!
Key points.
1. Apples with economic apples, please.
The argument can't be the same when the amounts are so disparate.
There is more than a marginal difference between $2 a day ($730 p.a.) and a million a year!

2. Geographic apples.
"IN AFRICA"!
Gina wants Australia's economic and societal structure, but Africa's wages.
In Australia.
For Australians.
Other than her, of course!

Get it?

The rational is the same. Africans earn much less because they have much less capital then we do. The same as we have less capital then what people 200 years from now will have. The real wage from the job I do today will be multiple times higher for a person doing it 200 years from now then the real wage I earn today. The reason is because the capital intensity of the overall economy will be higher and thus the demand for labour will be much higher. Saying Africans are "forced" to earn less because of their lack of capital is the same me saying I'm "forced" to earn less then my great grand children because their society will have more capital.

I really dislike Gina Rinehart, but lets not put words into her mouth. She didn't say she wants Australians to earn African wages. Shes stating that because we are competing with Africans with much lower wages, we can't justify having higher taxes too because we are already at a disadvantage on a cost basis before we even consider taxes. You can't make things ups.

 

[Tex_21]

Seeds - it's rationale. Rational is what the EMH claims investors are (which they are not)

 

[Seeds]

Seeds - it's rationale. Rational is what the EMH claims investors are (which they are not)

Grammar and spelling was never my strong point

 

[DivideandMultiply]

A very articulate post. You've eloquently said nothing, and even took the time to make edits. Gina should add srp posters to her stop drinking, smoking, work harder campaign. Excuse me while I get back to work. I'll check back in later, in the meantime could you list 7 things everyone can do to initiate 'change'.

I'll get the ball rolling

1. Start a revolution

Said nothing? Clearly you are trolling.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Yep. If they think it will give them a profit then yes. Problem is too many people with bad ideas don't realise their ideas are bad and in some cases good ideas are rejected because the bank isn't convinced they are good ideas.

I would suggest the situation is far more complicated than that. Banks have specific lending strategies targeted at certain market segments, some banks will not loan to businesses in certain industries, potentially profitable or not.

 

[Malifice]

I really dislike Gina Rinehart, but lets not put words into her mouth. She didn't say she wants Australians to earn African wages. Shes stating that because we are competing with Africans with much lower wages, we can't justify having higher taxes too because we are already at a disadvantage on a cost basis before we even consider taxes. You can't make things ups.

So what does Gina give up?

 

[Admiral Byng]

2. Geographic apples.
"IN AFRICA"!
Gina wants Australia's economic and societal structure, but Africa's wages.
In Australia.
For Australians.
Other than her, of course!

Seems like it. This special economic zone she is on about aims to achieve something like that - lower taxes, less environmental regulation, lower minimum wages inside that zone. Maybe not as drastic as what happens in Africa, but the sort of business environment where she can do as she pleases without having to submit to regulation. She makes it sounds like the regulation and approvals process around mining was set up as some kind of personal attack on her. Presumably she would live comfortably in the captial city in the non-special zones.

 

[Seeds]

So what does Gina give up?

Who said she was trying to give up anything. She is lobbying to make people hate taxes on mining by implying that it would lead to job losses if they go ahead. Shes not telling the government to pay Australians $2 a day as Gillard and posters on this board have suggested. Thats all I'm pointing out. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you can say they said stuff they didn't say.

 

[Seeds]

I doubt it, the public statements Rinehart has made is the best material the Labor party has had in years.

Really? I am not a Liberal party voter but the childish responses from Labour in recent days to Rineharts comments have just made themselves look stupid. How dumb does Labour think the Australian people are?

 

[Chief]

Yep. If they think it will give them a profit then yes. Problem is too many people with bad ideas don't realise their ideas are bad and in some cases good ideas are rejected because the bank isn't convinced they are good ideas.

Right now I know a guy who has been tearing his hair out trying to get an extension on a loan over a commercial property. It was stalled because the bank wanted interest cover of 1.5 - basically the income need to be 1.5 times the interest payments before they would give the extension (I'm no banker but that's how I understand it).

He's got a bit of money and is also buying a Ferrari 458.

The bank officer on the phone finally asked about the car, and immediately offered finance for it.

So, from that funder, he can get money for a $600,000 Ferrari which drops $50k as soon as he drives it off the lot, but not an income producing property.

This is the sort of ideas some banks consider "good", if only because of their current lending strategies.

