NationStates Jolt Archive

Should economies seek greater trade liberalisation or protect their key industries vital for job creation and wealth formation?

Free Trade is definitely the way to go, it provides more for consumers and forces businesses to compete more globally.

Free Trade is definitely the way to go, it provides more for consumers and forces businesses to compete more globally.

What about all the people put out of work as employment moves offshore to cheap labour economies?

In order to answer this poll question as "No", one would have to believe that an a$$hat or a collection of them is so much more adept a presiding over correct and fair economic policies and do this better than a collection of two billion individual people. Individual people whom working toward their own self interests, engage in private and voluntary transactions to trade things of value to others in exchange for things of value.

:idea: Anyone who wants to take an modern historical look at trade and how trade policies have affected various countries may want to check this out (http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/freetotrade/chap2.html).

Warning, if you do read this you might just learn some stuff :P

Free Trade should not be achieved. FAIR trade should be.

In order to answer this poll question as "No", one would have to believe that an a$$hat or a collection of them is so much more adept a presiding over correct and fair economic policies and do this better than a collection of two billion individual people. Individual people whom working toward their own self interests, engage in private and voluntary transactions to trade things of value to others in exchange for things of value.

:idea: Anyone who wants to take an modern historical look at trade and how trade policies have affected various countries may want to check this out (http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/freetotrade/chap2.html).

Warning, if you do read this you might just learn some stuff :PIndividual people working for their own self interests... if thats the aim, then shouldn't insider trading be allowed?

Individual people working for their own self interests... if thats the aim, then shouldn't insider trading be allowed?

You seem to think that it's not allowed. Technically you're right but here's the rub. Officers of publicly traded companies have to announce their transactions ahead of time and disclose the volume and price of the transaction(s); they know what's going on well ahead of time. Other's that have insider knowledge only have to wait until the precise moment that the information becomes public. This gives them the advantage of making their transaction first - before the volatility occurs.

Is this wrong? Ask yourself this question: if you were in the market to purchase a brand new automobile this week and a member of your family that work at the dealership told you that you should wait three weeks in order to take advantage of an upcoming sales promotion, what would you do?

What we need is fair trade, not free trade.

Free Trade should not be achieved. FAIR trade should be.

And who gets to determine what's FAIR [an acronym :?: ]? What if the other person doesn't like the FAIR trade's terms and decides not to trade even though the two parties really wanted to make the exchange in the first place and without the FAIR terms?

God help you if you ever go into business for yourself and wind up on the lousy end of a FAIR trade "agreement". But no doubt that there will always be squeeky wheels that petition government representatives to turn the terms to there own favor...those same people never seem to grasp the consequences to their perceived "FAIR" meddeling.

Dragons: So government should interfere in the private agreements between individuals?

How disgusting.

Fair Trade should not be the goal we are working towards. Instead, we should work towards Free Trade. Economists believe in the ideals of laissez faire, the idea of trade without government intervention... Free trade is good for the global economy... The Great Depression did not just occur, because of the Stock Market Crash in October 24, 1929, but because of government intervention. Congress, acting on orders from Hoover, raised taxes and passed the highest tariff in American history, the Hawley-Smoot Tariff... Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates... These actions, supposedly supposed to "help" the struggling American economy, only paralyzed it.

The high tariff cut off international trade and illicited the raising of tariffs from other nations. The tax, coming at a time, when families were earning less and less, drained the economy of much needed funds. The high interest rates decreased the need for money and took even more money away from the economy...

All this resulted in the worst recession that occurred in world history, compared by John Maynard Keynes to the Dark Ages, which lasted some 400 years...

To economists, fair trade is just ridiculous... In today's global intertwined economy, fair trade does not exist, as prices are governed by supply and demand...

I'm so sick of anyone who believes in Fair Trade being labeled a protectionist. Fairt Trade does not equal no trade.

The fact is we have a trade system set up with the WTO that is not just designed to bring down trade barriers like the Hawley-Smoot tarrif. The WTO is designed to bust unions, lower wages, and allow international corporations to have no accountability for how they treat the environment or their workers.

