Comment on “Still No Argument Justifying Communist Nationalisation”

Advertisements

21 Responses to “Comment on “Still No Argument Justifying Communist Nationalisation””

  1. Jason Soon Says:

    still no argument differentiating my position from the Mises Institute position on the Dubai ports purchase. How is one advocating nationalisation by a foreign government and the other isn’t?

    Come on turkey …

  2. Pink Flamingo Says:

    Birdy, I’ve fired up the hot tub and Jeeves has put a bottle of your favourite bubbly in the wine cooler.

    Come to papa …

  3. Graeme Bird Says:

    Well I would say that the misean had it wrong. You shouldn’t hide behind him. And as well I DID explain a number of differences.

    We don’t have a good way for capital to accumulate in the form of ports. I would have implemented a strategy before selling to foreigners. And I don’t know whether libertarianism mandates that we sell to foreign corps as opposed to foreign rich individuals.

    The Misean had it wrong. We are not obliged to sell to foreign governments. But Australia particularly must hold out constant relentless resistance to Chinese dominance.

  4. the Anti- bird Says:

    Bird:

    You idiot. the chinese are the money bags at the moment. We don’t have a great choice in terms of funding our current account deficit

    Dickhead, Rio is 75% listed on the London exchange, so it’s already a foreign company.

    Fuck, you are stupid.

  5. graemebird Says:

    We have the choice of NOT funding our current account deficit you ignorant boot nigger. Its the funding that CAUSES the current account deficit you know-nothing dummy.

    Fucking hell. Lord save us from people who know absolutely nothing and think that they are experts. Stop talking Cambria. Every think you say is ignorant.

  6. Adrien Says:

    We are not obliged to sell to foreign governments.

    Who is ‘we’ Turkey? Rio Tinto isn’t owned by Australians in general. It’s owned by various persons of multiple nationalities.

    You don’t know what nationalization is and you think Rio Tinto is public property. You seriously don;t know how stupid you are do you?

  7. graemebird Says:

    Rio got its leases on the basis that the rules applied to them like anyone else.

  8. Adrien Says:

    So what> ‘We’ don’t own it. A Chinese firm investing in Rio Tinto isn’t nationalizing it.

  9. jc Says:

    You know birdie, you’re freaking disgrace to Australia. Hopefully John Key will listen to me and forcefully take you back on the prison plane.

    The Chinese people through their hard work and intelligence have made all our lives better by producing goods at fractions of the price than otherwise. They have changed the face of consumer mass production by making it endlessly better.

    Every western consumer has been enriched through their efforts. I’m not suggesting we should be ever thankful. However you think of that country as somehow evil when all they have done is not improve their lives through wars and plunder but doing it in the way we have shown them in the west. Peacefully and through exchange. You’re a freaking moron to be talking about them the way you are.

  10. graemebird Says:

    Well thats been one of the most wonderful things in the modern world. For them to go from concentration conditions to where they are now. I wish them well in their endeavours. But the communist government ought not be able to come here and buy our gear. Not now or ever.

    On the other hand any Taiwanese businessman who wants to come here to start a business ought to have all the red tape taken out of his way.

    The Chinese people are not the same as the communist leadership. And you ought not get them confused.

  11. graemebird Says:

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25107081-7583,00.html

    Finally some sanity on this issue. Communist nationalisation is not free trade. And the stupidity of our economists can never make it free trade.

  12. Lyam Says:

    Birdy

    Your latest thoughts

    “Ending World Poverty Means Defeating The Devastating Flaw In Neoclassical Economics.”
    Posted February 27, 2009 by graemebird

    are reaching new highs in mental confusion.

    In particular:

    “The best thing Australia can do to alleviate world poverty is to become the lowest cost producer in synthetic diesel.”

    That would ensure Australia’s good fortune, i.e. becoming to synthetic diesel what the middle east is to oil. It wouldn’t bring any country out of poverty. They would become our bitches.

    Fight against poverty is about empowerment. One of the most efficient places to produce synthetic diesel using nuclear power (if that is even possible or makes any sense) would be Niger because they sit on one of the largest reserves of uranium.

  13. The anti-bird Says:

    Finally some sanity on this issue. Communist nationalisation is not free trade. And the stupidity of our economists can never make it free trade.

    Correct, it’s about the freer movement of capital.

  14. graemebird Says:

    No no. Free trade isn’t about communists nationalising everything Cambria. You can forget that fantasy right now. Finally Sheridan has spoken. Lets hope he’s listened to because if Canberra cannot show some moxie on this matter it sends the message that the real human beings have been demoralized and defeated by the Quislings, the house-nigger-wannabes and the forces of unreason.

  15. graemebird Says:

    You don’t really know what “Capital” is do you Cambria. You appear to be taking a mystical approach to the concept.

  16. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme,

    Please break down current and potential future RIO shareholdings by nationality and public or private ownership.

    The please take a BEX and have a nice lie down.

  17. graemebird Says:

    We don’t run policy on behalf of the Rio shareholders. If they go broke and have to sell all that gear to other Australians on the cheap, the debt is wiped and we get to keep the resources. Rather than having them nationalised by communists. Which despite your mental handicap is not free enterprise.

  18. Mark Hill Says:

    That is a contradiction – don’t run policy on their behalf but ideally block them selling to China.

  19. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme,

    Explain how your contradictions can work. Is it because you see no difference between ought and is, and can make things to be what you wish?

    I understand. Our bet squibbing Tinkerbell is a fairy.

  20. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme,

    Why are you besmirching an anti democratic regime with lower tax rates than us as “communist”?

    Did Howard turn us pinko?

  21. Richard Glover Says:

    Mark Hill,

    You are already on the record for noting that communists “are alright”, (probably meant to be “all right”), and now you go into bat for a complete communist take over of Australia on the basis of a lower tax rates.

    Why don’t you sing us a few verses of the internationale and be done with it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: