My apologies for any inconvenience caused by the inadvertent untruth published below.
Gerard has said we need Gina Rinehart and it is right she get thirty thousand dollars a minute for her work. Though she earns in two minutes what many Australians earn in a year she must be encouraged to do whatever she does with even more money, he says. It is well known that no-one else could find the minerals she has found, nor wield a shovel half as big as hers.
What is he saying? That if her income were reduced to, say, one thousand dollars a minute, that is, ten million and eighty thousand dollars a week, she would flounce off and find minerals somewhere else? And nobody else would be able to find them here? A union consortium headed by Paul Howes, perhaps? Not be able to find them here, and dig them up here?
What is he saying?
It’s very peculiar thing to say.
I am available to replace him at a moment’s notice, on half his wage.
Name:
What are you suggesting Bob? That we compulsorily acquire her business and hand the land over to a union co-op? How many early openers have you hit this morning? If you want some examples of why that doesnt work please go and have a look what happened when the peruvian government handed over its large agricultural farms to local co-ops in the 1970s. It crippled the economy, sent beautiful towns into poverty and destroyed natural heritage. If you want to re-distribute some wealth, please be more intelligent, creative and thoughtful. Your current proposition is about as lazy as they get and is suggestive of a hangover. Do you want a nurofen?
So.. no-one but Gina … knows how to dig a hole in the ground?
Is that it?
How about her third in command? Or Brant Webb?
Please confirm that you believe she deserves two million dollars an hour for digging up stuff that we, the people, own.
A yes or no will do.
I was last in an early opener in 1966.
Do not tell lies about me.
Address the argument, please.
If you want me to address your argument at least address my initial point. What are you suggesting that we do Bob? Compulsorily acquire her business and hand it over to the unions? Can I assume that is your proposal?
Please cite an example of where this has worked.
Assuming that is your proposal, are you then telling us that you dont believe in the rule of law? A government can just decide when someone gets too big and cut them down at the knees? This is a dangerous precedent and as I previously mentioned is typically reserved for despot leaders pushing socialist agendas that are actually designed to line their own pockets.
I challenged you to be creative and come up with something sensible and real that we can have a debate it.
You have failed.
Please answer this.
Address the argument please.
Hi WK, you make a very good point, please extrapolate on the similarities of the Peruvian Economy of the 1970′s with our illustrious current Australian economy, I can see how they are very much alike, but you obviously have the detail at your fingertips, not like that lazy Ellis guy.
They aren’t the same allthumbs. But I think what occured in peru following the agrarian reform package of 1969 is a pretty comprehensive lesson for why compulsory acquisition of agricultural (read mining) assets and their distribution to worker based co-ops results in less jobs, less economic activity and in the end a bad result for the nation.
If you have an example of where this has worked then please let me know. I am sure you have this at your fingertips.
Why are we not paying Alan Joyce more? Things are tough says Alan, Alan seems to be a fairweather CEO, we should pay him more now that the headwinds buffet his soft Irish cheeks. Who is with me?
No one.
I take it all back, it seems the plunge in profit was due in part to high fuel costs, so Alan can’t be blamed, I mean who would have seen that coming if you are involved in the transport industry, a CEO is not a seer or a prophet or a fortune teller is he. High fuel costs, who would have thunk it. No I take it back Alan Joyce is a genius worth every cent.
Other than a few lacklustre puns – what is the point of this post? What does Alan Joyce have to do with Gina Rinehart?
One is an employee and the other is a business owner.
This post is almost as lazy as Robert’s.
Can you bear it?
Apparently comparing unrelated events (figment or not) and individuals who the Left dislike passes for intelligent argument. White Knight the post is surely far lazier than Herr Ellis’. At least he didn’t mention Murdoch. Perhaps the concern of his admirers has forced him to curtail his antagonistic ways.
No, I continue to co-write our fourteen-part Murdoch miniseries Paper Tigers and am up to The Usual Murdoch Dirty Tricks (56) in my blog.
What are you TALKING about?
Please answer this.
The puns were unintended I assure you, you mistake my intentions WK, I think Gina is a genius, without doubt the most talented woman in the world, her wherewithal is a witness to that. Her children sound very talented as well. I think she is worth every cent she gets. Why would you doubt that, what small increment of doubt do you harbor that my words are not genuine?
Tell these other miscreants here that do not have the faith and belief that you and I share, in chapter and verse why Gina is worth what she is, please.
I have had perhaps three mateuses in ten years.
Address the argument, or I will ban you.
Please reply.
Bob, I just don’t understand your ingratitude to Gina. You see, every second Thursday when you stumble down to the Palm Beach Centrelink to withdraw your Mateus allowance, a small portion of the money you collect comes from the hundreds of millions she puts back into the Government’s coffers every year.
You better be careful how much you criticize Bob – you could be going thirsty if you’re not careful.
Thank you for that. Banned for life.
No appeals.
Comrade, we are but one and the same.
We are not. You are a useless, nameless cunt and I am famous.
No appeals.
You are good too BESD, but VN is much funnier, I mean VN just towers over your stuff, have you read his “lay of the ouzo” line, and he has written the line so that you can use any other alcoholic beverage suitable to a particular name, you see the genius in that? you can substitute ANY alcoholic beverage type, any. SJ Perelman couldn’t do that, George Kauffman couldn’t come up with a Mateus line to save his life. You have to study VN, he should be your role model. “lay off the ouzo” I mean, how are you going to top that?
Allthumbs I’m blushing. So very quietly chuffed to have received praise from someone who finds Shakespeare unfunny. I shall go get myself a “Long Slow Ellis” to celebrate (schooner of Mateus for the uninitiated) – only $2.50 at the Palm Beach RSL. Sometimes if you’re lucky they put an umbrella in it, or a used prophylactic.
