Top products from r/australia

>>Sure, except there is not a finite level of wealth in the real world, nor is wealth gained by arbitrary or random means.

>Not sure what world you are living in, but in mine there is a finite amount of food, land, money, gold, trees, oil, iphones. How do you think the laws of supply and demand work?

In a closed system, with zero economic growth, I would agree with you. But the fact is, we are nowhere close to fulfilling our potential in wealth and technology. When somebody makes money, it's because they have found a way to generate wealth, not because they steal it from anyone else.

>Wealth is not gained by arbitrary or random means? Really? Lets tell the kid who was born in Congo that he really failed at picking his parents. Or an example closer to home - when you wanted to start your first telecommunications company, did your parents put up a few million bucks in venture capital for you as happened with Lachlan Murdoch and James Packer?

The overwhelming majority of millionaires today came from middle-class backgrounds. What's the point of bringing strawmen arguments into this? Being born rich helps, but not as much as you might think. Rarely does wealth last longer than 3 generations - a phenomenon known as "rags to riches to rags". As for luck, working hard helps. From WSJ:

" His study found that people who earn less than $20,000 a year, for instance, spent more than a third of their time in passive leisure, like kicking back and watching TV. By contrast, those earning more than $100,000 a year (more affluent than wealthy), spent less than a fifth of their time in passive leisure."

>Ohhh, I see where you're going with this. In Libertarian fantasy land wealth is allocated by hard work, and chance plays a very marginal role. Capital and inherited wealth pale against the billion dollar earning power of a hard working primary school teacher! In reality, labour does not out earn capital.

Again, most wealthy people came from middle class backgrounds. Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, to back up your claim that a majority of rich people are there because they inherited their wealth?

>>Why are countries with free markets so wealthy? Why do countries like HK, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan have such a strong middle class?

>Because for one, they aren't free market economies. Most of their growth was led by their governments. Singapore is basically a technocratic dictatorship ruled by one family - perhaps you're familiar with Singtel, owner of Optus or Singapore Airlines, both controlled by government investment corporation Temasek?

I agree that Singapore is an autocracy, but it doesn't mean it's not free market. Historically these countries have had the lowest government intervention of any. To claim that they're not free markets are laughable. For christ's sake, for most of Hong Kong's history it never had any public education, healthcare, or transport. It doesn't even have a central bank! Seriously man, I'm more than happy to have a debate with you, but let's at least agree on the obvious - the Asian tigers were (and still are) most definitely free markets.

>Korea is run by an oligarchy of family owned conglomerates called "Chaebols" - Samsung, LG, Hyundai, all of the drivers of their economy are too-big-to-fail and heavily state supported.

This is anecdotal evidence. I'm not claiming these areas have no government interference, merely that they are free markets. The best measure of this is their government spending as a % of GDP.

>Hong Kong and Taiwan were able to profit from proximity and cultural ties to China to build their economies.

Since when does geographical proximity guarantee wealth? This is not an argument in any way.

>And China's decades long double digit economic growth model wasn't thanks to the free market either. They call it "State Capitalism", which is a fancy way of saying fascism.

I wouldn't call China's growth anything exciting. They're growing slower than the Asian tigers, and there's no guarantee they'll break through the middle income trap.

>>Again, evidence and history does not support your claims.

>Yes it does. Most industries in market economies start out fiercely competitive but ultimately merge into an oligarchy if not strictly regulated by the government.

>6 companies control 90% of the USA's media, down from 50 in 1983.

>Since 1990, 37 of the USA's big banks merged to become just 4 too-big-to-fail megabanks.

I wouldn't call 4 banks an oligarchy. That's economies of scale. Do you have any evidence to suggest they are colluding?

>This process happens even faster in a small economy like Australia's, where we have been stuck with an cartel of 4 too-big-to-fail banks for a very long time now.

Again...4 companies is not an oligopoly.

>You need to acquaint yourself with the basics of how markets work, and how unregulated markets inevitably become monopolistic. You can start with "Wealth of Nations" by the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith.

Thanks for the advice. I guess my 4 years of economics study (with honours) at a top university was a massive waste of time.

>Sure, except there is not a finite level of wealth in the real world, nor is wealth gained by arbitrary or random means.

Not sure what world you are living in, but in mine there is a finite amount of food, land, money, gold, trees, oil, iphones. How do you think the laws of supply and demand work?

Wealth is not gained by arbitrary or random means? Really? Lets tell the kid who was born in Congo that he really failed at picking his parents. Or an example closer to home - when you wanted to start your first telecommunications company, did your parents put up a few million bucks in venture capital for you as happened with Lachlan Murdoch and James Packer?