The US used to have a WTO type economy in the 1800's when children worked 12 hour days and women were chained to their work stations so they wouldn't take so many bathroom breaks. America rejected that system then because we don't beleive in suspending all moral behavior in the pursuit of wealth. Paying people in third world countries poverty wages that force them to prostitute their children to American tourists is not part of an acceptable economic system. That's what is happening now, and no amount of ecnomic theory BS can justify that wrong.

There is no such thing as a WTO economy...

And I never said that what is happening is good, I'm just saying we can't control the global economy... It is completely out of our hands...

Dragons: So government should interfere in the private agreements between individuals?

How disgusting.


I feel a private property lecture coming on.

Tree Hugging Activists, have you studied economics? Do you know what the consequences of free trade is gonna be?

There is no such thing as a WTO economy...

And I never said that what is happening is good, I'm just saying we can't control the global economy... It is completely out of our hands...
When global leaders talk about Free Trade today they aren't talking about lowering tariffs. They're talking about an economic system being set up by the WTO and World Bank. You might want to tell conservative and centrist leaders who support those institutions that they can't control the global economy because they're trying very hard to do so in the name of Trade.

I'm so sick of anyone who believes in Fair Trade being labeled a protectionist. Fairt Trade does not equal no trade.

The fact is we have a trade system set up with the WTO that is not just designed to bring down trade barriers like the Hawley-Smoot tarrif. The WTO is designed to bust unions, lower wages, and allow international corporations to have no accountability for how they treat the environment or their workers.

The US used to have a WTO type economy in the 1800's when children worked 12 hour days and women were chained to their work stations so they wouldn't take so many bathroom breaks. America rejected that system then because we don't beleive in suspending all moral behavior in the pursuit of wealth. Paying people in third world countries poverty wages that force them to prostitute their children to American tourists is not part of an acceptable economic system. That's what is happening now, and no amount of ecnomic theory BS can justify that wrong.

tossing aside most of your hyperbole and getting to the nut of the matter regarding poor countries and their conditions. Is it possible that those countries are the way they are because they do not have individual ownership rights, civil liberties, and are centrally planned by despots, tyrannts, or well meaning elitists with socialist leanings? These are the very conditions that lead to having no market or a lack of a substantial market. No markets mean no trade...no trade and there's no comparative advantage...no comparative advantage and there's no growth...no growth and there's no standard of living...no rights or ownership and there's corrupt justice...shall I go on?

Free trade yes, but when I say free trade, I mean free as in freedom, that means no patents, and various dumb property laws. One can trade work but one can not trade slavery, stealing and humiliation in exchange for work. That is not free trade, but mafia-style trade.

That's what is happening now, and no amount of ecnomic theory BS can justify that wrong.

It's not wrong if ALL PEOPLE INVOLVED agree to it.

Damn anti-individualist dumbass...

Tree Hugging Activists, have you studied economics? Do you know what the consequences of free trade is gonna be?
Yes I have and we don't have to guess what the consequences of current "free" trade policies will be. We can already view the results of trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO. We have seen wages lowered not only in the US as people are pushed from good paying Union jobs onto welfare and newly created jobs that only pay minimum wage; but also conditions have gotten worse in the developing nations that are supposed to be helped by the free trade policies. None of the claims made by free traders have happened as a result of the WTO.

That's what is happening now, and no amount of ecnomic theory BS can justify that wrong.

It's not wrong if ALL PEOPLE INVOLVED agree to it.

Damn anti-individualist dumbass...Looks like at least him is not agreeing, no?

Well, technically, the WTO is extremely flawed... It says that its for free trade, but in reality, its more of a restriction... The nations in the club got perks, with the rich nations getting more, while poor, developing nations got less...

The WTO DOES NOT WORK!

That's what is happening now, and no amount of ecnomic theory BS can justify that wrong.

It's not wrong if ALL PEOPLE INVOLVED agree to it.

Damn anti-individualist dumbass...Looks like at least him is not agreeing, no?

Um...WHO is not agreeing?

This (http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-026.pdf) would be a good read for anyone who is interested in how free trade leads to freedoms abroad - freedoms where there was once none.

Dragons: So government should interfere in the private agreements between individuals?