 

[Clay Davis]

Really? I am not a Liberal party voter but the childish responses from Labour in recent days to Rineharts comments have just made themselves look stupid. How dumb does Labour think the Australian people are?

You sure you're not a Liberal voter?

The super rich, telling people that they should compete in a race to the bottom with the super poor, has never ever gone down well in any electorate on the planet. Abbott would be secretly wishing she'd STFU.

 

[Monniehawk]

The rational is the same. Africans earn much less because they have much less capital then we do. The same as we have less capital then what people 200 years from now will have. The real wage from the job I do today will be multiple times higher for a person doing it 200 years from now then the real wage I earn today. The reason is because the capital intensity of the overall economy will be higher and thus the demand for labour will be much higher. Saying Africans are "forced" to earn less because of their lack of capital is the same me saying I'm "forced" to earn less then my great grand children because their society will have more capital.

But you don't see the irony of the bolded?
Comparative situations? Comparative wealth?
Gina has used just that same shaky analogy. Basically, she is saying that Africans can live on $2 a day and s we should accept lower conditions.

I really dislike Gina Rinehart, but lets not put words into her mouth. She didn't say she wants Australians to earn African wages.

Not in so many words, but the comparison was deceitful because she is asking for selective elements in a foreign situation to be applied to (wait for it!!) a domestic situation that would substantially and almost exclusively profit herself!
Liking or not liking her is hardly the point. This isn't personal, it's philosophical. Do we apply the lowest standards as a matter of course? Do we follow the lowest standards to further benefit someone who has obscene wealth at the expense of a huge number of Australians?
And how does that benefit Australia as whole?

Shes stating that because we are competing with Africans with much lower wages, we can't justify having higher taxes too because we are already at a disadvantage on a cost basis before we even consider taxes. You can't make things ups.

But the ridiculous part about it is that she is actually claiming that!
(I'm still trying to work out how Africa is suddenly a huge threat to our economic growth. I mean, look at the two economies!)
She is asking for lower taxes and lower wages so she can better compete with situations in an isolated part of an insignificant market. This is selective argument at an extreme. It is arguing the lowest denominator as one factor and trying to apply it in a totally different and incongruous situation. For it to be valid, it must be a comparable situation. Apples with apples! It is patently not comparable, so her argument is even more dishonest because she knows that!
Why not compare us to Qatar, Sweden, United States?
Her analogy is slewed to push a personal agenda.
It is almost like arguing for lower standards of quality steel for Australia because Namibia has almost none and therefore we should lower ours.
If she is genuine, then maybe she should lower the price of her iron ore so that other countries can afford it!
It's just as silly an analogy as hers.

 

[Monniehawk]

So, from that funder, he can get money for a $600,000 Ferrari which drops $50k as soon as he drives it off the lot, but not an income producing pro
This is the sort of ideas some banks consider "good", if only because of their current lending strategies.

Try to borrow $2k in a loan from the bank. Not a chance.
They will refuse and offer you a $5k increased credit limit on your Visa.

Business may be business, but institutionalising such cynical banking practice is beyond the pale.
By any definition, I am a millionaire. I had clout when I recently confronted my bank over a 'fine' for a $4 shortfall when I paid my monthly account. The 'fee' was some 8 times the $4 oversight. They claimed it was standard banking practice, and legal, but would make an 'exception' in my case because I was a 'good customer'. I replied that I had been a 'good customer' for nearly 50 years and I hardly needed to be reminded. The bank certainly does!
I had threatened to move a couple of hefty accounts.
I later asked the manager what would happen to someone with a low economic situation and he hedged, "Oh we would examine it on a case by case situation". That's when he got an earful!
I am in the process of shifting my accounts to another bank.

 

[Monniehawk]

Grammar and spelling was never my strong point

Apols, Seeds. It was a cheap shot.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Who said she was trying to give up anything. She is lobbying to make people hate taxes on mining by implying that it would lead to job losses if they go ahead. Shes not telling the government to pay Australians $2 a day as Gillard and posters on this board have suggested. Thats all I'm pointing out. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you can say they said stuff they didn't say.

Nobody is actually suggesting that she wants us to work for literally $2 a day either.

Just that she wants generally lower minimum wages, lower tax and less regulation, otherwise herself and some other mining companies might choose to invest in West Africa for their next project rather than Australia.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Just that she wants generally lower minimum wages, lower tax and less regulation, otherwise herself and some other mining companies might choose to invest in West Africa for their next project rather than Australia.