Ohhh, I see where you're going with this. In Libertarian fantasy land wealth is allocated by hard work, and chance plays a very marginal role. Capital and inherited wealth pale against the billion dollar earning power of a hard working primary school teacher! In reality, labour does not out earn capital.

>Why are countries with free markets so wealthy? Why do countries like HK, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan have such a strong middle class?

Because for one, they aren't free market economies. Most of their growth was led by their governments. Singapore is basically a technocratic dictatorship ruled by one family - perhaps you're familiar with Singtel, owner of Optus or Singapore Airlines, both controlled by government investment corporation Temasek?

Korea is run by an oligarchy of family owned conglomerates called "Chaebols" - Samsung, LG, Hyundai, all of the drivers of their economy are too-big-to-fail and heavily state supported.

Hong Kong and Taiwan were able to profit from proximity and cultural ties to China to build their economies.

And China's decades long double digit economic growth model wasn't thanks to the free market either. They call it "State Capitalism", which is a fancy way of saying fascism.

>Again, evidence and history does not support your claims.

Yes it does. Most industries in market economies start out fiercely competitive but ultimately merge into an oligarchy if not strictly regulated by the government.

6 companies control 90% of the USA's media, down from 50 in 1983.

Since 1990, 37 of the USA's big banks merged to become just 4 too-big-to-fail megabanks.

This process happens even faster in a small economy like Australia's, where we have been stuck with an cartel of 4 too-big-to-fail banks for a very long time now.

You need to acquaint yourself with the basics of how markets work, and how unregulated markets inevitably become monopolistic. You can start with "Wealth of Nations" by the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith.

>politicians and political parties are allowed to have far too much vested interests in certain sectors of the economy which is having too much influence on political process

This is where you are wrong, it's not a problem of individual corruption but group corruption, where the people go back and forth from government to private industry, all doing favors for each other in expectation that favors will be returned later, often called the revolving door.

>Game of Mates will convince you that seeking favours, be they planning approvals or the right to build casinos or toll roads, is what makes Australia go round. Certainly it makes Australia's job market go round. Local council planners move into positions with developers, state and Commonwealth government ministers take up positions with companies they used to regulate and former Treasury officials sit on the boards of private banks. The book's appendix on movements in and out of the offices of mining ministers is eye-popping.

If you are interested in this topic I would strong recommend you read the book

>https://www.amazon.com.au/Game-Mates-favours-bleed-nation-ebook/dp/B06Y1WF2BC

and read the indisputably best business journalist, Michael West

>https://www.michaelwest.com.au/revealed-revolving-doors-public-servants-fossil-fuel-lobbyists/

Another great book on a topic you mentioned, the privatization of Australian government services, is Governomics: Can we afford small government?

>People have good reason to demand decent public education and a well-funded health system, to yearn for an economy that doesn't trash the environment or for a smaller gap between rich and poor. Almost without exception, sound economics is on their side.

>We've grown used to public debates that pit people and the planet against an abstract, distorted image of 'the economy', but it doesn't have to be this way. Governomics shows that an emaciated state is bad for business, and that standing up for government means standing up for a public sector that truly serves the public.

>'Everybody knows governments are wasteful, incompetent and a drag on the economy. But if you're not sure that's true, read this book.' Ross Gittins, Sydney Morning Herald and The Age

>https://www.amazon.com.au/Governomics-Can-afford-small-government-ebook/dp/B00XCHJX3S

In my mind this is the actual ideological war that is currently being fought, but it never gets too much of a discussion. Glad books like Capital and Reich's new documentary are prosecuting the case.

This issue is the clear separation between the parties. This is all the data we have on equality in Australia, red is for ALP governments and blue for LNP governments.

Since 1980, the ALP have run an even keel on GINI, which is the accepted measure for inequality. They haven't improved equality of income, but it hasn't gotten worse.

Since 1980 the LNP have seen inequality increase rapidly, with GINI up 0.05, making us the 9th most unequal country in the OECD (out of 34 countries).

If GINI hadn't gone up (ie ALP was in power and maintained their trend), we would be around the tenth most equal, jumping around 15 countries or half the OECD.

Of course, as you can see, this means we have a centrist and a right party, which means inequality will always go up over time. The ALP have ceded the battle, in effect. Perhaps why the Greens vote is creeping up, along with the vote for the populist right, like PUP?

The good news? The last time inequality was this bad (US graph just because we suck at this topic, it is relevant here for a number of reasons) was the start of the Progressive Era, which resulted in more progressive taxation, a focus on education, healthcare and scientific research, exposure of political corruption, big leaps in equality for women and racial/ethnic minorities and so on.

Is the same happening now? The conversation has already started, with books like Capital. The Occupy movement and March in March were huge, and while the media basically ignored them or criticised them, hundreds of thousands of people in the streets doesn't happen for nothing.

