The state of the world.

Director

Valued Member
Premium Member
Mar 26, 2015
221
113
161
Was just reading through this:

http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2012...itical-language-and-the-european-debt-crisis/


And decided to post it here as I was quite impressed by the way he's explaining the current world situation. I'm impressed because what he is saying lines up pretty much exactly with what I see going an around me these days, here's a few snippets but if you have the time then it's worth reading the whole thing (IMO)

"Thus, “austerity packages” will then prepare the state and economy for the next phase, which, we are told, would make the country “competitive” and create “growth.” This is how the country would pay off its total debt, which deficits merely add to. This process is called “structural adjustment” (or “structural reform”) and it requires “competitiveness” to facilitate “growth.”
As we can loosely translate “austerity” into poverty, we may translate “structural adjustment” into exploitation. After all, nothing goes better with poverty than exploitation! How does “structural adjustment” become exploitation? Well through competitiveness and growth, of course! Structural adjustment means that the state liberalizes the economy, so everything is deregulated, all state-owned assets are privatized, like roads, hospitals, airports, rivers, water systems, minerals, resources, state-owned companies, services, etc. This, as the story goes, will encourage “investment” in the country when it “needs it most.” This idea suggests that foreign banks and corporations will enter the “market” and purchase all these wonderful things, explaining that they work better when they are “competitive” in the “free market,” and then with their new investments, they will create new industries, employ local people, revive the economy, and with the “trickle down” from the most productive and profitable, all of society will rise in living standards and opportunity.
But first, other “structural adjustment” measures must be simultaneously employed. One of the most important ones is called “labour flexibility.” This means that if you have protected wages, hours, benefits, pensions… well, now you don’t! If you are a member of a union, or engage in collective bargaining (which has at its disposal the threat of a strike), soon you won’t. This is done because, as the story goes, wages must be decreased to increase the competitiveness of the labour force. Simply put, if less money goes into labour during the process of production, what is ultimately being produced will be cheaper on “the market,” and thus, will become more attractive to potential buyers. Thus, with lower wages comes greater profits. ECB president Mario Draghi himself emphasized that the “structural reforms” which Europe needs are, “the product and services market reform,” and then “the labour market reform which takes different shapes in different countries.” He added that the point was “to make labour markets more flexible and also fairer than they are today.” Isn’t that nice? He wants to make labour markets “fairer.” What this means is that, since some countries have protections for various workers, this is unfair to the workers who have no protections, because, as Draghi explained, “in these countries there is a dual labour market: highly flexible for the young part of the population… [and] highly inflexible for the protected part of the population.” Thus, “labour markets at the present time are unfair in such a setting because they put all the weight of flexibility on the young part of the population.” So to make the labour markets “fair,” everyone should be equally exploitable, and thus, equally flexible."

"Labour flexibility will then help “specialize” your country in producing one or a few select goods, which you can produce better, cheaper, and more of than anywhere else. Then your economy will have success and the lives of all will prosper and grow… just not their wages. That is left to the “trickle down” from those whose wages are increased, the corporate, banking, and government executives and managers. That is because they take all the risk (remember, you are not risking anything when you passively accept your wages and standards of living to be rapidly decreased), and thus, they should get all of the reward. And because their rewards are so huge, large scraps will fall off of their table and onto the floor, which the wage-slaves below can fight over. By the laws of what I can only assume is “magic,” this will eventually lift the downtrodden from a life of poverty and labour and all will enjoy the fruits of being in a modern, technological, democratic-Capitalist paradise! Or so the fable goes.
The actual, predictable, and proven results of “structural adjustment” aimed at achieving “growth” through “competitiveness” is exploitation. The privatization of the economy allows foreign banks and corporations to come in and buy the entire economy, resources, commodities, infrastructure and wealth. Because the country is always in crisis when it does this, everything is sold very cheaply, pennies on the dollar kind of cheap. That is because the corporations and banks are doing the government and people a favour by investing in a country which is a large risk. The money the state gets from these sales is recorded as “revenue,” and helps reduce the yearly debt (deficit). The result for the people, however, is that mass layoffs take place, commodity prices increase, service costs increase, and thus, poverty increases. But privatization has benefits, remember; it encourages “competitiveness.” If everything was privatized, everyone would compete with each other to produce the best goods for the lowest costs, and everyone can subsequently prosper together in a society of abundance.
What actually takes place is that multinational corporations and banks, which already own most of the world’s resources, now own yours, too. This is not competitive, because they are ultimately all cartels, and collude together in exploiting vast resources and goods from around the world. They do compete in the sense of seeing which one can exploit, produce, and control more than the other. But at the bottom of this system, everyone else gets poorer. This is called “competitiveness,” but what it actually means is control. So if the economy needs to become more competitive, what is really being said is that it needs to come under more control, and of course, in private corporate and financial hands.