How disgusting.

says the guy who thinks torture is ok.

some agreements are grossly exploitative.

free trade cannot be anything other than ridiculously exploitative, until the necessary rights and protections for workers are also globalized. rights including the right to unionize, the right to strike, and the right to immigrate to any country they like without restriction. even then it would only be slightly less exploitative; as long as we have an economic system based on a few having a near monopoly on capital and the rest renting themselves out to it, we can only make slight adjustments to the amount of exploitation the capitalists can get away with.

free trade cannot be anything other than ridiculously exploitative, until the necessary rights and protections for workers are also globalized. rights including the right to unionize, the right to strike, and the right to immigrate to any country they like without restriction. even then it would only be slightly less exploitative; as long as we have an economic system based on a few having a near monopoly on capital and the rest renting themselves out to it, we can only make slight adjustments to the amount of exploitation the capitalists can get away with.

The right for laborers to unionize and collectively bargain is cool. The right for business to discriminate against individuals who like to unionize and collectively bargain - by telling them to "pack sand" - is equally cool!

Protect workers in your own country. At the moment manufacturing is heading to cheap labour nations and the advanced economies are losing the very thing which builds a strong and sustainable economy.

Pretty soon, thanks to wealth creating manufacturing, those nations will become the rich and the West shall be poor.

Time to cut the lifeline to the Third World. Let them deal with their own problems.

free trade. Plenty of economists are pro free trade

The right for laborers to unionize and collectively bargain is cool. The right for business to discriminate against individuals who like to unionize and collectively bargain - by telling them to "pack sand" - is equally cool!

why should business have the right to discriminate against people for union activity?

Free trade is sometimes a good thing, sometimes it isn't. While it was pointed out that tariffs helped to cause the Great Depression (although it was more because of speculation) tariffs were also in place when America and Britain both became industrial powerhouses.

there are three phases in the construction of a national economy, twoof them favor free trade, one of them does not. the first phase, economies rely on the use of raw materials to support their economy. in this case, a nation benifits from free trade, because they are able to export their materials, and recieve finished projects much more easily. in the first stage, when capital accumulates, its a good thing. then, when an economy wants to expand beyond their original provide raw amterials stage, into a producing stage, they need to add tariffs, a centralized economy, etc. if they close off competitors, they can devolop manufacturing industries. temporarely, the people in the country will have to pay more for goods, but only because the country has to become efficient in producing said goods. as soon as manufacturing is mature in a country, the third phase occurs. in it, economies run out of domestic markets and must expand outward. they increase their market to include counties without manufacturing sectors. they are able to trade these poor countries for raw amterials. they try to keep free trade channels open because its better for their bottom line now that they have competitive manufacturing sectors set up.

three phases, 2 of them favor free trade. free trade is good for hati, its good for the us, its bad for mexico. i rest my case.

I'm in favor of whatever economic model most benefits the USA and her allies.
Free trade can't be broken down to "It's good or it's bad". At any rate, due to our level of technology, it's becoming rather difficult to stop free trade. A more telling question would be "Would it even be able to stop free trade from gaining momentum?" Every nation plays the game of determining what economic policies most benefit itself, and this will continue as long as nation states exist, completely free trade's never going to exist. It can, however, exist in certain circumstances and areas.

As for the manufacturing sector, well, I also believe that saving it in the West is critically important. However, overzealous government regulations on labor and the environment are drastically increasing the cost of manufacturing in the West, and need to be eased. It's no surprise that manufacturers wish to move elsewhere. Increased automation can largely eliminate the cheap-labor advantage. However, this is prevented at every turn by the all-powerful unions.

The problem with "free trade" is that the "freedom" applies only to capital.

For capital to move to nations where the wage costs is lower is so commonplace it is hardly commented on any more. Things are "outsourced"; companies are "multi-national"; stocks, bonds and shares are traded in international markets.

However, if labour attempts to move from a low wage market to a high wage market, the we start building detention camps, and attempt to limit immigration.

The "winner" in such a situation is, obviously, the multi-national companies, the only "losers" are wage and salary earners.

Why these workers continually allow themselves to be "conned" in this manner is beyond my understanding.