Even some MPs are talking about it.

Time for a New Progressive movement?

Indeed. A good read is How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee which explores how gods and myths came about, merged and how, if he existed, jesus was likely some minor priest who was turned into the god of the religion. Quite an interesting read.

This is but one of several attempts to soften public perception before a more aggressive stance take place. China plans 100 years ahead in many aspects, while our government rarely plans beyond an election cycle.

A good read for those interested in some of Chinas tactics.

https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/1743794800/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_c_d8LlDbKVATNPD

Lily on the Dustbin is excellent as well. Nancy Keesing wrote it after travelling around Australia doing talk back radio. It's fabulously familiar. "Are your ears painted on?"

Agreed again! Although not all are terrible. I actually got into it after reading 10% Happier. Written by a skeptical drug taking news reporter with anxiety disorder. https://www.amazon.com/10-Happier-Self-Help-Actually-Works/dp/0062265431. Great read, and that's coming from someone who hates these kinds of books. The book also spawned a website with a getting started guide with guided meditation, which I didn't pay a cent for, but it definitely got the ball rolling. Once the basics are down you can kind of take it from there.

>I stole the idea from someone much smarter about these things than me:
>
>https://www.amazon.com/Enigma-Capital-Crises-Capitalism/dp/0199836841/

Well I completely disagree with this marxist geography professor's idea. Once again, to me the problem is central banking, government intervention, and Keynesian economics.

>Posner, a strong supporter of free markets, identified the financial crisis as a failure of capitalism, not government intervention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Failure_of_Capitalism#Criticism_of_capitalism_and_mainstream_economists

While we'd need to read the book or youtube him to get his full argument, that section of the Wikpedia is actually supporting my stance!

Posner says that what Bernanke and Greenspan (ex-chairmen of the Federal Reserve, Americas central bank) "can be blamed for is overconfidence in their understanding of how to prevent a depression and, as a result, a failure to attend to warning signs and a lack of preparedness ". This is exactly my point, these people are central bankers who follow Keynesian economics, their view of economics and economies make them BLIND to such events and their solutions. They believe that in their wisdom and in their control of monetary policy they can create growth and stop recessions.... they can't! They think they are the solution, but they are the what caused the problem!

"A few people had warned of problems but they were ignored". Anyone who isn't a Keynesian could see the real estate bubble. These people got laughed at, infored and made a mockery of. It's just that these people are a minority compared to the gigantic culture of Keynesian economics which has overtaken our universities, the media, and our governments. Keynesian economics tells a government they can spend big (this will keep them and their voters happy), in turn governments fund research that supports this view. This is a mutually beneficial relationship.

​

My conclusion:

It isn't capitalism that is the problem. Capitalism is great.

The problem is the institution of central banking, and the economic ideology of Keynesian economics.
The solution is to abolish central banking, embrace Austrian economics, and return to sound money.

If you'd like to read more about Austrian economics can read/youtube/google anything from: The Mises Institute, Michael Pento, Peter Schiff, Saifedean Ammous, James 'Jim' Rickards

​

​

Just sayin... I suspect the wholesale adoption of neoliberal economic policy from the mid 70s onwards might be somewhat more responsible for the erosion of the western middle class than television.

A couple of books give pretty compelling evidence of this:

https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273

https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499813570&sr=1-1&keywords=capital

Just came across something weird today myself.

Aussie store $31.98+$10.77

or US store $20.78 (not available to be shipped from).

Dunno if there's a way to get around it or I just have to bite it and pay ~$40. To be fair, it's normally ~$60 on the US store, but being cut down to $20 made it super appealing.

Actually, if Amazon thinks you live in Australia, it automatically adjusts the Amazon US prices to match the Australian ones (I discovered this when people would link to books that were $3 in the US store, but all I'd get was a "Pricing not available" message). I've set my account's location to the US, and this is what the book's page looks like to me. Link to the page

Daria's out on DVD. Bought it a while ago :)

Ah... I found Amazon's layout quite disconcerting and over-busy, but thanks for that, I found the samples eventually.

For those of you undecided, here's some more:

• Scribd sample chapter
  
  
• Google Books excerpt

It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users.
I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!


Here is link number 1 - Previous text "Yes"



----
^Please ^PM ^/u/eganwall ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^Delete

I'm not sure i had another user have this problem also... here is the US link hope it you can get it working. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008OIRMXI

I think it's because the complete picture is massive. To properly explain it you have to go all the way back a century or two and connect it all the way to the present moment.

I found talking to a number of white Australian's that many feel that the aboriginal problems of today have nothing to do with them. There is a massive disconnect between reality and perception which is really hard to bridge in one article, especially when most of your readers don't accept many of your facts.

