I don’t intend to fire up an outrage bus with nitro-wookie injection but I overheard a conversation that described the establishment cost of imigrants as involving the government provding a realtor with $65K to house recipients who are then further provided with 50K in cash to establish themselves. If this is accurate how significant is the comparison in cumulative cost between this welfare practice and that those born in the country receive allotting recipients between 12 and 18K annually on average?

If this is the practice for refugees, does this indicate that normal welfare recipients are intentionally being put in housing crisis circumstances? This might be justifiable as a motivator for seeking employment but only if there is a surplus of employment available. Without that factor wouldn’t putting a percentage of the population in housing crisis just equate to further weakening the economy?

“…Without that factor wouldn’t putting a percentage of the population in housing crisis just equate to further weakening the economy?

you must be a communist, ‘housing’ is a large portion of property owned, and in Australia capitalism rules, and the economy and all are stratified, which brings order and civilization.

as far as i am aware refugees get no more from the government then any other person. as asylum seekers they are considered wards of the state and get whatever care they are entitled to under the law. that is the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee.

transition said:

“…Without that factor wouldn’t putting a percentage of the population in housing crisis just equate to further weakening the economy?

you must be a communist, ‘housing’ is a large portion of property owned, and in Australia capitalism rules, and the economy and all are stratified, which brings order and civilization.

Ignoring the suggestion of communism, are you stating that capitalism is the new meritocrisy?

JudgeMental said:

as far as i am aware refugees get no more from the government then any other person. as asylum seekers they are considered wards of the state and get whatever care they are entitled to under the law. that is the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee.

fairy-nuffs if so. another urban-myth bites the dust. They may simply get prioritised under government housing separately, idk.

they don’t get anything other housing list waiters don’t get. of course there are a lot of charities and refugee advocacy groups who do a lot to help refugees get on.

https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/publications/fact-sheet-98-settlement-services-for-refugees

Postpocelipse said:

transition said:

“…Without that factor wouldn’t putting a percentage of the population in housing crisis just equate to further weakening the economy?

you must be a communist, ‘housing’ is a large portion of property owned, and in Australia capitalism rules, and the economy and all are stratified, which brings order and civilization.

Ignoring the suggestion of communism, are you stating that capitalism is the new meritocrisy?

Not to waste a thread, what are the comparable factors between deed based meritocrisies of the past and the current practise of property capital defining merit?

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

transition said:

“…Without that factor wouldn’t putting a percentage of the population in housing crisis just equate to further weakening the economy?

you must be a communist, ‘housing’ is a large portion of property owned, and in Australia capitalism rules, and the economy and all are stratified, which brings order and civilization.

Ignoring the suggestion of communism, are you stating that capitalism is the new meritocrisy?

Not to waste a thread, what are the comparable factors between deed based meritocrisies of the past and the current practise of property capital defining merit?

Who says property capital defines merit?

Who acts like it does?

Very few people I would suggest.

I’d like to see voting restricted to people who own land, land over 300 acres say.
This would be similar to membership of the Labor party that is restricted to people who have a trade union ticket.

The advantage of only land owners voting is polyfold, it keeps out the riff raff, the dole bludging drug fucked hippies and other brian damaged individuals on one hand while expanding indigenous suffrage on the other.
Land prices will go up as wealthy city lawyers and doctors who want to vote go bananas on ebay over a busted arsed 300 acre property west of Quilpie.

Peak Warming Man said:

I’d like to see voting restricted to people who own land, land over 300 acres say.
This would be similar to membership of the Labor party that is restricted to people who have a trade union ticket.

The advantage of only land owners voting is polyfold, it keeps out the riff raff, the dole bludging drug fucked hippies and other brian damaged individuals on one hand while expanding indigenous suffrage on the other.
Land prices will go up as wealthy city lawyers and doctors who want to vote go bananas on ebay over a busted arsed 300 acre property west of Quilpie.

I’d do the same thing, only the other way round, on the basis that anyone who owns 300 acres or more in their own name already has more than enough influence on national policies, thankyou very much.

don’t mind me, was being a bit that-word-with-all-the-vowels-in-order

Postpocelipse said:

I don’t intend to fire up an outrage bus with nitro-wookie injection but I overheard a conversation that described the establishment cost of imigrants as involving the government provding a realtor with $65K to house recipients who are then further provided with 50K in cash to establish themselves. If this is accurate…

my first line of investigation would be to establish if this was accurate or not.

transition said:

don’t mind me, was being a bit that-word-with-all-the-vowels-in-order

Abstemious?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Ignoring the suggestion of communism, are you stating that capitalism is the new meritocrisy?

