Introduction
This essay proves that Gina Rinehart is overly-generous, too tolerant and hyper-conciliatory, the opposite of the popular misperception of her as arrogant, brutish, controlling, difficult, radical, stubborn, tactless and uncompromising. In addition to the arguments in this essay, there’s also the argument of it: rather than commissioning such a project and going on the offensive, she self-effacingly turns the other cheek to her critics, such is her magnanimity.
I hope the weaponry in this essay will give people the confidence to stick up for Gina Rinehart and attack her critics. It is often rumoured that people refuse to talk about her because they are scared to criticise her, but the commentariat’s actions say otherwise. The only thing anyone appears to be afraid of is praising her!
This is understandable. She has never expressed any interest in forcing people to fund her projects. She only wants control over her own property. So because her critics do not feel at risk of reprisals, they feel free to continue greedily, selfishly and cowardly calling for her rights and property to be confiscated. Another reason she faces swarms of critics is that she has never offered them a handout for doing nothing but vote for her.
Gina Rinehart is up against vested interests who have far more resources than she has. She is punching way above her weight. These big vested interests threaten and use force to get their way, rather than attract capital through voluntary means. They grow in power every year. Who are they? They are, in the words of Viv Forbes and Lang Hancock, “the taxation industry — the largest extractive industry in the world.” If the taxation industry thinks it is useful and justified, then it should rely on voluntary mutually consensual payments and investments, rather than its current protection racket model.
Foreign Workers
When criticised about wishing to employ foreigners, Gina Rinehart tries to appease her critics by saying: that she wants to employ many more times as many Australians (despite the unwillingness of many Australians to work in remote locations) and that she’ll spend $26 million training them. This is a very soft and caring response to the egos of her critics, making them feel that their argument has some merit. The reality is that those who criticise the employment of foreigners have not given the matter the slightest thought. Here are some knockout punches that Gina Rinehart could have used if she wanted to stand her ground and be stubborn and uncompromising, rather than diplomatic and forgiving:
- You are ignorant of where your own arguments lead. Why not argue that only workers born and bred in the Pilbara be allowed to work there? And why not say that all food available in the Pilbara must also be produced in the Pilbara?
- You are ignorant of geography. It is ridiculous that Sydneysiders complain about the employment of foreigners in W.A. when the capital of Indonesia (Jakarta) is closer to Perth than the capital of Australia (Canberra), and Sydney is further still. Sydney is closer to the capitals of New Zealand (Wellington), Fiji (Suva), Vanuatu (Port Vila), Solomon Islands (Honiara) and Papua New Guinea (Port Moresby), than to Perth.
- You are ignorant of customer interests. The more efficiently and cheaply that mines operate, the more affordable will be the resources mined and the more capital there will be to invest in more mines and other projects that increase the standard of living for everyone, making luxuries like cars and computers the necessities of tomorrow that everyone can afford.
- You are ignorant of price signals. If you can’t compete with the quality that foreign labour provides for the price they charge, then you should take the lesson and repeal Australia’s labour laws and try to greatly improve the efficiency of Australian workers. Or, find work elsewhere with someone you don’t need to force to employ you, you self-important big-noting populist ignoramus. You haven’t even given the matter the few minutes required to watch this short fun video on the minimum wage. And if you think that employers must be forced to pay more to their employees than their employees consensually agree to work for, then equally all readers of this essay should pay me, as I agree to make this essay available to you for free, and given the low price of “free”, it must mean that you should be forced to pay me more. After all, there are far more of you than there is of me, so I am at a great disadvantage in my negotiations with you.
- You are ignorant of who is risking their capital in these projects. Foreign investors are risking their capital in the Hancock Prospecting projects that Australian investors neglected, and now the same Australians who did not invest in the project are hypocritically complaining that they will not be employed there!
- You are ignorant of property rights. It is the right of Gina Rinehart to enter into mutually consensual employment contracts with anyone. By wanting to use force to stop her you are inciting crime.
And the issue of foreign labour fits nicely into a call for secession; that way Sydneysiders could try to get those jobs. But here again we see the ever-accommodating and placating Gina Rinehart showcasing her diplomatic prowess.
Secession
Rather than calling for secession (as she did when she was younger), Gina Rinehart is calling for the Pilbara (and the rest of Northern Australia) to be made a Special Economic Zone. Here again her modesty shines through, for the following five reasons.
- Even if the Special Economic Zone is exactly synonymous with secession, it is not secession down to the individual level, which would be the principled uncompromising position.
- And even if it is secession down to the individual level that she is promoting, she wants it to be legislated for by the Canberra Kremlin, as though the authority of Canberra is of some legitimacy. In short, Gina Rinehart is not proposing any civil disobedience, unlike such significant Australian political and business leaders as Hugh Morgan, Neville Kennard, Bert Kelly, John Singleton and Ron Manners.
- Lang Hancock and Gina Rinehart have only ever asked for a 20 year income tax holiday, when a better compromise from her point of view, and a more proportional one, would be 70 years, because that is how long the federal income tax has already been around. And it is not proportional that her ideas should have sunset clauses, when the government, even when they do something only for wartime, emergency or temporary measures (like, say, the federal income tax!), see fit to continue it permanently.
- She is only asking for part of Australia to receive less government interference, even though she knows that her arguments are equally applicable to all of Australia. Wherever government interference decreases, productivity increases.
- She is asking for less than what she and millions of other Australians have already achieved far more radically when it comes to marriage. Why is it that people are allowed to divorce themselves from their marriages, which actually involves saying in front of witnesses “till death do us part”, but are not allowed to divorce themselves from the political bonds that there was never any evidence they consented to?
Speaking of which, she is too modest and humble to hijack the feminist movements to attract sympathisers in her push for less government interference and secession. In addition to her support for the right of marital and political divorce, there’s a far broader tradition to tap into of women separating themselves from politics. For example, William Faulkner’s Boyard Sartoris said:
Father’s troop and all the other men in Jefferson, and Aunt Louisa and Mrs Habersham and all the women in Jefferson were actually enemies for the reason that the men had given in and admitted that they belonged to the [so-called] United States but the women had never surrendered.1
A young Southerner could plausibly believe this at the end of the American Civil War. Today there would be nothing more ridiculous. Women have surrendered, as G.K. Chesterton observed:
By the beginning of the twentieth century … the woman has in public surrendered to the man. She has seriously and officially owned that the man has been right all along; that the public house (or Parliament) is really more important than the private house; that politics are not (as woman had always maintained) an excuse for pots of beer, but are a sacred solemnity to which new female worshippers may kneel; that the talkative patriots in the tavern are not only admirable but enviable; that talk is not a waste of time, and therefore (as a consequence, surely) that taverns are not a waste of money. All we men had grown used to our wives and mothers, and grandmothers, and great aunts all pouring a chorus of contempt upon our hobbies of sport, drink and party politics. And now comes [these so-called feminists] with tears in [their] eyes, owning that all the women were wrong and all the men were right … If we ask these ladies ourselves what a vote is, we shall get a very vague reply. It is the only question, as a rule, for which they are not prepared. For the truth is that they go mainly by precedent; by the mere fact that men have votes already.2
This talk of secession and unthinking acceptance of political concepts like voting — what next, elections with Facebook “Likes”? — leads naturally to our next heading.
