|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
14 August 2009 Thought for the Week:
Goldman Sachs has recovered quite nicely from the recession they helped create. They’ve paid back the bailout money already, and freed from the strings that came with it, they’re rewarding themselves for their business prowess with executive compensation above pre-crash levels. How did they do it? By being smarter than the other banks. Oh, it’s not that they didn’t play the same risky game with mortgage-backed securities and derivatives; they just saw the disaster coming before everyone else did and passed off their toxic assets to less prescient investors. To the victor the spoils.
What’s especially troubling about all this is that neither they nor the government seems to have learned anything. So far the Wall Streeters in the Obama administration have shown little interest in actually fixing the system… Without strict limits on how much these robber barons can help themselves to, the temptation to rig the game once more will be too great, and another economic meltdown is inevitable. What Recession? It’s this kind of scenario that made the oligarchs so despised in Russia.
- - Ed Stein| July 18th, 2009 / LINKS ReporterNotebook
'These blatantly inflated bonuses are just the last in a litany of abuses by those same profligate banks that nearly destroyed our economic system. If the derivatives on their books were "marked to market" (valued at what they would fetch on the market), the banks would be bankrupt, and their employees would be out of a job.
Many people feel that these bankers are thieves stealing from the public till who should be looking at jail time. But who is there to stop their parade of outrages? No one in Congress, the White House, or the news media is calling them on the carpet for it. As Senator Dick Durbin said recently, Wall Street owns Congress; and that is also true of the major media.
- - Ellen Brown in 'The Public Option in Banking: How We Can Beat Wall Street at Its Own Game https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/the-public-option-in-bank_b_252161.html
BATTLE LINES DRAWN BY SHADOW BOXER
by James Reed
Abbott portrays himself as a ‘tough guy’ (the Oxford boxing and all that – although he looks like a middle weight, not a heavy weight). In his new book “Battle Lines” he sets out his neo-Howard liberal philosophy and basically makes his case for being PM material. This is the man that Howard set on Pauline Hanson. Abbott, like Rudd, and like all of them, is a big immigration man. He probably endorses the Asianisation of Australia – there is nothing to indicate otherwise.
As a Catholic I wonder how he feels about the inevitable destruction of the Catholic Church’s influence through mass migration? Even the high rates of intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants in Australia (see G. Heard et. al, “Intermarriage by Religion in Australia” People and Place, vol.17, 2009) will erode the traditional distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism. As a conservative Catholic, I wonder what Abbott thinks about that?
DEBUNKING ECONOMICS: THEORETICAL INCOHERENCE
by Chris Knight
Keen’s case is made, firstly in his book “Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences” (Pluto Press, 2001) which sums up the multitude of criticisms made by mathematically informed economists so the ultimate attack is decisive. Standard economic forecasts, based on the Standard Models, fail because they are based on false assumptions. As for financial instability, Keen has developed work done by economist Hyman Minsky, who developed a financial instability hypothesis that posits that a spiralling debt to GDP ratio can cause deflation and depression.
For those who like the taste of differential equations read his "The Circuit Theory of Endogenous Money". Common sense alone indicates that Keen is right: that crushing levels of debt relative to GDP (ie. productive capacity) literally suck out the juices of the economy. Large debt means large unemployment and deleveraging in such a financial climate ultimately puts corporations on the road to collapse.
Social Crediters have made the same observations but have presented a more comprehensive model for social regeneration than Keen. Nevertheless, it is good to see an economist take on orthodoxy. Also, I take to task the housing and building industry, which has fuelled Australia’s post-World War II immigration madness. Bring on the crash!
THE REAL ISSUE IS POLICY
by Betty Luks
The intention of a government bank was clearly captured by Chifley’s close political ally John Curtin in a 1937 speech in Fremantle:
“Three related monetary measures are necessary,” John Curtin said,
In 2001, the CEC published its book, "What Australia Must Do to Survive the Depression," that contains ready-to-enact legislation for a new Commonwealth National Credit Bank which would shift the control of monetary policy out of the hands of the private banks and put it in the hands of elected government, as specified in the old Labor Party policy.”
