Is China really a threat to Australia?

Share |

Maybe the problem with the administration of George Bush was not simply his poor policy judgement, but his choice of friends, and ‘advisers’. According to the SMH Online, Philippa Malmgren, an adviser to George Bush as well as Deutsche Bank, is suggesting that Australia should lock China out of owning Australian resource assets. The problem with this policy is:

1. Imperialistic fear peddling at its worst, i.e. The old ‘them & us’ talk of China taking over the world.

2. Poor role model. Are we not trying to encourage China to end its collectivist history of socialism, by adopting capitalism, i.e. free markets. This counter positioning of fascist imperialism is not the antidote. Intellectual integrity is.

3. Poor empirical evidence for his views. If we look at Japan, Australia was not taken over by Japan. China is 10x bigger, so it will have 10x the impact Japan did, if not more

4. How do we make China more threatening by making it depend on us less

5. Plenty of competition – if we make access to Australia difficult for China, they will go elsewhere

6. Respecting the role of China – If we respect the role of China as a processor of raw materials, we stand a better chance of being respected as a ‘reliable supplier; of minerals....it might then not look elsewhere for minerals

7. The Australian government retains the right to arbitrarily tax all production from Australia. A power it should not exercise.

8. Why would it make good policy to impose a specific tax or ‘control’ upon the Chinese. Does that not descend to the worst levels of political diplomacy.

9. China buying up a lot of resources can only be good for Australia. We will only benefit from the mass liquidation of wealth, which we can free up for other purposes.

10. Why should we fear China buying into Australian mines. It could only raise gross export revenues for Australia. Australians would be better educated to appreciate the value of iron ore and other mineral assets, so these assets are fully valued when sold to the Chinese.

We don’t need to resort to extortion in order to produce wealth...we need only do what we do best, and allow the Chinese to do the same. Capitalism is based on the principle of trading value for value for mutual benefit.

The greater issue for Australia is how we will squander the wealth that we derive from China's participation in our economy. We have to fear the prospect of 'easy money' resulting in excessive welfarism as well as decadence. The pertinent precedence in this instance is Norway.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax Australia

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Where do the smart capitalists and parasites hide?

Share |

"Four Corners tells the story of Heinrich Kieber – roguish hero to some, amoral thief to others - and the worldwide fallout from his actions".

Hiding money overseas is not difficult if you have a lot. All you need to do is hire some consultants. The trick is to find a way of hiding money without anyone finding out. The art of money laundering is attacked by Western (OECD) governments because it reduces their tax receipts. These people are depicted as drug traffickers and other low life. But could it be possible that they are just people who don't agree with the government's right to tax their wealth? Is it possible that these people are just pragmatic or practical capitalists trying to escape an immoral system, just as the Jews escaped persecution from Hitler.
It does not surprise me because I have such principles....too strong to hide behind some bank vault. Fortunately I am ready for any government tax agency that believes they have a right to my cash. Of course they can expropriate my wealth if I earn income, but as long as I live on savings they can only collect tax from what I spend. Fortunately I have modest needs.

So is Heinrich Kieber a hero? Well clearly not since he was not motivated by principles, but by money. He was paid $6 million for the information and he broke the law to achieve it. Now, before you respond that he is no worse than the capitalist he exposed, consider the following:
1. The capitalists will include among them men of principle who don't believe in tax
2. Men of no principles just trying to pragmatically hide stolen money by fraud or deception

The difference is that Heinrich Kieber is alleged to have stolen proprietary information, which is a Common Land offence, whilst the capitalists have breached an arbitrary legislative law, enacted by politicians wanting to enslave capital and capitalists for their constituency. A great many people don't think so they will not make a distinction, but they are hardly the same offences. Legislation is based on arbitrary, subjective law. I don't think it makes much difference whether you are enslaved by a majority or a minority, if you are forced to hand over your wealth or earnings, you are not a free man. So Heinrich Kieber to me is the equivalent of a gun runner for terrorists. The capitalists are just average men, most of whom don't have the clarity of mind to express their ethical principles, or otherwise they just think REASON is not the standard, so why should I show my money. Good luck to them. I trust they did not put all their money in the one place. Clearly the best way to hide money is:
1. In different people's names
2. In different countries
3. In different languages
I would rather help 10 honest men and 10 dishonest men than 1 government because every government I know is intent on enslaving the people they represent. The truth of the matter is that Western governments are imposing their system on every corner of the world. I actually think its great that there are conflicts in the world, because as long as there are ethical divides there will be:
1. Greater reflection on moral principles
2. Somewhere to hide
3. A critic of Western practices - where Western governments have defiled the concept of freedom. The concept no longer means anything. Ideas don't mean anything. People are anti-science. Even scientists are anti-conceptual. This is another fascist period again. You might be surprised by the things I say but consider the following:
1. Most academics are paid by government-owned institutions - places of safety, not competition
2. Most scientists only utilise the scientific method, which is based on indiction rather than deduction. Science has been reduced to statistics. Causation has been abandoned
3. Most philosophers are sceptics, who engage in rationalist arguments like its a mental game detached from reality. You see this from academics who sproute different ideas, but they have no commitment to any. They want to show how small you are because you don't know their secret terminology. They are word snobs, yet they would starve without a government salary. These are the impractical intellectual brutes. They are teaching your children.
-------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com