Israel

[nomadpete]

All thought of a "final solution" is total fallacy.

 

Violence breeds hate and divides communities. Even uninvolved communities start taking sides. And then it is all doomed to repeat itself.

[nomadpete]

I am still puzzled by the news that Australia authorised 52 military shipments to Israel this year.

Also, I previously confused the two Shoebridge  people. I previously posted a Aljazeera piece written by Michael Shoebridge. As it happens, it was Greens senator David Shoebridge who got an admission by Defence about arms to Israel.

 

Brothers-in-arms ?

[Marty_d]

Brothers in shoes.  On bridges.

[nomadpete]

7 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Brothers in shoes.  On bridges.

Brothers-in-arms.....

 

Dire Straits.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Because one is selling something to another doesn't mean one is taking sides. We're we on Japan's side when we were selling them "pig iron", knowing what it was being used for?

 

It's all about the ker-ching

 

 

[willedoo]

From a defence perspective, we're very cosy with them. One example is the Israeli corporation, Elbit Systems.

 

https://elbitsystems.com.au/defence/

 

 

 

 

[nomadpete]

4 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Because one is selling something to another doesn't mean one is taking sides. We're we on Japan's side when we were selling them "pig iron", knowing what it was being used for?

 

It's all about the ker-ching

 

 

So are you suggesting that adding to the violence in a distant part of the world (by selling military hardware which has no humanitarian use) is OK, so long as someone is getting rich from it in our country?

 

Axiom:  Ethics ends at the hip pocket.

[Jerry_Atrick]

No.. l did not say it was OK... I merely said it doesn't mean anyone is taking sides.. and used the pig iron debacle as an example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Dalfram_dispute

 

And yes, for some, usually large corporates that deal in weapons and sleazy arms dealers,  their morals are very shallow indeeded and they don't care to whom or what the cause is for... it is all about the ker-ching

Edited November 15, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

Thanks for the link to that article.

 

Transport Workers Act 1928

The Transport Workers Act 1928 (Cth), more widely known as the Dog Collar Act, was a law passed by the Australian Parliament. It achieved royal assent on 24 September 1928, after being instigated and introduced to Parliament by the Bruce government (Nationalist Government of Stanley Bruce). It was ostensibly "relating to employment in relation to trade and commerce with other countries and among the states", which mirrors the wording of Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia.

 

The Act required all waterfront workers to hold federal licences, or "dog collars" as they were derisively known, to work.[4] The Act allowed the Commonwealth government, by regulation, to effectively control who worked on the docks and nearly destroyed the Waterside Workers Federation. The government favoured employment of non-union labour and members of the Permanent & Casual Wharf Labourers Union of Australia.

 

 

Marvellous how conservative governments go all out to introduce laws controlling a person's right to work or to move about freely. The licence was for one year. While we expect approval (licencing) in some occupations to be obtained on proof of qualification in that occupation, this licence was simply to allow a person to apply for work at a particular place. It had its precedent in the Victorian Miner's Licence of 1854, and its descendant, the much beloved ASIC CARD.

[nomadpete]

Although we have drifted away from Israel, the Pig Iron Bob parallel is relevant.

 

I found this ABC opinion piece rather interesting. It relates the Pig Iron Bob event, to a China issue where we are supplying iron ore to China.

Also, the expectation that once China gets its new massive African steel industry functioning, we can expect our  Iron export income to collapse. In a very few years time.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-15/australian-iron-ore-could-save-taiwan-beijing-verrender/101332312

[old man emu]

I find this information from the above article very annoying:

Australian mining overwhelmingly is dominated by foreign shareholders which means most of the profits flow offshore. Take Rio Tinto, the biggest operator in Australia. Its biggest shareholder is Chinalco — a Chinese state owned company — with 15 per cent.

[Jerry_Atrick]

FIRB asleep at the wheel, again

[spacesailor]

In those days of OLD .

No seatbelts , red light cameras, no insurance  and no traffic fines .

Government has learnt to milk the motorists. 

spacesailor

[pmccarthy]

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

I find this information from the above article very annoying:

Australian mining overwhelmingly is dominated by foreign shareholders which means most of the profits flow offshore. Take Rio Tinto, the biggest operator in Australia. Its biggest shareholder is Chinalco — a Chinese state owned company — with 15 per cent.