"The debt crisis followed the 2007-2009 financial crisis, erupting first with Greece, then Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Spain, and threatens even to spread elsewhere. Of those mentioned, only Italy has not received a bailout. Though whether “bailed out” or not, Europe’s people are being forced to undergo “austerity measures,” a political-economic euphemism for cutting social spending, welfare, social services, public sector jobs, and increased taxes. The aim, they are told, is to get their “fiscal house in order.” The people protest, and go out into the streets. The state responds by meeting the people with riot police, batons, tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets. This is called “restoring order.”
The effects of austerity are to increase poverty, unemployment, and misery. People are fired from the public sector, welfare and social benefits are reduced or lost, retirement ages are increased to keep people in the work force and off the pension system, which is also cut. Cuts to health care and education take a social and physical toll; as poverty increases the need for better health care, that very system is dismantled when it is needed most. Taxes are increased, and wages are decreased. People are deeper in debt, and destined for destitution. The objective, we are told, is to reduce public spending so that the government can reduce its deficit (the yearly debt).
In Europe, austerity has been the siren call of all the agencies, organizations, and individuals who represent the interests of elite financial control."
 

Director

Valued Member
Premium Member
Mar 26, 2015
221
113
161
"
This combination of austerity and adjustment amounts to a program and effect of social devastation. Thus, the words “structural adjustment program,” “restructuring,” and “default” in actuality translate into social genocide. These three terms provide further insight into their use: the class system is what is being restructured, as middle classes are wiped out and pushed into poverty, the poor are made destitute, and the elite become concentrated and in total control; the political and economic system is being adjusted to fit this restructuring; and the promise that people everywhere were told, that their leaders and society exists to serve their interests, is what is being defaulted on. The state does not default; it is the ‘social contract’ that is defaulted. Just as Mario Draghi told the Wall Street Journal, “the European social model has already gone… Fiscal consolidation is unavoidable in the present set up, and it buys time needed for the structural reforms.” Thus, social genocide.

As George Orwell wrote in his 1946 essay, “political language has to consist largely of euphemism,
question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.” But there remains intent and meaning behind the words that are used. When we translate the political language of the European debt crisis, it reveals a monstrous agenda of impoverishment and exploitation. Thus, we also see the necessity of political language for those who use it: one cannot argue openly for programs of impoverishment and exploitation for obvious reasons, so words like “fiscal consolidation” and “structural reform” are used, because they are vague and obscure."
 

Mark

Founder
Staff member
May 27, 2012
5,066
1,418
411
Bellmere, QLD
www.selfsufficientme.com
Climate
Sub-Tropical
That's pretty intense!

I can't get into a long and protracted debate on this subject because I don't have the brainpower but I will say I reckon the divide between the middle class and the very wealthy is rapidly increasing. I hate how some get insane amounts of money for doing a relatively small amount of work whilst others work 12 hour days for stuff all.

On the other hand, it annoys me greatly seeing crowds of unhealthy overweight people loitering around shopping malls or filling their day with booze and smokes instead of working (anywhere) or doing something useful for society.

It's the two extremes I find repulsive the knowing bludger and the undeserving ridiculously rich (actors come to mind) who are seen as elite simply because of their money. Those two groups need to be dealt with IMO and then we'll have a fairer distribution of money back to the middle class who by enlarge just want to be comfortable enough not to worry about affording the basics and really just want to live a good, healthy, happy, earthly, life. :)
 