Not to waste a thread, what are the comparable factors between deed based meritocrisies of the past and the current practise of property capital defining merit?

Who says property capital defines merit?

Who acts like it does?

Very few people I would suggest.

The numbers of immigrants are in that few.

roughbarked said:

The numbers of immigrants are in that few.

I don’t know what that means.

>Abstemious?

:)

no, still well done though.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The numbers of immigrants are in that few.

I don’t know what that means.

fair enough. You have to see it to believe it.

Q – was “welfare” in Samuel Johnson’s dictionary, and what of the word origins?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The numbers of immigrants are in that few.

I don’t know what that means.

fair enough. You have to see it to believe it.

What do you have to see to believe?

there you go

http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?p=7679

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I’d like to see voting restricted to people who own land, land over 300 acres say.
This would be similar to membership of the Labor party that is restricted to people who have a trade union ticket.

The advantage of only land owners voting is polyfold, it keeps out the riff raff, the dole bludging drug fucked hippies and other brian damaged individuals on one hand while expanding indigenous suffrage on the other.
Land prices will go up as wealthy city lawyers and doctors who want to vote go bananas on ebay over a busted arsed 300 acre property west of Quilpie.

I’d do the same thing, only the other way round, on the basis that anyone who owns 300 acres or more in their own name already has more than enough influence on national policies, thankyou very much.

I think that idea has some merit. Voting is a ballot of the general population. Individuals with non-general influence would be better contributing to constructively defining policy. Instead of arguing what is a better policy option in parliament corporate capital should be predisposed to testing concepts and theories for legislation.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Who says property capital defines merit?

Who acts like it does?

Very few people I would suggest.

err,,, those with capital are protected from losing that capital and this is justifiable as accumulation of capital at least intimates the investor demonstrates applicable virtues to maintain within the community. I’m not sure what else you were driving at Rev.

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Who says property capital defines merit?

Who acts like it does?

Very few people I would suggest.

err,,, those with capital are protected from losing that capital and this is justifiable as accumulation of capital at least intimates the investor demonstrates applicable virtues to maintain within the community. I’m not sure what else you were driving at Rev.

Are you pointing out the obvious that ancient meritocrisies required feats of heroism to maintain public support and a person does not require public support to gather capital under capitalist meritocrisy?

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Who says property capital defines merit?

Who acts like it does?

Very few people I would suggest.

err,,, those with capital are protected from losing that capital and this is justifiable as accumulation of capital at least intimates the investor demonstrates applicable virtues to maintain within the community. I’m not sure what else you were driving at Rev.

Are you pointing out the obvious that ancient meritocrisies required feats of heroism to maintain public support and a person does not require public support to gather capital under capitalist meritocrisy?

No, I am suggesting that most people don’t say that property defines merit, and most people don’t act like property defines merit.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

err,,, those with capital are protected from losing that capital and this is justifiable as accumulation of capital at least intimates the investor demonstrates applicable virtues to maintain within the community. I’m not sure what else you were driving at Rev.

Are you pointing out the obvious that ancient meritocrisies required feats of heroism to maintain public support and a person does not require public support to gather capital under capitalist meritocrisy?

No, I am suggesting that most people don’t say that property defines merit, and most people don’t act like property defines merit.

Depends how far you extend the definition of property. Intellectual property is applicable under capitalism as merit.

Postpocelipse said:

Depends how far you extend the definition of property. Intellectual property is applicable under capitalism as merit.

I think you are moving the goal posts, but my statement still holds if you include intellectual property.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Depends how far you extend the definition of property. Intellectual property is applicable under capitalism as merit.

I think you are moving the goal posts, but my statement still holds if you include intellectual property.

Capitalism is a system that shows preference to what is successful economically. It is a merit based system. The fact that no two people will necessarily agree on how much merit capitalism has as a system does not change that.

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Depends how far you extend the definition of property. Intellectual property is applicable under capitalism as merit.

I think you are moving the goal posts, but my statement still holds if you include intellectual property.

Capitalism is a system that shows preference to what is successful economically. It is a merit based system. The fact that no two people will necessarily agree on how much merit capitalism has as a system does not change that.

I have not said anything about capitalism. I have made a comment about how most people judge merit.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think you are moving the goal posts, but my statement still holds if you include intellectual property.

