Here is the thing the USA for years led the world in everything because we were one of the most capitalistic societies in the world and still are however the demographics are changing and the democratic (socialist) party has taken over. Blacks and Latinos vote overwhelmingly democrat. Australia has more economic freedom in everyway except for income tax but after Obama raises them to 45% it will be even. I am hoping that Kevin Rudd will lose the next election and the liberal party will take over and stop the slide Australia is in. USA lost 3 things a county has to have. Borders, language, culture. We didn't secure our boarders we don't have a singular language and we lost our culture of self reliance. I feel like Australia has a better hope. Although I wish you wouldn't have passed in 1973 the right for any refugees to come in as they please. You should only let in skilled workers. I am a free market free mind guy. I believe in a hands off approach from government in both economic and personal endeavors. Our socialist party is destroying capitalism. Australia is my first choice of countries to go too. I am trying to start a push for more americans to come to Australia. We are highly intelligent and hard working. We believe in liberty. Thanks let me know some places to move to and work

I must say this news of Somali muslims is making me nervous. LOL From what I gather a large percentage of the aborigines use their race for victim status and blame all of the shortcomings on prejudice and suppression even though in reality it is their lack of work ethic and skill that is responsible for their situations. They live off of the government and want handouts and special privileges. John Howard was criticized when he said that a country has the right to decide who it does and does not let in, well he was right. You should let in skilled workers not people who will leach off the system and drag it down. Somali muslims who have to steal and kill for everything they get is not what one should which to acquire as citizens.

I can't judge aborigines on their reaction to the way which we've forced them to adapt to our ideas.
They owned this country before we stole it from them. They might have had a better future in store, but we'll never know that because the Christian God does not truly believe in equality for all.
Nomatter what we try to do for them, we can never make it right because their path was less greedy.

Less greedy...how just because the Australian whites set up business and infrastructures does that make them greedy? Are they really peaceful loving people or do they commit the majority of crimes especially violent crimes?

Quote:


If it wasn't us who stole away their way of life, it would've been somedody else. That doesn't make it any more right, but it does highlight that "survival of the fittest" is something that should not be ignored by any stretch.
Disregarding religions, most people would feel a bit guilty that the aboriginals never had the chance to progress normally. Their outcome can never be known, so it's not worth trying to make ammends for.

Quote:


Australia has traditionally always been far more left wing than the U.S.
Murdoch is seen as a right winger here. Our current "left wing" government is far more right wing than any government we've ever experienced here.
Historically, right wing idealisms have always failed because of the simple fact that humans are innately selfish. Left wing idealism understands that simple fact.
I don't think that we have "evolved" from anything due to religions, philosophies, idealisms, politics, dreams..or whatever.
However, education does advance us all IMO. The free will to choose when provided factual information does advance the quality of the decisions made.
You can be "one pointed" and say that capitalism is the true worth of humanity because it agrees with your ideas, but also you are disregarding the worth of humanity that has come before you or that which may come after.
A true belief in equality will let others follow their own path, but too many times that path eventually crosses other paths.
IMO it comes down to the wisdom of balance...just like Buddha said.

Amadd wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 3:59am:

Everybody acts in their own self interest. I just believe in a system where when one acts in their own self interest it benefits others in a capitalist free market you benefit yourself by having a product good or service that other people want. This lifts the quality of life for all. Is there something more virtuous about a politician who acts in his self interest to attain votes as opposed to man making a product good or service. In every single case when the government gets involved it hurts the quality of life for it's individuals. I'm about freedom and the freedom for one to live their life without the government's involvement. Maybe this is a trait of my southeastern american background. But if you look at countries when capitalism is embraced USA, hong kong australia the quality of life is much better than say Cuba or Zimbabwe.

What are you talking about? I am giving my opinion. What should I not state how I feel or think? I don't want to be king of anybody I want people to be free and free of government both in their personal decisions to live their lives and with their money.

But why should anybody care if your idealisms didn't work out?
You live by the sword and die by the sword right? Survival of the fittest.