GrannyD (http://www.grannyd.com/)

Fair Trade not free trade. YEAH BabY!

Free Trade is much better than protectionism. And what we have now isn't really free trade, although realistically its closer than we've been ever before.

...

The problem with "free trade" is that the "freedom" applies only to capital.

damn straight. we'll talk about free trade after we get rid of borders for people.

maybe.


Why these workers continually allow themselves to be "conned" in this manner is beyond my understanding.

because the labor movement isn't strong enough to shift popular opinion anymore. and reformist labor unions are not internationalist and so they led themselves down a dead end path of insular protectionism - which in the end means always fighting a losing battle.

I am favourable to protectionism for unique, quality, local products, and to protectionism for young or unstable nations with a developing economy.

The right for laborers to unionize and collectively bargain is cool. The right for business to discriminate against individuals who like to unionize and collectively bargain - by telling them to "pack sand" - is equally cool!

why should business have the right to discriminate against people for union activity?

You're kidding, right? I suppose that you feel that business should be forced to come to the terms of those who collectively bargain and kowtow to their every demand without having any opinion an the matter. Hell yes, business should have the right to decide whose services they want to retain and whose they do not. Are you suggesting that we should take away that freedom too?

The problem is that "progressives" have tainted the word "discrimination" so badly, that when they hear the word, it causes knee-jerk reactions so violent, that they manage to jam their entire foot in their mouths.

The right for laborers to unionize and collectively bargain is cool. The right for business to discriminate against individuals who like to unionize and collectively bargain - by telling them to "pack sand" - is equally cool!

why should business have the right to discriminate against people for union activity?

You're kidding, right? I suppose that you feel that business should be forced to come to the terms of those who collectively bargain and kowtow to their every demand without having any opinion an the matter. Hell yes, business should have the right to decide whose services they want to retain and whose they do not. Are you suggesting that we should take away that freedom too?

The problem is that "progressives" have tainted the word "discrimination" so badly, that when they hear the word, it causes knee-jerk reactions so violent, that they manage to jam their entire foot in their mouths.

The right for laborers to unionize and collectively bargain is cool. The right for business to discriminate against individuals who like to unionize and collectively bargain - by telling them to "pack sand" - is equally cool!

why should business have the right to discriminate against people for union activity?

You're kidding, right? I suppose that you feel that business should be forced to come to the terms of those who collectively bargain and kowtow to their every demand without having any opinion an the matter. Hell yes, business should have the right to decide whose services they want to retain and whose they do not. Are you suggesting that we should take away that freedom too?

The problem is that "progressives" have tainted the word "discrimination" so badly, that when they hear the word, it causes knee-jerk reactions so violent, that they manage to jam their entire foot in their mouths.


I would have thought that the "freedom of association" fight was long over.

Are you saying that in some places it is "legal" for business to discriminate in their hiring practice based on union membership? It most certainly is not in Australia, despite the Liberal Governments best efforts (for non-Australian readers, the "Liberals" with a capitol L, are in fact extremely conservative).

DP.
Damn this server.
My kingdom for a new server!
:roll:

The right for laborers to unionize and collectively bargain is cool. The right for business to discriminate against individuals who like to unionize and collectively bargain - by telling them to "pack sand" - is equally cool!

why should business have the right to discriminate against people for union activity?

You're kidding, right? I suppose that you feel that business should be forced to come to the terms of those who collectively bargain and kowtow to their every demand without having any opinion an the matter. Hell yes, business should have the right to decide whose services they want to retain and whose they do not. Are you suggesting that we should take away that freedom too?

The problem is that "progressives" have tainted the word "discrimination" so badly, that when they hear the word, it causes knee-jerk reactions so violent, that they manage to jam their entire foot in their mouths.


I would have thought that the "freedom of association" fight was long over.

Are you saying that in some places it is "legal" for business to discriminate in their hiring practice based on union membership? It most certainly is not in Australia, despite the Liberal Governments best efforts (for non-Australian readers, the "Liberals" with a capitol L, are in fact extremely conservative).

No, but under past Labor governments, if you did not belong to a Union, you could not find work. Compulsory unionism under Labor stunted growth and filled the coffers of left wing political parties.

