?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Barnaby Joyce - The Senator from Cubbie Station
australianvoice
This is a guest post by Ron Chandler (https://www.facebook.com/ron.chandler.779)

The Dirt on Cubbie Station  

Transcribed and assembled from a sequence of tweets, a Herculean labor, but from a source close to the action, most interesting -- --
Cubbie Station, the Darling River, and Barnaby Joyce, Ronni Salt, MsVeruca




Back home at the farm & an uncle calls in & regales us with a yarn about Cubbie Station. 

Cubbie Station is the largest private water holder in the Southern hemisphere & is owned by a Chinese & Japanese consortium. It can suck up to 500,000 megalitres of water from the Darling Riverine plains, starving the rivers, towns & floodplains downstream of water. (A megalitre is 1 million litres of water) To emphasise, Cubbie Station’s water allocation can leech the equivalent of an entire Sydney Harbour out of Australia’s waterways yearly.

Anywhoo - Uncle used to sit on several federal environmental committees back in the 90s & 2000s. He was familiar with David Kemp & met John Howard as well as a new senator from Queensland who always had (and I quote) "an aggressive interest in Cubbie Station."

Back in 2002-05 however Cubbie Station wasn’t doing too well & was quietly on the market.  The asking price was about $300 million & uncle says his fed govt committee contacted David Kemp & the Howard govt in 2004 urging them to purchase the property. This committee was made up of scientists, academics, farmers & Indigenous reps & they all warned the federal govt that Cubbie Station’s massive water holdings were a disaster waiting to happen. The fed govt had the opportunity to put all those millions of litres of water back. Uncle: "It was environmental vandalism of a kind I’ve never seen before & the Queenslanders were the biggest vandals.” 

So the Howard Govt sought advice from the Nationals. The Nationals sought advice in particular from a young gun candidate who lived in the area that the Nationals were putting up in the 2004 election. The new guy had a large accounting practice in the Cubbie Station area & his clients also included many of the irrigators sucking the MurrayDarling system dry. Uncle says if you look back at records, you will see back then that Cubbie Group Ltd donated thousands & thousands of dollars to this young gun’s senate election campaign. I quote, “His senate campaign was funded in large part by Cubbie Station.”

According to uncle, the young gun was good friends with many in The Sinkhole – the nickname given to the powerful irrigators and National party supporters of that area who take all the water meant for the rivers, floodplains & towns along the Darling. One of the young gun’s prominent & vocal supporters in his race for the senate was a man named John Grabbe, who was also coincidentally the Managing Director of - 
And the young gun senator from Queensland’s name? 
Barnaby Joyce.


MORE NEWS:

Reuters | 2 August 2019

Macquarie snaps up 49% of Australia's massive Cubbie Station from China's Ruyi

By Paulina Duran and Byron Kaye

SYDNEY, Aug 2 (Reuters) - Australia’s Macquarie Group has purchased a 49% stake in cotton farm Cubbie Station from a consortium led by Chinese conglomerate Shandong Ruyi for an undisclosed sum, the parties said in a joint statement on Friday.

(https://www.farmlandgrab.org/post/view/29079-macquarie-snaps-up-49-of-australia-s-massive-cubbie-station-from-china-s-ruyi)

Not The Newz: What Lies Behind Greta Thunberg and the Extinction Rebellion?
australianvoice


This blog consists of two sets of articles by two different authors that explore the totally unreported background to a movement which calls itself the Extinction Rebellion. This movement concentrates on young people in the West and its most visible representative is Greta Thunberg.

For years supporters of human caused global warming have dismissed many criticisms of this theory by alleging that those who disagree are funded by the coal lobby to protect their financial interests. These articles examine the many financial and corporate interests which hide behind the apparently innocent teenager from Sweden. They expose the people who will be making significant financial gains from the Green Revolution which is supposed to be necessary to save the inhabitants of Earth from certain death.

We must ask: If the financial rewards of “saving the planet” are so great, should we not consider the very real possibility that there were also people who for their own financial gain were happy to find evidence for human caused global warming instead of looking carefully at these two issues? Is the global temperature actually rising? If it is, does the increasing levels of CO2 released by coal and oil provide the best explanation for these changes?


PART 1
Astroturfing the way for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
by UN Extinction

from: NEWS FROM NOWHERE - MEDIA FROM THE MARGINS

Astroturfing the way for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
This is an introduction to a series of articles entitled ‘Astroturfing the way for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.'
https://nowhere.news/index.php/2019/04/01/astroturfing-the-way-for-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/

Dr Gail Marie Bradbrook: Compassionate Revolutionary… for hire?
This is part 1 of a series of articles entitled ‘Astroturfing the way for the Fourth Industrial Revolution’. 
https://nowhere.news/index.php/2019/04/01/dr-gail-marie-bradbrook-compassionate-revolutionary-for-hire/

Political Charities and the Brave New World of Professional Activism

This is part 2 of a series of articles entitled ‘Astroturfing the way for the Fourth Industrial Revolution’. 
https://nowhere.news/index.php/2019/04/06/political-charities-and-the-brave-new-world-of-professional-activism/

Green Gail and the Technocratic Industrialists: Citizens Online’s Digitopian Nightmare
This is part 3 of a series of articles entitled ‘Astroturfing the way for the Fourth Industrial Revolution’. 
https://nowhere.news/index.php/2019/04/08/green-gail-and-the-technocratic-industrialists-citizens-onlines-digitopian-nightmare/

Extinction Rebellion and the Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism
This is part 4 of a series of articles entitled ‘Astroturfing the way for the Fourth Industrial Revolution’. 
https://nowhere.news/index.php/2019/05/11/extinction-rebellion-and-the-theory-and-practice-of-oligarchical-collectivism/

XRSpaceJunk 5G & Citizens Online: Industry Agents, Digital Acolytes and State Agitators

This is part 5 of a series of articles entitled ‘Astroturfing the way for the Fourth Industrial Revolution’. 
https://nowhere.news/index.php/2019/05/27/xrspacejunk-5g-citizens-online-industry-agents-digital-acolytes-and-state-agitators/


PART 2
The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent
by Cory Morningstar

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: The Political Economy of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex [ACT I]
In ACT I, I disclosed that Greta Thunberg, the current child prodigy and face of the youth movement to combat climate change, served as special youth advisor and trustee to the burgeoning mainstream tech start-up, “We Don’t Have Time”. I then explored the ambitions behind the tech company We Don’t Have Time.
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: The Inconvenient Truth Behind Youth Co-optation [ACT II]
In ACT II, I illustrated how today’s youth are the sacrificial lambs for the ruling elite. Also in this act I introduced the board members and advisors to “We Don’t Have Time.” I explored the leadership in the nascent We Don’t Have Time and the partnerships between the well established corporate environmental entities: Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, 350.org, Avaaz, Global Utmaning (Global Challenge), the World Bank, and the World Economic Forum (WEF).
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/21/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-inconvenient-truth-behind-youth-cooptation/

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: The Most Inconvenient Truth: “Capitalism is in Danger of Falling Apart” [ACT III]
In ACT III, I deconstructed how Al Gore and the Planet’s most powerful capitalists are behind today’s manufactured youth movements and why. I explored the We Don’t Have Time/Thunberg connections to Our Revolution, the Sanders Institute, This Is Zero Hour, the Sunrise Movement and the Green New Deal. I also touched upon Thunberg’s famous family. In particular, Thunberg’s celebrity mother, Malena Ernman (WWF Environmental Hero of the Year 2017), and her August 2018 book launch. I then explored the generous media attention afforded to Thunberg in both May and April of 2018 by SvD, one of Sweden’s largest newspapers.
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/28/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-most-inconvenient-truth-capitalism-is-in-danger-of-falling-apart/

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: The House is On Fire! & the 100 Trillion Dollar Rescue [ACT IV]
In ACT IV, I examine the current campaign, now unfolding, in “leading the public into emergency mode”. More importantly, I summarize who and what this mode is to serve.
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/02/03/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-house-is-on-fire-the-90-trillion-dollar-rescue/

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: The New Green Deal is the Trojan Horse for the Financialization of Nature [ACT V]
In ACT V, I take a closer look at the Green New Deal. I explore Data for Progress and the targeting of female youth as a key “femographic”. I connect the primary architect and authors of the “Green New Deal” data to the World Resources Institute. From there, I walk you through the interlocking Business & Sustainable Development Commission, and the New Climate Economy – a project of the World Resources Institute. I disclose the common thread between these groups and the assignment of money to nature, represented by the Natural Capital Coalition and the non-profit industrial complex as an entity. Finally, I reveal how this has culminated in the implementation of payments for ecosystem services (the financialization and privatization of nature, global in scale) which is “expected to be adopted during the fifteenth meeting in Beijing in 2020.”
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/02/13/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-new-green-deal-is-the-trojan-horse-for-the-financialization-of-nature/

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – A Decade of Social Manipulation for the Corporate Capture of Nature [ACT VI – Crescendo]
In the final act, ACT VI [Crescendo], I wrap up the series by divulging that the very foundations which have financed the climate “movement” over the past decade are the same foundations now partnered with the Climate Finance Partnership looking to unlock 100 trillion dollars from pension funds. I reveal the identities of individuals and groups at the helm of this interlocking matrix, controlling both the medium and the message. I take a step back in time to briefly demonstrate the ten years of strategic social engineering that have brought us to this very precipice. I look at the relationship between WWF, Stockholm Institute and World Resources Institute as key instruments in the creation of the financialization of nature. I also take a look at what the first public campaigns for the financialization of nature (“natural capital”) that are slowly being brought into the public realm by WWF. I reflect upon how mainstream NGOs are attempting to safeguard their influence and further manipulate the populace by going underground through Extinction Rebellion groups being organized in the US and across the world.
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/02/24/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-a-decade-of-social-manipulation-for-the-corporate-capture-of-nature-crescendo/

The Branding of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – By Any Means Necessary
[Addendum]

Marketing to a key “femographic”, the Green New Deal is both literally and figuratively in Vogue.
The following Teen Vogue makeup tutorial slash Ocasio-Cortez promotional video can only be understood through the lens of today’s incredible infatuation with superficial self-improvement. The makeup tutorial, now a new industry in itself, has been made popular (bordering on obsessive) with teenagers/youth by mainstream pop idols and celebrities, such as Western culture icons Kylie Jenner and music artist Rihanna.
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/02/15/the-branding-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-by-any-means-necessary-addendum/

Articles in Australian Voice
australianvoice
17/9/19
145 Barnaby Joyce - The Senator from Cubbie Station
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/41549.html

10/9/19
144 Not The Newz: What Lies Behind Greta Thunberg and the Extinction Rebellion?
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/41240.html

5/8/19
143 Penalty for Cash Transaction Over $10,000 will be 2 Years Jail + $25,200 Fine
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/40716.html

23/7/19
142 How Neo-liberals Killed the Common Good
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/40647.html

12/7/19
141 A Do It Yourself Guide to Modern Money Theory
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/40371.html

19/3/19
140 Copy of Censored ZeroHedge Article on New Zealand Mosque Shooter
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/40001.html


07/10/18
139 China's“Socialist” Investment in Australia is No Different from thhttps://australianvoice.livejournal.com/41090.htmlat of Other Capitalist Wolves
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/39849.html

05/10/18
138 The Damage Caused by China's “Socialism” to Workers Around the World
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/39545.html

04/10/18
137 China's State Controlled Capitalism is Not Very Different From Capitalism in the West
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/39306.html

25/09/18
136 China's Transition from Socialism to State Controlled Capitalism
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/39112.html

30/08/18
135 Is WikiLeaks REALLY a Rothschild Operation?
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/38700.html

20/08/18
134 Why is Julian Assange a Hunted Man?
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/38592.html

16/08/18
133 Modern Monetary Theory, Unemployment, and the European Left
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/38398.html

20/07/18
132 Is There a Replay of the Euromaidan Psy-op in Ukraine Before a Coup in USA?
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/38006.html


20/07/18
131 What is Happening in the US Empire Today: The US has Three Choices
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/37739.html


13/07/18
130 As Interest Rates Rise, the Debt Bubble is in Trouble
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/37430.html


11/07/18
129 Neo-liberal Studies: Part I – We NEVER VOTED for Neo-Liberalism
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/37217.html


03/07/2018
128 The Road to Ruin – A Short History of the US Economy and Similar Changes in Australia
https://www.livejournal.com/editjournal.bml?journal=australianvoice&itemid=30219


01/07/18
127 Peak Oil is a Myth! Gas, Crude Oil, Tar and Coal Do NOT Have an Organic Origin.
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/36845.html



04/05/18
126 Is the US Empire Breaking Up Right Before Our Eyes?
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/36586.html