See, if Hamlet had only said “to beer or not to beer” or Macbeth had said “is this a lager I see before me” or “Coriolanus lay off the ouzo”, ahh but you VN you would have picked that up straightaway, and changed it to Pericles, right?
Allthumbs you are the self-proclaimed Shakespearian scholar not me – surely however Pericles would have been imbibing tsipouro.
No not I, DQ will vouch for that.Tsipouro sounds like a Chinese board game.
Did you ever see the smiling faces of the General Motors or Ford Executives accepting Government Subsidies, it’s a wonder to behold, warms the cockles of your heart it does.
It’a a regular annual ceremony these days, ecumenical and multiracial, the Japanes and such now participate, one I would recommend you take your kids to, it’s a bit like Carols by Candlelight.
Bob’s address to the Press Club the worst speech ever, and you’ve an intergalactic duty to report it as such? Give it a break! And he was not banging on about OWG or Martians. With that degree of bias and subjectivity you’d be an ideal candidate for a journalist’s spot at NewsCorp (or are you already?)
Canguro put down your muesli man. Bob Brown is possibly (save Hanson Young) the biggest (former) loon in Parliament. His policies are discerned from looking at comets and he is plagued by constant doubts about
The only people who would view it otherwise write for and read the Daily Green (website that is they don’t believe in printing anymore).
Name three Bob Brown policies you disagree with.
Or be banned for life.
I am not kidding.
In no particular order:
1.Open borders (practically unachievable and will lead to hardship)
2.Shutting down coal mines (ridiculous)
3.Global Parliament (absolutely stupid).
4. Estate taxes.
To be fair his dental health policies are quite good.
Do you need dental care, Verily?
If you are under eighteen you’ll get it free in Denmark. You might have to become a Danish citizen.
They also have a fat tax over there, we could have(we need) the same here
No Helvi, but in the interests of yours you should lay off the ouzo (does horrible things to the teeth)
What we drink is not an argument. Which of our policies are wrong?
Specify.
I have – and I believed you were Red not Green Bob. Please see above. The ultimate howler being the World Parliament. Bob didn’t think that one through. Majority of the world’s population doesn’t quite think like Bob.
Brown that is not Comrade Ellis
Priceless, “lay off the ouzo” no need for me to read Oscar Wilde tonight, “lay off the ouzo” can I use that VN, does it work if you substitute any alcoholic beverage, or am I best sticking with the “ouzo” reference? Is it a syllable count that makes that line work so well, does it work with Port for instance, what are your thoughts?
No homoerotic literature for you tonight then Allthumbs. Best to stereotype the grog to the name… Port does not work too well, Mateus however does.
“no homoerotic liertature for you tonight Allthumbs”
Ellis
you need this guy as a co-writer, make your peace with him, he’s like Buck Henry and Mort Sahl combined in the one voice, get him to rewrite your Shakespeare in Italy.
“lay off the grappa Will”
Gold I tell you Gold.
To V.N.:
Okay. That’s fair enough. Pass.
Can we stop using the word”earn” when talking of GR’s income?
Perfect, Bob; except that I’d give her a real shovel and pay her $20 an hour, not $20m.
Did someone mention homoerotic literature?
Try this :
O thou my lovely boy who in thy power,
Dost hold Time’s fickle glass his fickle hour:
Who hast by waning grown, and therein show’st,
Thy lovers withering, as thy sweet self grow’st.
If Nature (sovereign mistress over wrack)
As thou goest onwards still will pluck thee back,
She keeps thee to this purpose, that her skill
May time disgrace, and wretched minutes kill.
Yet fear her O thou minion of her pleasure,
She may detain, but not still keep her treasure!
Her audit (though delayed) answered must be,
And her quietus is to render thee.
Sonnet no. 126 by ‘William Shakespeare’
aka Edward De Vere.
Straight, was he? Hmm?
A moral dilemma. I cancelled THE AGE in protest a week or two ago but they keep delivering it and I keep reading it. Am I bad? When I rang to cancel, the voice said: “Who gives a flying shit, crumbbum.”
Nevertheless I told them I was cancelling because the paper had an anti-government voice and Mr Magoo was a joke, and they said “we’ll pass your views on to marketing.” Marketing, I thought. Well at least that is the end of Gina. Then this morning The Age has a frontpage column on how the Reserve Bank is concerned that the Coalition’s lies over the carbon tax are damaging the economy. That is an improvement I thought.
But then, inside, in a far bigger spread, Peter Costello headlines: “Labor’s carbon tax is enough to leave you speechless.” Then page 3: “Rinehart aide urges editorial influence.” Jack Cowan, founder of Hungry Jacks thinks Gina should and will be on the board. He said “newspapers were businesses, not a public service, whose purpose was to ‘portray the facts in a manner…to attract leadership’”. Questioned if people like Andrew Bolt should be on the AGE staff he said: “…that would balance the message that’s being communicated to the community if there were more Andrew Bolt.”
So I went and threw the Age back out into the front garden.
But what if it comes again tomorrow morning.
What decision should and must I make?
“to attract readership.” it should say
What say we to a spot of ‘soft’ nationalisation for the good of all,today and onward over the generations to come? A 50/50 split on revenue between miners and government after costs on all mining in Australia. Simple enough. Miners take the risk and are reimbursed for initiative, effort, etc, with a tidy on-going profit, while government (of
whatever persuasion happens to be in power) benefits for the good of the people. “You may call me a
dreamer/But I’m not the only one”.