P.S. The Trade Unions are a major source of funding for the Labor Party. 1 guess as to why Labor then supports compulsory trade unionism.

At least Howard gave workers a right to choose to represent themselves. There are now more workers on Australian Workplace Agreements and Enterprise Bargaining, than in the unions. Only 17% of all workers today belong to a trade union in Australia. Why? Because the unions didn't do their job and too often sided with big business.

why should business have the right to discriminate against people for union activity?

You're kidding, right? I suppose that you feel that business should be forced to come to the terms of those who collectively bargain and kowtow to their every demand without having any opinion an the matter.

Hell yes, business should have the right to decide whose services they want to retain and whose they do not. Are you suggesting that we should take away that freedom too?

no, i'm not kidding. businesses exists as a means to produce and distribute goods and services. why should the tiny minority that runs them be allowed to negate the fundamental freedoms of real human beings (such as the freedom of association)? any "freedom" that can only be used by a tiny minority, and that takes away the freedom of others is no freedom at all.

Are you saying that in some places it is "legal" for business to discriminate in their hiring practice based on union membership?

he is saying that it should be. an argument that will also lead him to say that if a company wants to it should be "free" to not hire black people or women or any other group that those in charge dislike.

The right for laborers to unionize and collectively bargain is cool. The right for business to discriminate against individuals who like to unionize and collectively bargain - by telling them to "pack sand" - is equally cool!

why should business have the right to discriminate against people for union activity?

You're kidding, right? I suppose that you feel that business should be forced to come to the terms of those who collectively bargain and kowtow to their every demand without having any opinion an the matter. Hell yes, business should have the right to decide whose services they want to retain and whose they do not. Are you suggesting that we should take away that freedom too?

The problem is that "progressives" have tainted the word "discrimination" so badly, that when they hear the word, it causes knee-jerk reactions so violent, that they manage to jam their entire foot in their mouths.


I would have thought that the "freedom of association" fight was long over.

Are you saying that in some places it is "legal" for business to discriminate in their hiring practice based on union membership? It most certainly is not in Australia, despite the Liberal Governments best efforts (for non-Australian readers, the "Liberals" with a capitol L, are in fact extremely conservative).

No, but under past Labor governments, if you did not belong to a Union, you could not find work. Compulsory unionism under Labor stunted growth and filled the coffers of left wing political parties.

P.S. The Trade Unions are a major source of funding for the Labor Party. 1 guess as to why Labor then supports compulsory trade unionism.

At least Howard gave workers a right to choose to represent themselves. There are now more workers on Australian Workplace Agreements and Enterprise Bargaining, than in the unions. Only 17% of all workers today belong to a trade union in Australia. Why? Because the unions didn't do their job and too often sided with big business.

The Liberals, in turn, are propped up by big business.
Which is why they offer such huge bonuses back to them in return. For example, company tax rates are considerably less than that payed by the poor wage or salary earner, particularly those on the PAYE system. It also explains why such shonky companies as those involved in the ethanol industry get such patronage, in this case also disadvantaging the ordinary motorist.
As for trade union membership, it is a shame that so many are prepared to accept the wages/salaries/conditions won for them by the unions, without contributing anything back to them.
It is also the unions who represent the lowest paid workers in minimum wage cases. The last one saw a "win" of $10 per week, with business arguing that this will cost jobs. Funny how a huge salary increase to a company director never seems to cost jobs, and is "affordable".
Still, we shouldn't have to put up with Little Johnny, the Mad Monk, and their cronies for much longer.
For the latest insight into their pathetic scheming try:
http://www.crikey.com.au/politics/2004/05/05-0008.html
on the budget
and
http://www.crikey.com.au/politics/2004/04/30-0001.html
on propping their big business mates
or
http://www.crikey.com.au/media/2004/05/08-0001.html
on their shonky deals with media pay-for-comment broadcasters

Crikey!

As for trade union membership, it is a shame that so many are prepared to accept the wages/salaries/conditions won for them by the unions, without contributing anything back to them.
It is also the unions who represent the lowest paid workers in minimum wage cases.

Yes well it was a $19 rise not a $10 rise. Business wanted $10 and the unions demanded $26. A compromise was made. Which is fair enough.