22/05/18
125 How Neo-Liberalism Came To Australia
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/36167.html


18/05/18
124 Was Stalin Responsible For More Deaths Than Hitler?
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/35879.html


17/05/18
123 Do You Know How Ruthless The Neo-Liberals Are?
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/35684.html


16/05/18
122 A Discussion Surrounding Karl Marx’s Recent 200th Anniversary
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/35341.html


13/12/17
121 There is an ALTERNATIVE to neo-liberal austerity - Modern Monetary Theory 
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/35083.html


09/10/17
120 MUST READ: Summary of US Military Plans for Next 20 years
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/35035.html


26/09/17
119 Why Does the USA Want to Start a War with Russia and/or China NOW?
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/34660.html


29/08/17
118 Who Are Anglo Settlers in Australia? What Are Their Crimes?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/34212.html


04/08/17
117 Is THIS the End of the US Petrodollar and the Financial System of the West?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/33753.html


17/07/17
116 Part 2 - What You Don't Know About the EU Migrant Crisis – It Was Planned
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/33313.html


11/07/17
115 Part 1 - Things You Don't Know About EU Migrant Crisis – It's Not About Refugees
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/33239.html


06/07/17
114 Hard to Post the Butchery in Syria Supported by Our Government, But We Should Know...
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/32927.html


15/06/17
113 GetUp! and Soros – Soros Behind Facebook Censorship and Election Manipulation
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/32639.html


06/11/17
112 GetUp! and Soros - the Odd Couple
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/32372.html


02/06/17
111 The EU/IMF Destruction of Greece - the Cradle of Western Civilization
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/32171.html

21/05/17
110 Globalization is Control of Your Country by Multinational Corporations and Banks
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/31942.html


03/05/17
109 Centrelink Robo Debt is Fraud - Theft of Your Money by Your Government! forseaable
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/31509.html


29/04/17
108 Why is there no opposition to the US Empire in the West?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/31286.html


25/04/17
107 Seven reasons to reject the claim Syria launched a sarin gas attack on April 4th, 2017
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/31204.html

17/04/17
106 What is Unique About the West? It's Not What You Think!
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/30553.html

13/02/17
105. All Australian Voice Articles in Order - Latest to Oldest
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/30219.html

05/02/17
104. Stop Centrelink Robo Debt Now!
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/29985.html

23/01/17
103. Some Recommended Reading on Geopolitics
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/29899.html

30/12/18
102. THE AUSTRALIAN BUDGET SHOWS DARK FUTURE
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/28899.html

29/12/16
101. Spread the Word: Let's Have Fairness in the Whole Pension System - Including Politician's Pensions
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/28203.html

26/12/16
100. Jobs and Growth? Not in the Housing Industry! Money Goes to Speculation not Productive Investment.
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/27531.html

21/12/16
99. High Level Confirmation of Pizzagate - Large Washington Pedophile Ring Uncovered in Podesta Emails
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/27238.html

19/12/16
98. Could Canberra Be Getting Ready For Another Great Depression?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/26885.html

12/12/16
97. Can We Have Economic Freedom in a Cashless Financial System?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/26754.html

06/12/16
96. Cash is for Criminals? No, This is Spin! Cashless is for Banks!
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/26370.html

27/11/16
95. Want to Know How to Get Closer to the Truth? Start From the Sites on Washington Post's List!
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/26222.html

25/11/16
94. Michael Froman: The Most Powerful Man You Have Never Heard Of
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/25859.html

14/11/16
93. Want to know more about George Soros? Here are 16 Recent Articles from D.C. Clothesline
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/25633.html

14/11 16
92. Top 10 Reasons George Soros Is Dangerous
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/25544.html

10/11/16
91. Conversations from Syria … leaving Syria, Damascus under fire
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/25276.html

10/11/16
90. Conversations from Syria … Dara’a – the first month, a soldier’s story
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/24883.html

03/11/16
89. Australia is on an Economic Hit List! Turnbull Works for Goldman Sachs, Not Australians.
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/24717.html

02/11/16
88. 2 November 2016: Steps to World War III
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/24532.html

01/11/16
87. Conversations from Syria ... Musings on Syrian soldiers in the Syria you never see
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/24112.html

30/10/16
86. 30 October 2016 - Countdown to WW III?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/23843.html

25/10/16
85. 25 October 2016: Countdown to WW III?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/23550.html

17/10/16
84. Did Sputnik Fake An Email Posted By WikiLeaks?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/22603.html

28/09/16
83. MH-17 - Sources for Alternative Accounts of the Crash
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/22178.html

08/09/16
82. WORLDWIKI 12
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/21784.html

05.09/16
81. 2016 US Election: Main Street vs Wall Street
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/21554.html

30/08/16
80. Any War With China Will Be A Nuclear War
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/21429.html

25/08/16
79. Australia At War With China? Let's Talk About That!
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/21217.html

11/08/16
78. Michael Moore: 5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/20952.html

02/08/16
77. Not 'Black Lives Matter' but 'ALL LIVES MATTER'
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/20603.html

27/07/16
76. Is the Darwin Outrage a Taste of Our Future?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/20372.html

25/07/16
75. Did Australia's Jindalee Radar Detect the Movements of MH370?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/20148.html

24/17/16
74. AustraliaWiki 13
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/19827.html

21/07/16
73. WORLDWIKI 11
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/19548.html

20/07/16
72. USA Has Been Pushed Out of the Middle East - Can There Be a Just Settlement for Palestine Now?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/19203.html

17/07/16
70. WORLDWIKI 10
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/19020.html

01/07/16
69. All Things Wrong With the Liberal-Natonal Party
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/18905.html

26/06/16
68. John Pilger: How Britexit is a Move Toward Peace and Democracy in Europe
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/18618.html

19/06/16
67. Pensioners Who Own Their Own Home Will Get BIG PENSIONS CUT on 1 January 2017
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/18344.html

12/06/16
66. A Quiet Word to Young Comrades about Pensions and Superannuation
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/18065.html

036/16
65. Did the Greens Make the Senate More Democratic?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/17726.html

02/06/16
64. Who Changed Australia's Political Landscape in 2015?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/17423.html

01/06/16
53. Do the Greens Still Support Public Education?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/17035.html

28/05/16
62. Which Side Are You On?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/16682.html

26/05/16
61. WORLDWIKI
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/16385.html

25/05/16
60. Greens Helped LNP Hide Tax Information on 600 Corporations
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/16382.html

25/05/16
59. AustraliaWiki
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/16005.html

23/05/16
58. Have Greens Turned Right?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/15719.html

12/05/16
57. Bob Katter's Third Letter: A REAL Economic Plan for the Future
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/15360.html

12/05/16
56. Bob Katter's Second Letter: How Did Australia Get into this Mess?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/15113.html

11/05/16
55. Is Australia Sailing Away from a US Anti-China Alliance?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/15058.html

11/05/16
54. Bob Katter's First Letter: The Last Six Months Have Been the Worst Period in Australian History
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/14771.html

06/02/16
53. Help Julian Assange With Emails to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/14275.html

30/12/15
52. MOST DANGEROUS PHASE for Syrian Crisis: Erdogan is Frightened and Frustrated by Russia
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/13901.html

08/12/15
51. How Does the US Empire Control the World? Petrodollars Rule, Ok! (Part 3)
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/13786.html

08/12/15
50. How Does the US Empire Control the World? Petrodollars Rule, Ok! (Part 2)
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/13483.html

27/11/15
49. Who Is Calling the Shots in Washington?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/13231.html

21/02/15
18. DO YOU SUPPORT LABOR AND OPPOSE THE TPP? YOU MUST READ THIS!
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/5147.html

17/11/15
48. DAESH/ISIS ARE PUPPETS, NOT INDEPENDENT, AUTONOMOUS TERRORIST GROUPS
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/12852.html

15/11/15
47. Let's Ask the Right Questions About the Paris Attacks
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/12753.html

23/10/15
46. How Does the US Empire Control the World? Petrodollars Rule, OK! (Part 1)
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/12523.html

18/10/15
45: The Real Reason Syria is Under Attack: Qatar's Arab Gas Pipeline
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/12066.html

15/10/15
44. Part 2: Syria's Struggle for Independence: 1963 to 2015
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/11883.html

08/10/15
43. Does the US/UK/Australian "War on ISIS" Pass The Sniff Test?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/11538.html

08/10/15
42. Russia Plans Much More Than The Destruction Of ISIS In Syria
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/11518.html

28/09/15
41. Part 1: Syria's Struggle for Independence: 1916 to 1963
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/11238.html

15/09/15
40. It's All About Oil, Pipelines And Petrodollars --- The Middle East From 1914
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/10946.html
(Work in Progress)

10/09/15
39. Why the Rich Are Getting Richer...Again Part 2: 1943-2015
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/10518.html
(Work in Progress)

10/09/15
38. Why the Rich Are Getting Richer...Again Part 1: 1865-1943
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/10247.html

09/09/15
37. "Refugee Crisis" in EU is NATO Propaganda Scam to Prepare for Attack on Syria
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/10136.html

11/08/15
36. Senator Day of Family First Discusses the TPP
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/9890.html

09/08/15
35. Can Russia Block Regime Change In Syria Again?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/9615.html

06/08/15
34. What Will Happen To Australia After The US Attacks China?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/9371.html

05/08/19
33.1 Articles in Australian Voice
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/41090.html

02/08/15
33. Why Australia’s Political Leaders Are Traitors
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/8919.html

29/07/15
32. How Governments have Sold Out Landholders in the Darling Downs
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/8639.html

15/07/15
31. PENSION CHANGES - FAIR AND BALANCED? DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT!
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/8237.html

14/05/15
30. THE TPP CREATES A SUPRA-NATIONAL CORPORATE STATE
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/8063.html

14/05/16
29. WHAT IS AUSTRALIA'S POSITION ON THE TPP TREATY?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/7821.html

09/05/15
28. PETER SINGER AND THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/7671.html

06/05/15
27. So You Think Your Assets Are Safe In The West's Financial System? Guess Again!
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/7412.html

04/05/15
26. THE POLITICAL STRATEGY OF JULIAN ASSANGE
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/6964.html

01/05/15
25. WHO IS PLAYING POLITICS WITH EXECUTION OF CHAN AND SUKUMARAN?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/6810.html

06/04/15
24. THE IMMORAL COMPASS OF THE WEST
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/6462.html

30/03/15
23. US TELLS AUSTRALIA TO BUILD SUBMARINES IN JAPAN
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/6240.html

05/03/15
22. TPP-THE BIG PICTURE
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/5895.html

01/-3/15
21. WHY DOES THE WEST HATE PUTIN? THE SECRET REASON
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/5803.html

21/02/15
20. 10 THINGS WRONG WITH THE TPP AND THE INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/5472.html

21/02/15
17. DO YOU SUPPORT LABOR AND OPPOSE THE TPP? YOU MUST READ THIS!
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/5147.html

21/02/15
18. DRAFT EMAIL TO MEMBERS OF THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT ABOUT THE TPP
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/5105.html

16/02/15
17. WHAT THE TPP WILL DO TO AUSTRALIA
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/4796.html

16/02/15
16.THE HIDDEN NASTY IN THE TPP: Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/4530.html

15/02/15
15 How the TPP Deregulation will Destroy Food and Product Standards in Australia
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/4293.html

02/02/15
14. BOSTON BOMBING PART 3: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN BOSTON?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/3919.html

02/02/15
13. BOSTON BOMBING PART 2: A FEW INCONVENIENT QUESTIONS
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/3613.html

02/02/15
12. BOSTON BOMBING PART 1: A FEW INCONVENIENT FACTS
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/3499.html

31/01/15
11. ABBOTT'S AUSTERITY IS A SCAM!
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/3088.html

01/31/15
10. WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR AUSTRALIA?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/2853.html

31/01/15
9. WHAT IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TPP AND THE EMPIRE OF CHAOS?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/2772.html

27/01/15
8. THE CHALLENGE TO ALP FROM SYRIZA
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/2338.html

27/01/15
7. DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV: “I never done it.” Part 3
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/2098.html

21/01/15
6. DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV: "I never done it." Part 2
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/1848.html

14/10/15
5. DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV: "I never done it." Part 1
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/1583.html

07 01/15
4. THE TPP IS A CREATURE OF THE ALP
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/1376.html

07/01/15
3. AUSTRALIA MUST OPPOSE THE TPP AGREEMENT!
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/1276.html

06/01/15
2. WHAT DOES PUTIN THINK OF THE WEST?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/796.html

02/01/15
1. WHAT IS THE FUTURE FOR AUSTRALIA?
http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/540.html

Penalty for Cash Transaction Over $10,000 will be 2 Years Jail + $25,200 Fine
australianvoice
The "Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019” was posted on the Treasury website 26 July 2019 as draft legislation.