The shares are sold and traded on an open market to raise capital to build things. Anyone is allowed to buy them. If Australians want to own their own mining companies it is easy, just buy the shares.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Er.. not necessarily.. by this definition, given Chinalco  is a state owned company, any purchase has to be reviewed: https://foreigninvestment.gov.au/getting-started/investment-information/business and https://foreigninvestment.gov.au/guidance/types-investments/business-investments

Edited November 16, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

If Australians want to own their own mining companies it is easy, just buy the shares.

 

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Er.. not necessarily..

Sorry, Jerry, but I read (not red) PMC's comment as meaning that if Australians want to own the Nation's resources, each and everyone of us should buy some shares in mining companies according to each person's financial status. Since the number of Australian citizens calling Australia home is actually unknown (it's not the number given for the population because that number includes non-citizens residing here) the number available to buy shares would be small. But each person doesn't have to buy even 1% of a company's shares at the one time. You could buy in dribs and drabs. Afterall, the Great Wall of China was built one brick at a time. 

 

I've recently got two new grandchildren and it is usual to give them a gift. Maybe I should buy a few shares for each to celebrate their birth, then instead of spending money on soon to be discarded toys each birthday, I could buy a few more shares. Back in the day, grandparents bought endowment policies for their grandchildren so as to give them a nest egg when they reached adulthood. Unfortunately, inflation has rendered the rewards of that type of forced saving worthless.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Yes, I should have qualified my post to show that there are restrictions that can and should be imposed on foreign entities - so not anyone can just buy them..

 

Retail shareholders, on average, hold less than 20% of blue chip shares and the big plays rarely happen on exchange which further denies retail investors liquidity. When I worked with an algorithmic  trading desk, less than 15% of their trading was on the actual exchange. These desks are only available to institutional clients and are the conduit of most of the traded volumes, which means, in reality anyone can buy shares but it does not mean this will result in an increase in the volume available to them to buy.. 

 

The exception to the rule is high net worth individuals, but they are effectively institutional investors

 

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Bruce Tuncks]

I recommend making the rich pay tax.

[spacesailor]

Shares a re not that good !.

My brother bought share in a fishing company , that wouldn't maintain their ships and when their money ran-out , changed their name & folded. 

Just to reissue more share and gain more money .

Any one want to buy those worthless shares , can use them as a joke on people, 

spacesailor

[old man emu]

On 12/10/2023 at 4:07 PM, old man emu said:

The Israelis seemed to have the financial backing to gain power and to develop the country following Western European economic practice. One must remember that the massive increase in the Jewish ethnic population came from Western Europe, carrying with it the skills and philosophies developed over a period of a thousand years. The Arab population did not have that history.

It's nice to be able to be able to correct one's errors before being embarrassed when corrected by others. Once again, I've been caught out by ignorance of both history and religious culture.

 

This video gives a useful explanation of why Muslims, although as equally competent in business as Europeans and Asians, have failed to create the industrial/economic societies typical of Europeans and Asians. I found the content to be unbiased.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I'm surprised that gaza, for example, is not a sought after place for its cheap labor.

 

[nomadpete]

Reading an article about Netanyahu facing courts for alleged corruption. Can anyone explain to me what political benefits James Packer might hope to see, by allegedly lubricating the wheels of Israel's PM?

 

"In Case 1000, the prime minister, along with his wife Sara, is accused of receiving gifts, including champagne and cigars, from ............. and Australian billionaire businessman James Packer in return for political favours."

[onetrack]

You lubricate the wheels of the Jewish fraternity, to greatly ease your access to the multi-trillions of finance money, that they control. You need easy access to big money to carry out your big schemes. Alan Bond learnt this lesson very early in life and it paid off handsomely for him - until he over-extended himself with his pure unadulterated personal greed, which eventually led to his downfall. But he still hid around a reported $300M that enabled him to retire comfortably.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Maybe this goes some way to explain it.. https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/james-packer-and-the-case-against-benjamin-netanyahu-20191122-p53d22.html

[nomadpete]

Even SMH seem to dodge explaining why Packer is involved and what possible favours might be have been implicated. I find it difficult to understand why a billionaire would want to befriend the PM of a non major trading partner, and who is not known to be involved in the media industry or casino industry.