The Constitution of No Authority
Gina Rinehart’s diplomatic and moderate views are nowhere better on show than in her public attitude to the Constitution. She does not point out that the Australian Constitution is null and void as a contract and of no authority whatsoever by arguing:
- That no one signed it to say they are bound by it, as is expected by law in far more minor legal relationships! Nor has anyone even claimed to have shaken hands on it!
- That the secret ballot means that no individual can be held accountable and responsible for what they vote for. People complain about the faceless men running the political parties, but they ignore the faceless men who elect them!
- That if the vote on it was valid, then that only means it may have the support of the majority, which is no justification for oppressing the minority!
- That it is equal to the pact of association of a criminal band that outlines how to elect gang leaders and distribute the loot!
- That it is totally different to shareholders voting in a public company, because shareholders choose to be shareholders, consent to the voting arrangement when they buy the shares, and are allowed to sell their shares and keep the proceeds!
What amazing restraint she has to live under such tyranny so patiently, and not to go around endlessly quoting such Constitutional scholars as Lysander Spooner.
The Liberal Party Is Socialist
The popular press preposterously paint Gina Rinehart as being in agreement with the Liberal Party, when the truth is that she is on one side, and both the Labor and Liberal Parties are on the other. She is trying to mediate a compromise between the Labor-Liberal Party and such major business figures as Neville Kennard, former owner of Kennards Hire and founder of Kennards Self Storage. She is a moderate, not an antagonist; a peacemaker, not a lobbyist; a goodwill ambassador, not a Liberal Party overlord.
The Liberal Party has never had the free-market tradition it so often advertises. As Robert Haupt observed:
True, there has long been a free-market faction in the Liberal Party: for many years, its name was Bert Kelly. Kelly carried the standard against the trade-stifling policies of successive Liberal-Country Party governments, and he generally carried it alone. His party colleagues regarded him with amusement; his political career went nowhere. 3
Bert Kelly said of the Liberal Party:
Socialism has not been fostered so much by the Labor Party as by the Liberal Party encouragement of policies which are thought to be attractive to the people at election time. Once we have propounded them, these then became part of our doctrine, even if we know that they are in direct conflict with principles of self help and self reliance in which we say we always believe. The main plank in our platform is that it is essential to keep Labor out of government, which is a nicer way of saying keeping us in … I repeat, the main principle in which we believe is the utter necessity of keeping Labor out of government and in the pursuit of this end we are prepared to compete bitterly with the Labor Party in propounding socialist policies.4
And here’s Maxwell Newton, the first editor of The Australian and the daily Australian Financial Review, on the alleged freedom promoting “spirit of 1949” Menzies campaign:
There was a grand reforming zeal about the Liberals in 1949 with their talk about “free enterprise” and the need to revive the market economy, after years of “socialist controls”.
Things have worked out differently. Sir Robert Menzies has presided over a Government which in most important fields went in the opposite direction from that indicated by the brave words of 1949. The ratio of government spending to gross national product has risen half as fast again as it did during the wartime and post-war Labor administrations. (Between 1938-39 and 1948-49 the proportion of government spending to gross national product rose from 13 per cent to 14 per cent, an increase of less than 2 per cent over the ten years; under the Menzies administration, this ratio advanced to 19 per cent in 1964-65, a rise of 4.5 per cent in fifteen years.) So all the false promises about reducing taxation had to be thrown out the window. …
Ultimately, it is clear that for Sir Robert Menzies the great thing about holding supreme political power was to hold it. Questions of principle or political doctrine mattered only secondly, if there was a choice to be made between survival and principles. This is why Sir Robert’s campaign speeches during elections, his promises and grand visions have given such a series of field days to his opponents. In the process of holding supreme power, Sir Robert had to throw out virtually every major tenet of the “spirit of 1949”.5
Lang Hancock and Gina Rinehart know this as well as anyone. I don’t have any inside information or hard numbers, but I think you will find they have given more money to the Labor Party than to the Liberals, and Lang Hancock was not shy in comparing, unfavourably, successive Liberal governments to Whitlam. Even if you want to limit the area of time and policy under consideration to the carbon tax today, the Liberal Party’s alternative is just as bad, if not worse; they want to replace rather than repeal the carbon tax. Oh, and John Howard, wasn’t he a radical free-market advocate? No! Government increased under him.
Conclusion
Most commentators try to describe Gina Rinehart in terms grouping her with witches, ghosts, monsters and — far more slanderous — politicians and political parties. I don’t pretend that this essay will entirely change this, or that she will ever be seen as a mere ordinary human with ordinary powers. But I do hope that this essay will stop people from mischaracterising her as the Wicked Witch of the West, as seeing only black and white like Cruella de Vil of One Hundred and One Donations to the Liberal Party or as being even more dogmatic like the author of Mine Camp. Hopefully, people will start appreciating her generous, caring, honest, sympathetic, soulful and transparent nature and see her for what she really is: namely, Casper the Friendly Ghost.
Here is a clear example of her most recent understandably unauthorised biographer, Adele Ferguson, twisting words to make Gina Rinehart look like something she isn’t:
[Gina Rinehart] views the world through the same monochromatic prism with which [her father Lang Hancock] viewed it. There are no shades of grey. It is a one-dimensional view, and everything goes back to mining. Governments are, for the most part, short-sighted, unproductive and a heavy burden on business.6
Note how Ferguson says “for the most part” and “one-dimensional” and “no shades of grey” and “monochromatic”! This is funny for two reasons:
- Ferguson is mixing her metaphors. If something is “monochromatic” then it can have “shades of grey”. Perhaps Ferguson was unaware of the term “black and white” when she wrote “monochromatic”. This is petty, I know, but it indicates that she was trying to make her appraisal sound more impressive.
- Ferguson argues that Rinehart sees “no shades of grey” and is “one-dimensional”. Yet she then uses the qualifier “for the most part”. This is like saying that someone is a little bit pregnant, a little bit bankrupt or a little bit divorced. Some terms are absolute and do not admit of gradations, so weaker language should be used. If an undefeated boxer has lost two matches, then they should not be called “undefeated”. Why didn’t Ferguson read her own description of Gina Rinehart and explore it further, like this essay has done?