If you are on an AWA or enterprise bargaining then you do not get anything from the unions. 33% of Australian workers are on AWAs and therefore are unaffected by union driven wage rises.

As for unions representing the lowest paid workers, this is in fact untrue. Take checkout operators as an example. In the past 3 years, many have only obtained a rise of some $0.50 and for what? $200 a year in union fees gained nothing.

The only ones who gain from trade unionism are ALP members. After all, without trade union money, the ALP would not exist.

P.S. Both the Liberals and ALP are pro big business - at least Hawke/keating were. Working Nation and various other initiatives (if you can call them that) played into the hands of big businesses. Billions of dollars for traineeships which resulted in business building schemes to add offices and pay for fancy trips to wineries and gold resorts.

Meanwhile, 11% of the workforce ended up unemployed. This means almost 1 million people were out of work under Labor. And what did the trade unions do? NOTHING.

Now we have less unionism, less regulation and 1.3 million jobs created since 1996. Unemployment is the lowest in decades and more people are bargaining with their employers for a better wage.

In a period of surplus labour, unions are powerless. My fear however is that with the coming skills shortage, unions will become powerful again.

Interesting to note that unions were never created to support the poor or disadvantaged to begin with. Unions formed to protect local industry and the jobs held by para-professionals. Unions also represented White Australia.

Funny how things change. Now the unions pander to every minority group and do next to nothing for workers. Instead they help fill the coffers of the ALP.

Crikey is second rate investigative journalism. Only die hard socialists read such propaganda.

Crikey is second rate investigative journalism. Only die hard socialists read such propaganda.

Try reading it sometime.
You will find it dishes out appropriate "serves" to both sides.

Crikey is second rate investigative journalism. Only die hard socialists read such propaganda.

Try reading it sometime.
You will find it dishes out appropriate "serves" to both sides.

Just because it caters to both sides does not stop it from being second rate.

Are you saying that in some places it is "legal" for business to discriminate in their hiring practice based on union membership? It most certainly is not in Australia, despite the Liberal Governments best efforts (for non-Australian readers, the "Liberals" with a capitol L, are in fact extremely conservative).
I hope that fight is over in Australia. In the US just try saying the word "union" in a Wal-Mart and see how long it takes before someone gets fired. Labor laws here are too weak to be enforced in most states.

Crikey is second rate investigative journalism. Only die hard socialists read such propaganda.

Try reading it sometime.
You will find it dishes out appropriate "serves" to both sides.

Just because it caters to both sides does not stop it from being second rate.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, no matter how inaccurate or biased it may be.

However, if it does, in fact "cater to both sides" (your expression) then why would "Only die hard socialists read such propaganda.".

Do try to at least look at something before passing judgement on it.

It may even prove to be educational.

Crikey is second rate investigative journalism. Only die hard socialists read such propaganda.

Try reading it sometime.
You will find it dishes out appropriate "serves" to both sides.

Just because it caters to both sides does not stop it from being second rate.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, no matter how inaccurate or biased it may be.

However, if it does, in fact "cater to both sides" (your expression) then why would "Only die hard socialists read such propaganda.".

Do try to at least look at something before passing judgement on it.

It may even prove to be educational.

Yes, only die hard socialists read such propaganda. That is because all the conservatives are busy working hard to support the O so generous welfare state created by the ALP. They don't have time to read it!

I have seen Crikey on several occassions. I, unlike some others do not judge a book by its cover.

Second rate is second rate. Of course, being supporters of a second rate party I would think some here could understand this.

Yes, only die hard socialists read such propaganda. That is because all the conservatives are busy working hard to support the O so generous welfare state created by the ALP. They don't have time to read it!

What a shame you don't have the time to educate yourself.

Yes, only die hard socialists read such propaganda. That is because all the conservatives are busy working hard to support the O so generous welfare state created by the ALP. They don't have time to read it!

What a shame you don't have the time to educate yourself.

You're losing your touch Smeagol. The personal insults are getting mild.

I have had a fine education thank you. At a public school in fact and there was nothing wrong (funded quite well - in the suburbs) except for the left leaning teaching staff who at every opportunity raved about their hatred for John Howard.