This quote explains its significance:

"From 1 January 2020 it will be a criminal offence to make or accept a payment from businesses that includes $10,000 or more of cash. It is also offence to make or accept a cash donation equal to or in excess of $10,000. The maximum penalty is up to two years imprisonment and/or 120 penalty units ($25,200)."



What follows is a copy of a letter I sent to four independents in Parliament outlining my objections to this unnecessary law and its draconian punishment.

I am writing to you about the “Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019” which was posted on the Treasury website 26 July 2019 as draft legislation.(1) There are several significant flaws in the bill which mean that it is not fit for purpose.

The law is to designed to set up an economy-wide cash payment limit of $10,000 (or greater). There are exceptions for transactions which meet the conditions specified in the draft “Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash—Excepted Transactions) Instrument 2019”. To me these exceptions are irrelevant. There should be no such law so exceptions are unnecessary.

This is the explanation for the law given in a PDF file:

“From 1 January 2020 it will be a criminal offence to make or accept a payment from businesses that includes $10,000 or more of cash. It is also offence to make or accept a cash donation equal to or in excess of $10,000. The maximum penalty is up to two years imprisonment and/or 120 penalty units ($25,200).”(2)

The rationale given is “to send a strong signal to the community that it is not acceptable to avoid tax and other obligations by paying with cash.”(3) Apart from this there is the suggestion that the law is aimed at drug dealing and money laundering as well.

I believe there are four good reasons why this bill should be simply rejected, not amended, by the Parliament.

A. The law is totally contrary to the publicly declared policies of the government for a free-market economy. This law is a clear restraint on trade, making illegal to carry out a perfectly harmless financial transaction, namely buying something with $10,000 or more in cash. We live in a free country and the notes and coin which constitute “cash” are all legal tender. So why make such cash transactions illegal?

B. The reason given is that the bill will send a signal that “it is not acceptable to avoid tax and other obligations by paying with cash.” We must ask: When was it acceptable to avoid tax or other obligations by using cash? Who ever said that it was? Notice that the offending cash transactions have not been NOT deemed to be illegal because they are intended to avoid taxation.

The bill seems to assume tax evasion is facilitated by cash transactions and the aim of the law is to criminalise cash transactions. Tax evasion already is illegal, but cash transactions at or over $10,000 are set to become illegal because they MIGHT constitute tax evasion. Shall we make it illegal to purchase a cricket bat because they MIGHT be used to kill someone?

Furthermore there is no requirement in the proposed law to ESTABLISH THE INTENTION to evade tax before conviction and punishment.
So the bill plans to impose a penalty of 2 years jail and $25,200 fine to remind people that it is not acceptable to avoid tax by using cash.

C. I suspect most significant tax evasion is carried out by accountants and firms of accountants. What are the penalties for accountants who sign off on a scheme proved in court to be deliberate tax evasion? How do the penalties for promoting a system of tax evasion compare with the automatic 2 years jail and $25,200 fine applied to people who purchase an item with more than $10,000 cash?

D. Apart from being a clear restraint on the free market and criminalising actions which have nothing to do with tax evasion, a breach of this law would be very difficult to establish in court. This is not itself a good reason not to reject a law, but when such very serious penalties have been attached to what is certainly a victimless crime it must be considered. Digital transactions are easy to trace. What level of surveillance would be necessary to establish that a large sum of cash changed hands between two individuals? Would there need to be an officer of the law in every retail establishment which sold expensive items like cars to make sure no plastic bags full of cash were brought into the business?

In short this law would be a clear restraint on trade. It would be useless in the fight to stamp out tax evasion because IT IS NOT DIRECTED AT TAX EVASION ITSELF. Penalties apply only to transactions which in most cases have nothing to do with tax evasion. Finally it creates a victimless crime which would be impossible to police unless it was known in advance and surveillance was at hand.

Yours faithfully,



PS.

I have sent you this email because you are independent of any of the major parties. While they may have a party position on this bill I assume you will be able to look at at this draft legislation with your own critical eye. I became aware of the legislation from the following video:

Red Alert: ScoMo Declares War On The Australian People
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=770M2s6ZD8Y

This video was put out by the Citizens Electoral Council on 30 July 2019. It is a discussion between Martin North and John Adams, a LNP staff economist who has quit and blown the whistle on this anti-free market bill. They discuss this draft legislation which was released on 26 July and would outlaw cash payments above $10k under the guise of tax efficiency. The CEC believe the real agenda is all about negative interest rates and extreme monetary policy, as prescribed by the IMF.

I agree that the “Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019” is part of a program to get us ready for negative interest rates. HOWEVER I believe it is important to attack the bill itself as a way to expose the fact that considered on its own merits it is quite incapable of achieving the stated aim, reducing tax evasion. Only after one recognises that the bill itself is pointless or worse can we ask the next question: So what is the real purpose?

Like the CEC I am against the introduction of negative interest rates but these matters should be DISCUSSED OPENLY in Parliament not introduced quietly as if they are of no importance.


Footnotes:

1. https://www.treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2019-t395788

2. https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/at_glance_summary_of_how_the_cash_payment_limit_will_work_0.pdf

3. https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/at_glance_summary_of_how_the_cash_payment_limit_will_work_0.pdf

How Neo-liberals Killed the Common Good
australianvoice
If you are using the language of your opponents, you have already lost.

The set of tweets reproduced here is ABSOLUTELY VITAL for understanding how political discussion in Australia, the EU, UK and the US HAS CHANGED since the days of Thatcher and Reagan. The change has been so subtle and enacted so slowly that many don't even realise how profoundly our thinking about politics and the economy have changed. Of course if you were born after they came to power, YOU WOULD ONLY KNOW THIS NEW WAY OF THINKING AND TALKING. This is no accident. The first major neo-liberal, free market think tank called the Mont Pelerin Society began in 1948, when I was only 4 years old.

In 1987 Margaret Thatcher said: “There is no such thing as society.”(1) She asks “Who is society”. Here is her answer: “There are individual men and women and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.”(2) This is known as individualism. Society is nothing in itself. There are just individuals, families and governments. It has a kind of simple plausibility until you realise that wholes are not just the sum of their parts. In the same way one can say that individual humans are just a collection of molecules, so there is no such things as individuals.

If there are no societies, then what are we to make of the differences between the UK and France? Are the people in UK and France just different individuals who happen to (mostly) to speak different languages, prefer different kinds of foods, and tend to live in different places? In fact, different societies have different cultures and different expectations of the members of their society. In Australia a man who kills and eats his dog would be expected to be charged with animal cruelty. It appears that in China dogs are eaten more or less like pigs, so people there would be outraged by any arrest or conviction which is based on their regular practice.

So why would Margaret Thatcher say such a strange thing? If there is no such thing as society, then there is no such thing as the common good of the people in that society. If there is no such thing as the common good, then there is no obligation for a government to look after the common good. She says: “It is our duty to look after ourselves and then after our neighbour … and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations.”(3) Remember Joe Hockey said that the age of entitlements is over? This is exactly what Thatcher had in mind over 40 years ago. Neo-liberalism has been a long time in the planning and execution. Now it has completely taken over our thinking about politics and economics in a way that is hard for most to appreciate.

Now it is time to repeat the slogan at the beginning of this article:

If you are using the language of your opponents, you have already lost.

If we want to oppose neo-liberal policies like austerity, privatisation and reduced taxes for corporations we need to think and speak differently. We need to remember the way people thought about society BEFORE NEO-LIBERALS SLIPPED THEIR THINKING INTO OUR BRAINS.

This is the aim of the following thread from Twitter. We need to revive the political ideas that were driven out of people's minds by the dogmas of neo-liberalism. Modern democratic governments arose out of an idea of popular sovereignty. People organised rules for themselves and the common good. Neo-liberalism cannot be defeated until people have a clear idea of how to think differently and expect different policies by governments. The left is floundering because they all think like neo-liberals. Therefore THEY CANNOT IMAGINE DOING THINGS IN A WAY THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THEM. Thinking differently on its own will not change things, but there can be no change for the better without erasing neo-liberal thinking from our minds.

(I believe that there is also a NEW idea which is necessary to undermine the neo-liberal approach to economics. This new approach is known as Modern Money Theory. The author of these tweets does not seem to accept MMT. However at the end of his discussion I will explain how MMT dovetails with the political ideas of democracy as popular sovereignty setting rules for the common good.)




Death of the Common Good and the Commonwealth: A Quick Thread


by The Earl of Heckles @Noodles_Romanov

The left is floundering world wide. Once of the key reasons is that the very conception of "government" and its role has drifted to a place where the left has little to say. Here's what to remember.

We are guilty of swallowing the bullshit of Friedman and Hayek. The Government that once embodied the soverignty of the people in a democracy has now been mischaracterised by the Right as an arguably necessary evil that steals "our" money and binds us in red tape.

But is that what government is? Was it ever? The answer is no. Modern democratic governments arose out of an idea of popular sovereignty. That basic organising unit of such societies is the human being. Those human beings organised rules for themselves and the common good.

The thing about governments was that they were sovereign. They didn't really have budgets, they simply had social obligations to perform. They were mandated to raise the funds needed to perform their obligations for the common good. These days, that idea almost sounds weird.

Government was the sovereign social rule maker with a monopoly on the use of force. It made the rules to benefit the people it governed. The rules were informed by moral and justice imperatives which reflected the goals and ideals of the society. Government presumes society.

The economy is what happens within the rules. Economics has no moral imperative. Ask "the market" to kill a bacterial colony and petrol with a match is the most "efficient". That colony being in the back of my throat makes no difference to the market but it does to a society.

The Market doesn't know it can't set fire to people unless it's told so by laws. That's why the laws come first. They come from a place where the good of society is the guiding principle. Laws should never be shaped by markets. They can't be. Markets are an amoral result of laws.

To give that concept wings- here's a lobbyist for bacterial colony killing industry on the cost of having to invent antibiotics. "Studies show that our industry would be a thousand times more efficient if the government would remove the red tape around setting fire to people".

Economic arguments against regulation are almost always that stupid (even if they don't sound it). They are stupid because they take the form of people suggesting that their desire to operate cheaply is more important to society than the purpose for which the laws were enacted.

The thing is that when you're a participant in a rule framework rather than an architect of it, your world view and lived experience is dominated by your own place in the rules. You're generally thinking in terms of how to make your life easier and not how to make society better.

Most people just universalise their own experience and tend to think that if a rule is good for them it would be good for everybody. There's a specific skillset associated with putting systems of rules together for the greater good. Governments used to have them.

Free marketeers came along and studied markets. With zero understanding of history they dispensed with the notion of popular sovereignty and the paramount nature of government. They thought markets could "fix" and dictate to governments. We've seen why that's stupid above.

More seductively, a quasi religious belief that markets would magically take all competing interests and produce the "best" result (note that "best" has no content in terms of fairness, equity or any other outcome) meant people could be selfish and the market would sort it out!

Thank God! Now we can get people to dispense with all that civic minded "public good" mumbo jumbo because everyone being selfish will magically lead to the best over all result. And like that the concept of government was executed and "the market" became the arbiter of morality.

So how to you make economic arguments work? You need to kill society. You need to pretend that government isn't actually *paramount* and that it is just another player on the same field. By hook and by crook, this is exactly what special interests have done over recent decades.

The result of this pernicious erosion is there for all to see. Governments now try to justify choices to special interest groups. Instead of simply raising taxes to fulfill its social obligations, government acts like timid boards of directors with hostile share holders.

Instead of appreciating the lawful framework of civilisation & empowering governments to do what is necessary to care for society, citizens are now convinced their role is to ensure revenue and expenditure are matched like a household and begrudgingly "donate" to its upkeep.

Where popular government is in effect, there should be only *one* argument as to whether a rule should be made or changed. That it is for the public good. Yet look at how public debate has degenerated. Lobby groups should be absurd but they are abundant. The Public good is gone.

Laws not made for the public good (unsurprisingly) don't benefit the public. When government does not make laws that benefit the public, the public does not appreciate government. Once the public doesn't appreciate government, popular sovereignty is gone.

When popular sovereignty is gone but laws are still being made, the question becomes who is the sovereign? and for whom are laws being made? In the present paradigm, "the market" is now the sovereign. The conservatives are the flunkies of the most powerful members of "the market".

And here we are. Neoliberal free marketeers who warm the benches of parliament FUNDAMENTALLY DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOVERNMENT in any recognisable sense. Their *only* motivation is to further dismantle government as a "player" and let the amoral law of the economic jungle apply.

If the left is to have any hope of resurrection it must abandon this idiotic economic discourse of citizens as limited liability shareholders and government as participants in the market. It must re-establish popular sovereignty and a discourse of the common good.