Pointing out oxymorons is important. Otherwise, before we know it, we’ll be living under a tyrant who claims to “represent” even those who voted against both the current government and the Constitution. Things might even escalate to the absurdity where no one who signed or voted on the Constitution is living, and yet it is still considered to be “unanimously” “consented” to by those living. What a ridiculous world that would make.
Footnotes
- William Faulkner, The Unvanquished (New York: Vintage, 1991), p. 188. ↩
- G.K. Chesterton, What’s Wrong with the World, part three, ch. VII, in vol. IV of The Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 132 and 134. ↩
- Robert Haupt, “This is the wall the Right built,” National Times on Sunday, September 7, 1986, p. 12 ↩
- Bert Kelly, One More Nail (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1978), p. 207. ↩
- Maxwell Newton, “Life without father,” Nation, January 22, 1966, pp. 7-9. ↩
- Adele Ferguson, Gina Rinehart (Sydney: Macmillan, 2012), p. 329. My italics. In the interests of full disclosure, I hereby declare that the publisher posted me a copy of this book gratis. ↩
[…] Gina Rinehart Is Our Friendly Voice of Moderation […]
Brilliant synopsis of a truly free market businesswoman.
What doesn’t the commentariat criticise corporatist business people like Gerry Harvey, Solomon Lew and Frank Lowy with the same zeal they attack Rinehart for?
I know why, because her life’s mission and business success doesn’t rely on her expending great effort to sanction the illegitimate state that enables success for Harvey, Lew and Lowy.
What an elitist fish you are. You want people to “work harder and drink less” all while you are attempting to bring cheap labor into your country for your benefit. You are an elitist HOG. You inherited your business from your daddy and you want to further break the back of your country’s citizens while claiming they are jealous of people of wealth like yourself. You are an out of touch elitist Hippocratic and you should be run out of your country on your fat ass.
Ken: You have made no attempt to engage with any of the arguments in the essay above. Please read it before you comment on it.
all wages need to come down if you want to improve employment and the economy Trickle down economics has never worked and never will it, a conservative capitalist lie ,scam .and it,s conservatives that want a low cost workforce read class so she is full of it
Marc, sorry but I don’t see what aspect of the essay above your comment refers to.
Why oh why, Now we are hiding these PR pages, so ya only get the good comments,eh ? Why not allow the gina knockers to have their say too ! There is always 2 sides to people ! Oh, yep, I’m also one of these that dis-like her ideals and corrupt ways ,too ! As we are the honmest one’s that let the truth be known, and not hidden behind closed sites :P.. Sorry mark. But still wondering just why ya bother doing her bidding if there’s nothing in it 4 u ? Scam or just another pr stunt being underhanded paid ,eh ? I await ya reply….. But I do doubt this will be posted , eh . just like your fb bs /pr site too! hava a great day, feeling the guilt or is it shame )?( that I found this here ? lol
This is not a PR page in the sense that it is in any way paid or endorsed by Mrs Rinehart, her associates or her industry. I do not censor comments. I am not even going to censor your comment that cowardly refuses to engage with my essay (which the comments here are meant to be commenting on). Moreover, your comment shows that you haven’t even bothered to read my name correctly.
Take notice of any of these critics Gina if their parents left them a few bob what would they have done with it , Throw it in the dustbin I don’t think so .
Enjoy yourself girlie ,I would have done the same as you and so would all those
Schneider critics.
Credit to Gina for her business success but doesn’t that success counter her own argument. Surely if Australia was such a restrictive and closed economy that was being held back by socialists we would have gone into recession by now. Also, if her arguments hold true then the US, which has a much lower minimum wage and less tax on businesses and the wealthy should be in boom times. Last but not least; foreign interests have been exploiting Africa’s natural resources for many years, to their great success, but what benefits have the hard working workers toiling in some of the most treacherous conditions in the world yielded for their $2 a day. Really, is that the way of life we want to emulate in Australia.
Diane: Your economic analysis does not take all the variables into account. But to just focus on communicating to you that the minimum wage creates compulsory unemployment and HURTS the poor the most, check out this short fun video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMMN3UIQmEk . Do you find it convincing?
Unsure what variables you are referring to but 20 plus years of continuous economic growth in Australia is certain evidence that the conditions for business are more than fine. The video is unconvincing, to use your own argument, it does not take all variables into account. There is no shortage of people willing to work for less than the minimum wage. The fact is the Mexicans living, often illegally, in the US will work for less than the minimum wage. However, they often survive by sharing housing and pooling resources to afford to live. However, much of their savings goes back to Mexico where by comparison the value of that money is much greater. Low wages are not offset by cheaper products. Market forces do not create this ideal equibilirium because business are often motivated to minimise costs and pocket greater profits. Was the world better off when it could use slave labour? For example, Bonds. Although now paying much reduced taxes and wages due to moving their operations to China, there has been no reduction in prices of their products. On the other hand you have the highly successful Bavarian companies who are that way because they don’t pursue the myth of perpetual growth, they pay very generous wages they have no debt and they are happy with their profit margins, they don’t want to move operations to China to grow their profits. For further information see http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/ I’m unsure of what the right answer is but lets face it, a pure liberal market based rationale is not what is best for this world , there must be a balanced approach including safety nets for the most vulnerable and parameters for the most profit driven otherwise hello to slave labour, monopolies, collusion and price setting.
Diane: Why do you want to ban poor people from willingly working for below the minimum wage rate? Why do you want to forcibly prevent them from beginning a career? Why do you insist on keeping them unemployed? A business is not a charity, so they’re not going to hire someone at a rate that loses money for the business.
So naturally you could apply this logic to PPE?
If someone was willing to work without steel caps and hard hats (thereby saving the empoyer money) would this be acceptable?
Businesses are not charities, but they do not function in a bubble.
For example, Australia has an excellent public health system and businesses benefit from this by having a healthy work force.
To enjoy the opportunity to operate a business in a first world economy, the business must be prepared to accept a level of compromise, such as paying the minimum wage.
If this cannot be achieved, don’t follow the pursuit. Basic economics.
Unfortunately Benjamin, your language gives away your agenda – ‘poor people’ is a disgraceful, elitist phrase.
TW: Why do you say that “‘poor people’ is a disgraceful, elitist phrase”?
To answer your questions of me:
Personal protective equipment would save the employer money, in reducing insurance costs from accidents caused by unsafe environments. Of course, if they were to wrap everyone in 10cm of cotton wool encrusted full-body steel caps, such protection may turn out to be uneconomic. But the market will tend towards the optimum level of protection and insurance.
Your justification for taxing business to fund the public health system begins at the wrong starting point, missing the fact that the public health system is funded through taxation and would not exist at all without it. It is the public health system that is indebted to business. Click here for a short fun four point plan for healthcare reform in light of the science of economics.