Director

Valued Member
Premium Member
Mar 26, 2015
221
113
161
Yeah equality is not on the agenda. Movie stars are little fish compared to the big boys. But that article was very accessible for people who can see what's going on around us but can't explain it or don't have the time to do the research themselves. Only together can we change the course that we are on but most people (IMO) while hating the situation are too afraid to actually do anything different at the ballot box to stop it, so all we can do is be aware and use the information we currently have access to in order to inform the way we lead our own lives I guess. :)
 

stevo

nativebeehives.com
Premium Member
GOLD
Jun 13, 2013
1,780
667
361
Clontarf, Qld
nativebeehives.com
Climate
Sub-Tropical
I reckon the divide between the middle class and the very wealthy is rapidly increasing. I hate how some get insane amounts of money for doing a relatively small amount of work whilst others work 12 hour days for stuff all.
yer, being in very small business we make stuff all money, just enough to pay bills but we do live ok, I drive an old car and there's no money for new cars. Sure I can still buy my gadgets so I think I'm doing ok. What annoys me is how much profit the big companies make. They panic when they only make a few million in profit and have to put their prices up. They say the average wage is $75,000 ? well I don't know anyone getting that kind of money. I think anyone on that money shouldn't be getting any allowances from the government.... ooops I'm starting to rant :ROFL:
 

Mark

Founder
Staff member
May 27, 2012
5,066
1,418
411
Bellmere, QLD
www.selfsufficientme.com
Climate
Sub-Tropical
I don't think there's a conscious conspiracy to drive the poor into destitute and the middle class into poor just so a small few super rich can rule the world it's just that's one of the flaws of capitalism - greed, power, and the need for even more. Capitalism is good if it is hybrid with socialism :)

The problems we are facing is not how everyone can one day can be wealthy it's ensuring everyone no matter their income can afford the basics: education, medical, energy, shelter, food, etc. Unfortunately, the 1% have gotten their paws into these basics and are exploiting the rest of us and these 1% lunatics are happy to increase the costs of these basics in order to fund their next jet or seaside mansion just to be one up on their peers.

I have no gripe with the filthy rich who make their billions out of discretionary products or services (I would be one if I could... even actors) but those who are mega yachting around the globe off the back of essential services and basic human commodities needed for a decent life should be exposed for who they are: criminals.

Capitalism should mean people getting rich through hard work and great ideas. If these people get richer because the poor and middle classes standard of living improves through good policy meaning they have more to spend on the latest car or phone then that's the society I want. However, is seems the opposite is happening with more people having less to spend due to the rising cost of basic living expenses with the top 1% grasping all the chips and not knowing what to do with their wads of cash.
 

Ash

Valued Member
Premium Member
Mar 26, 2015
679
303
281
Preston, QLD
asmedical.webege.com
Climate
Temperate (all seasons)
There are a number of aspects to the problems created by governments with hard core 'austerity measures'. The specialisation of primary industry is another way of globalising the EU economy but will then filter down to the rest of the world. This would increase international interdependence, which is a recipe for disaster when real disaster does strike - natural and man-made (especially war and broken down international relations!).

The Russians are firmer about such policies and are clear to the world that they don't need the rest of the world for them to get by, and their own self-sufficiency as a nation (a communist one at that) is quite enviable. China isn't far behind their degree of self-sufficiency, but they treat their people a lot worse. Australia has a chance at being a shining light as a democratic nation that will thrive regardless of the world economy or international relations. I do forsee, though, that the leaders may be bowing down to international pressure and we may lose a grip on basics like primary production and industry, which I don't think is a good outcome in the long term.

As for world domination, there is a lot to be said about the select elite, particularly the Rockefellers and the Rothschild group, who are responsible for much of what happens at high level discussions because of their financial prowess. My wife believes they are at least partially to blame for much of the economic divide and recent GFCs. These guys don't have the public profile of movie stars to be in the spotlight about their wealth, but it only takes a few clicks on the internet to see their influence around the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Director and stevo

Mark

Founder
Staff member
May 27, 2012
5,066
1,418
411
Bellmere, QLD
www.selfsufficientme.com
Climate
Sub-Tropical
Rockefellers and the Rothschild group
Weren't these guys painted as turning good a few years back by denouncing fossil fuels? Probably a bit late hey... :D

Country self-sufficiency is a good point to bring up because there's not much difference in principle between a backyard and a country when it comes to self-sufficiency and why it's more than handy to have a productive property!
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevo

Director

Valued Member
Premium Member
Mar 26, 2015
221
113
161
Weren't these guys painted as turning good a few years back by denouncing fossil fuels? Probably a bit late hey... :D
Especially as they were the ones who scuttled the bio-fuel industry at the emergence of the fossil fuel industry (that they owned). The original Model-T would run on pure ethanol as well as petrol.