Changing an entire discourse is hard but if you're using the discourse of your opponents, you've already lost. There is ample empirical evidence debunking neo-liberalism's basic tenets but that is not enough. People need an ideas framework to attach to.

It's long past time we started saying "We tried giving the common wealth away to individuals and all they did with it was create billionaires and homeless people." It is long past time the common wealth returned to the Commonwealth to be used for the common good. Rant complete.

So now when you hear some fluff brain like Cormann say "Business doesn't need government telling it how to do things" The appropriate response is: "Business will do as it's bloody well told by any government that properly serves the sovereign body of Australian people."

Moreover, "businesses" are not citizens and do not vote in this country and accordingly, have precisely no say in any debate in which they are a subject.



Short Introduction to Modern Money Theory



Talk about “the economy” dominates political discussion today. Many policies and decisions made by political leaders are justified by the claim they are good for the economy or not good for the economy. Modern Money Theory is important because it challenges the assumptions which lie behind these policies. Its advocates insist that most economics professionals and politicians do not really understand how the economy works and what is good or bad for the economy. At the centre of this debate is the policy known as austerity and the justification given for it.

Professional economists and economics advisers used by politicians insist that what is best for the economy is for the federal government to generate a surplus by cutting expenditure so that more income is derived from taxes than it spends. They also insist that cutting taxes stimulates the economy since businesses have more money to hire workers and invest. The economic theory which lies behind these policies is known as neo-liberalism or the Washington consensus. Over the last 50 years it has come to replace all other views about the economy.


WHAT IS NEO-LIBERALISM?
Neo-liberalism is an economic theory. Most people, including myself, don't know much about economics. It is just a lot of unfamiliar words, big numbers and odd looking charts. However, two of the basic ideas behind neo-liberal economics are not only easy to understand, they are also taken to be an obvious part of common sense.

The first is that money is special pieces of coloured paper or plastic and special bits of metal called coins. Money is fundamentally cash we can put in our wallets and use to buy what we want. The second is that the way a federal government operates is like our own household. It has a source of money, or income, from taxes and it spends this money according to the policies determined by the government.

This household view of the economy helps us to understand the fundamental differences between the modern day left and right. The right, seen as greedy by the left, say that what governments do is take their hard-earned tax dollars and give them to people who have not worked for them. Their money is given to unemployed, the elderly, and used to subsidise health care and rent. The left, seen as do-gooders by the right, say that they are happy for the government to give some of their tax dollars to others in need. So when they argue over taxes and expenditure they argue over who gets taxed, how much they get taxed, and where the tax dollars should go. The key point is that both left and right accept the neo-liberal theory that a surplus is good for the economy.

These days the right keeps reminding the left that in the national economy, if the income is less than the expenditure then the government is in debt and this is bad for the economy. In fact they insist that the government should achieve a surplus, so there is more coming in from taxes than goes out in expenditure. This pressure to cut expenses and “live within our means” is known as austerity and we have been suffering from this for years.


HOW IS MODERN MONEY THEORY DIFFERENT?
First MMT says that seen as a theory about how the economy works neo-liberalism fails. Even many economists now agree that neo-liberalism doesn't seem to describe how the economy works. If neo-liberal economists were seen as car mechanics, nobody would take automobiles to them for repair. Second MMT says that the two assumptions explained above are both false.

MMT is called Modern Money Theory for a reason. 200 years ago money was either pieces of gold or silver or it was special pieces of paper – bank notes – that could be exchanged for gold or silver. Later virtually everyone came to use money as special pieces of paper or coins called cash. However two things have changed in the last 50 years. The first change is that most money around the world has become what is called fiat money. This means that it cannot be exchanged for gold or silver. President Richard Nixon made that decision in 1971 for the USA, and most – like Australia - have followed. The second change comes from the introduction of computers into banking. Now most money consists of computer files consisting of '0's and '1's which appear on computer screens as numbers. In the USA they look like '$10.00'. In Australia they look like 'A$10.00'. In the UK they look like '₤10.00'. Fortunately some money is still in the form of notes and coin, but virtually all large financial transactions are made by typing numbers on a computer keyboard.

This means that a large amount of money is not a pile of gold, silver or notes in a bank vault somewhere. As before, however, governments authorise certain files as legal tender = money. So when the government spends money it does not take a quantity of gold or paper and give it to somebody. It increases the numbers in the file which constitutes their account. If they take money from someone in taxes they decrease the numbers in the file which constitutes their account. The amount of money the government puts into or takes out of our accounts makes a huge difference to us and for the economy as a whole. However since they are only changing numbers in a computer file, they cannot ever run out of money. They create money in the desired accounts. They don't take anything from anybody.

So the first point for MMT is that money is not a “thing” that is taken from one person in taxes and given to another. The second point is the even more unusual claim that the government is not like a household. The government creates mSo the first point for MMT is that money is not a “thing” that is taken from one person in taxes and given to another. The second point is the even more unusual claim that the government is not like a household.oney in its jurisdiction, but households do not. Neither do states within a jurisdiction or city councils. They must live within their means like the rest of us. Taxes paid to states or city councils consist in transfers of “money” from our accounts to theirs. When I pay a state tax, the numbers in my account get smaller and the numbers in the account of the government of South Australia get larger. Under MMT it literally makes no sense to say that a federal government must live within its means. It creates its means by “spending” it, that is by increasing the numbers in the file understood to be my account. The central political task of any government is to decide how much “money” to create and into which account the “money” is to be put. Who will get the numbers in their acclount increased (or decreased) and how much should they be changed?


ONE FINAL POINT
MMT is a tool of analysis. It can be used to understand how the economy of a nation works. However MMT on its own does not tell us what to do. What we do with the levers that control the economy is a moral/political choice. MMT in effect revives the old idea of political economy which combines these two. Neo-liberalism has presented their economic theory as a value-free “science” totally independent of any political considerations. No doubt this is why it has produced results in the modern world many see as inhuman. It is inhuman by design. Its values hidden behind a mask of scientific objectivity. "If it is just numbers, it must be objective and not subjective like politics." Many followers of MMT happen to suggest similar policies because of the political values they bring with them. I have different values so I would use the same MMT analysis to suggest different policies. Knowing how something works is one thing. Deciding what to do with it is different. To decide what to do requires being clear about our values.

I cannot explain the entire MMT view here. Rather than attempt this impossible task I have assembled the list of sources given in another article (A Do It Yourself Guide to Modern Money Theory) you can use to begin to understand MMT for yourself.(4) I hope this short introduction has sparked an interest in learning more about MMT. I would encourage you to take this journey but from now on it is up to you. In A Do It Yourself Guide to Modern Money Theory I have collected a range of videos, short articles, podcasts, books, research centres and people to follow on twitter. I have also included three videos on neo-liberalism understood an the hidden ideology, a powerful set of ideas which are never discussed in the mainstream media but are central to the thinking of all politicians in the West.


Footnotes:

1. “There are individual men and women and there are families, and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then after our neighbour … and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations.”
(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/8027552/No-Such-Thing-as-Society-a-good-time-to-ask-what-Margaret-Thatcher-really-meant.html)

2. Ibid

3. Ibid

4. A Do It Yourself Guide to Modern Money Theory (https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/40371.html)

A Do It Yourself Guide to Modern Money Theory
australianvoice
This has been designed as a starting point for anyone wishing to learn more about Modern Money Theory. It is a totally different way of understanding the way a nation's economy actually works compared to both common sense and the “official” way of understanding it used by academics, economic advisers, media commentators and politicians.



Talk about “the economy” dominates political discussion today. Many policies and decisions made by political leaders are justified by the claim they are good for the economy or not good for the economy. Modern Money Theory is important because it challenges the assumptions which lie behind these policies. Its advocates insist that most economics professionals and politicians do not really understand how the economy works and what is good or bad for the economy. At the centre of this debate is the policy known as austerity and the justification given for it.

Professional economists and economics advisers used by politicians insist that what is best for the economy is for the federal government to generate a surplus by cutting expenditure so that more income is derived from taxes than it spends. They also insist that cutting taxes stimulates the economy since businesses have more money to hire workers and invest. The economic theory which lies behind these policies is known as neo-liberalism or the Washington consensus. Over the last 50 years it has come to replace all other views about the economy.


WHAT IS NEO-LIBERALISM?
Neo-liberalism is an economic theory. Most people, including myself, don't know much about economics. It is just a lot of unfamiliar words, big numbers and odd looking charts. However, two of the basic ideas behind neo-liberal economics are not only easy to understand, they are also taken to be an obvious part of common sense.

The first is that money is special pieces of coloured paper or plastic and special bits of metal called coins. Money is fundamentally cash we can put in our wallets and use to buy what we want. The second is that the way a federal government operates is like our own household. It has a source of money, or income, from taxes and it spends this money according to the policies determined by the government.

This household view of the economy helps us to understand the fundamental differences between the modern day left and right. The right, seen as greedy by the left, say that what governments do is take their hard-earned tax dollars and give them to people who have not worked for them. Their money is given to unemployed, the elderly, and used to subsidise health care and rent. The left, seen as do-gooders by the right, say that they are happy for the government to give some of their tax dollars to others in need. So when they argue over taxes and expenditure they argue over who gets taxed, how much they get taxed, and where the tax dollars should go. The key point is that both left and right accept the neo-liberal theory that a surplus is good for the economy.

These days the right keeps reminding the left that in the national economy, if the income is less than the expenditure then the government is in debt and this is bad for the economy. In fact they insist that the government should achieve a surplus, so there is more coming in from taxes than goes out in expenditure. This pressure to cut expenses and “live within our means” is known as austerity and we have been suffering from this for years.


HOW IS MODERN MONEY THEORY DIFFERENT?
First MMT says that seen as a theory about how the economy works neo-liberalism fails. Even many economists now agree that neo-liberalism doesn't seem to describe how the economy works. If neo-liberal economists were seen as car mechanics, nobody would take automobiles to them for repair. Second MMT says that the two assumptions explained above are both false.

MMT is called Modern Money Theory for a reason. 200 years ago money was either pieces of gold or silver or it was special pieces of paper – bank notes – that could be exchanged for gold or silver. Later virtually everyone came to use money as special pieces of paper or coins called cash. However two things have changed in the last 50 years. The first change is that most money around the world has become what is called fiat money. This means that it cannot be exchanged for gold or silver. President Richard Nixon made that decision in 1971 for the USA, and most – like Australia - have followed. The second change comes from the introduction of computers into banking. Now most money consists of computer files consisting of '0's and '1's which appear on computer screens as numbers. In the USA they look like '$10.00'. In Australia they look like 'A$10.00'. In the UK they look like '₤10.00'. Fortunately some money is still in the form of notes and coin, but virtually all large financial transactions are made by typing numbers on a computer keyboard.

This means that a large amount of money is not a pile of gold, silver or notes in a bank vault somewhere. As before, however, governments authorise certain files as legal tender = money. So when the government spends money it does not take a quantity of gold or paper and give it to somebody. It increases the numbers in the file which constitutes their account. If they take money from someone in taxes they decrease the numbers in the file which constitutes their account. The amount of money the government puts into or takes out of our accounts makes a huge difference to us and for the economy as a whole. However since they are only changing numbers in a computer file, they cannot ever run out of money. They create money in the desired accounts. They don't take anything from anybody.

So the first point for MMT is that money is not a “thing” that is taken from one person in taxes and given to another. The second point is the even more unusual claim that the government is not like a household. The government creates money in its jurisdiction, but households do not. Neither do states within a jurisdiction or city councils. They must live within their means like the rest of us. Taxes paid to states or city councils consist in transfers of “money” from our accounts to theirs. When I pay a state tax, the numbers in my account get smaller and the numbers in the account of the government of South Australia get larger. Under MMT it literally makes no sense to say that a federal government must live within its means. It creates its means by “spending” it, that is by increasing the numbers in the file understood to be my account. The central political task of any government is to decide how much “money” to create and into which account the “money” is to be put. Who will get the numbers in their increased (or decreased) and how much should they be changed?


ONE FINAL POINT
MMT is a tool of analysis. It can be used to understand how the economy of a nation works. However MMT on its own does not tell us what to do. What we do with the levers that control the economy is a moral/political choice. MMT in effect revives the old idea of political economy which combines these two. Neo-liberalism has presented their economic theory as a value-free “science” totally independent of any political considerations. No doubt this is why it has produced results in the modern world many see as inhuman. It is inhuman by design. Its values hidden behind a mask of scientific objectivity. "If it is just numbers, it must be objective and not subjective like politics." Many followers of MMT happen to suggest similar policies because of the political values they bring with them. I have different values so I would use the same MMT analysis to suggest different policies. Knowing how something works is one thing. Deciding what to do with it is different. To decide what to do requires being clear about our values.