Regarding your comments on the minimum wage. Do you realise that the minimum wage HURTS the poor and unskilled more than it does any other demographic? Do you think a minimum wage rate of $30 an hour would result in any unemployment? If so, then do you see that a lower minimum wage would also result in unemployment but to a lesser degree. What do you think of this short fun video opposing the minimum wage?
Benjamin – I don’t think you realize how bad the conditions are for the people in the US living on minimum wage. And I certainly don’t see many people walking away from these jobs; I would argue most unskilled workers allow themselves to be taken advantage of here in the US, living on the verge of homelessness, and struggling to find a way out. I would ask if you think you would be able to live off of $8/ hr (unemployment wage here in California) ?
My point is, minimum wage does not hurt unskilled workers, it protects them. Cheap labor does not mean cheaper products. A company is going to price its products at the price point where it can make the most profit; and the profit is not going to go back into its workers’ pockets.
So is the gina factor in your eyes a charity then ? mark … please tell us all ?
all wages need to come down if you want to improve employment and the economy Tricklr down economics has never worked nd never will it, a conservative capitalist lie ,scam .and it,s conservatives that want a low cost workforce read class so she is full of it
Marc, sorry but I don’t see what aspect of the essay above your comment is in response to.
Gina Rhinehart will go down as the definition of greed is great. Has there ever been a less respected and more disliked billionaire in Australia? I look forward to seeing here money spread throughout Australia for all Australians when she passes. 🙂
How is she greedy? She only wants control of her own property, not anyone else’s, unlike her critics. She wants there to be more competition in Australia, not less, showing that she is altruistic in not putting all her efforts instead into gaining government monopoly privileges that would preserve her established interests from the threat of more efficient providers. Instead, she invites people to compete with her and has to always constantly innovate and improve at providing what customers want at a price they are willing to pay.
And how is she disliked? Yesterday Kevin Rudd said that he too supports low-tax zones in Northern Australia, bringing him more nearly in line with the Coalition and Mrs Rinehart. That’s more proof that she unites Australia! How can you not see that? Have you even read the essay above that these comments are meant to be commenting on?
Benjamin, are you so narrow minded or perhaps psychopathic that you can not see greed when it is even on this scale? Or perhaps you are justifying your own actions? Psychopathy is common in high-end corporate jobs.
Meanwhile 1/3 of the world’s population are dying from poverty related illness. People with wealth on the scale of people like Gina have the ability to save millions of lives, and instead ignore what should be a moral obligation. This is not only sick, but is an affront against humanity. Further more, she seeks to increase inequities in this country. If you can not see this, I suggest you are probably a psychopath concerned with your own self-interest. Ah well, never mind.
Chris: As high-profile Australian businessman Neville Kennard, a life-long friend of Dick Smith, observed:
Free trade has a better record than foreign aid in lifting people out of poverty. Foreign aid tends to be far more open to corruption too.
Benjiman:- That’s why its classed, and being called, ” THY TROPPO TAX, OF RUDD’S ! ” Come on, please we do have a NON-FAVOURED OPINION TOO ! lab’s trying to delete and deny anything about it now… There are somethings that ya can get away with,whilst other things should be left alone to be left where it is ( In thy past era of time, as a bad joke. Like Gina should be too). ‘THAT’S THE WAY LIFE GOES, BRO.’
Ms Rinehart is a ground breaker in being a very, very successful business woman. Other women who have found critisism to be unfair, I believe, are Hilary Clinton and Julia Gillard, who are constantly denigrated for their appearance. Perhaps it is part of the evolution of women becomming truly equal. In time people will learn to take the female powers in this world seriously, due to having no choice I suspect lol.
I would like to see the tone of the above article changed in one respect. Sentances that list Ms Rinehart’s attributes and end on Ms Rinehart’s perceived faults, could be reversed. For example: “She is a moderate, not an antagonist; a peacemaker, not a lobbyist; a goodwill ambassador, not a Liberal Party overlord.” becomes:
She is not an antagonist; not a lobbyist; not a Liberal Party overlord; but a peacemaker, a goodwill ambassador, a moderate.
Finally, it is my opinion that the Labor party are getting away with too much hate mongering and also spreading lies. It is my belief that you must not let lies stand. You must take them to court, if necessary, so that your efforts are not vilified by lazy, left wing media. As wealthy as Ms Rinehart is, she is but one person in a democracy. Only a political party that relies on propaganda should be afraid of a free press.
As an Australian and a woman, Ms Gina Rinehart makes me proud as punch!
Thanks for your constructive criticism about the “tone” of my article. I shall treasure it for eternity. I will have it enlarged, printed, laminated and framed and will have it adorn my office wall.
Why do you invite discussion, then condescend those that accept your invitation? It appears that, despite your well-researched and thought provoking article, the entire purpose is a vessel for you to use to abuse people, even those who are largely in agreement with you?
I thought I was quite appreciative of that brilliant discussion by Carly. Visitors to my office often comment on my new office wall decoration, and ask me, “Who’s Carly?”
Gee Mark, in what roll do ya have with this fat lard arsed greedy friend of yours do you have ? Come on please tell! No body else in their right common sense mind would waste their good time supporting the likes of this little miss rich bitch (without getting a share from some sorce of constantly showing her to being so bloody great !).. Please declare ya interest truthfully , so we all know,eh….
To answer your question of me: I am in no way funded or endorsed by Mrs Rinehart, her associates or her industry. Now let me ask you a question: Why don’t you comment on the arguments in my essay? That’s what the comments here are meant to be commenting on.
I have always been fascinated with all things Australian and I have fond thoughts of the country and the people. I hate to see your country so divided over media and mining. On the other hand maybe something good and unifying will come from the discourse.
Not knowing much about finances or economics I find it in my interest to try and follow the arguments on both sides. Not being an Australian I think that I will learn more by staying out of the heated debate. However being a Black American, I can’t but wonder if Ms. Rinehart would be treated differently were she a man. I must say that people aren’t afraid to criticize her or I would not have heard of her.
My only criticism of Australia is its past immigration policies. When I was young it was difficult for non whites to attain Australian citizenship, but my guess is that in reality we would have found better treatment; there, than our USA citizenship afforded us here. Most wealthy people are highly respected but most are men. I don’t find it odd that so many people have issues with Ms. Rinehart but I do find the harsh disrespect unsettling.
Wealthy people in many cases see their interest as different from the everyday working employee and middle class business person. That’s to be expected, and it is our job to engage them and find solutions. Labor unions, elected officials,clergy, trade guilds and creative thought can help find solutions and common ground.
I for one am glad to see a woman with power and wealth and I can’t help but think that people can grab her attention with a tactful and respectful approach. It seems to me that Black men: and women in general are despised when poor and then hated and called sell outs when successful. On the other hand to criticize Ms. Rinehart or any other head of industry doesn’t make one a communist or a representative of the Kremlin.