But that will change :twisted:

Honestly. I do not see what is wrong about someone having a different opinion. Everyone who disagrees with you gets flamed or abused to excess.

Instead of abusing me, why not prove why Crikey is not second rate.

Yes, only die hard socialists read such propaganda. That is because all the conservatives are busy working hard to support the O so generous welfare state created by the ALP. They don't have time to read it!

What a shame you don't have the time to educate yourself.

You're losing your touch Smeagol. The personal insults are getting mild.

I have had a fine education thank you. At a public school in fact and there was nothing wrong (funded quite well - in the suburbs) except for the left leaning teaching staff who at every opportunity raved about their hatred for John Howard.

But that will change :twisted:

Honestly. I do not see what is wrong about someone having a different opinion. Everyone who disagrees with you gets flamed or abused to excess.

Instead of abusing me, why not prove why Crikey is not second rate.

Your usual trick again, I see.
You make a wild assertion, in this instance that "CrikeY' is second rate, offering nothing to back it up.
You then challenge me to disprove your wild and unproven assertion, while, incidentally, ignoring the points made in their articles.
How about, just this once, you attempt to prove your assertion.
It is based on what precisely???

Yes, only die hard socialists read such propaganda. That is because all the conservatives are busy working hard to support the O so generous welfare state created by the ALP. They don't have time to read it!

What a shame you don't have the time to educate yourself.

You're losing your touch Smeagol. The personal insults are getting mild.

I have had a fine education thank you. At a public school in fact and there was nothing wrong (funded quite well - in the suburbs) except for the left leaning teaching staff who at every opportunity raved about their hatred for John Howard.

But that will change :twisted:

Honestly. I do not see what is wrong about someone having a different opinion. Everyone who disagrees with you gets flamed or abused to excess.

Instead of abusing me, why not prove why Crikey is not second rate.

Your usual trick again, I see.
You make a wild assertion, in this instance that "CrikeY' is second rate, offering nothing to back it up.
You then challenge me to disprove your wild and unproven assertion, while, incidentally, ignoring the points made in their articles.
How about, just this once, you attempt to prove your assertion.
It is based on what precisely???

Based on my opinion. Cannot you accept that some people have minds of their own? That they were not brainwashed by the education system?

Clearly not.

Yes, only die hard socialists read such propaganda. That is because all the conservatives are busy working hard to support the O so generous welfare state created by the ALP. They don't have time to read it!

What a shame you don't have the time to educate yourself.

You're losing your touch Smeagol. The personal insults are getting mild.

I have had a fine education thank you. At a public school in fact and there was nothing wrong (funded quite well - in the suburbs) except for the left leaning teaching staff who at every opportunity raved about their hatred for John Howard.

But that will change :twisted:

Honestly. I do not see what is wrong about someone having a different opinion. Everyone who disagrees with you gets flamed or abused to excess.

Instead of abusing me, why not prove why Crikey is not second rate.

Your usual trick again, I see.
You make a wild assertion, in this instance that "CrikeY' is second rate, offering nothing to back it up.
You then challenge me to disprove your wild and unproven assertion, while, incidentally, ignoring the points made in their articles.
How about, just this once, you attempt to prove your assertion.
It is based on what precisely???

Based on my opinion. Cannot you accept that some people have minds of their own? That they were not brainwashed by the education system?

Clearly not.

You are, as I said, entitled to your opinion. However, if you offer absolutley nothing in support of such an opinion, do not be surprised to see it challenged. And then asking someone to "disprove" such an opinion is a bit of a pointless exercise.
Of course, anyone who disagrees with you must not have "minds of their own", and have been "brainwashed". :roll:
An amusing "proof".

You are, as I said, entitled to your opinion. However, if you offer absolutley nothing in support of such an opinion, do not be surprised to see it challenged. And then asking someone to "disprove" such an opinion is a bit of a pointless exercise.
Of course, anyone who disagrees with you must not have "minds of their own", and have been "brainwashed". :roll:
An amusing "proof".

What would it matter? You already have your mind made up. Why waste my time putting forward evidence? I may as well play "politician" with you.