What do you mean, he has provided plenty of jobs in communities that struggled prior, and he has pushed to provide aboriginals with training and employment opportunities they don't always have.
I think you missed the words 'On balance' meaning the amount being lost now and the cover up of suffering in China and the countries it attacks and occupies.
Any charity work he does is on top of this, I don't see why you are so negative about his community and charity work.
I'm not negative about it in isolation. I question his motives, it's more like an investment in his own character, which he seldom shy's away from promoting about 'himself.' Like I said if he really wanted to do that, he could have on a much greater scale.
Can you name any large infrastructure company that hasn't used debt in the early stages to fund the development of the infrastructure?
It's irrelevant. It depends on the level of risk, and the greatest enterprises have no debt but massive amounts of cash - like Apple.
I doubt any foreigner, let alone an Aussie can influence chinese internal politics, saying that though, the chinese industrialization, built with Australian Iron ore, has lifted millions of people out of poverty. How is this a bad thing.
You certainly can. You make them understand that business will be hard for them if they continue to brutalize their own and other people whose countries they occupy. You also use your means to highlight how the the Chines import children for sex slavery from places like Vietnam.
That's probably where you and I differ, I admire people who build great companies, and then back them for decades, taking the ups and downs in their stride.
I don't admire a fool who builds a highly risky enterprise and can't even save himself when clear fundamentals indicate the risk. The one who should know the business better than any other should be able to recognize that and know when to exit and save himself for a greater good if that is what he
really is about.
He claims his main focus is now to abolish slavery and so on so it would make sense that he should have gotten out of FMG as there is a clear conflict of interest, if he still owns a large chunk of a company who is 100% selling to the biggest and most brutal slave nation of them all - China.
His actions are not in line with his claims.
Nothing is going to change the Chinese government except changes from within.
Well if Andrew had cashed out his 10 billion -
He could have perhaps organized global board meeting between all the union leaders in the free world and create a political body that would make it very hard for the Chinese to sell anything unless they provided standards and transparency as to how it was created.
This would save and create jobs all over the world and show to the Chinese that they will not flourish unless they become humane.
Andrew could use the union movements because they have a vested interest in employment and they have a genuine moral stance in issues when they get to this horrific level of social abuse by those in power like the Chinese.
Andrew, if he was genuine, also could have used that wealth to shame businesses using the kind of slavery and corruption to make their products and he could advertise against politicians fudging over it to garner trade deals.
Andrew could have added that he believes in free markets, and what needs to be understood is that slavery and brutality is not free, its forced and in the end has consequences for the well being and prosperity of all humanity. China is not a free market it's an evil dictated economy so there is no contradiction in creating and using a unified global union to genuinely fight for humanity.
China is the worst in scale and brutality, so he should address them first, then they could target the Africans and so on who would likely start to change as a result any way.