I cannot explain the entire MMT view here. Rather than attempt this impossible task I have assembled the list of sources given below which you can use to begin to understand MMT for yourself. I hope this short introduction has sparked an interest in learning more about MMT. I would encourage you to take this journey but from now on it is up to you. In what follows I have collected a range of videos, short articles, podcasts, books, research centres and people to follow on twitter. I have also included three videos on neo-liberalism understood an the hidden ideology, a powerful set of ideas which are never discussed in the mainstream media but are central to the thinking of all politicians in the West.


VIDEOS ON MMT

MMT Part 1 – The Basics
In this segment, Amanda chats with Kathleen Tramblay on Modern Monetary Theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPxtIzniOII

MMT Part 2 of the Basics
This is the second half of our first video on MMT - Modern Monetary Theory. Amanda chats with Kathleen Tramblay on MMT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXESQDsfHDo

Stephanie Kelton on the Public Purse
As part of the lecture series between UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) and the British Library, Stephanie Kelton speaks on why a government budget should not be looked at in the same way as a household budget.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IBEoWSiTHc

Warren Mosler: What Modern Monetary Theory Tells Us About Economic Policy
Welcome to our new video series called "New Economic Thinking." The series will feature dozens of conversations with leading economists on the most important issues facing economics and the global economy today. This episode features Warren Mosler, president of the financial services firm Valance Company and one of the founders of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), speaking about what MMT tells us about economic policy. He explains not only what policy makers can do but also what they should do in the current economic environment. How can MMT help get the economy back on track? Watch the interview to find out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGuNpqYBkZk

L. Randall Wray - Modern Money Theory for Beginners
Professor L. Randall Wray, professor of economics at Bard College, discussed "Modern Money Theory for Beginners" on April 6, 2018. His current research focuses on providing a critique of orthodox monetary theory and policy, and the development of an alternative approach. He also publishes extensively in the areas of full employment policy and, more generally, fiscal policy. Wray's most recent book is Why Minsky Matters: An Introduction to the Work of a Maverick Economist (2016). Professor Wray will also talk about the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College MA and MS Programs in Economic Theory and Policy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5JTn7GS4oA

Moser and Kelton on Why MMT Has Not Been Embraced by Those in Power
Excerpted from "Why Governments Are Not Households" - http://youtu.be/ba8XdDqZ-Jg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfW5oI1DvvQ

Understanding MMT with Steve Grumbine
Steve was a guest on the wonderful show "The Progressive Talk!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cWjuPKtKI0

How Marxism and Modern Money Theory Go Hand in Hand
In this Majority Report clip, Sam Seder and Professor Richard Wolff discuss how Marxism and modern monetary theory are a match made in heaven.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQNt-SYatbc

How The Reserve Bank Implements Monetary Policy
Watch Senior Analyst, Katherine Leong, talk about how the Reserve Bank implements monetary policy in this short lecture-style video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bBizpkB8dU


PODCASTS


The MMT Podcast with Patricia Pino & Christian Reilly
http://www.pileusmmt.libsyn.com/

This site contains 23 excellent podcasts covering many aspects of MMT. This is a list of those which have appeared as of July 24, 2019 and they can all be accessed at this one site.

23 Ellis Winningham: Challenging Orthodoxy (part 1)
Patricia and Christian talk to economist and activist Ellis Winningham about introducing people to MMT, the nature of money, quantity theory of money, inflation, deficit trolls, and the challenge of “paying back” government debt using time-travel.

22 Steve Grumbine: Real Progressive Economics
Patricia and Christian talk to founder of Real Progressives Steve Grumbine about his journey as a movement-builder and lead MMT activist, and the lessons he’s learned on the way.

21 Warren Mosler: The MMT Money Story (part 2)
Christian talks to father of Modern Monetary Theory Warren Mosler about student debt cancellation, Libra and cryptocurrency in general, the MMT Job Guarantee vs Universal Basic Income and the primary dealer system.

20 Warren Mosler: The MMT Money Story (part 1)
Christian talks to father of Modern Monetary Theory Warren Mosler about defining currency, the difference between government issued currency and money created through commercial bank lending, exchange rates, international trade, the petrodollar, and the NHS. 

19 John T. Harvey: Macroeconomics Done Properly (part 2)
In last week’s conversation with Christian, professor of Economics John T. Harvey laid out an easy to follow, step-by-step, jargon-free way to understand macroeconomics. This week John addresses some of the pushback Modern Monetary Theory has been receiving from mainstream commentators.

18 John T. Harvey: Macroeconomics Done Properly (part 1)
Christian talks to professor of Economics John T. Harvey as he builds a solid macroeconomic framework from easy-to-follow first principles.

17 Scott Ferguson: MMT and Marxism
Patricia talks with Associate Professor of Humanities & Cultural Studies and co-host of Money On The Left podcast Scott Ferguson about Marxism and political identities in general in relation to MMT. Scott is a research scholar at the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity.

16 Warren Mosler: Treasuries, Kilts, Fish & Chips

If you’ve ever wondered what it’s like to go for a pint in a busy Glasgow pub with Warren Mosler, now’s your chance!
(I’ve left in the audio of the barman calling out our food orders because it made us smile!)
Around the 15 minute mark, Dr Tim Rideout enters the discussion on trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK. 

15 Warren Mosler, Bill Mitchell, Patricia Pino, Chris Cook: Modern Monetary Theory and the economics of an independent Scotland

MMT founders Warren Mosler and Bill Mitchell explain in great detail what Modern Monetary Theory would mean for an independent Scotland and the UK as a whole, and Patricia talks MMT activism at a live event chaired by Chris Cook and briefly interrupted by Christian.

14 Andrés Bernal: The Green New Deal
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez friend and advisor, Andrés Bernal talks to Patricia and Christian about MMT and the evolution of The Green New Deal.

13 Steven Hail: Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Banking, But Were Afraid To Ask
MMT economist Steven Hail helps Christian understand the intricacies of a modern money banking system as they discuss the interplay of government spending, private sector transactions, reserve and bond accounts at the central bank and how these things impact on interest rates, plus the effect of quantitative easing.

12 Fadhel Kaboub: Monetary Sovereignty, Colonialism and Independence
Patricia and Christian chat with economics professor and president of the Global Institute For Sustainable Prosperity, Fadhel Kaboub about the meaning and importance of monetary sovereignty, MMT in relation to developing countries, Venezuela, colonialism, Scottish independence, and the MMT Job Guarantee.

11 Bill Mitchell: MMT Q&A - central banking, Job Guarantee and more...
Patricia Pino and Christian Reilly talk with lead MMT academic, professor Bill Mitchell, as he answers listeners’ questions about government bond issuance, central banking, the Job Guarantee, the NAIRU, the Euro, parallel currencies, debt jubilees, zero interest rate policy, capital controls, & MMT university.

10 The Eurozone crisis: Italy vs the European Commission

In this episode Patricia Pino interviews Chiara Zoccarato, a socialist activist from Patria and Costituzione. A committed MMT advocate, Chiara explains the current stand off between Italy’s new right wing government and the European Commission, and the economic and political implications of the Eurozone spending.

9 MMT Activism, the Job Guarantee and automatic stabilisers
In their continuing mission to demystify economics, Patricia and Christian talk about spreading Modern Monetary Theory, watching/avoiding the UK budget, automatic stabilisers and an idea for an MMT activist manifesto.

8 Richard Murphy: Corbynomics And Labour's Fiscal Credibility Rule

Patricia and Christian chat with Richard Murphy, economist and author of The Joy Of Tax, about what the UK government deficit actually is: your money! We also talk about Corbynomics, Labour's Fiscal Credibility rule and the difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy.

7 Steven Hail: Inflation, Price Shocks And Other Misunderstandings

Patricia and Christian chat with Dr Steven Hail, MMT economist and author of "Economics for Sustainable Prosperity" about where your money goes when you pay your taxes. Spoiler alert: nowhere! Also under discussion: the difference between price shocks and inflation, the irrational assumptions of orthodox economists.

6 What makes a currency valuable?
Christian Reilly interviews Nathan Tankus, Research Scholar at the Modern Money Network (MMN) in the US to find out how currencies work, what makes them valuable. Learn about affects exchange rates, inflation, and what’s happening in Venezuela.
 
5 A Job Guarantee vs a Universal Basic Income
Christian Reilly and Patricia Pino interview leading US activist Rohan Grey on the efforts to push through a job guarantee. How does it compare to a Universal Basic income (UBI)?

4 What is the Job Guarantee?
Patricia Pino and Christian Reilly interview Fadhel Kaboub, President of the Binzagr Institute for Sustainable Prosperity  to discuss the new policy advocated by MMT activists which is generating debate in the US after support from Senator Bernie Sanders. What is a Job Guarantee, how does it compare to UBI?

3 Why we can always afford a war
Patricia Pino and Christian Reilly discuss Government ‘debt’ and explain why politicians never ask “how are you going to pay for it?” when it comes to war.


2 Monetary Sovereignty

What does it mean to be Monetarily Sovereign and why does it matter?
Patricia Pino and Christian Reilly discuss how some erroneous mainstream economic concepts are confusing us and undermining our understanding of world economic problems.

1 A hypothecated tax for the NHS?
Christian Reilly and Patricia Pino explain why we don't need a hypothecated tax for the NHS, and why it’s so damaging to believe that we do.


SHORT ARTICLES

What taxes are for?:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/05/taxes-mmt-approach.html

Taxpayers don’t fund anything
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=9281

Taxes for revenue are obsolete
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2010/04/fed-chairman-ruml-got-it-right-in-1946.html

7 Deadly Innocent Frauds
by Warren Mosler
http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf

Monetary Sovereignty is the foundation of economics

by Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
https://mythfighter.com/2010/08/13/monetarily-sovereign-the-key-to-understanding-economics/

White Paper: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) 
DRAFT 5/25/19
The purpose of this white paper is to publicly present the fundamentals of MMT. 
What is MMT?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gvDcMU_ko1h5TeVjQL8UMJW9gmKY1x0zcqKIRTZQDAQ/edit

What is Money?
From The Banking Law Journal, May 1913.
By A. Mitchell Innes
http://moslereconomics.com/mandatory-readings/what-is-money/

Reliance on monetary policy is mindless ideological nonsense
Yesterday the RBA decided to cut interest rates to record low levels. The decision won’t save the economy from recession and highlights the sort of desperation that central bankers now face as governments shunt the responsibility of counterstabilisation onto them while claiming that achieving fiscal surpluses is the brief of the treasuries.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=42647

The Facts of Modern Monetary Theory
There are several misconceptions and misunderstandings as to the true meaning of Modern Monetary Theory, writes John Doyle
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-facts-of-modern-monetary-theory,11889

The budged deficit and the national debt are not the same thing
by Ellis Winningham Feb 2019
http://elliswinningham.net/index.php/2019/02/05/the-budget-deficit-and-the-national-debt-not-the-same-thing/


BOOKS

Modern Money Theory: A Primer on Macroeconomics for Sovereign Monetary Systems
By L. Randall Wray
In a challenge to conventional views on modern monetary and fiscal policy, this book presents a coherent analysis of how money is created, how it functions in global exchange rate regimes, and how the mystification of the nature of money has constrained governments, and prevented states from acting in the public interest. The posts from the MMT Primer series have been collected and organized into Randy’s latest book, Modern Money Theory. It makes for a much more coherent read and is highly recommended for anyone seriously interested in the MMT perspective. (Available from Amazon.com)
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html

Macroeconomics
by William Mitchell, L. Randall Wray, Martin Watts
Publisher: Red Globe Press 2019
Pages: 604
William Mitchell is a Professor of Economics at the University of Newcastle, Australia
L. Randall Wray is a Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, USA
Martin Watts is a Professor of Economics at the University of Newcastle, Australia
This groundbreaking new core textbook encourages students to take a more critical approach to the prevalent assumptions around the subject of macroeconomics, by comparing and contrasting heterodox and orthodox approaches to theory and policy. The first such textbook to develop a heterodox model from the ground up, it is based on the principles of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) as derived from the theories of Keynes, Kalecki, Veblen, Marx, and Minsky, amongst others. The internationally-respected author team offer appropriate fiscal and monetary policy recommendations, explaining how the poor economic performance of most of the wealthy capitalist countries over recent decades could have been avoided, and delivering a well-reasoned practical and philosophical argument for the heterodox MMT approach being advocated.
The book is suitable for both introductory and intermediate courses, offering a thorough overview of the basics, while covering everything needed for more advanced courses. Issues are explained conceptually, with the more technical, mathematical material in chapter appendices, offering greater flexibility of lecturer use.
(Expensive BUT may be the best textbook on the market.)
https://www.macmillanihe.com/page/detail/Macroeconomics/?K=9781137610669


