Comments on: Sphere crossing

By: Andrew Norton » Blog Archive » Guy Pearse’s greenhouse conspiracy theory, the Labor version

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:24:24 +0000

[...] isn’t featuring in this version of the story (though perhaps when Rudd turned up a the CIS to give a speech attacking our beliefs it was really just a cover, and we control him too), the argument that this is about polluter lobby [...]

By: backseat bangers backseatbangers

backseat bangers backseatbangers — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:59:46 +0000

backseat bangers backseatbangers…

hottest backseat bangers backseatbangers…

By: Teens For Cash Videos

Teens For Cash Videos — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:45:22 +0000

Teens For Cash Videos…

Teens For Cash Videos…

By: James Simpson

James Simpson — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:37:49 +0000

By: Russell

Russell — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 03:03:10 +0000

Just scanning an article on incivility and my eye was caught by the phrase ‘runaway capitalist values’: “Commonplace incivil
interactions were seen to result from excessive individualism, runaway capitalist values and a diminished sense of community.” (1.)

But Rudd may have an uphill battle convincing the punters because the study also found that: “little direct corrective action was suggested with respect to capitalist values. In other words, while the hyper-distended
state of the competitive ethos and consumer culture were seen as giving rise to incivil events in everyday life, the groups did not entertain the idea of reigning in their influence. There was quite simply a distinct absence of talk about the possibility of alleviating incivil occurrences between strangers by placing limits around the reach of capitalist values into the sphere of everyday life (Habermas, 1987). This point is significant in that it would seem to suggest that participants found it hard to countenance
how a solution to incivil relations among strangers might require a questioning of the felt-excesses of dominant economic values such as laissez-faire and the work ethic …”

1. Phillips, Timothy “Accounting for everyday incivility: an Australian study” Australian Journal of Social Issues 41(3) Spring 2006

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 01:57:11 +0000

An interesting speech for many of us to dissect or analyse but I suspect that the average marginal seat voter will have little interest in Rudd’s interpretation of von Hayek at the next election. Political leaders of all persuasions continue to be unable to take the essence of any political philosophy and put it in a language that translates into box-office success. His efforts would be better served at winning that constituency unless of course he is about to leave politics and establish a think tank.

By: Boris

Boris — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:31:27 +0000

Russell, what about the position of the two major WA parties in the referendum? Doesn’t exactly fit the bill, does it? (Liberals pro big business, ALP pro workers rights?)

By: Russell

Russell — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:58:07 +0000

One might also look at some of the poorest Australians - the Aborigines - probably the least materialistic of us ?? Could be culture is more important than wealth in determining ‘materialism’.

John, I lived in a little Indonesian village in West Java for a couple of years, and they were the least materialistic people I’ve ever met, by a long way. I lived in China for a few years and even the famously materialistic Chinese were contemptous of western societies just because of our materialism. Perhaps we’re not defining materialism in the same way - people everywhere need and want certain things, but it seems a much more western thing to think that having things will create a more fulfilling life. Maybe because traditional beliefs have broken down here so quickly and it’s left a sort of vacuum ….. which has been so successfully exploited by by entrepreneurs.

Boris - glad you agree that is was a ‘values’ referendum. Andrew, people didn’t see themselves as voting to tell “people when they should do their shopping”, but to tell business that they didn’t want people to have to work on any day of the week.
There may be people in the ALP with a different view to Rudd’s, but I don’t think he has contradicted himself.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 07:46:42 +0000

Some very sweeping generalisations here about rich and poor, and westerners and Asians etc. I don’t believe the ‘poor’ value money more highly than the ‘rich’. Sounds like a silly justification for progressive income tax.

John, do you explain to these incredulous se Asians that you are a rentier living off the interest and dividends while travelling the world? They might understand that.

By: Boris

Boris — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 07:36:45 +0000

Russell - here we go again. I think this time I quite agree with your description of what referendum was about (only partly though, since the small business lobby played a strong part, and had the support of the Liberals and Nationals).

However, crucially, Kevin Rudd’s party supported the change! That’s exactly Andrew’s point, isn’t it? It is understandable when these things are said by either Clive Hamilton or Russell, but far less convincing in the words of Kevin Rudd or, say, Paul Keating.