Capitalism is a system that shows preference to what is successful economically. It is a merit based system. The fact that no two people will necessarily agree on how much merit capitalism has as a system does not change that.

I have not said anything about capitalism. I have made a comment about how most people judge merit.

Which is why I raised the question. The system is portrayed as democracy but is run as capitalism. Democracy implies that the capital of greatest merit is the collective intellectual property of the community where capitalism weighs profit as merit. Politicians who are meant to represent democracy trade the communities needs for economic growth. The community feels preyed upon or stigmatised as ‘the problem’.

Is there a fundamental discord between the objectives of democracy and capitalism that must be fundamentally resolved?

Postpocelipse said:

Is there a fundamental discord between the objectives of democracy and capitalism that must be fundamentally resolved?

No, there is a fundamental discord between the objectives of democracy and the objectives of some politicians and some business leaders.

There is nothing fundamentally discordant between democracy and capitalism provided we accept that capitalism must be controlled, which almost everyone does, at least to some extent.

Pure capitalism is anarchy…

furious said:

Pure capitalism is anarchy…

But there is no country anywhere in the World that operates under a pure capitalist system.

• But there is no country anywhere in the World that operates under a pure capitalist system.

And that is a good thing…

furious said:

• But there is no country anywhere in the World that operates under a pure capitalist system.

And that is a good thing…

It certainly is :)

Postpocelipse said:

Which is why I raised the question. The system is portrayed as democracy but is run as capitalism. Democracy implies that the capital of greatest merit is the collective intellectual property of the community where capitalism weighs profit as merit. Politicians who are meant to represent democracy trade the communities needs for economic growth. The community feels preyed upon or stigmatised as ‘the problem’.

Is there a fundamental discord between the objectives of democracy and capitalism that must be fundamentally resolved?

Not a fundamental discord. Capitalism is a good enough starting point to get most of the fundamental functions of a democratic society working. Some tweaking and legislation is necessary to correct market failures and inefficiencies, or to do extra things that capitalism can’t do. While not a perfect fit, they can provide a workable system. There’s always going to be debate and disagreement around the edges where they overlap.

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

Which is why I raised the question. The system is portrayed as democracy but is run as capitalism. Democracy implies that the capital of greatest merit is the collective intellectual property of the community where capitalism weighs profit as merit. Politicians who are meant to represent democracy trade the communities needs for economic growth. The community feels preyed upon or stigmatised as ‘the problem’.

Is there a fundamental discord between the objectives of democracy and capitalism that must be fundamentally resolved?

Not a fundamental discord. Capitalism is a good enough starting point to get most of the fundamental functions of a democratic society working. Some tweaking and legislation is necessary to correct market failures and inefficiencies, or to do extra things that capitalism can’t do. While not a perfect fit, they can provide a workable system. There’s always going to be debate and disagreement around the edges where they overlap.

That is simply a matter of education keeping pace with the exploits of capitalism I’m guessing. After re-engaging with my son’s learning process I think there is plenty of hope.

>objectives of democracy

summarise your view regard what they is, short’n simple.

transition said:

>objectives of democracy

summarise your view regard what they is, short’n simple.

—

achieve the wants and needs of society

>achieve the wants and needs of society

sounds aright, but in that word “achieve” what do you consider the ‘driver’, if you like…

it’ll never end tauto. you’ll be defining till the cows come home.

transition said:

>objectives of democracy

summarise your view regard what they is, short’n simple.

I’d say that the over-riding objective of democracy is that when a government goes so far off track that more than half the population object to it, you can get rid of them.

>I’d say that the over-riding objective of democracy is that when a government goes so far off track that more than half the population object to it, you can get rid of them

Probably a key aspect is in “off track”, of what on track is.

Democracy probably could be said to be organic in some ways, and of capitalism too, you know like supply and demand, wants and needs, it might be said (perhaps idealized, but maybe true to great extent) that exchanges and reciprocities emerge, and are allowed and encouraged to emerge and grow.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>objectives of democracy

summarise your view regard what they is, short’n simple.

I’d say that the over-riding objective of democracy is that when a government goes so far off track that more than half the population object to it, you can get rid of them.

Or perhaps it was just a means of placating and taming the working class to stave off communism.

Postpocelipse said:

I don’t intend to fire up an outrage bus with nitro-wookie injection?

looks over, unstraps arm and puts away syringe