RESEARCH CENTRES

The Centre of Full Employment and Equity
An official research centre at the University of Newcastle.
http://www.fullemployment.net/index.php

The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College
Founded in 1986 through the generous support of Bard College trustee Leon Levy, it is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public policy research organization.
http://www.levyinstitute.org/about/

The Modern Money Network
Aims to bring accurate and accessible knowledge of monetary and financial systems to the broader public.
https://modernmoneynetwork.org/

Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies
A brief introduction to Modern Monetary Theory
https://gimms.org.uk/mmtbasics/

Bill Mitchell - Modern Monetary Theory
Macroeconomic research, teaching and advocacy
(Bill Mitchell is a one man research centre. He has a long list of topics he has discussed over the years as well as comments on current issues.)
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/


VIDEOS ON NEO-LIBERALISM

This is Neoliberalism – Introducing the Invisible Ideology (Part 1)

If you've ever wanted to understand what neoliberalism is, this is the series for you. Neoliberalism is an economic ideology that exists within the framework of capitalism. Over four decades ago, neoliberalism become the dominant economic paradigm of global society. In this video series, we'll trace the history of neoliberalism, starting with a survey of neoliberal philosophy and research, a historical reconstruction of the movement pushing for neoliberal policy solutions, witnessing the damage that neoliberalism did to its first victims in the developing world, and then charting neoliberalism's infiltration of the political systems of the United States and the United Kingdom. Learn how neoliberalism is generating crises for humanity at an unprecedented rate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myH3gg5o0t0

This Is Neoliberalism ▶︎ Keynesian Embedded Liberalism (Part 2)
If you've ever wanted to understand what neoliberalism is, this is the series for you. Neoliberalism was a reaction. It was an effort to disassemble a previous vision of society that once held sway over most of the world. In order to understand neoliberalism, it’s important to first understand the world before neoliberalism; the world which neoliberalism considered unacceptable, and in need of urgent reconfiguration. Learn about the world of embedded liberalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkBpqLWFNg4

This Is Neoliberalism ▶︎ Hayek and the Mont Pelerin Society I: 1918 - 1939 (Part 3)

If you've ever wanted to understand what neoliberalism is, this is the series for you. The story of neoliberalism is a story about the power of ideas. Embedded liberalism was in power, but it was not without resistance. Academics and businessmen who opposed the New L RANDEL WRAYDeal and British social democracy were only begrudgingly accepting of the situation at best, or on the warpath against government intervention in the economy at worst. These two factions allied with one another to create an idea so powerful that it would covertly undo their losses to embedded liberalism by supplanting it entirely. This is where the story of neoliberalism begins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsgwVz0D6rI


MMT ON TWITTER

Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies‏
@GowerInitiative

Thomas Fazi
@battleforeurope ‏

Bill Mitchell
@billy_blog ‏

Real Progressives
@RealProgressUS ‏

Ellis Winningham
@elliswinningham ‏

Stephanie Kelton
@StephanieKelton ‏

MMT Podcast (Christian Reilly)
@MMTpodcast ‏

Heterodox
@mmt_rod ‏

Steven Hail
@StevenHailAus ‏

Eric Tymoigne
@tymoignee ‏

Steve Keen
@ProfSteveKeen ‏

STΞPHΞN SARGΞNT #MMT
@JustShowingOff ‏

ModernMoneyTheory UK
@ModernMoneyFact ‏

Deficit Owls  
@DeficitOwls ‏

Austerity is Murder
‏@sdgrumbine

Sara Holland #MMT
@sarahollando552 ‏

Pavlina R Tcherneva
@ptcherneva ‏

Scott Fullwiler
@stf18 ‏

Warren B. Mosler #MMT
@wbmosler ‏

Fadhel Kaboub
@FadhelKaboub 


Please feel free to make comments and suggestions!




Copy of Censored ZeroHedge Article on New Zealand Mosque Shooter
australianvoice
Complete Copy of Censored ZeroHedge Article:

Turkey Claims NZ Mosque Shooter Previously Entered Country For "Assassination" Attempt


By Contributors, www.zerohedge.com
March 17th, 2019
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-15/turkey-claims-nz-mosque-shooter-previously-entered-turkey-assassination-attempt

In an apparent attempt to capitalize on the horrific terror attack on two New Zealand mosques which left 49 dead and dozens more wounded, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has claimed the gunman, 28-year-old Australian national Brenton Tarrant, had targeted Erdogan, Turkey, and "the whole Muslim world" in a speech on Friday.


“It is clear that the understanding represented by the killer that also targets our country, our people and myself, has started to take over Western societies like cancer,” Erdogan said, as reported by Turkey’s Hurriyet Daily News.

While Erdogan was referring to the gunman's manifesto which had called for the death of the Turkish president by name, state-run media took allegations a big step further on Friday after it was revealed Tarrant had made at least two trips to Turkey in 2016: TRT World cited government officials who said the white supremacist gunman had previously entered Turkey "to carry out a terror attack and/or an assassination."



Turkish media further linked the supposed 2016 "assassination plans" to the newly unearthed manifesto's references to "the assassination of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan".

TRT World, which is the largest state broadcaster run by the Turkish government, claimed the following in its report:


Turkish authorities believe the mosque attacker, who also called for the assassination of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, came to Turkey "to carry out a terror attack and/or an assassination."

Officials say Tarrant visited Turkey between March 17-20 in 2016, ahead of the July 15 defeated coup, and entered Turkey again on September 13, 2016. He left Turkey on October 25, 2016.

Also interesting is the attempt to vaguely link Tarrant's travels to the "July 15 defeated coup" attempt aimed at forcing Erdogan from power.


Turkish officials believe the New Zealand mosque attacker had plans "to carry out terror attack and/ or an assassination" in Turkey https://t.co/g9hq2OtpZQ

— TRT World (@trtworld) March 15, 2019


Turkish police are currently investigating the New Zealand mosque shooter's 43-day travels inside the country, but it should also be noted that he visited a number of East European and other countries during the same period, which are conducting their own investigations.



Erdogan shows the crowd video of #Christchurch murderer during his election rally in the Turkish city of Tekirdağ, with a title "Terrorist Enemy of Islam and Turks".

He represents the other face of coin in the islamist vs white supremacist fascists' "fight". pic.twitter.com/RFeFpaTrce

— Gilgo (@GforGilgo) March 16, 2019

Meanwhile independent Turkish media outlet Ahval News highlighted the timing of both Erdogan's and state media's sensational claims regarding an "assassination attempt":


Erdoğan went on to link the attack to the local elections on March 31, for which the president has been involved in a furious campaign in recent weeks.

“As Muslims we will not bow our heads, but we will never fall to the level of these villains. Are you ready to send a message to the enemies of Islam and Turkey on March 31?” Erdoğan called out to the crowd in Gaziantep.

State broadcasters in Turkey have also come under fire for airing uncensored footage of the live stream of the New Zealand attacks throughout the day Friday.

Ahval reported further, "The decision to broadcast the footage uncensored drew sharp criticism, as did pro-AKP satirical magazine Misvak’s response to the attack."


In his manifesto, the suspected New Zealand shooter calls for the assassinations of Angela Merkel, Erdogan and Sadiq Khan. He hates Turks more than anything and calls Turkish people “ethnic soldiers within Europe” pic.twitter.com/o6ry0HDFly

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) March 15, 2019

In separate statements, Ömer Çelik, the spokesman for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), said: “We’ve warned politicians in Europe and the far-right many times not to base their politics on Islam and racism. We said this would bring the entire world to a terrible place.”

Sickeningly — but entirely to be expected — Erdogan and his AKP loyalists will continue to use both the mass murder and the killer's prior visits to Turkey as political capital for days and weeks to come.

China's“Socialist” Investment in Australia is No Different from that of Other Capitalist Wolves
australianvoice
IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DUCK...
In Australia we have a quaint saying: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Most of this article consists of an imperfect and incomplete description of Chinese investment in Australia. I defy anyone to explain how Chinese “socialist” investment is any different from investment by the US, UK or Japan.

At the moment China is the fifth largest investor in Australia. It has also recently become the second largest foreign owner of Australian land. It has only 2 million hectares less than the UK. Much of the investment is not by China's State Owned Enterprises (SOEs). These are gradually being turned into privately owned companies as required by the Communist Party of China. While most investors are private individuals or privately owned companies, the investments are guided by government policies, such as the One Belt, One Road Initiative (OBOR). Investments clearly tied to the OBOR policy are the acquisition of the Ports of Newcastle, Melbourne and Darwin. Newcastle is the largest coal port in the world, Melbourne is Australia's largest port, and Darwin is important for animal exports. Other areas of Chinese investment include mining, real estate, infrastructure, and electricity.

It is important to realise that Chinese investors often invest jointly with foreign investors or Australians. In other words, they invest in Australia in the same way as any other foreign capitalist investors. They put money into Australia in order to take money out or use their profits to expand into other areas. Chinese investment is not a socialist swan but a capitalist duck. The discussion of Australia's wine exports to China shows that like most other countries, China's trading relations are connected to broader political concerns.

Investment in Australia:(1)

The following chart shows the pattern of foreign investment in Australia between 2015 and 2017, recorded in A$billion.



For some reason the information from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade separates the investment from Honk Kong and the People's Republic of China even though they have been united for years. Adding the two together, the total Chinese investment in Australia is A$181.6 billion, which makes it the fifth largest investor in this country. Between 2012 and 2017 the most rapid increases in investment are 21.6% for China and 17% for Hong Kong. Even though the increase for China is the highest over this three year period, investment fell considerably from 2016 to 2017. According to a recent report by KPMG:

Chinese government regulations which were implemented to address concerns about speculative, irrational global investments and massive capital outflows have impacted the Australia result, as have recent changes to Australia’s foreign investment regulations for strategic infrastructure assets.

Australia remains globally competitive for attracting Chinese investment, retaining its position as the second largest recipient of accumulated Chinese investment – only behind the United States – with just under USD 100 billion since 2008.

Chinese investors continue to be drawn to projects in Australia that relate to growing Chinese consumer demand and Chinese government priority initiatives – health and wellbeing, tourism and lifestyle, real estate, technology, services and a continuing demand for mining commodity resources.

The breakdown of Chinese investment in 2017 and 2016 was:

Mining - 35% (4% in 2016)
Real Estate – 33% (36% in 2016
Healthcare – 12% (9% in 2016)
Food/Agribusiness – 8% (Same in 2016)
Infrastructure – 4%. (28% in 2016 )

Private investors accounted for 83 percent of the Chinese deal volume and 60 percent of deal value in 2017, up from 78 percent in number and 49 percent in volume in 2016. Chinese SOE investment dropped in both the number and value of investments for the first time since 2014.

The breakdown of Chinese investment varies from year to year depending the projects they are interested in. It will be more useful to look at the important areas individually.

Mining:
The mining sector saw 12 deals announced in 2017 totalling AUD 4.6 billion, a rise of 448 percent from 2016. This large increase was mostly driven by the AUD 3.4 billion acquisition of Rio Tinto’s thermal coal assets by Yancoal.

Commercial Real Estate:
This remained an important sector for Chinese investment in 2017, accounting for AUD 4.4 billion of investment, with Australia attracting 11.5 percent of China’s total global overseas real estate investment.

Agricultural land:

Chinese investment in land is very important. In 2017 UK owned the largest amount of land with 16.4 million hectares, followed by China with 14.4 million hectares. By contrast US ownership has fallen to 2.6 million hectares. The rise was largely due to the Australian Outback Beef joint venture between mining magnate Gina Rinehart and Chinese partner Shanghai Cred buying the 10 million hectare S Kidman & Co cattle empire.(2)

Ports:
Ports are a vital component of Australian trade infrastructure, underpinning 20 percent of Australian GDP.
In 2014 the world's biggest coal port, the Port of Newcastle, was sold in a deal worth A$1.75 billion. A consortium made up of Hastings Funds Management and China Merchants made the successful bid for the New South Wales Government asset.(3)
A consortium of global and domestic funds, backed by investors including China Investment Corp, agreed to buy Melbourne, Australia’s busiest port, for A$9.7 billion.(4)
In 2015 the Chinese Landbridge corporation bought a 99 year lease for the Port of Darwin for A$506 million.(5) The Chairman of Landbridge Ye Cheng sees this as part of China's One Belt , One Road initiative.(6) He also bought the Brisbane-based gas producer WestSide Corporation in 2014.(7) Landbridge also paid US$900 million for a port in Panama which fits in the One Belt, One Road plan.(8)

Infrastructure:
Chinese investment in large Australian infrastructure assets continued in 2016 at a record level. Chinese companies with technical expertise and financing capabilities are keen to work with Australian and international partners in infrastructure provision. China’s comprehensive and global "Belt and Road" Initiative ties into their investment activities in Australia. Chinese investment in infrastructure comprised two very large deals with minority shares taken by Chinese investor CIC Capital in Asciano Limited and the Port of Melbourne.