I sincerely hope that your country will find solutions which will allow for great employment opportunities, a healthy environment and a free and open press, with pride that your country has produced such beautiful and powerful woman. BE AN EXAMPLE !
Gina Rinehart would not be treated differently if she were a man. Her father Lang Hancock was not exactly immune from criticism! Her biggest handicap is being so principled, when politicians, the media and other businessmen do not handicap themselves with any principles at all.
As for your claim that her interests are different from the interests of the poor: That is false. Poor people who don’t want to live on the government welfare teat have the same interests as she does. She does not take anything away from them. She gives them more opportunities and lower prices! And she risks more capital than poor people could ever dream of to do it.
Hey BRO, when ya can use and abuse there own children’s trust accounts left by [daddy] from which was as his wishes ! It’s call corruption ny uncommon gest ! The real story isn’t being told in truth ! Be warned, and don’t be sucked into thy BULLSHITE that flows on these elaborate pr sites without even telling nor boosting guilt !
This is really GREAT satire.
Yes, but of what?
I KNOW RIGHT!? I am baffled as to whether it actually is or not!
What baffles you?
Me too, I am still not entirely sure if this is for real or not.
Assi: It is for real. Why are you “not entirely sure” that it is? I’m happy to answer any questions.
As somebody wrote recently in a letter to the Herald-Sun of all places: What exactly did Gina Rinehart do to make Chinese demand for iron ore sky rocket?
She’s just another plutocrat whose inherited wealth has expanded to obscene levels simply by having the luck of owning the right thing.
When did she take credit for creating Chinese demand?
Also, I don’t agree with you that she inherited her wealth, but to go along with you for the sake of argument, given that she has so successfully increased her wealth, what would be wrong if she had inherited even more? There’s nothing wrong with inherited wealth, as this brilliant essay explains: http://economics.org.au/2012/01/singo-and-howard-on-inherited-wealth/.
Benjamin is entirely correct – she DID NOT inherit that wealth.
Lang Hancock gave that wealth to Gina’s own children but Gina has since decided that the money could be far more effectively used if she took all of it for herself and made them beg her for a minimal stipend of it. After all it was Gina who spent her lifetime sucking up to her father only to have all her ‘hard work’ ruined by Lang’s terrible choice in women – how dare he risk ‘her’ inheritance in that way? She even put up with her father ridiculing her for being ugly and overweight – why should her children get the benefit of all of that?
Hell poor Gina’s even had to put up with her ungrateful children taking her to court over her stealing ‘their’ money – the communist court system would even let her seal the trial away from the prying eyes of jealous media types. She actually had to buy into Fairfax to achieve that, can you imagine the indignity she’s been subject to?
Now many would say ‘okay, so she stole her own children’s money and got rich through no real action on her part… I can deal with that but why does she constantly have to be trying to kick out all the bottom ladders of the rung and reduce people to poverty just so she can make more money. Doesn’t she, at some point, have more than enough?’ but that’s just crazy socialist talk – Mrs Rinehart’s wealth makes her a moral and ethically righteous and superior being, one above questioning about the origins of her wealth or the fact that she seems determined to consume the entirety of the common good in her unending quest for more power.
If you read the essay that the comments here are meant to be commenting on, then you will find all your criticisms are unfounded. Why do you continue to refuse to read the essay?
Bravo!
Encore!
Best laugh I’ve had in a while. Exceptionally well written article, I love a deviant mind.
Thanks!
You’ve scratched the surface but there is a lot more to Gina. For someone who is considered greedy she does seem to donate a lot behind the scenes. But you’ll never hear about it because that is the way Gina operates.
Aww yes, it’s sweet that she’s secretly benevolent. But hey, it’s a given that any ultra high net worth individual can easily be generous. And so they should, if only for insurance of their own karma.
As for the positive merits this essay lathers up (sorry, my eyes glazed over half way through, only a conservative nugget could possibly have the stamina to go further ), it means nothing for those with a more holistic conscience that believe no individual deserves a right to lord over such huge sovereign resources, let alone on native lands and let alone that it was handed to her on a platter.
Savvy, influential and misunderstood she may be, but omnipotently deserving of respect? Not by a long long stretch.
I never said she was “omnipotently deserving of respect”. And are you really maintaining that it was all served to her on a “platter”?
I never said you said she was “omnipotently deserving of respect”, but given that this website is in absolute promotion of her…
Figuratively speaking, YES!! She’s been given one of the richest platters in existence.
in return, do you really think she’s earned her riches?
So are you saying that Gina Rinehart didn’t earn her wealth, but her father Lang Hancock did!?
As for your claim that this site is an absolute promotion of her: No, this very essay that you are commenting on is highly critical of her for being “overly-generous, too tolerant and hyper-conciliatory” — traits which I oppose.
TOTAL BULLSHIT THERE MARK ! dribble on, bro…….. Nobody but you appear to be right up this bitches arse, is it roomy living there (I DO WONDER? But, Christ the smell will be suspect very bad)….
Why don’t you read and comment on the actual essay that the comments here are meant to be commenting on?
Gina Rinehart has abandoned all sense of decency, humanity and morality, morphing into a vulgar gutless bully using her billions to denigrate and belittle both the powerful and the powerless simply because she can. We can only pray that she dies in agony of a horrible disease, and soon.
Your criticisms are disposed of in the essay above.
Its a shame that someone with so much can want to do so little good.
Risking huge amounts of her own capital to create jobs, unlock resources, provide what customers want at a price they are willing to pay, altruistically encourage competitors to be allowed to compete with her in order to better serve consumers — all that is not enough for you?
Ginas poor judgement in funding a dodgy NGO has been exposed in cambodia today.It will break in australia very shortly, she wont look after workers but throws money at shonky sustralians overseas makes you wonder of she is clever at all.
She should give less money to charity and invest more money in mining projects that unlock resources and create jobs. That is the most sustainable way of helping the poor.
It is so easy for those who have not earned their way to their riches to comment on those who are trying to make themselves wealthy in this country.
Gina Reinhart is NOT a self made billionaire and is no where near adequate to comment on such things.
It is extremely easy for those children of the real workers of the family who have inherited millions and billions to sit there and falsely claim that they worked hard and that people should get off their butts if they want to be rich.
Gina’s incredible failure here is that she has never had nothing to fall back on. it is easy to make money when you have money, however try making money from hardly anything or on a normal wage? With little assets. Assets that you have to work for in order to buold upon. No Gina you are a spoilt little brat using yoru fathers hard earned money as a base to make your fortunes – you are hardly self made of anything. Give it all away – start from scratch THEN you will have earned your place in history as a self made billionaire. You are not better than the Packers and Murdochs riding on the coat tails of their fathers success’s – you are nothing.