When you have a common shared belief, like refugees are bad people who don't need the help of those much better of, then statements like "Stop the boats" are accepted as well considered policy while entire books the likes of John Pilger writes are viewed as akin to conspiracy theories. Not that I've met many Australians who would have read Pilgers books.

Going back to your question about Pilger's work, I think to some extent he answers your "Why" question in his book "A secret Country".

Link to book: http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Country-John-Pilger/dp/0099815907/ref=la_B001HCU88O_1_3_title_2_pap?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395451588&sr=1-3

>It's one of the shows they've been hyping up in press coverage about the launch.

That's the weird thing, I can only see season 1 on there. Google DNS (as above) and playing from this page appears to work.

Looks like only the first 4 episodes are out so far.

Although this would indicate they are all released.

Everyone needs to read this book:

https://www.amazon.com.au/Game-Mates-favours-bleed-nation-ebook/dp/B06Y1WF2BC

It's a commonly used fishing phrase ... https://www.amazon.com/Fillet-Release-Funny-Fishing-Shirt/dp/B07PLVVD1K

The US store (google cached copy): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7JM4pcJIRS0J:www.amazon.com/George-Martins-Thrones-5-Book-Series-ebook/dp/B00957T6X6+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

The AU store: http://www.amazon.com.au/Game-Thrones-Continues-Swords-Dragons-ebook/dp/B007B5EDEG/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1419500797&sr=1-3&keywords=a+song+of+ice+and+fire

Silent Invasion is something I've been slowly making my way though. Old mate Huang is referenced in the index more times than Japan...Shall we send tissues along with our baby formula?

http://www.amazon.com/1Q84-Haruki-Murakami/dp/0307593312/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320710574&sr=8-1

Does anyone know what the downside of converting Amazon.com to Amazon.com.au is? When I went to check out this book from OP's link, it asked me to convert my Amazon.com to Amazon.com.au (for eBooks only, I believe). I'm sure there's a downside to this, and I noticed I can still get this book for $0 on Amazon.com, so it seems like there would be no point converting?

> Are there ANY copies of Mad Max with its original voice track

Yes

that's a super inaccurate view of history - check out this book (sorry for the amazon link) if you'd actually like to learn a more contemporary and accurate account of how aboriginal people lived

more lesuire time than us, better diets, and less negative pathologies. i think your problem is that you're viewing things thru a western lens of what 'progresss' means - sure, we have buildings and weapons and tech, but we're also destroying our environment and creating inequitable societies, it's not always black and white

I looked it up and it's already released, but they had to cut out all the short music clips because they are too expensive to get licenses for.

> Statistics are oppression.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728

Any idiot can regurgitate statistics.

Australia has the least “overt corruption”. When you dig deep, it’s actually quite a corrupt country on many scales, it’s just extremely subtle, well hidden and stays just below surface enough to not be illegal. Technically it’s not corruption, but it’s VERY dodgy and very harmful to the wider public.

Not convinced? I urge you to read a book called Game of Mates by Cameron Murray. A serious eye opener that will make your blood boil.

Statistics never lie - or do they?

> It's all a little like the tale of the roadside merchant who was asked to explain how he could sell rabbit sandwiches so cheap. 'Well,' he said, 'I have to put in some horse meat too. But I mix 'em fifty-fifty: one horse, one rabbit.'
>

• Questioning Statistics
  
• Who Says So? (check for bias)
  
• How Does He Know? (check the method, e.g. sample size, selective sampling)
  
• What's Missing (Probable, Standard Error rates)
  
• Average (what kind of average? mean/median/mode?)
  
• Did Somebody Change the Subject? (does the conclusion directly relate to the data?)
  
• Does It Make Sense?
  
  How to Lie with Statistics by by Darrell Huff
  http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
  

> showed him to be a massive idiot who got nicked for stealing 32 chooks

Actually most convicts were deported for petty property crimes like your great-grandad. The only major exception were Irish patriots being deported for political reasons.

If you're interested in the history of convict Australia I heartily recommend The Fatal Shores.

> You're confusing the idea that market failures are evidence of capitalism's failings.

I stole the idea from someone much smarter about these things than me: https://www.amazon.com/Enigma-Capital-Crises-Capitalism/dp/0199836841/

Posner, a strong supporter of free markets, identified the financial crisis as a failure of capitalism, not government intervention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Failure_of_Capitalism#Criticism_of_capitalism_and_mainstream_economists

> the whole process was only able to happen because of the governments policy, not because of capitalism.

I think it's foolish to try to separate the two, given how deeply the financial industry and it's ruling capitalism class have dug their claws into all governments.