Policy is what counts:
Ownership of a central or national bank is not the real issue – it is the policy that counts. Here in Australia it is the Reserve Bank that sets policy and we all know that the Reserve Bank does not brook political interference. In other words, the policy is determined by other than the government of the day.
Another suggestion - what could be:
But the power to create, issue, charge for and control, the nation’s financial system would be taken away from them. That power belongs to the people as a whole, therefore, it is a public utility and through a National Credit (Equation of Consumption to Production) Act would operate for the benefit of the people. – not the private bankers.
What if the bankers refuse to co-operate or sabotage the scheme?
P.S. I am fully aware of Douglas’ advice that a second rate expert should not tell a first rate expert how to do the job, I am only putting forward ideas. It is the policy that is important. It is then up to our political representatives (not those in the pockets of the bankers) to see the policy is carried out. It would be their task to ensure they got the best experts in their various fields to carry out our demands.
Important CDs for further understanding:
CLOSING DOWN PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENTS: WHY STOP THERE!
by James Reed
Priest thinks that contradictions can be true: that a paradoxical statement and its denial are both true. He has argued that motion involves contradictions. I know this because I looked up his work via a Google search. Could it not be that the redundant staff still exist, but in a contradictory state? If the philosophy department was eliminated – only six to go – perhaps the department both exists and not exists?
Who cares anyway? Philosophy as an academic discipline is useless. It doesn’t even contribute much to the cause of political correctness because philosophers are so mad about argument and logic – hoping that the whole game never gets off the ground. Philosophy has long ceased to be of any interest to the ordinary people and students are finding it a bore. I say let us put philosophy as an academic discipline out of its misery and close down all the departments in Australia. Replace them with departments of social credit!
EVEN RABBIS FEEL THE STING OF GRAFT
by Betty Luks
And then we have our trafficker in human body parts, “the kidney salesman”, who preyed on people in Israel to get them to sell their kidneys for as little as US$10,000 while he sold the kidneys to transplant patients in the US for US$160,000. He had been in this line of business for a decade! Don’t hold your breath waiting for Hollywood to make a movie out of all this !
Back in Australia, the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal has struck off disgraced former judge Marcus Einfeld, finding him not a fit and proper person to practice law. (The Australian 24/7/09 p.3) This is an interesting ending for a champion of political correctness.
WHAT ! JEWISH LAW COMES FIRST ?
by Betty Luks
The NSW Supreme Court held that “the balance of convenience favours this dispute being determined by a Jewish tribunal in accordance with Jewish law.” The court rejected the argument against this that the Jewish principle of life tenure “could not overwrite the ability on the part of the employer to make a position redundant,” particularly where that might lead to the synagogue trading “while insolvent, which is a breach of the Corporations Law” (The Australian, 1/4/09, p.5).
This seems to place the synagogue in the position of having to go into administration. If so, I believe that Rabbi Gutnick will have to wait in line while the administrator sorts out the liabilities. The court’s decision, in my opinion, is flawed and it does not follow that Rabbi Gutnick is “not an ordinary employee because of the spiritual nature of his employment.” Where does it say that “spiritual nature(s)” matter in employment relations? Would the court’s decision be the same if they were deciding a parallel matter involving a Christian minister? What precedent has been set?
SOCIALLY CONSTRUCT THIS !
by Brian Simpson
The idea of the philosophy behind postmodernism is to grand slam reason so that people willingly accept left-wing values and causes. Thus, even though there are no objective (let alone absolute) values, for some never disclosed “reason”, one should support minorities – coloured people, gays, the disabled etc. But why should this be so? If there is no objective truth then there is no more reason for siding with the politically correct than there is for, say, siding with neo-Nazis, Luddites, or even – perish the thought – deep green vegetarians.
Postmodernists like to think that they are being “cool” through raising sceptical doubts about science and truth. Well how about carrying this program through to its logical conclusion? If “reality” is a myth, created by the “social brain” then history is also a myth. But if there is no objective history, then all historical events are also mythical. However, the Holocaust is a historical event. So postmodernism in deconstructing historical truth, must also socially construct the Holocaust (as well as women’s rights, gay rights etc.) This amounts to a radical rejection of the historicity of the Holocaust. So postmodernism is revealed as being a form of Holocaust revisionism.