Alan: Your rant totally ignores the essay you are commenting on. Read it, then comment on it.
What I particularly enjoyed here is the point that the Liberal party are not interested in the free market. This needs to be pointed out more often.
Thanks Emily. Agreed!
I don’t wish to make this sound like an attack. I still can’t actually work out if this is incredible satire that is right up my comical alley. I especially like the whole “You can’t make me angry” vibe you have going in debate. Whether I agree or disagree with someone I like when they can debate in a calm manner.
So… I am going to assume this is real for the sake of commenting. I assume (apologies in advance if I am way off the mark) from this site that you are a believer in self regulating free market truly creating the perfect capitalistic world. I am interested in this from a purely If this is the case of ideology.
Is Australia (and Gina) really any different to the rest of the world? This essay presents an image of Gina as a perfect capitalist, but is the idea of the perfect capitalism in Australia really any different to the idea of perfect communism in China? It comes down to the fact that humans have their self interest at heart. I think the overall social, economic and environmental unsustainable issues caused by capitalists like Gina on capitalist countries in the western world has become increasingly evident in the global financial crisis.
Self regulating free market is not sustainable. If Gina was a monopolist in the fishing industry instead and could over fish the oceans at great profit and efficiency over 5 years, this would not be of overall benefit to us all because we would not have fish in 6 years. The efficiency of free markets does not take natural capital into account. Therefore it does not recognise its own unsustainability in depleting and reducing its own efficiency. Infinite expansion on a finite world.
Unless of course technology saves us… if technology saves us… if…
Good talk! I look forward to your answer and then next week I will wonder why I cared so much to even bother commenting in the first place.
(Still hoping it is wicked satire)
Cameron: You say that “[my] essay presents an image of Gina as a perfect capitalist”.
No, my essay clearly shows she is someone who is generously and self-effacingly trying to very diplomatically find the middle ground between the Labor-Liberal Coalition and total 100% advocates of total pure unadulterated unsabotaged capitalism, like Neville Kennard, the founder of Kennards Self Storage. Kennard believed that monopolies tend to produce inferior quality products at higher cost than if competition was allowed, and so he opposed coercive government monopolies of food production, just like everyone else does; but he also opposed coercive government monopolies everywhere else, including in schooling, healthcare, insurance, transport, money and defence. (Your comment that capitalism caused the GFC is wrong since it is clearly government that monopolises the currency and banking world.)
Now, as for your criticism of capitalism as self-regulating: Are you familiar with the law of supply and demand? When a resource becomes scarcer, its price increases, and so then there is more incentive to develop and use alternative resources. So free-markets do take natural capital into account! It is government meddling with price signals that leads to unsustainable practises.
Look at a resource like iron ore. When Gina Rinehart’s father, Lang Hancock, discovered huge deposits in the Pilbara, the government was convinced that there was none to be found, and so did all they could to tell people not to look for any, including banning exports and denying mining rights in case anyone did discover anything. Are you saying that you are concerned we are going to run out of iron ore?
You have to be kidding me Benjamin. Free markets do not take into account any environmental value. Example comes to mind of Black Rhino horn in Africa, if they were not protected do not try and tell me that the free market would have saved them because the horns became to expensive. Unregulated markets have proven time and time again to not work to protect the environment, other species that share this planet nor the people exploited to protect corporate profits. Benjamin we also know who you are, this is a business venture for you, you are not doing it for free, we know Rinehart is paying you for this piece of writing at least be honest and admit to that.
I am doing it for free. No one is paying me anything for any of my political stuff. I have never received any money from Gina Rinehart, her associates or even her industry.
Free markets do take into account environmental value. See:
1. http://economics.org.au/2010/08/conservation-in-the-free-market/
2. http://economics.org.au/2010/11/tiger-farming-an-alternative-to-extinction/
There is no free capitalism in Australia, there never was.
In free capitalism there is no:
-Income tax
-Fractional banking
-Central bank
-Legal tender law
-compulsory schooling
-social security
-medicare
that is only some major things that Australia have and what all world countries have, more or less.
Well said ned.
Free Market Capitalists like Gina, Lang, Nev and all the wonderful others I have met through my life look to the very long term of their enterprises, and do so without their fingers in the public trough.
They create and provide work as a byproduct of their vision.
Lang could have left the minerals in the ground… they had certainly been there long enough.
Nev could have left us to squeeze through cartons of stuff in our own homes… etc etc
Benjamin, you have joined the ranks of those who will be thought of as dumb, silly, shortsighted, blinkered etc because we live our lives without the great benefit of a government appointee, official or opportunist giving us advice on how to**** up our lives.
Pity so many think you are either paid by Gina, or just being a smarty pants satarist.
Some of us know you do it like other great thinkers…. because the words need to be got out there.
Well done
[…] For those who know me as a left-winger here is balance and a pro-Rinehart argument for her freedom to be a capitalist – believe it or not: I thought it was satire, but no: http://www.ginarinehart.info/gina-rinehart-is-our-friendly-voice-of-moderation/ […]
Looks like someone got worried about the heat they are taking over comments they made so they got someone peddling political crap to make amends. Once the cat is out of the hag you”ll never get it back in. Don’t fret to much all us dumb, lazy, drinking poor folks have a short memory.
Kelsey: Have you read the article I wrote above that the comments here are meant to be referring to?
we now need people like gina to drive debate the pollys has lost the plot the unions power is spent the new world order is going to be about workers and capital vorging a new relationship this economic zone will serve our nation well solving mulity layer of problems the higher wages , and dollar , lower iron prices the boat people migrant workers environmental refugees in future cheaper labour cost plus kick starting the development of the north and a great vision to open up the country to drive oppotuinities for future generations and wealth creation for tommorow this is and over view of possibilitys that i will lobby ,work and support our nation need this now the world is changing around us all we hear is lies from the pollys myself and my consulting team support this vision of gina
Patrick Sylvester, your Mum must be so proud of you!
Gina you fat-ass women u r rich not because you worked for it, u r reach because u earn a heirdom, if any1 need to work to be someone it’s you !!!
Pedro, if you really believe what you say, you must consider her father Lang Hancock a great hero. I’m sure Mrs Rinehart will settle for that!
The number of classical logical fallacies in your argument makes it difficult to address them all – but quite frankly, many of your arguments simply don’t hold up to close scrutiny.
1. no – it leads to the fact that Australian workers should be employed in Australia, and yes Australian food should be produced in Australia.
2. Geography? Umm Canberra is the capital of Australia. The other places you mention are irrelevant to any socio-political discussion regarding Australia.
3, Customer Interest? The more efficiently and cheaply that mines operate, the more money that Gina makes, fullstop . . . Are you telling me she is only doing this in ‘customer interest’ ? seriously . . .