Capitalism was king..but, oh so sorry, it was only temporary.
Now you guys really have to work...all of you.
Go and work for your idealisms, just like the muslims should.

american - I'm completely with you.
The democratic capitalistisc society is by far the best society we have had so far.

it is currently out of favour so all the leftards will attack you.

yes, i like Melbourne. Weather is invigorating.
I Currently live in brisbane, weather in summer is humid and hot.
never been to perth, but it has good comments by those who have.

helian - maybe contempt is somethnig muslims and leftards use because they can't admit there is a better way ?

criticism is something democracy uses to alter its course.



suck it up

hahahah, excellent stuff helian.

have a good day

Quote:


Sprint, I do believe that you wear your baseball cap backwards in church.

I can't see any change in opinion from that which allowed the banks do as they liked and which ultimately forced the public to come to their rescue so that may continue pay themselves ridiculous salaries.
The more that people get sucked in by the capitalist rorts, the more that it will be seen as a mandate to continue stealing from the public.

The sub prime mortgage crisis was caused by government intervention. Now you may watch your little left wing media and not or your just ignorant. Let me explain to you what caused the real estate debacle. One the federal reserve lowered interests rates artificially to an extremely low level. They did not let the market dictate the interest rates. This encouraged investing and spending and discouraged saving. However the biggest problem was the government run mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These were social justice mortgage companies who would back loans to people that normally would not be able to get loans. So the government backed loans to some people that didn't even have a job.  Now the government run industry like all government run entities had bad books, it didn't have the accountability and efficiency it should have. Then to make matters worse the government then bullied banks to make loans to minorities even if  the banks thought it was a bad idea. They threatened lawsuits and regulations and mandates. Now let me enlighten you to what happened, the people that the banks were forced to loan to and the people that took out govt mortgages didn't pay them back. Well seems like their was a reason that they couldn't qualify for the banks lending standards prior to the govt getting involved. This of course eventually made fannie mae and freddie mac go bankrupt as well as the banks that had to give loans to people that couldn't afford it. Also the low interest that the federal reserve artificially lowered to try to stimulate the economy encouraged the kind of buying and building of houses by people at a distorted rate because they weren't going by market standards they were going by artificially lowered interest rates set by the fed reserve. Now when the borrowers couldn't pay the house note this led to the bankruptcy of fannie mae and freddie mac and to the banks that made the loans to people that should of never got houses. Now these lowered interest rates led to people spending more than they should and built an economy centered around real estate artificially. So when the real estate industry fell our whole economy fell. But it wasn't the market that did this it was the exact opposite, it was govt. intervention.

Quote:


Strange POV there Merc. considering that it's one of the most important traits that seperates us from animals.
Without it, there would be no civilization. You'd have no mercedes, but you might have the square wheels.

Quote:


Well argued AC87, you might just make it in Oz after all.

Could you eleborate on just how the banks were forced to give loans to people who couldn't afford them?
From what I could see, even in Australia, banks were throwing money around willy nilly with blatant disregard to the risks involved.
People were buying their Mc Mansions on the never never, or never ever in a lot of cases, when a couple or percent interest rise or a job loss would mean disaster.
Nobody was twisting the arms of the banks here to send out letters offering people money and redraw options on their mortgage. The motivation was greed.

Amadd wrote on Aug 8^th, 2009 at 12:43am:

The United States has a statute known as the Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to make an "appropriate" level of lending to low-income and minority borrowers in the community.  While this statute has been on the books since 1977, the demographics of the nation has been changing and went from roughly 90% white when the law was passed to more like 65% white today.  President Bush also made a big push to increase the rate of minority home ownership, and whenever Federal regulators approve bank mergers one factor they look at is the minority lending portfolio.  Not enough minority lending, no merger.

Of course greed played a huge role, but greed is normally balanced by fear and a rational capital allocation process.  When the central bank simply prints huge amounts of money neither exists, and when all hot-shot Wall Street investment bankers know that GSEs will buy whatever crap they sell to them, even if they also short it, and that any mistakes will result in their being bailed out by the government, how can there be fear?








[/quote]