Yep.

Just like they chose to leave Australia when uranium mining in Kakadu was banned, after shouting at the top of their lungs that such a decision would destroy the mining industry.

Same way they chose to leave Australia when elements of WorkChoices were repealed, after all the noise they made about how such actions would destroy the mining industry.

As they chose to leave Australia when the Mineral Resources Rent Tax was enacted, after having bought air time to cry on every media outlet in the country ad nauseum about how this would destroy the mining industry.

They'll be heading off any minute now. Just you wait and see.

 

[Gough]

Don't forget Mabo and Wik were going to destroy the mining industry too.

 

[Coledinho]

Anyone who says

"We need to be more like West Africa"

in any shape or form for mine is mentally unstable. I think she actually could have some mental problems, hence why her kids are now estranged from her. Not a great thought knowing that someone so batshit crazy will eventually be the richest person in the world.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

the childish responses from Labour in recent days to Rineharts comments have just made themselves look stupid. How dumb does Labour think the Australian people are?

I'm guessing not as dumb as the Coalition and Gina Rinehart seem to think we are.

Led in Federal Parliament by this guy...

the guy under whose leadership, the Coalition falsified its entire election policy platform at the last election, and the costings for that platform. The guy who stands up at the end of each Question Time and shrieks raucous and offensive abuse across the chamber for several minutes on end, every sitting day.

Who spoke clearly and unambiguously in favour of a straight-out tax to tackle carbon emissions, across various media platforms, then pretended otherwise days later, after becoming Coalition leader. Who propagates several different fictions and bare-faced lies about his political opponents every day.

Including the false claim that Gillard somehow didn't say she'd bring in a carbon price if elected, even though every major news outlet reported her dong so before the last election:

Julia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.

http://www.news.com.au/features/fed...se/story-fn5tar6a-1225907552000#ixzz1zAIFGjdB

The guy who seriously claimed that the prudent economic approach during the GFC would have been for us to follow New Zealand into recession. Who marches side by side with "Lord" Monckton, the fossil fuel, tobacco and gambling industries, openly propagates wildly dishonest and absurd fiction about climate science purely for personal gain, and goes suckholing to Gina Rinehart, Clive Palmer and Andrew Forrest on a regular basis, in return for which they bankroll the Coalition.

The leader of the party responsible for dishonestly creating an artificial astroturf "protest" movement, funded by these people. to trick people into believing there's somehow real opposition to action on global warming. A party responsible for fake shelf organisations like the "Consumers And Taxpayers Association", for example. And "CANdo". "Menzies House", the "Galileo Movement" and the "Lavoisier Group".

The guy who happily stood up as the major speaker at the head of the ugly "protests" the Coalition and its aforementioned financial backers created to foster the illusion of a real grassroots political campaign - stood up to be counted together with One Nation, the Lyndon LaRouche cult in Australia, and other disgusting elements, in front of absurd banners like "Ditch the Witch", "My Mom's Cold", "Bob Brown's Bitch", etc.

Who had the Coalition oppose plain packaging of cigarettes, because his party is the biggest beneficiary of tobacco industry "donations" in the world. Opposed gambling industry reform, because the Coalition benefit hugely from gambling industry money as well.

Who's been responsible for all sorts of straight-out fabrications about major policy issues, such as the BER, HIP, NBN, and carbon pricing, spruiking fake stats on immigration policy, fake debt numbers, fake cost estimates for various other government policy measures, and so on.

And then on particularly noteworthy political activities by Rinehart herself, apart from her embarrassing public statements and her sponsoring of Monckton in his recent and infamous tour of this country, there's her buy-in at Channel 10, followed by successful arm-twisting of Ten's board to ensure Andrew Bolt has his own show, which remains on the air seemingly in perpetuity, no matter how unpopular said show is.

Her buy-in at Fairfax, and attempts to bully the Board into scrapping the charter of independence, to allow her to turn Fairfax papers into political propaganda vehicles for her.

The plot exposed involving her, Monckton and various others, to "capture the entire Australian news media", and create an Australian version of Fox News...



Personally, I don't reckon these actions paint a particularly glowing picture of the esteem - or lack thereof - in which Gina Rinehart, Tony Abbott and the Liberal & National Parties hold the intelligence of Australians.

I am not a Liberal party voter but...

You'll excuse me for viewing this last comment especially with a truckload of cynicism, I'm sure