4. Price signals – Hang on aren’t you arguing against ‘minimum wage’? Your arguments are worth nothing so I will pay you nothing? And no doubt you should be proud because working for less than the minimum wage does such good things for the country . . .
5. Risk – How many billions are she, and her investors, going to make out of all this? What ‘risk’ is there? Or are you arguing that because foreigners have invested they should be able to use cheaper, foreign labor?
6. Property rights? Why are you talking contract law? Viewed in a property rights context the minerals she seeks to exploit are the ‘property’ of all Australians which pretty much voids most of your argument.
Your ‘secession’ and ‘constitutional’ ‘arguments'(for want of a better word’ are ridiculous and naive.
And finally ‘ Monochromatic’ does NOT have ‘shades of grey’ – monochromatic means ‘containing or using one colour’ – black is absence of colour , white is all colours, grey is the range in between – you cannot have monochromatic greys. Perhaps you were not aware of the actual meaning of ‘monochromatic’.
Pointing out oxymorons may be important but pointing out morons is even more so – consider yourself, and gina, to be pointed . . .
All your points miss the mark entirely. To focus on just one: How can you maintain that the resources Hancock Prospecting discovers, risks capital in, mines, sells and transports are the property of every Australian? Why should a Sydneysider have any right to resources in the Pilbara?
Oh, and as for your comments on monochrome: If you are going to maintain your absurd position, then you’ll have to edit all the encyclopaedias and dictionaries in the world. You can start with this sentence from wikipedia:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochrome
While I agree with almost every thing in this article, I believe you should read the definition of monochromatic again carefully. It states that monochromatic is usually taken to mean black and white OR grayscale, or tones of a colour. Since grey are tones of black and white it is monochromatic.
Having said that, I believe free capitalism is the way. I come from a working class background myself and realised early that there is money out there for me if I work hard enough. Gina is an inspiration to women like me. I’m studying a degree in engineering, something not a lot of women do. In a socialist country, if I would have even been allowed to gain an education, I probably would have not been able to do what I love. Ms. Rinehart shows that women can be wealthy and powerful if they just set their minds to it and put in the required effort. Yes she may have had help from her inheritance but obviously she has worked hard! Money doesn’t make itself. Also, it’s not as if she’s out there with a shovel digging up resources by herself. She employs a lot of Australians and pays them very well (not sure on the numbers but even driving an excavator is very lucrative!). She works hard keeping people employed, knowing that all those people’s wellbeings are dependent on her making the right decisions and keeping the company profitable. If that means hiring foreign workers to do jobs at wages the Aussies turn their noses up to so be it! The economy still benefits.
Just think about this, if the minimum wage were cut, a company employing a few thousand people at the minimum could employ a thousand or so more on a reduced amount. Capitilism isn’t about the needs of the few, it’s about everyone having a fair opportunity to either work and make money or sit on their butts and whinge about people who have it while not doing anything about it.
Sorry for hijacking this thread!
Codie, here’s an excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayscale:
I suggest you do some rudimentary research into Mineral Rights within Australia. From 1855, colonial parliaments legislated for ownership of minerals to be retained by the Crown in future grants of freehold title. Thus, the situation developed where throughout Australia, the Crown in right of the State owns nearly all the minerals. But I guess you consider that Gina owns it all.
And your Sydney-phobic comments do little to advance your argument – the real question is ‘Should Australians have a right to Australian resources?’ Answer- Yes!
Re-read the original statement , my comment and the first part of the Wikipedia article. We are discussing Monochromatic’ not ‘monochrome’, you are talking about an ‘image’ and the common (inaccurate) terms used by lay-people. But it suits your purpose to ignore the first line of your reference ‘Monochrome[1] describes paintings, drawings, design, or photographs in one color or shades of one color.’ Grey, like black and white, is not a colour. And you think my position absurd?
By what right does ownership of minerals belong to the government, if the government does not discover them, mix their labour with them and develop them?
Since as early as the mid-1500’s English ‘common law’ has held that all precious metals, gold and silver, was owned by the Crown. This Royal Prerogative carried over to Australia in common law, and later by legislation by various States to include other minerals and atomic substances. The Crown, pursuant to statute, may grant various leases or licences to enter onto land and take minerals. State ownership of minerals has had the important result that governments, rather than private landholders, determine the legal regimes governing mineral exploration and production.
By what ‘right’ does someone claim a naturally occurring resource on Crown Lands to be there own, when clearly it constitutes the wealth of the country itself.?
How can the Crown claim the right to resources, but the person who discovers it and mixes their labour with it cannot!!!??? Criminal gangs have pacts of association to help them choose gang leaders and distribute the loot, but just because they have a pact of association it does not make them justified and legitimate organisations.
How can the Gina claim the right to resources, but the country which it is within cannot!!!??? ‘Mining gangs’ may have pacts of association to help them choose gang leaders and distribute the loot, but just because they have a pact of association it does not make them justified and legitimate organisations to rape a common resource . . .
What I’m driving at is that you have no theory of property rights. You just accept whatever the rulers say without addressing how the rulers are justified.
Excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayscale:
Macciza, as you are clearly able to reference textual fact that is greater than your own contribution to this article, look up the word “satire”. Then look up the word “comedy”, followed by “tongue in cheek”.
Once you have a good understanding of these words, apply them in context to this article by Mr Marks, and then sit back and show deference to someone who clearly has a superior intellect and wordsmith capability than yourself.
Addendum – Who actually gives a flying fig who it is that is supposed to “own” the minerals in the ground? The reality is that anyone can apply for a mining permit, and providing they are assessed as compliant they get to extract the minerals and make the big dollars.
If that is supposed to be ‘tongue-in-cheek satirical comedy’ than Mr Marks would be better off as a FIFO worker on less than award wages in Pilbara, cause he ain’t gonna make it comedy . . .
Who ‘owns’ them is important, as that is who has to be paid for them ie Australia!
The best I can make of this bullshit in Benjamin Marks is the biggest tosser of all time and Gina made her fortune from Daddies money and the Chinese thirst for iron ore. If my pet dog was left the money and assets Gina was he would be rich to. If she was such a loving person why do her kids hate her that tells the real story not what this clown Benjamin is spinning
So you must be a big fan of Lang Hancock to think that that’s where all her wealth and business acumen come from.
Criticism of Gina Rinehart vis-a-vis her children is addressed in the 2nd and 3rd sections of http://www.ginarinehart.info/gina-rinehart-is-our-rightful-democratic-leader/.
Well said Pete, you couldn’t be any closer to the truth. Stuff like this makes you wonder how the writer is going to benefit. Maybe they are on someones direct payroll trying to influence the uneducated working folks because they believe they are stupid and to lazy to take any action against what is being said. The only time someone comes out with crap like this is when they have something to gain either directly or indeirectly over time.