Electricity:
EnergyAustralia is owned by Hong Kong-based China Light and Power.
Cheung Kong Infrastructure/Power Assets owns a 51-per-cent share, on a 200-year lease, in SA Power Networks Electricity Distribution network.
Chinese Government-owned State Grid Corporate has holdings in the following jurisdictions:
In the ACT the government owns 50% of ActewAGL Distribution Ltd. and State Grid Corporate holds a 30 per cent share.
In Victoria State Grid Corporate holds shares in three of the five electricity distributors in that state.
In South Australia, State Grid Corporation has a 46.5 per cent share of ElectraNet, the transmitter in SA.(9)

Australian Wine Exports:
While the focus of this article is on Chinese investment in Australia, this year an interesting conflict has appeared in one area of Australian exports to China, namely wine. In the last few years wine exports to China have rapidly increased to $A1 billion annually. However earlier this year Prime Minister Turnbull complained about Chinese political interference in Australia and took steps to develop tougher laws aimed at cracking down on foreign interference in Australian politics. After this announcement it seems Australian wine now take two months to clear customs in China while wine from other countries only took two weeks. Major exporters such as Treasury Wine Estates and McWilliams Wines as well as Wolf Blass, Penfolds and Rosemont have reported such delays. Global Times, among a few Chinese newspapers, is calling for China to slash Australian imports to teach Australia a lesson.(10)


This article is one part of four articles on Chinese "Socialism"


China's Transition from Socialism to State Controlled Capitalism
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/39112.html

China's State Controlled Capitalism is Not Very Different From Capitalism in the West
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/39306.html

The Damage Caused by China's “Socialism” to Workers Around the World
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/39545.html



Footnotes:

1. Much of the information on Chinese investment in Australia comes from the three sources given below. Where there is another source of information it is given in the other footnotes.
https://dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/investment-statistics/Pages/statistics-on-who-invests-in-australia.aspx;
https://home.kpmg.com/au/en/home/media/press-releases/2018/06/chinese-investment-in-australia-remains-strong-despite-global-outflow-slowdown-12-june-2018.html; and
https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/au/pdf/2017/demystifying-chinese-investment-in-australia-may-2017.pdf

2. https://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/agribusiness/decisionag/china-to-become-biggest-foreign-owner-of-australian-farmland/news-story/ba27742491380f55568bc3d5ada296cb

3. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-30/nsw-government-sells-port-of-newcastle-for-1.75-billion/5421800

4. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-privatisation-ports/australian-port-sold-for-7-3-billion-to-consortium-china-fund-among-backers-idUSKCN11P04O

5. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/dec/18/how-the-sale-of-darwin-port-to-the-chinese-sparked-a-geopolitical-brawl

6. https://www.afr.com/news/world/asia/how-landbridges-purchase-of-the-darwin-port-killed-perceived-wisdom-on-china-20170706-gx66r8

7. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/dec/18/how-the-sale-of-darwin-port-to-the-chinese-sparked-a-geopolitical-brawl

8. https://www.ft.com/content/b4d35440-5a68-11e7-9bc8-8055f264aa8b

9. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-21/chinese-investment-in-the-australian-power-grid/7766086

10. https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2018/06/pernod-ricard-facing-wine-delays-in-china/; https://www.acbr.com.au/treasury-wine-facing-china-customs-delay-amid-diplomatic-rift; and https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/pressure-on-turnbull-as-china-puts-a-cork-in-wine-exports-20180605-p4zjns.html

The Damage Caused by China's “Socialism” to Workers Around the World
australianvoice

Apart from the control exercised by the USSR over Eastern Europe, socialism in the USSR had little direct influence on the jobs of workers around the world.(1) The case of socialist China from Liberation to the death of Mao is the same. Workers gained a powerful demonstration that it was possible to create a society without capitalist exploitation, but the existence of these societies had no impact on the economies of their own countries.

By contrast the rise of the “market socialism” in China during the last 40 years has produced massive changes throughout the world. An ever increasing flow of basic consumer items, electronic equipment, cars, steel, etc. has helped to destroy jobs in all countries in the West and many more in the “developing world”. Marty Hart-Landsberg and Paul Burkett's book China and Socialism looked at this question more than 15 years ago.

"They regard the hypergrowth of the Chinese economy as something that cannot be viewed in isolation from the development requirements of neighboring states. As should be obvious to anybody who lives under capitalism, there can only be winners and losers. If China is "winning" today - even on a highly distorted basis - other nations have to lose. With a race to the bottom, foreign investment will always be persuaded to leave some place like Mexico and flow to China. So, looking at capitalism as a world system, China's gain can only be understood in terms of some other country's loss.


"In Malaysia, for example, 16,000 jobs have disappeared from the country's high tech production hub as new investment flows to China. A J.P Morgan report states that China's growth in high technology has 'eroded' Singapore's status as an electronics exporter. South Korea has found it profitable to relocate in China as well where militant unionized workers are not a problem. Samsung, Daewoo and LG Electronics now make half their goods outside of Korea, many in China.


"Although Japan is often seen as a strategic partner for China, the benefits of such an alliance will be lost no doubt on Japanese workers who will increasingly see their jobs disappear to China. Under newly instituted WTO rules, it will be much easier for Toyota and company to relocate where they can save 10 to 20 percent on manufacturing costs. The World Bank predicts a major contraction of automobile production in Japan, just around the time when a 10 year old slump appears to be ending."(2)


David Harvey also notes that “Mexico lost 200,000 jobs in just two years as China (in spite of NAFTA) overtook it as the major supplier of the US market in consumer goods.” He reports the same trends noted above:

“During the 1990s China began to move up the value-added ladder of production and to compete with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Singapore in spheres such as electronics and machine tools. This occurred in part as corporations in those countries decided to move their production offshore to take advantage of the large pool of low-cost and highly skilled labourers being churned out by the Chinese university system.”
(3)

Call it what you want, socialism or capitalism, the last 40 years of China's history can be seen as a “success” only by using the values of neo-liberal and globalist economics. We saw in a previous article that the level of inequality in China rose rapidly from 1994 to 2010, and has only been changed by abandoning some of the neo-liberal dogmas used to create a giant pool of workers forced to work for very low wages.(4) The neo-liberal/globalist paradigm for the whole world is one giant interconnected system in which the task of each country is to find and/or develop exports which are cheap enough to be competitive in the world market. These commodities and/or services – like call centres – can be bought or used by consumers or companies around the world.

In this neo-liberal utopia a country like China is a perfect model for the rest of the world to follow. But the “world market” has a deeper purpose, to drive down wages everywhere by a combination of shifting work to low wage countries or allowing people from low wage or impoverished countries to have unrestricted access to work in countries which do not have low wages – know as the open borders policy. Whether you want to think of China as socialist or not, the way their economic policies fit into the “world market” is obviously of absolutely no benefit to the workers in the rest of the world. Some of them may have jobs, but they will be jobs which will be at or below subsistence levels, just the sort of jobs capitalists are always looking for. This is why I said the policies of the USSR had virtually no effect on the workers in the rest of the world. They had virtually no effect on workers compared with the effect China's policies have had.

The following passage sums up my central point:

“When confronted by Argentina’s worries about cheap Chinese imports destroying the vestiges of its indigenous textile, shoe, and leather industries that began to revive in 2004, the Chinese advice was simply to let such industries die and concentrate on being a raw material and agricultural commodity producer for the booming China market. It was not lost on the Argentines that this was exactly how Britain had approached its Indian empire in the nineteenth century.”
(5)

So what is new here? The Chinese answer to the question put to them is essentially the globalist strategy explained above. The British wanted to wipe out the domestic manufacture of cotton so they could replace it with their own manufactures. Now in 21st century globalism expects most countries like Australia and Argentina to produce the raw materials the countries like China cannot provide for themselves. Few people seem to realise that globalism dictates to each nation how they are to run their economies without any regard to the impact of these policies on the people living in these countries. Countries must fit into the globalist New World Order. There is no alternative, or so we are told by today's dispensing economic wisdom.

There is another way to look at this question. The workers in China expend their labour power to create commodities for sale in other countries. What that means is that they do not benefit themselves from the fruits of their labour. The benefits are enjoyed by the people in the importing countries. Under Mao's policy of self-reliance, the fruits of the labour of Chinese workers were enjoyed by themselves and other Chinese who could buy and use the products they produced. The income derived from the export of these commodities is divided between the workers, their employers and the middlemen who handle the trade in these commodities.

This show us the real alternative for all countries, even China. There is nothing wrong with international trade, but each nation must be able to plan and carry out its own economic plans which should focus on the well-being of the people who live there.


This article is one part of four articles on Chinese "Socialism"


China's Transition from Socialism to State Controlled Capitalism
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/39112.html

China's State Controlled Capitalism is Not Very Different From Capitalism in the West
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/39306.html

China's“Socialist” Investment in Australia is No Different from that of Other Capitalist Wolves
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/39849.html





Footnotes:

1. Some will say that Soviet policy with respect to Spain and Nazi Germany was in the end detrimental to the working class in Spain, Germany and France. Even if this is true, it is not relevant to the point I wish to make here.

2. Martin Hart-Landsberg and Paul Burkett, "China and Socialism: Introduction", https://monthlyreview.org/2004/07/01/introduction-china-and-socialism/

3. David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford University Press, 2005, https://erenow.com/common/a-brief-history-of-neoliberalism/6.php

4. China's State Controlled Capitalism is Not Very Different From Capitalism in the West,

5. David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/39306.html

China's State Controlled Capitalism is Not Very Different From Capitalism in the West
australianvoice


WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES?
We can all see a growing antagonism between China and the United States. One area of conflict is over the use of the US dollar in world trade. Because the US dollar is essential for payments between nations, giving it the status of the world's reserve currency, the US is able to harm other nations by restricting their use of the US dollar for trade. A current example is the way the US wishes to block Iran's sale of oil and gas to China by not allowing its dollars to facilitate such trade. The EU is trying to find a way out of this problem, and both Russia and China are working to set up a financial system which does not depend on the US dollar. When an alternative system has been established the US will have lost one of its important mechanisms for exercising power over the rest of the world.

Both sides of this conflict would like us to understand it as a conflict between different kinds of economic systems or different sets of important values. The previous article has explained how what once was a genuine socialist system in China has been changed into a powerful neo-liberal state controlled capitalist system.(1) The only difference is the way that the owners of the means of production relate to the state. In the West, the owners of the means of production exercise their ownership and control via a web of interconnected banks and large corporations who select and advise the political leaders in the US, UK, the EU, Australia and many other countries. In China the owners of the large corporations are answerable to the leadership of the Communist Party of China which formulates policy and controls the banking system. In a simplified comparison, we can say that in the West the banks control the state, while in China the state controls the banks.

Anyone who wishes to believe that this difference constitutes a conflict between the capitalist West and socialist China needs to explain the importance of this difference to the workers in Australia who have seen their jobs disappear in the last few decades. They all know that capitalists cannot resist the urge to move their activities to countries with the lowest wage levels. Socialist countries focus their economies on looking after the people living in that country. People before profits.


NEO-LIBERALISM IN THE WEST
There are two important ways that the form of neo-liberalism developed in China is different from the neo-liberalism introduced in the West. When the basic doctrines of neo-liberalism were formulated by the members of the Mont Pelerin society in the late 1940s they took the form of two interrelated themes. Both themes were focused on freedom. The early neo-liberals were reacting to to recent phenomena. The first theme was political freedom, and arose from a reaction against the rise of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the socialist USSR, all of which created powerful states to control their populations. This was feared by the political theorists in the West who wished to see a society with much greater personal and political freedom.

The second theme was economic freedom. This arose arose from a reaction against Keynsian economics and/or state planned economies which had been adopted by most countries in the world after WWII. In the democratic West, including the US, UK and Western Europe, governments adopted measures such as limiting the power of banks, nationalising industries and concentrating their economic policies on creating full employment. Of course in the USSR and Communist China, there was a much stronger form of state control of the economy. Some of these early neo-liberals even claimed that economic freedom helped create and sustain personal and political freedom. We have seen, however, that economic freedom in the West has brought with it the elimination of both the personal and political freedoms once prized in the West.

