Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
I don't think it really is. At the end of the day, Unions are powerful and very good at spreading the wealth. And their party, the ALP takes power every now and then and does a fair amount of redistribution (under Ms.Gillard, it was the raising of the tax-free threshold to $18,000).
And the concept of a living wage has been central to Australian thinking for over a century (that concept seems to have eluded the US) which in turn leads to a high minimum wage. End result - Australia is the richest country in the world on a median basis, because the wealth has been so well spread around.
Cheers,
Renato
|
I have to disagree on the point of unions having the ALP as a conduit in Canberra. Perhaps in the distant past pre Hawk Keating.
The ALP and the LNP are ideologically indistinguishable with only trivial differences that they parade around to the electorates via the corporate media.
They have the same masters and serve the same globalist banking agenda.
It's a bit like Chomsky said, in the USA "voters have a choice between two business parties" who don't represent their interests.
Currently the USA is trying to dump its trade agreement upon Australia and have half a dozen other nations in our region. And it's done in secret and if signed will mean that corporations, banks and foreign investors can sue for damages and losses against the Aussie tax payer if legislation is introduced which effects their profits. And they seek damages in a corporately set up tribunal which operates outside normal international legal frameworks.
Even the potential losses for making profits in Australia can be litigated in this tribunal. A corporation that merely has the rights to a particular technology or explorations license can claim for damages if laws are introduced in the Australian parliament.
Let's say that the Australian government legislates to ban fracking on the Australian mainland and there is a small foreign company that owns licenses to carry out fracking operations here but they haven't invested in any capital or drilled any bores yet. That company can sue in this biased trade tribunal which will convene in secret to deliberate. The tax pays even if no fracking took place.
Why does the USA impose trade agreements on other countries. It claims to want an open and free trading globe and yet locks in nations such as Mexico and Canada in NAFTA ? Obama is claiming this new trade agreement will involve 43% of the world's markets, involving 7 other nations including Australia. The 7 nations make up about 10% and the U.S.A makes up about 33%, so who do you think this agreement will benefit?
No wonder Buffett is currently eyeing Australia as a nice short term investor market.
If there is a dumber nation in the world today than Australia I would like to know which nation that is.