Country self-sufficiency is a good point to bring up because there's not much difference in principle between a backyard and a country when it comes to self-sufficiency and why it's more than handy to have a productive property!
Agree completely. The powers that shouldn't be have a dastardly plan for centralisation however. We see that in most policy decisions that 'force' people to live in cities (no manufacturing left, decentralised or otherwise, farming discouraged through taxes, fees and hostile banks except for a few ginourmous industrial type enterprises). Self-sufficiency, getting along with your neighbours and other form of non-violent resistance are our best weapons.
 
Last edited:

Ash

Valued Member
Premium Member
Mar 26, 2015
679
303
281
Preston, QLD
asmedical.webege.com
Climate
Temperate (all seasons)
Self-sufficiency, getting along with your neighbours and other form of non-violent resistance are our best weapons.
That's the ticket, and with getting along with neighbours comes an effective bartering system that supports the notion of doing self-sufficiency in at least one thing, which is supported by others who are self-sufficient in other things.
 

Tim C

Two heads are better than one
Premium Member
GOLD
Aug 6, 2014
445
153
176
Yep. When the fit hits the shan, and the "network" crashes, it will be only those with the knowledge to, who will survive. That's us. I try to print EVERYTHING, just in case....
This system we are oppressed by is Penal-capitalism. The criminalisation of society for profit. Whilst there is a "network" we have absolutely no use for politicians whatsoever. They are an expensive, un-necessary burden on us all. Voluntary Citizen Initiated Referenda should replace this echelon of ingrained PARASITES.
Said parasites aspire to Seppo-Capitalism, the further widening of the disparity. They are not satisfied with 15% having 85%of the money, they aspire to 3% having 97% of the money.
The government used to employ mainly trade-skilled and academic experts. Now it is populated by propagandists. The major and essential services sold off, to profit, for profit. Not our profit.

NO way, Jose. Storm the Bastille. String ém up.
Cuba and France are the social democracies we should aspire to. Not Seppo-land and its' bastardry of dog-eat-dog.
Get the Army engineers building country houses and decentralise population and industry. Not only will this house the poor, cause employment and generate local economy, it will give the young role models to aspire to, and serious consideration for a career in the forces.
Compulsorily re-acquire all banking services under the RBA banner, God knows these parasites already have their pound of flesh......and give low income earners zero interest loans to get into their own house, and take pride in it and themselves.
Pride is lacking, self worth nearly non-existent. Society has been dumbed down and eroded by policy and politics.
Industry needs to be rebuilt from the ground up in the regions, where it has been totally removed by the bastardry and greed of politics.

So, in conclusion: De-centralise, de-criminalise, de-mandatorise. Regulate and susidise. De-politicise.
And return government to its' proper responsibilites to the people of Australia.
 

Director

Valued Member
Premium Member
Mar 26, 2015
221
113
161
Yeah I agree with your assessment but I'm a bit confused about your solution. :)

De-centralise
Yep, good idea but it's against the Orwellian and Fabian principles of centralised populations and therefore centralised control. So unless the people take control it wont happen.

de-criminalise
I think I agree...but decriminalise what? If you mean victimless crimes and the harmful so-called 'war on drugs' then yes I agree. There was an article today about coppas at Noosa wasting resources fining (taxing) the locals for being naked at the local nudist beach. Apparantly it's been an 'unofficial' nudist beach for ever but because ze papervork is not in place they gives them license to harass and tax. Meanwhile...**** and murder.

de-mandatorise.
De Mandatorise what?

Regulate and susidise.
Nope. History (and the present) show that government regulation is never balanced and causes more problems than what is saves. And ANY subsides usually mean more tax on the three people left who have full time jobs. Now incentivising by reduce tax rates would be a much better idea.

The banks don't need to be (and lets face it, wont be) reacquired, as they are effectively under the control of the global 'reserve system'. What we DO need, and what mobs like the CEC campaign for is a return to a Glass-Steagal type of legislation that separate a banks banking activities from the insatiable gambling on the international derivatives markets. Because when that house of card crumbles then so will your savings, look at Cyprus for the case in point. The FSB is already having the bail-in legislation written into a lot of countries laws in preparation for the zombie apocalypse. Having said that there is a place for another commonwealth type bank like the old one was before it was hijacked and there is place for the gubment to start producing our own credit instead of borrowing it from the global ponzi scheme.

De-politicise.
And return government to its' proper responsibilites to the people of Australia.
The people of Australia are not ready for such responsibility, lets face it, if they still vote for the liblab paradigm despite their own constant complaints in between elections then what hope do we have? Most people I talk to actually believe that we are a democracy just because we get to pick which bunch of idiots gets to boss us around for the next 4 years. Reminds me of this clip.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark

Tim C

Two heads are better than one
Premium Member
GOLD
Aug 6, 2014
445
153
176
Hi Director. De mandatorise everything. No fines. No Rego. No compulsory or mandatory sentencing or reporting is what I was particularly referring to. Let judges do their jobs. Let doctors and health professionals do their job without being compelled to force incarceration or fine for fear of being incarcerated or fined themselves.
Australia should not become a country of paranoid, eternally malcontented dobbers. It was only 70 years ago that nearly NONE of these things existed. They are idealistic machinations of corporate capitalism.
Have you heard the story about the man trading leather discs for chickens? Your example above shows the sinister propagandism that is used to subdue us, yet you profess that humanity is too stupid to look after itself, so needs these bods? I will state the the goodness of humanity will prevail, except where it is bastardised by politics, disparity and oppression. The longer these parasites brainwash the lemmings, the less likely the lemming are to ever make their own.....ANYTHING.
Regulation and subsidy are second choice to an open market. But when said market is slanted from all directions, in all directions, through rightful self-interest of individual countries, then the main market we should concern ourselves with supporting is our own. No cost is too high to change the status quo. The escalating unemployment and terroristic dismantling of industry by elitists is to be reversed AT ANY COST.
I hope that has cleared up my opinions for ya bloke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark

Director

Valued Member
Premium Member
Mar 26, 2015
221
113
161
The longer these parasites brainwash the lemmings, the less likely the lemming are to ever make their own.....ANYTHING.
Yes. That's what I was alluding to. :) (But they NEVER change their vote, ever, so what am I to make of that?)

And yes again, 'rego' and drivers licences are unconstitutional 'taxes'. But then as the 'Australia act' has unlawfully usurped the constitution anyway no body is the wiser...expect for us kooks and loonies of course.

No cost is too high to change the status quo. The escalating unemployment and terroristic dismantling of industry by elitists is to be reversed AT ANY COST.
Sure, but it's past the point of merely throwing money at stuff hoping that will fix everything. WE have no manufacturing left (practically) anyway so what do we have to compete with other places? Iron ore? Uranium? Cheap land and housing which should be protected for the local population anyway? We have suffered a massive brain-drain as well as there is no place for qualified, motivated people here except for small pockets here and there. All education should be free for residents and paid by non-residents. Industry and science (real practical science I mean) should be sponsored with tax breaks or funded with government-created no-interest credit. There should be NO government debt, period.


I hope that has cleared up my opinions for ya bloke.
Yup. Thanks. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark

Tim C

Two heads are better than one
Premium Member
GOLD
Aug 6, 2014
445
153
176
Another big thing is the collusion between the High Court and Canberra regarding interference in politicians criminalising us for money. This collusion has existed since...you guessed it, the early 80's....Make of that what you will.. I sure as hell know what I make of it.:) The criminalisation of Australia for profit. We are being well and truly sod omised by the politicians and the courts.
Coincides with the demise of solar vehicle research in Australia, the winding back of industry and employment and the shift to the global ponzi scheme.
Convert your digital currency to gold, and cash in your super. What super isn't eaten up in fees will be compulsorily acquired next GFC. Mark my words.
 

Director

Valued Member
Premium Member
Mar 26, 2015
221
113
161
Can we even do that?

Cash in our super that is?

And yes, the judiciary is all part of the game, forcing obedience rather than dispensing justice.
 

Tim C

Two heads are better than one
Premium Member
GOLD
Aug 6, 2014
445
153
176
Only if you can prove extreme hardship, or are leaving Australia permanently. The way things are going, we will all probably be doing both, but by then it will be too late.
 

Director

Valued Member
Premium Member
Mar 26, 2015
221
113
161
Yeah I thought it was something like that. The Ferengi rules of acquisition #1 "Once you have their money, NEVER give it back".
 

Tim C

Two heads are better than one
Premium Member
GOLD
Aug 6, 2014
445
153
176
Julie Bishop could be a Ferengi, I reckon..just had facelift.:ROFL: