The myth of sweat shops

Share |

If you read the HeraldSun, you will hear a beat up of 'sweat shops' being run in Melbourne, as opposed to China. Such stories are always a perversion of the truth. Here are the reasons why?

1. Chinese sweat shops are the result of the inevitable collapse of socialism, that created a Chinese under-valuing of labour that had global structural implications. Because of the restrictions on the movement of people, Chinese people are taking any opportunity they can get to join the capitalist market. Capitalism will correct the structural distortion of socialism quicker than any other system of government...it left alone. Government's only role is to protect, not to distort. It is important to note that safety is the only legitimate concern for governments, not remuneration. These workers came to the cities for the prospect of a better life. If they are paid poorly its because they see a benefit either from their old job (in agriculture) or in training (future prospects). The notion of super-profits is actually the basis by which China has funded its rapid ascension. All the better to keep these 'unfavorable' worker conditions, lest it lose that growth opportunity to another country.

2. Sweat shops in Melbourne are similar to prostitutes kept illegally: These people might appear always to be the victim, but often they are operating on the same paradigm. They would prefer to be living in the West rather than a prostitute den in the East. Why? The environment is better, they can bet the support of guilt-ridden, middle class liberals in the West, and perhaps even a visa. Illegal immigrants would prefer to work in factories here for $2/hour than the same overseas, if only so they have a nicer environment, the prospects to meet a husband to sponsor them. Often they come to Australia to study English, but it is just a facade so they can study in a factory. If not full time, part time for supporting income.

This is not a bad thing. Of course it is not desirable, but it is the price of distorted markets which governments create. The only solution is not to creative or expand distortive governments, as that is the cause. The solution is to disband or wind back such governments.

Another popular mythology is the idea that capitalism is responsible for the squalid conditions suffered by workers during the Industrial Revolution. These conditions, in the same way, arose because of the structural distortion caused by the sudden removal of oppressive religion. It was also intensified by the forced removal of farm hands from the 'commons' by government.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Gerry Harvey quickly going from worse to despicable

Share |

According to the SMH, Gerry Harvey is ambivalent about whether he ought to comment on the GST tax issue. The problem is he is weigh out of his depth. He needs to stop talking, start listening and thinking. When he realises that he has handled his internet strategy poorly, he ought to apologise to shareholders for costing them wealth. He might argue he did his best, but then for a few character reasons arising from this tax issue, its apparent he is not displaying the critical thinking skills required of a CEO. It is a reflection on our education system. Maybe money just came too easy in a government-sponsored boom. Oh well, I guess that will make the recession all the more painful for some.

A word of wisdom Mr Harvey....taxation is personal. There are a lot of people frustrated with democracy because their lives don't matter to those in power. Each of us are important; most of all to ourselves. Why should be live for the sake of others. Why should we underwrite the values of others. When you effectively sanction a system of government based on coercion, you place yourself in the firing line. In the public eye, you cannot afford to be morally ambivalent. The fact that you have 'easy access' to the government because you have more money just makes you a man of little principle because you make use of that access, not in defense of any principle, but because you want to make more money.

Here is your problem - you advocated 'fairness' in the tax system. Sorry, but that does not compete. There is no question of fairness when you are talking about slavery. We are all slaves to a government through the tax system which gives us token political rights, and yet denies us economic rights, for which political rights mean nothing. Why would a government want to persecute me politically, when they can seize assets and freeze bank accounts. Even wealthy people like Paul Hogan have experienced it. He had restraining order issued against him so he could not leave the country. He is standing up for himself, but all you wealthy idiots fail to see that other taxpayers are victims too. He sues the government who are funded by taxpayers. You want to cut your tax. Where do you think the government will get the difference.

What you call that is 'moral cowardice' or moral indifference. You are indifferent about whether the government increases taxes or reduces them. Its a silly position. The position you should be taking is:

1. Government should cut spending

2. Government should adopt user pays

3. Government should privatise/out-source all executive functions

That is the moral way to conduct yourself. No coercion; respect for your fellow man. It would be great if you could argue more, but more would be out of your educational qualifications, and you probably don't have time for tutors. Understandable, 200 years ago aristocrats employed thinking intellectuals to raise their children and to develop policy. Today, who do you depend on? Salespeople and the government-funded academics, who are more detached from reality than CEOs who cannot think critically/conceptually.

So now you are going to step back from the campaign....and work behind the scenes, seeking government favours (i.e. extortion). You are no statesman. Another measly man hanging off the coattails of politicians.

You know very well the government is not going to scrap the GST. You ought to be campaigning for cuts in spending. God knows most of the money is a waste anyway. Solar programs when in 5 years solar technology will be 50% more efficiency. Silly policy, to which you seemingly remain indifferent. What exactly is your goal in life. The acquisition of more money so some parasitical government can extort it from you. What is the point? Find the best of yourself so a government can sink to its worst, knowing it has extorted wealth from yourself and others.

You find such comments hateful? Its not hate? Its frustration. Frustration that leaders don't think beyond the dollars. Knowing they are so psychologically repressed, they don't even realise the importance of the human mind. Aristocrats 200 years ago grasped more than you. Leaders like yourself have silently continued making money for what? So some government can take it away, as the Labor government is currently scheming away to take the miner's wealth with the Resource Rent Tax. Can you integrate these ideas sir? Or would you prefer to repress? At least Andrew Forrest had the courage to see the error of his ways with respect to the Mineral Resource Tax. The greater shame is that you, as a owner-CEO have more to lose than the idiots at Rio Tinto and BHP who initially 'negotiated' with the deceitful Labor government.

I'd change your values sir, or you will be losing a lot of customers. We don't have to worry about your employees, as we have a welfare state, a very profitable mining industry, solid job growth, offering higher profit margins than your uncertain future. Your 'showroom' style retailing is the past. Only the grandmas will miss you.

Hiding behind small retailers will not help your position. Facts are more important than perceptions; at least they should be. Pity you are true to the worst elements of your craft - sales. Faking reality. You don't extricate yourself so easily from such a position. You either stand proud and confident or you apologise prefusely. You have lost your sales skills. Bad sale man!

Gerry Harvey: "That's not in my nature to run away - I'll stand up and fight".

Here is your problem. Stand and fight for what? Check your premises and you might just realise your were wrong.

Gerry Harvey: "If I think something is right I'll fight for it, always have. If it's wrong or I've been proved wrong I'll walk away and I'll apologise".

I would hurry up if I was you. Principled, honest men make decisions on a dim. Dishonest ones bluster and relentlessly drag it out for years. Dishonest men cause wars; honest men avoid them. Being self-righteous is going to cost you a lot of money. Remember, you have more to lose. Principles are practical - believe it or not - you just have to invest in facts and principles, as opposed to political pull, perceptions and smarmy sales talk. The problem is - you have to realise you are fighting the wrong battle.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Paul Hogan fights back

Share |

The saga of the Australian Tax Office persecution of Paul Hogan and other ‘high profile’ people continues. For a number of years the Australian government has been persecuting Paul Hogan as a means of keeping you, the taxpayer compliant. It is ‘psychological warfare’ of sorts. Like the 'shock and awe' psychological warfare doctrine that the US government adopted in Iraq. That's right, you are at war with the ATO, and you don't know it. Its your interest versus theirs.

The strategy of the tax office is to keep you paying tax by burdening you with fear. Yep, its no different from the Nazis. Their strategy is equally as immoral, they just hide behind this thin veil of legitimacy called 'democracy'. People erroneously think democracy is about protecting rights. It is not. It is about 'stability' as the standard of value. Democracy has no capacity to protect your rights because even if it gives you 'token' political rights, your right to 'exist' means little if you have scant or 'token' property rights. The reason why you don't have economic rights is because world governments cannot extort wealth from you if you (i.e. Tax expropriation) if you had them. So don't expect any UN charter to protect those.

The intent of the government was to make an example out of Paul Hogan. What if he wins? He would have proved that only the rich have rights...and what right is that...the same right to extort wealth from powerless taxpayers. If the ATO attacked everyone who didn’t pay it would cost a lot, and make the tax system less efficient, as well as highlight the extent of non-compliance. Instead, they persecution high profile people like Paul Hogan and Wesley Snipes to make an example of a well-resourced taxpayer. The right strategy is for people like Paul Hogan to join with other high-profile people to change the system. Maybe he can join with Wesley Snipes, the mining industry (which has loads of money and hate new taxes) tycoons like Andrew Forrest and geez, what about all those billionaires in the USA. They aren't all liberals.

In a series of blogs we have defended Paul Hogan,

1. Hogan's moral rights swept aside

2. Thieving ATO targets Paul Hogan

We have highlighted the persecution that he and others have been subjected to, but I suggest he is making a grave mistake in his latest plans. It was announced in the press today that Paul Hogan is going to sue the Australia Tax Office for its denigration of his character. There are several problems with this:

1. The Australian taxpayers are as much victims of the system as he is, so his efforts to recoup money from the ATO are merely Hogan persecuting Australians. His loss of income is no more tragic than the 30% people are forced to pay every year. He probably pays a lot less...lucky for him....he probably uses less services than us, and anyway, I don't want my persecution to be justification or some moral claim upon him.

2. Paul Hogan has the greater capacity to fight the tax office because of his reputation and wealth, and yet he has only taken an unprincipled, ‘narrow’ self-interest perspective. He could have conveyed a 'moral argument' during his conflict with the tax office; notwithstanding that he is probably not a very convincing one. But if you are going to be persecuted, its in your interests to educate yourself. Otherwise you are not very convincing, and you are destined to get ripped off by a lot of lawyers....who the law serves far better than any other. Middlemen fare the best in this system.

How is personal liberty served by Paul Hogan suing the ATO? It is not. The public have as much reason to call ‘foul’ from the government, which is a tyranny of sorts, its just that they don’t have his means to fight, nor a team of lawyers to whom he can outsource this fight. Why? Because the government has the 'unlimited' resources of the taxpayer at its disposal. The reality is that Hogan should use his resources to repudiate the ‘system of government’ and not to blunder public resources, which are actually taxpayer resources misappropriated and squandered by the government.

He ought to be fighting in the High Court for the right to recover damages from the ‘executive’ government, i.e. the minister in charge, the Tax Commissioner, who are ultimately responsible for execution of the law, if not the political parties who oversaw the enactment of the laws. Not the Australian people, who really have no ‘effective’ representation. Democracy is a tyranny which empowers ‘unaccountable people’, who cannot even be considered representatives because there is no ‘conditionality’ to their functional capacity. i.e. I don’t vote, but if I did, I would not renounce my support for an MP I helped elect. Our constitution is seriously flawed. It needs to be tested in the High Court.

I might add that I suspect that Hogan’s lawyers contrived this plan to sue the government. This system greatly enriches lawyers. It has no interest in improving the system. It loves the expansion of statutory law because its arbitrary and lacks and context like common law. i.e. They want statutory law because it’s impossible to interpret since it’s so contradictory, so it entails the ambiguities, loopholes, that they savour.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Lost graves a reminder of WWII holocaust

Share |

Workers who were digging up soil at an Austrian hospital have discovered a mass grave of 220 psychiatric patients interned at the hospital, but who were otherwise murdered by the Nazis in WWII. The discovery serves as a reminder to everyone of the immorality of collectivists, and not simply fascists. The same type of crimes were perpetrated by socialists and religious/mystic leaders. It matters little whether these acts are done in the name of God, the good or society, it ought to serve as recognition that self-interest, individualism, capitalism, is the only philosophical system which protects, respects and advances life. All forms of collectivism are immoral, anti-life, and destructive. They are a total lie, and they have to destroy all life in their desperate pretense to remain in control. They will start with deception, but in their desperation to preserve their subjective sense of reality, they will kill....usually in the name of the 'common good'.

So I ask you, have we learn the lesson that we need to learn. The answer is NO! Let me cite two pieces of evidence that I have seen recently - today and last week:

1. A commemorative plague in Queenstown, New Zealand, which celebrates or praises the lives lost during WWI. The plague hanging over the commemorative garden says 'Service Before Self'. This is collectivism, and this is the culmination of religious influence over values. If we politicised these values, we have collectivism. Hitler is quoted as saying 'You are nothing, your nation is everything'. So we can see that our forebears were merely ambivalent collectivists of the same ilk as Hitler. You might argue the we have more rights today. The reality however is that we don't. We have the pretense of rights, and that no 'political rights' are meaningful if we don't have economic rights. We are entitled only to be a slave if we are forced 'unconditionally' to pay tax. You are a slave in the service of some unnamed 'virtue' - the pursuit of the good of society. So let us see how this virtue manifests in contemporary life with my next example from NZ.

2. Bill English, the Minister of Finance in the NZ government was responsible for a gross breach of process. Was there corruption involved? It remains to be seen. More interesting to me is how he purported tried to defend himself. The minister's spokesperson advanced the 'virtue' of the contract, by arguing that it "was an injection of new money for Pacific problems and it should be celebrated". More problematic is the fact that we have a minister who will not account for his role in the issue...who needs to use a spokesperson. This is what happens with money coerced from taxpayers 'unconditionally'....there is no accountability, because there is no counterparty to ensure strict respect of the counterparties interest. This money can disappear, like those graves in Austria, overlooked for over 60 years.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Miami state government to cut judicial spending

Share |

It ought to concern everyone that the Miami state government is looking to cut spending on the judiciary. Read some of the flawed commentary:

"They must be joking, who is buying this line of reasoning? The lawyer that wrote and maybe a few lawyers and judges".

A reply to this was:

"Right -- we don't need no civil court system. Let's just beat each other over the head when we have disagreements -- or better yet -- shootouts! They're great for the economy. Malls really pack in the shoppers when they know there is a good chance they can take a bullet on the way to the sales racks. And don't forget what violence does to tourism. Conde Nast Traveler recently listed 'fear of shooting' as a big selling point for wealthy European tourist!

Is anyone buying into your line of reasoning? Maybe a few Tea Party desperates and Civil War reenactors. Even in the most small -government, libertarian view, a civil and criminal court system is the most necessary and basic function of government".

My response is:

I think they both miss the point. Yes, the judiciary is important, but that depends upon what it is that the judiciary is enforcing. We had a pretty good common law system, and it was thrown out with the bath water in sympathy to the desires of legislators to develop statutory law. Statutory law is not an objective (rational) standard of justice. It is based on legislature appeasement, concessions/exemptions, etc, as opposed to principles held in context of other principles. It has resulted in justice descending to arbitrary law, which we of course associate with arbitrary authoritarian rule. Democracy is thus merely a legitimatised form of tyranny.

Plans to cut spending on judiciary invoke plans to cut back upon the most important aspect of govt work. Quite the paradox don't you think?

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Extortion in San Diego - govt vs govt

Share |

Here is a case which highlights the inherent corruption and inefficiency of Western democracy. I am reminded of the Filipinos fighting for a parliamentary style democracy. A little research will show that parliamentary democracy is just as bad.

This case, reported in the San Diego Tribune, draws attention to a law suit by the San Diego Police Association against the City government. The problem with this case is that the attorney who advised the police association had a reasonable case, but it was always going to be a difficult case to win. It highlights the problem with justice in Western countries, that it is no better than the justice system in Communist countries. The difference is that we think we are free, and we preserve a pretense of justice.

The City of San Diego pay $58 million in legal fees in 2010. Most of the legal cases were considered 'frivolous'. Many people will take these comments at face value, but its a lot of political posturing. I don't think they were frivolous cases. I think they were important cases, handled by an abysmal legal-judicial system.

The case highlights a lot of problems:

1. The conflict of interest - government as law maker and executor, running the police. The police ought to be privatised and regulated by private regulators. Government ought to have no executive authority.

2. Monopoly extortion - You have two monopolies extorting wealth from each other, the problem for police is that a union is weaker than a government who makes the rules, and who merely passes its legal costs onto long-suffering taxpayers. There are no consequences for the government who merely needs to pass on costs to taxpayers. There is no effective competition against a bad system.

3. Arbitrarily law - which means prosecutors and judges have no way of knowing the outcome. Our justice system is a lottery. Will the judge go by the spirit of the law, or the word of the law? Such dilemmas highlight the contradictions in the system. We need to see an end to statutory law, and a return to simply common law, until that system can be refined. Common law is law based on principles, held in context. Statutory law is out of context, potentially unprincipled, and vulnerable to loopholes and corruption by bad decisions. It inherently leads to subjective law making. Once corruption enters, you will not root it out.

I think the attorney Petersen has a case because there is extortion involved. His problem is arguing that point when the whole system is based on extortion, and judges have rubber-stamped it. Arbitrary rule is the basis of our legislature. The reason why there are kickbacks of all sorts and dubious decision making is because decisions are not required to be reasonable. The reason they are not required to be reasonable is because they are not 'argued' or 'defended', they are imposed by extortion, using money, 'political numbers', not reasons. It does not help that our politicians have amalgamated into parties, they were once independent. The problem is that their interests are divided on arbitrary 'jurisdictional' grounds, as opposed to reasons or issues. Unless and until people are fighting for issues, where reason is the standard of value, you can rest assured that you will continue to see arbitrary, senseless decision-making and an endless expansion of waste. Taxes will continue to rise, and political middlemen will keep on passing on costs to the 'long suffering', psychologically repressed taxpayer.

The only solution is political reform. The most simplest reform would be a refinement to the Constitution of the USA, Australia, Britain requiring politicians to be reasonable, i.e. For reason to be the standard of value, and disclosure of arguments to be the basis of political discourse. It sounds simply enough, and it is. It would make a huge difference. It would not however be enough. The system needs an overhaul. I wish I could say philosophers are better today, but they are probably worse. The issue is not quality, so much as 'quantity of good' anything. Even science has turned into a popularity contest.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Critical remarks on awards

Share |

Its interesting what the latest awards in New Zealand have thrown up in terms of notable people.

The winner of the Knight Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to business was William Gallagher, who has developed his family-owned company from a "10-man" operation into a global enterprise employing over 1000 people. Impressive as this might appear, it strikes me as a fairly typical business owner. If we believed the rhetoric of socialists and socialism this is a guy who ought to be selfishly screwing a new women each week, extorting wealth from employees and shareholders, deceiving customers with poor products or misleading disclosure.

Is that what we are all lead to believe is the basis of capitalism? Well, people are ambivalent I guess. Of course not all participants in the market place are honest people. There is a broader context to people's lives, yet this 'smear' has long been made against capitalism. The idea is that capitalists have to be 'restrained' from their selfish exploits. The point is that most are humble, generous people who do the right thing. Far from being 'selfish' in the misguided sense conveyed by socialists, those deceivers in business tend to be 'altruistic' actors playing the system, or some conflicted hybrid of the two systems. We actually do not live in a capitalist society, we live in a 'mixed economy' with elements of both systems. Do we imagine that Russian business owners are 'suddenly honest' because they have switched to dominantly markets, or do we expect them to behave with some influence from the past.

Now Mr Gallagher might not be a perfect exponent of capitalism. I suspect that he is probably a Christian and a rather concrete-minded person, not a stalwart of ideology, either way. I suspect he does make morally-questionable decisions, but that is otherwise a hard-working, effective leader who has created a successful business. He perhaps rationalises that he is being charitable in the altruistic sense, when in fact he is just being confident and generous. That is the sense of life that I think most 'capitalists' display.

Another winner of the award was lawyer Miriam Dean, QC. Reading her profile I am inclined to think that she is the best exponent of reverse discrimination that we could possibly see.

"Dean was the first woman partner at..Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartlett in 1987, before going out as a barrister sole in 1995. Through the 1980s she was the firm's sole woman litigator, a situation that has now reversed with Russell McVeagh's litigation team dominated by women.

Speaking to the Herald this year, Dean said there was a growing recognition that the often understated, holistic approach sometimes favoured by women in law - as opposed to the aggressive male stereotype - could be far more effective. More and more cases were being resolved outside the court structure".

This strikes me as a gross generalisation. I suspect she prefers working with women. Do women have their strengths....without a doubt. Is Ms Dean merely expressing her appreciation for women, I don't question. Has she gone too far? Perhaps. The idea that women are more 'holistic' is nonsense. They are generally better communicators, but I would suggest men are generally recognised as better logical thinkers. The idea that men are 'aggressive' is a smear, because it can be equated also with confidence, pride and competitive. Can men also be insecure, vain and complacent; most definitely. So why make any of these points. Is why not unnecessarily elevating women? Does she do women any service by 'artificially' elevating their capabilities? Is this all about drawing attention to her role in elevating the perception of women?

I did not find these comments helpful, but perhaps they were only offered as ad hoc remarks. One of the most difficulty aspects about being interviewed is that one's responses are only as good as the interviewers questions. Its very hard to derive something from nothing.

I am never particularly impressed by awards. I think they don't particularly convey values which are healthy. i.e. Public service gives a person extra points, whereas I think there is no better way to improve people than conditional help rather than the 'unconditional' support offered by 'charitable' people. The other aspect is 'personal autonomy'. It strikes me as far easier to develop a proven business model, as opposed to starting from scratch.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com