MORE dangerous to Australia than the Labor Government

[DB008]

If I was in charge of government, then people like Rina Fatso would be in jail for the rest of their life with all their money stripped away from them and all resource rights with all royalties squarely in the hands of Australians. This government is not powerful, it is pathetically weak.

I'm glad your not in charge of government.

And why does Gina Rinehart deserve to go to jail?

 

[dutchie]

I'm glad your not in charge of government.

And why does Gina Rinehart deserve to go to jail?

Because she has more money than Starcraftmazter

 

[Julia]

Powerful government? Please. If I was in charge of government, then people like Rina Fatso would be in jail for the rest of their life with all their money stripped away from them and all resource rights with all royalties squarely in the hands of Australians.

Really? What would be the charge against her?

ABC and SBS have some of the best programming and news because they are non-commercial channels so they don't have to present sensationalist bull**** for ratings. If I ever watch anything on TV, it is those two channels exclusively. Any commercial channel is an absolute abomination.

Well, it would appear that you actually don't watch SBS because they have had commercials for years.
And, for that matter, ABC TV spends many minutes per hour spruiking their own products, including selling stuff from their shops, so they are also in effect commercial.

Instead of criticising everyone else for lack of fact, Star, you might consider acquiring correct facts of your own.

This clearly must be stopped. We have many regulatory bodies already which are recognised by everyone as being extremely important. APRA, ACCC, ASIC - the TIO do absolute wonders.

Consumers who have had need to complain to both the ACCC and ASIC, would not agree with you that they are even remotely effective or worthwhile.

There is nothing but the absolute best that will come from better regulation of the media.

Oh god!

Well actually she would not appoint them. Nor would the government. The government (as opposed to Ms. Gillard) would appoint several people who would then appoint the people who oversee the regulations.

And, you silly child, the government would stack those who would then appoint the people overseeing the regulations with their own deliciously hand picked people, all from the Left. Or perhaps there might be a token liberal, who wouldn't have a chance of having his/her voice heard.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Your usual juvenile garbage. Grow up.

It's both funny and pathetic how you respond with personal attacks when you are proven incorrect.

And why does Gina Rinehart deserve to go to jail?

Really? What would be the charge against her?

Well let's see here.

1. Stealing national resources from Australians
2. Perverting democracy in Australia
3. Sabotaging free media and the neutrality of the press

Well, it would appear that you actually don't watch SBS because they have had commercials for years.

I actually almost never watch TV, yes. I know they have commercials, but there is still a very significant difference between SBS and commercial channels. If you watch SBS World News, it is a world different to commercial news.

And, for that matter, ABC TV spends many minutes per hour spruiking their own products, including selling stuff from their shops, so they are also in effect commercial.

...but not in the same way as commercial channels. ABC selling it's own products is hardly a conflict of interests. What if there was a company that advertised it's products on a TV network - which subsequently reported in a certain way about some controversy about said company? This is just one example of a conflict of interest which commercial networks are liable to.

And again with ratings, ABC does not generate direct advertiser revenue from ratings, thereby they are less likely to compromise their integrity for ratings.

Consumers who have had need to complain to both the ACCC and ASIC, would not agree with you that they are even remotely effective or worthwhile.

The ACCC has many times cracked down on Telstra's fascist schemes to price out their competitors out of their infrastructure - so I would definitely say it is worth it.

I have no personal experience with ASIC, however given a choice I am sure most investors would choose it over completely unregulated markets.

And, you silly child, the government would stack those who would then appoint the people overseeing the regulations with their own deliciously hand picked people, all from the Left. Or perhaps there might be a token liberal, who wouldn't have a chance of having his/her voice heard.

Given all the government wants to do is get media to make corrections about things they get wrong - what difference does it even make whether the regulators are right or left wing?

And why is this even a defining issue? Why is it that you and some others here see everything as left vs right wing? Totally irrelevant in my view.

 

[Calliope]

It's both funny and pathetic how you respond with personal attacks when you are proven incorrect.

Sorry Starry, but all your comments are unfunny, pathetic, deluded and juvenile. One of your naive responses is typical of your lack of sophistication.

Q...How can gillard take the press to task, when she can't hold herself up as an example?


A...That's irrelevant because she would have nothing to do with taking the press to task.

I will let the hated Australian, as usual, give you the facts on this one.

The Finkelstein report is equally deluded. Once again, a seemingly clever chap has recommended a new government-funded body comprised of "independent" people appointed by government to regulate print, radio, television and online media. Only an "expert" who understands little about the media could dream up this chimera of independence.

How does this serve the people given that a truly independent and genuinely curious media is so critical to the functioning of that democracy? And what precisely was the problem within the Australian media to warrant such wide-ranging new regulation?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...political-nature/story-e6frg7bo-1226291127937

 

[explod]

Some people here seem to be confused as to what freedom of speech means and how it relates to the media.

