The Fabian formula of ‘gradual’ change appealed to the socialists, because it worked, over time. It takes ‘time' to change people’s minds about things they’ve traditionally done for long periods of time. By this same process, Governments develop and hold on to policies for no damn reason, often for ages, way past when they should have been dropped because they are too scared to rock the political boat for fear of losing votes.
My sense is that more than good luck would be required to shift even small elements of your full manifesto of proposed changes. By the same token it seems certain that we have been holding on for far too long, many of our traditional alliances for reasons we clearly can no longer justify.
When our strongest strategic ally, for instance, led by their most popularly elected President in history, has difficulty stringing coherent thoughts together in a simple sentence and often does not seem to know where he is or what it is he is supposed to be doing, we are the foolish, if we are not questioning what we are doing in this kind of relationship. As they say, “With ‘friends' like this…"
On the other hand, one thing we learn from history, is that we do not really learn from our historical mistakes. Take Nationalised Banking for instance. We’ve tried this before, only to learn that governments are not better at running businesses than truly free, competitive enterprises!
Remove some of our Banking’s legislated, monopolistic advantages and we’d soon see them having to cut their cloth to suit. They would have to start running their business models on a much leaner and more competitive edge than they currently do!
In fact most of today’s inequities may be traced back to big businesses having too much market power for society’s good! Keeping all businesses lean, mean and competitive, is the solution to providing sharper service and better all round outcomes for the paying consumer than any other form of service delivery known to man. Much the same idea also applies to big government!
These are some of my first impressions of your “Opinion piece.” Most of your opinions are those with which I totally concur. Take this one for instance, "FREE JULIAN ASSANGE. He is our fellow Aussie” I agree, that is a must - a top priority!
Wouldn’t it be good if we had an Aussie politician with a backbone who would go in to bat for this bloke. Assange has contemptibly been abused at the hands of “Our Allies?” Who is looking out for us?
You have a very charitable way of describing Joe Biden. Haha.
"My sense is that more than good luck would be required to shift even small elements of your full manifesto of proposed changes." -- I agree.
Re: Bank nationalisation, what was the problem previously?
Re: Julian Assange, yes we are on the same side. He has been tortured. Former PM Bob Carr even insisted that the only thing PM Albanese needs to do is ask Joe Biden and to leverage Pine Gap!
My first reaction is that it is not so much a case of what is wrong with nationalising Banks as a question of why governments ever should become involved in any sort of general commerce or trade, in the first place. It has been 75 years since an Australian Labor Party proposed privatising Australian Banks. Since then they have remained convinced Bank privatisation was not their way for the future!
Australia’s greatest current concern, is keeping Australian enterprises in Australian hands. How can it be in our Nation’s best interests if hypothetically, China became the biggest shareholder in say, The Commonwealth Bank for instance?
The other great concern about banking is the growing proposals emanating from the globalists for a Central Bank Digital Currency. We need to urgently consider our options in this respect, before we are bundled into something we end up greatly regretting.
Would nationalising Banks solve any of these concerns?
The Fabian formula of ‘gradual’ change appealed to the socialists, because it worked, over time. It takes ‘time' to change people’s minds about things they’ve traditionally done for long periods of time. By this same process, Governments develop and hold on to policies for no damn reason, often for ages, way past when they should have been dropped because they are too scared to rock the political boat for fear of losing votes.
My sense is that more than good luck would be required to shift even small elements of your full manifesto of proposed changes. By the same token it seems certain that we have been holding on for far too long, many of our traditional alliances for reasons we clearly can no longer justify.
When our strongest strategic ally, for instance, led by their most popularly elected President in history, has difficulty stringing coherent thoughts together in a simple sentence and often does not seem to know where he is or what it is he is supposed to be doing, we are the foolish, if we are not questioning what we are doing in this kind of relationship. As they say, “With ‘friends' like this…"
On the other hand, one thing we learn from history, is that we do not really learn from our historical mistakes. Take Nationalised Banking for instance. We’ve tried this before, only to learn that governments are not better at running businesses than truly free, competitive enterprises!
Remove some of our Banking’s legislated, monopolistic advantages and we’d soon see them having to cut their cloth to suit. They would have to start running their business models on a much leaner and more competitive edge than they currently do!
In fact most of today’s inequities may be traced back to big businesses having too much market power for society’s good! Keeping all businesses lean, mean and competitive, is the solution to providing sharper service and better all round outcomes for the paying consumer than any other form of service delivery known to man. Much the same idea also applies to big government!
These are some of my first impressions of your “Opinion piece.” Most of your opinions are those with which I totally concur. Take this one for instance, "FREE JULIAN ASSANGE. He is our fellow Aussie” I agree, that is a must - a top priority!
Wouldn’t it be good if we had an Aussie politician with a backbone who would go in to bat for this bloke. Assange has contemptibly been abused at the hands of “Our Allies?” Who is looking out for us?
Thanks for your detailed comment.
You have a very charitable way of describing Joe Biden. Haha.
"My sense is that more than good luck would be required to shift even small elements of your full manifesto of proposed changes." -- I agree.
Re: Bank nationalisation, what was the problem previously?
Re: Julian Assange, yes we are on the same side. He has been tortured. Former PM Bob Carr even insisted that the only thing PM Albanese needs to do is ask Joe Biden and to leverage Pine Gap!
My first reaction is that it is not so much a case of what is wrong with nationalising Banks as a question of why governments ever should become involved in any sort of general commerce or trade, in the first place. It has been 75 years since an Australian Labor Party proposed privatising Australian Banks. Since then they have remained convinced Bank privatisation was not their way for the future!
Australia’s greatest current concern, is keeping Australian enterprises in Australian hands. How can it be in our Nation’s best interests if hypothetically, China became the biggest shareholder in say, The Commonwealth Bank for instance?
The other great concern about banking is the growing proposals emanating from the globalists for a Central Bank Digital Currency. We need to urgently consider our options in this respect, before we are bundled into something we end up greatly regretting.
Would nationalising Banks solve any of these concerns?