While a few of the founding fathers of neo-liberalism may have been concerned with personal and political freedom, the real legacy of neo-liberalism in the West today is economic freedom or the “free market”. In fact most sectors of the economy in the West are dominated by cartels. While these are totally at odds with the idea of a “free market”, these cartels are of no more interest to neo-liberals than the powerful snooper states which have developed along side of the cartels. The only economic freedom neo-liberals in the West really care about are “free trade” between countries, where there must be no restrictions on what can be imported into any country, and “free markets” in which there are no restrictions on foreign investment and take-overs. This means large firms can invest in anything anywhere they find profitable and buy out any rivals.


CHINA'S "MARKET SOCIALISM" IS DEBATED AT THE WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION
The by contrast, the CCP places limits both on Chinese investors and foreign investors in violation of the “free market” principles demanded by neo-liberals in the West. If we step beyond the nearly invisible world of the left – invisible at any rate from the tops of our sky-scraper cathedrals to imperialist success – virtually all investors and market analysts in the mainstream neo-liberal press assume China is a de-facto “market economy”. Othewise, why would they think it was a good place to make a profit?

While the nature of the Chinese economy is not debated in the mainstream media, there is actually a significant dispute about this topic going on in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The problem is that while China has been a member of the WTO for 15 years, it has not been allowed full membership. This can only be granted to countries deemed to be “market economies”. Currently the US and the EU argue that China is not a market economy. According to Forbes:

“They (the US and EU) remain implacably opposed for the simple reason that this would restrict anti-dumping measures against China’s vast export surplus. Equally, China has made no inroads in persuading either the U.S. or the EU that it is, in fact, a market economy, doing almost nothing to ensure EU or U.S. companies actually gain market access to China without endless conditions and habitual delays. Specifically, China continually promises open market access for EU and U.S. exporters, but then frustrates them in practice, demands investment takes place through joint ventures, often with SOEs, and routinely insists upon technology transfer.”
(2)

The Forbes article begins with a rather blunt dismissal of the US/EU claims: “China’s status as a 'market economy' is once again under dispute. Not, of course, by anyone who knows anything about the Chinese economy.” For the US and the EU the Chinese economy is not as open as they would like. There are restrictions on access which they don't face in countries like Australia.


THE WEST HAS A NEO-LIBERAL STATE WHILE CHINA HAS STATE NEO-LIBERALISM
The basis of the US/EU objection to China joining the WTO is the role of the state in the Chinese economy. In the West, neo-liberals demand the state be small with little or no role in the economy. In practice this means that the giant corporations themselves control the economy and the government. Politicians are “democratically elected” puppets of the largest banks and cartels. In China the Communist Party has gone to great lengths to stop the newly formed capitalist class in China from controlling economic and political decisions. This means that foreign corporations cannot control economic and political decisions either. There is one element of Marxist theory the Chinese have not abandoned: either the state controls large corporations or the large corporations control the state. This is an unstable situation, but the Chinese leadership are all too well aware of the way foreign corporations politically control most countries in the world.

Just as the Chinese state is not a typical neo-liberal state, its economy does not follow all of the policies demanded by the neo-liberals in the West. While the state in China is working to minimise its ownership of all enterprises, the CCP still maintains control over major investment decisions and lending by banks. For the neo-liberals in the West this is perhaps the worst economic sin a government can commit. Another difference is that the Chinese state has used a Keynesian strategy to deal with the unemployment caused by disbanding the rural communes and the collapse of many SOEs as they were privatised. Since 1998 the CCP had sought to confront their unemployment problem through debt-financed investments in huge mega-projects to transform physical infrastructures. For neo-liberal economists in the West this is seen as the sin of "deficit spending". China has undertaken very ambitious projects like the Three Gorges Dam to divert water from the Yangtze to the Yellow River. Astonishing rates of urbanization (no fewer than forty-two cities have expanded beyond the 1 million population mark since 1992) require huge investments of fixed capital.

New subway systems and highways are being built in major cities, and 8,500 miles of new railroad are proposed to link the interior to the economically dynamic coastal zone, including a high-speed link between Shanghai and Beijing and a link into Tibet. The Olympic Games also prompted heavy investment in Beijing. Furthermore, China is planning to build an interstate highway system more extensive than that in the US, and practically every large city is building or has just completed a big new airport. At last count, China had more than 15,000 highway projects in the works, which will add 162,000 kilometres of road to the country, enough to circle the planet at the equator four times.(3)

Alvin Y. So and Yin-wah Chu give an account of how other neo-liberal policies have been abandoned after 2006. If these policies look like “socialism” to people today, it is only because they were born after the changes forced on the capitalists after WWII were dismantled. Chinese capitalism is adopting the concessions used by capitalists in the West to revive their system at the war's end.

“In contrast to the neoliberal doctrine which calls for the dismantling of the welfare state, the Chinese party-state under Hu/Wen leadership has recently presented a new policy of building a new socialist countryside and a harmonious society in 2006 . The above policy is significant because it could signal a change of ideological orientation of the Chinese state. Whereas the pre-2006 Chinese party-state adopted a neoliberal orientation, it is now moving toward a more balanced one between economic growth and social development. While market reforms would continue, this new policy indicates that the state would play a more active role in moderating the negative impacts of marketization. In the new policy, the state will need to include ―the people and environment in its developmental plan, and not just focus narrowly on GNP indicators and economic growth.

“Thus the new policy advocates a transfer of resources from the state to strengthen the fiscal foundation of the countryside. Not only was the agricultural tax abolished to help relieve the burden on farmers, but the state increased its rural expenditure by 15 percent (to $15 billion) to bankroll guaranteed minimum living allowances for farmers, and an 87 percent hike (to $4 billion) for the health-care budget. These policies indicate a massive infusion of funding from the state onto the peasants and rural areas. In addition, there is a de-commodification of human services. Rural residents would no longer have to pay many miscellaneous charges levied by schools; fees at primary schools will be abolished as part of a nationwide campaign to eliminate them in the countryside for the first nine years of education. The state will also increase the subsidies for rural health cooperatives that will be available in 80 percent of the rural counties by 2008. For now, rural residents have to pay market rates at the villages‘ private clinics and most of them do not even have medical insurance and spend more than 80 percent of their cash on health care. Furthermore, the new policy is aimed at reducing social inequality, especially the widening gap between the countryside and the city. Thus, pensions are to be made available for everyone, not just those enjoying a privileged status as registered urban residents. Over the past two years, the state has also been promoting the spread of Minimum Living Standard Assistance for the rural population. This is potentially a highly significant development, opening up for the first time the real possibility of instituting a social safety net that covers the whole of the population, whether urban or rural”(4)

Noting that China's economy under neo-liberalism has been far more successful than in the West, Alvin Y. So and Yin-wah Chu have concluded that “China has pursued a different mode of neo-liberalism – what we called state neo-liberalism – from the mainstream neo-liberalism that is promoted in the Washington Consensus model.”(5) With state neo-liberalism, the state “interferes” in the economy by controling major investment projects and deficit spending, while adopting all the other neo-liberal policies.

The following chart gives us an interesting way to look at the Chinese economy in a global perspective.(6)



In 2017 the Chinese debt to income (=gross domestic product (GDP)) ratio rose to 266 percent.(7) We can also see that Australia and many of the major NATO countries have debt to income=GDP ratios as large or larger than China. The difference is that while the absolute size of the Chinese debt is small, it has the same size relative to its income as many major Western economies. In contrast, China has the same per capita income as Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia, but has the same debt to income level as the major Western countries. In other words, it is unique in having a low per capita income and a high ratio of debt to income, just as Saudi Arabia is unique with its very high per capita income and its low debt to income level.


WHY CCP MANAGEMENT OF LOANS AND INVESTMENT IS NOT SOCIALISM

Some might be tempted to believe that the significant role played by the CCP in the economy show that China is after all socialist. As we saw in the previous article: “A share of stock is merely a title of ownership to a corresponding portion of the surplus-value to be realised by it.”(8) The Chinese state does not own the newly liberated State Owned Enterprises (SOEs). They are owned by their stockholders. Some of the people who own stock in these SOE may be members of the CCP and as individuals have a role in state decisions, but the state itself does not own the means of production.

Oddly, much the same situation can be seen in the US today. It is well known that leaders in banking and other sectors of the economy occupy powerful positions in the state apparatus of the US. There is a “revolving door” between the largest companies and the highest offices. Clearly these individuals have almost total control the US government foreign and domestic policy, but the US state does not own these giant corporations. So if anyone thinks the dual role of CCP members in the state economy and the stocks they hold as individuals or families shows China is socialist, they same must be said for the US itself.


CHINA'S GINI MYSTERY
An admittedly imperfect but widely used measure of social inequality is called the Gini coefficient. Here is a graph of the changes in China's gini coefficient from 1994 to 2013. Remember that the higher the number the higher the level of inequality.(9)



There are an number of calculations of China's Gini coefficient. Because of these differences I will not compare China's rating with other countries. Here I have relied on only one study which is based on the following research paper: BOFIT Discussion Paper, Ravi Kanbur, Yue Wang and Xiaobo Zhang, The great Chinese inequality turnaround.(10)

China's Gini mystery is this: How can a socialist country generate almost two decades (or more) of increasing social inequality? My answer of course is that China has been dismantling its formerly socialist relations of production for the last 40 years. The purpose of neo-liberal policies where ever they are introduced is to concentrate wealth in the hands of those with the most wealth. Even in 1994, China's inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient was much better than it is now. It has a long way to go to attain the level of inequality it had 25 years ago.

Perhaps it is useful to cite the conclusion of Ravi Kanbur, Yue Wang and Xiaobo Zhang, authors of a 20 page study of income inequality in China:

“We have argued in this paper that the long period of inequality increase in China is coming to an end. The data, seen from different perspectives, seem to indicate a turnaround towards the latter part of the 2000s. The explanations for this turnaround need to be explored further, but there is prima facie evidence of economic forces and government policy tightening labor markets in rural areas, together with government transfers and social policy mitigating inequality in urban and rural areas, which may explain the observed trends. This of course, raises the further question of why government policy changed over a 20-year period from allowing inequality to increase to mitigating it. The political economy of the Chinese state (Wong, 2011) may provide an explanation, but that takes us beyond our present remit. Although China’s inequality has come to a turnaround, the level is still rather high compared with many countries. More efforts are still needed to keep the momentum.”(11)

The authors ask “why government policy changed over a 20-year period from allowing inequality to increase to mitigating it.” I would speculate that the CCP realised their neo-liberal policies were producing a level of unrest that might threaten social stability and and with it their rule. This forced them to depart from the hard-line neo-liberal policies they introduced since 1979. The policies explained by Alvin Y. So and Yin-wah Chu in a previous section explain how the growing inequality was reversed.

In contrast to the leaders of the CCP, who have broadcast their "reforms" in well publicized policy announcements, the leaders of the developed economies of the West have introduced neo-liberal policies more slowly, carefully and secretly. In this way most of the population fail to appreciate that their current situation has come from many unnoticed changes. These changes have created a class of super-rich who are now on the way to controlling the whole world under the policy of globalisation. This policy removes all national sovereignty and the ability of people to use the power of their government to stop giant banks and corporations from doing anything they want to in pursuit of maximising their profits.


This article is one part of four articles on Chinese "Socialism"

China's Transition from Socialism to State Controlled Capitalism
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/39112.html

The Damage Caused by China's “Socialism” to Workers Around the World
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/39545.html

China's“Socialist” Investment in Australia is No Different from that of Other Capitalist Wolves
https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/39849.html




Footnotes:

1. China's Transition from Socialism to State Controlled Capitalism, https://australianvoice.livejournal.com/39112.html

2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/douglasbulloch/2017/12/08/china-is-not-a-market-economy-and-the-wto-wont-survive-recognising-it-as-such/#2aa0877e37fc

3. David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford University Press, 2005, https://erenow.com/common/a-brief-history-of-neoliberalism/6.php

4. Alvin Y. So and Yin-wah Chu, "The transition from Neoliberalism to State Neoliberalism in China at the turn of the 21st Century", https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304795946_The_Transition_from_Neoliberalism_to_State_Neoliberalism_in_China_at_the_Turn_of_the_Twenty-First_Century

5. Ibid.

6. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-08/sizing-up-china-s-debt-bubble-bloomberg-economics

7. https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/chinas-debt-bomb

8. Karl Marx, Capital, Vol III, Part V, Ch XXIX.

9. https://qz.com/937137/chinas-extreme-income-inequality-appears-to-be-improving-after-decades-of-deterioration/

10. BOFIT Discussion Paper, Ravi Kanbur, Yue Wang and Xiaobo Zhang, The great Chinese inequality turnaround. Pdf available here: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bof/bitstream/handle/123456789/14667/dp0617.pdf;jsessionid=4F2E45518BA4A14CB84E84F7A9A72726?sequence=1

11. Ibid.