No, the media should not have the freedom to publish whatever crap they want - they should be held accountable to publish only truthful facts and objectively neutral articles without bias.

A good post and is in line with ASF policy, you need to qualify a statement made.

Even if that is a bit rough sometimes, big self included.

So yes in my view we need to get Murdoch in line.

 

[Julia]

Well let's see here.

1. Stealing national resources from Australians
2. Perverting democracy in Australia
3. Sabotaging free media and the neutrality of the press

Yeah, right. I'm sure all those would stick, no trouble at all. Not.

I actually almost never watch TV, yes. I know they have commercials, but there is still a very significant difference between SBS and commercial channels. If you watch SBS World News, it is a world different to commercial news.

This is what you said:

ABC and SBS have some of the best programming and news because they are non-commercial channels

Any commercial channel is an absolute abomination.

In addition ABC in particular broadcast various programs that have a clear bias.

(At the same time, I wouldn't want to seem to be defending any of the total rubbish that comprises much of what is broadcast from the sources other than ABC and SBS.
There's plenty of fault to be found in all broadcast and print media for that matter.)

And again with ratings, ABC does not generate direct advertiser revenue from ratings, thereby they are less likely to compromise their integrity for ratings.

Accepted. That's a fair and reasonable point.

I have no personal experience with ASIC, however given a choice I am sure most investors would choose it over completely unregulated markets.

Could I point out (in the most polite way, of course) that the above is a perfect example of your disingenuous way of avoiding genuine discussion.

You are suggesting that the only valid alternative to a timid and toothless ASIC is a completely unregulated market. Obviously this is nonsense. The valid alternative is for ASIC to grow some muscle and be decidedly more diligent in carrying out its brief.

Given all the government wants to do is get media to make corrections about things they get wrong - what difference does it even make whether the regulators are right or left wing?

You cannot seriously be suggesting the government are going to all this trouble just 'to get the media to make corrections to what they get wrong'!
I can't be bothered offering you a more appropriate explanation but it sure as hell is more sinister and complex than ensuring they print a few corrections.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

I will let the hated Australian, as usual, give you the facts on this one.

I don't pay attention to News Ltd trash.

Either way, what you quote contains no facts - only vile sensationalist insults of an independent report and a surprise that people are getting sick of their tripe.

You are suggesting that the only valid alternative to a timid and toothless ASIC is a completely unregulated market. Obviously this is nonsense. The valid alternative is for ASIC to grow some muscle and be decidedly more diligent in carrying out its brief.

Let's clarify the frame of reference. I was not arguing that ASIC does a good or a bad job, but merely using it as an example to say that the stock market and other financial markets and transactions should be well regulated to prevent fraud, insider trading, etc. And this was used as an example of government regulation which is almost unanimously accepted to be good.

Likewise, given the grave importance of media in shaping public opinion, it seems reasonable to suggest that it is very important to properly regulate media to ensure they are not biased.

I simply see no other way for the rich and wealthy to use the power of their money to buy out media (as we see happening already) and use it to achieve outcomes which are detrimental to the Australian people.

You cannot seriously be suggesting the government are going to all this trouble just 'to get the media to make corrections to what they get wrong'!
I can't be bothered offering you a more appropriate explanation but it sure as hell is more sinister and complex than ensuring they print a few corrections.

Well that is what is proposed - is it not? Correct me if I am mistaken here.

 

[Calliope]

I don't pay attention to News Ltd trash.

Either way, what you quote contains no facts - only vile sensationalist insults of an independent report and a surprise that people are getting sick of their tripe.

I'M not surprised . I think you could have attention deficit. Since when were you interested in facts. The government is not censoring the print media because they print "trash" or "tripe". It's the truth they are scared of.

 

[DB008]

Well let's see here.

1. Stealing national resources from Australians
2. Perverting democracy in Australia
3. Sabotaging free media and the neutrality of the press

Should BHP/RIO/FMG also be banned from mining in Australia and go to jail for 'selling iron ore/copper/gold/uranium in a open market' to China/India?
In fact, should we export nothing at all, as it's Australia's national resource?

(I'll probably get a ban for this, but l think that your delusional. You think that the world revolves around YOU! Troll 101...)

 

[Starcraftmazter]

I'M not surprised . I think you could have attention deficit. Since when were you interested in facts. The government is not censoring the print media because they print "trash" or "tripe". It's the truth they are scared of.

Opinion of major shareholders passed off as news is not any "truth" - it is social engineering.

Should BHP/RIO/FMG also be banned from mining in Australia and go to jail for 'selling iron ore/copper/gold/uranium in a open market' to China/India?