This shocking result should be taken as a good “reason” (in a politically correct sense) for shutting down cultural studies and associated postmodernist disciplines, which could provide philosophical comfort to far right fringe dwellers.
IS THE LEGAL SYSTEM OUT OF CONTROL?
by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Crier argues that the rule of law “has become a source of power and influence, not liberty and justice” (p.5). First off, she laments about the massive awards delivered in some celebrated American tort/personal injury cases – one accident at an amusement park that led to a girl dying of burns injuries – led to an award of US$1.2 billion. Excessive she says (p.9). Tobacco litigation is in her opinion “ridiculous” for illegal drug users go to prison but “cigarette addicts get money instead” (p.10).
I am not impressed by these arguments as some type of critique of lawyers. We can grant that the accident case yielding $1.2 billion is excessive but only because we have come to value money over a life and are quite prepared to put a low monetary value on a life.
The comparison between cigarette smokers and illegal drug users does not hold because illegal drug users have not been able to promote their products through manipulative advertisements and, after all, tobacco is legal, not illegal.
Philip K. Howard in "The Death of Common Sense", an earlier published book, covers much the same ground as Crier’s "The Case Against Lawyers". In my opinion it is a better argued book because Howard begins his discussion with the real legal problem of modern society: the massive bureaucracy and regulations and laws that run modern life, crush freedom and individual creativity, resulting in what sociologist Max Weber described as the “iron cage of capitalism”. Crier does mention this problem throughout her book, but she puts the blame on lawyers per se.
The growth of laws and bureaucracy in modern society is a dual product of population expansion and centralisation. More people means informality goes. Once upon a time one could leave one’s car unlocked, but today we need electronic security alarms.
In conclusion, blaming lawyers for the expansion of oppressive laws is a rather superficial critique. The “problem of law” is just another version of the “problem of economics” discussed weekly in these pages and has the same origin and solution.
THE MORAL COMPASS OF LAWYERING
by Ian Wilson LL.B.
This is what makes facing litigation in an adversarial system so terrifying for many people. The answer though is not to swap to a continental inquisitorial system where a judge has an investigatory role. Zitrin and Langford are concerned about the state of the American legal system and in the final chapter of their book, discuss how the system can be fixed through changes in the legal education system (law schools), changes in law firms, legal institutions and changes to the rules of the professions. I agree that all of this needs change but it wont happen in my lifetime. They mention the issue of public participation – that the general public should participate more in professional legal groups such as ethics committees and disciplinary boards – but they neglect or perhaps do not agree with what I think is the key to this matter.
Ordinary people need to get better knowledge about the legal system. In my opinion, most people know less about the legal system and the legal way of thinking than they do of hard physical science. Freedom movement types, for example, have a rough bush lawyer attitude that is worse than ignorance. An ignorant but humble person would seek help but over the years these bush lawyers have pursued hopeless cases where a little bit of professional advice would have put them straight in the beginning. With big egos they went into battle thinking they were Perry Mason – and lost.
The secret of law is that the legal system is only as good as the society that it is found in. The breakdown discussed by Zitrin and Langford in their book arises because our society and civilisation is in a process of decomposition. The legal system is just the ‘rules of the game’ and is in no way immune from the forces of decadence, disease and decay. If we wish to revitalise our legal system, we must first revitalise our society and economy.
TIME TO END THE DISASTROUS FAMILY LAW ACT
by Ian Wilson LL.B.
Suffer the children: about one in five children live in single-parent households in Australia and 90% of these households have a female as head. The flight of the father: the fathers have left, often avoiding the child support agency by cash-in-hand work. These mothers survive on Centrelink benefits.
A review of the Family Law Act will take place later this year. It is time to re-establish fault in divorce. The so-called Whitlamesque revolution has been a social disaster, especially for women and children.
ADVANCE NOTICE: OCTOBER NATIONAL WEEKEND
Supporters need to know the location and venue for the National Weekend has been changed. Horsham, Victoria will be the host city for this year.
Wimmera Lakes Caravan Resort Caravan Park:
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|