That's like saying should they be banned from going into your house, getting your electronics and selling them on an open market.

The fact that they are selling things on an open market is irrelevant. The point is that they are selling something which belongs to Australia without paying for it.

Before getting access to our national resources, everyone should have to pay a special tax - let's say 50% of the value of the natural resource. After that, they can do as they wish with it operating as a company (and paying company tax).

But even that is pretty generous. If it were up to me, I would nationalise all resource companies. I just cannot get my head around some company digging up what belongs to us, selling it to another country and then paying the proceeds to private shareholders - the majority of which are not even Australian.

 

[Calliope]

Opinion of major shareholders passed off as news is not any "truth" - it is social engineering.

Obviously the concept of "truth" is one quite foreign to you. Orwell's (and Stephen Conroy's) concept of the Ministry of Truth is more in your line;

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda

Wiki

 

[Macquack]

Before getting access to our national resources, everyone should have to pay a special tax - let's say 50% of the value of the natural resource. After that, they can do as they wish with it operating as a company (and paying company tax).

But even that is pretty generous. If it were up to me, I would nationalise all resource companies. I just cannot get my head around some company digging up what belongs to us, selling it to another country and then paying the proceeds to private shareholders - the majority of which are not even Australian.

I agree with these remarks.

We would not need a mining super profits tax if mining companies paid a decent royalty rate on their lottery gains.

Currently, iron ore fines (which accounts for the majority of WA's iron ore exports) incurs a pathetic royalty of 5.625% of sales revenue.

Imaging digging $100 notes out of someones backyard and giving them $5.63 compensation. Only a sucker would fall for such a deal.

 

[bellenuit]

I agree with these remarks.

We would not need a mining super profits tax if mining companies paid a decent royalty rate on their lottery gains.

Currently, iron ore fines (which accounts for the majority of WA's iron ore exports) incurs a pathetic royalty of 5.625% of sales revenue.

Imaging digging $100 notes out of someones backyard and giving them $5.63 compensation. Only a sucker would fall for such a deal.

But that is 5.625% of sales revenue, not profit. To get the true picture we need to know, in addition to the royalties, the cost of producing $100 in sales and the company tax paid on the profit.

You are implying that they only incur a cost of $5.63 per $100 in sales revenue. I don't know the figures, but you have to also account for the cost of producing $100 in sales, which could well be $60 or $70 dollars. They then pay company tax on the remaining profit to the ATO and $5.63 in royalties to the state government. Without all the information, you are not giving a proper picture of the situation.

 

[sails]

But that is 5.625% of sales revenue, not profit. To get the true picture we need to know, in addition to the royalties, the cost of producing $100 in sales and the company tax paid on the profit.

You are implying that they only incur a cost of $5.63 per $100 in sales revenue. I don't know the figures, but you have to also account for the cost of producing $100 in sales, which could well be $60 or $70 dollars. They then pay company tax on the remaining profit to the ATO and $5.63 in royalties to the state government. Without all the information, you are not giving a proper picture of the situation.

Agree Bellenuit. I often think lefties must only see the total amount and be unaware of the costs that go with producing sales of that value.

 

[Macquack]

But that is 5.625% of sales revenue, not profit. To get the true picture we need to know, in addition to the royalties, the cost of producing $100 in sales and the company tax paid on the profit.

You are implying that they only incur a cost of $5.63 per $100 in sales revenue. I don't know the figures, but you have to also account for the cost of producing $100 in sales, which could well be $60 or $70 dollars. They then pay company tax on the remaining profit to the ATO and $5.63 in royalties to the state government. Without all the information, you are not giving a proper picture of the situation.

Of course there are other costs in mining of iron ore, like there are other costs incurred in running any business. The bottom line is, the royalty paid should be the core cost, not a token payment.

 

[Macquack]

Agree Bellenuit. I often think lefties must only see the total amount and be unaware of the costs that go with producing sales of that value.

Are you one of the "righties" who are happy to see Australia's natural resources pillaged for peanuts?

 

[rumpole]

"And what precisely was the problem within the Australian media to warrant such wide-ranging new regulation?"

Control of a large section of it by a single organisation controlled by one man who can limit what appears in his media to ideas that benefit himself or his organisation.

 

[Calliope]

"And what precisely was the problem within the Australian media to warrant such wide-ranging new regulation?"

Control of a large section of it by a single organisation controlled by one man who can limit what appears in his media to ideas that benefit himself or his organisation.

I agree. It would be much more equitable to have Stephen Conroy (Ministry of Truth) dictating policy to News Ltd.

 

[rumpole]

I agree. It would be much more equitable to have Stephen Conroy (Ministry of Truth) dictating policy to News Ltd.

Glad you agree. I thought you were one of those loony right wingers !