I don’t receive any money from Mrs Rinehart, her associates or her industry. If you have a disagreement, then spell it out. Do you disagree with anything in my essay?
Do you have a life or is this it Benny, got nothing better to do.
I’ve had my say bye and enjoy your boring life
Pete: Thanks for your question. I think defending Gina Rinehart is quite a useful and exciting thing to do, but unfortunately I’ve only had time to write two essays defending her in the last seven months.
Are you and Benjamin Marks, comedy writer of comedywriter.com.au, one and the same?
If so were you wearing a funny hat whilst writing this essay?
…. and did she pay well?
I don’t receive any money from Mrs Rinehart, her associates or her industry. Also, something can be funny and serious at the same time. Do you disagree with anything in the essay?
For the love of money is the root of all evil..
Gina you have only GOD to answer to..
She loves jobs and spreading the wealth to workers.
Oh, Benjamin. These are such peripheral issues. It’s nice to know that you have read your neo-liberal handbook and no doubt get off on watching Ron Paul videos on YouTube, reading Ayn Rand and unsticking the pages in your copy of The Howard Factor, but you haven’t read your history. Lang Hancock lined the pockets of politicians to stake his claim in the Pilbara. Do you think Gina inherited her wealth because her daddy was such a champion of the free market? Without grotesque government corruption, Hancock could never have claimed one of the most valuable mineral assets this country possesses. He lined the pockets of many a politician to stake his claim. Gina should kiss the hand of every state and federal politician who allowed her daddy to drop sandbags in the Pilbara for a mere pittance.
On a more fundamental level, every attempt to liberalise markets have resulted in the rise of oligopolies. The concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few, like Rinehart, is anti free market and anti democratic.
The problem with neo-liberals is that they are blind to private tyranny; all they can see is the tyranny of the state. It would be interesting to create the world you so brazenly espouse–you wouldn’t want to live in it very long. Absolute freedom sounds nice and all–but only if one believes in benevolent divine providence–otherwise, bend over for the billionaires, the multi-nationals and the oligarchs, and please … scream nicely.
Daniel: You haven’t read your history. You can start with this: http://economics.org.au/2012/07/the-great-claim-robbery/!
Oh, and as for Ayn Rand, Howard Factor and Ron Paul videos: if you visit Economics.org.au and browse the middle and right columns, you won’t find them! So I could not be more transparent, and yet you still make false allegations against me.
Regarding Ayn Rand, Howard Factor and Ron Paul, I have made no allegations at all. What I used there is called a facetious synecdoche–a rhetorical device where I express a general/collective idea by using specific examples that represent that idea. I would have assumed that this would be pretty obvious to a comedy writer: how on Earth would I know if you have ever literally unstuck pages of your copy of The Howard Factor? How would I even know that you HAVE a copy of The Howard Factor? I can’t. So the meaning clearly cannot be literal. Obviously what I mean is that you are a libertarian and a neo-liberal. The fact that you don’t list Ayn Rand in your middle column makes no difference to the fact that she is one of the most read libertarian novelists/popular philosophers, or that Ron Paul is the foremost proponent of market-fundamentalism and libertarianism in contemporary US politics, or that you are the proud owner of a copy of Lazarus Rising. So, no, these are not allegations.
Re ‘The Great Claim Robbery’: Despite his discovery, Hancock could claim NOT ONE of his mining tenements because Court (back then the minister for industrial development) rejected his applications and blocked all legal recourse. Mind you, Hancock tried to sweeten the deal with Court by offering to build him a steel mill to sure up some north-west votes, but that deal fell through. CRA (now Rio Tinto) circumnavigated Hancock and Wright and gained exclusive rights to key sites. Hancock was paid off with a 1.25% cut of each ton of exported iron, which made him very rich indeed, but gave him claim over NOT A SINGLE PATCH of ground. Hancock lobbied feverishly by all accounts for a change of government throughout the 70s and early 80s; he even created a newspaper to run his PR campaign; in fact, Premier Tonkin felt so stirred by Hancock’s plight that he was compelled on the eve of his election to lend his weighty support for Hancock’s private endeavours … very generous. The tide eventually turned by the 1980’s and the O’Connor and Burke governments were much more obliging and miraculously Hancock’s fortunes began to change. Maybe that was because Hancock and his coneys were contributing incredible sums of money to sure up their men. The 1992 WA Inc Royal Commission found that Hancock contributed $950,000 to Bourke and stated that, “The size of the donations was quite extraordinary, particularly when compared with the size of donations made before Mr Burke became Premier. In many instances, there is an obvious connection in time between donations and events in which the donors were concerned with Government. It is not surprising, therefore, that the circumstances should give rise to suspicion that improper practices might have occurred and undue influence might have been exercised.” No surprise there. Nor should there be any surprise that both O’Connor and Burke were both found to be scoundrels and imprisoned for their corruption on half-year jail terms. Mr Hancock appeared before the WA Inc Royal Commission and simply stated that his practice was to agree to sizable donations to ensure state election successes that favored his interests. So much for democracy and the free market. Business just magically seemed to take off after that … funny the way things just work out when you pay off the right people.
I think you don’t have much to do. I mean all the time you spend defending a paper you wrote, do you do anything else? A real scholar would realise you can never really change anyones mind. You may sway them a bit but alter their real feelings. Can’t even be done by gun point or so history has tought us. Lesson number 2: with all the negative comments on your paper and so many people actually taking the time to object to it, there must be something wrong. I mean rule out the impossible and what ever remains, however improbable must be logical. quoted by someone form Star Trek I believe. Bottom line; your paper will sway no one, move on and spend your time on a useful cause.
Kelsey, you say, “A real scholar would realise you can never really change anyones mind.” According to your criteria, then, I’m a real scholar. Check out http://www.Mencken.info for proof.
Also, Kelsey, you say that it has got a lot of negative comments. Well, it has also got over 1.3 thousand facebook likes and a nice write-up in the mainstream leftist press.
obviously you missed the point because you actually replied
On the WA Royal Commission, check this out: http://economics.org.au/2011/02/governments-like-a-red-rag-to-a-rogue-bull/.
The article you linked also appeared in The Melbourne Age on the same day with the alternate title: “Why Hancock Gave Millions For Nothing”. That is a great question. Why would a savvy businessman give away millions for nothing, “no strings attached”. Especially when that man is notorious for being a scrupulous spender. Here’s an anecdote on Hancock and donations: when Hancock was suffering from a minor heart complaint, a leading American heart specialist offered to undertake his operation for free if he donated the money to a neurological foundation. Hancock objected to being “‘put-on’ to raise funds for an organisation he didn’t believe in”, and refused; instead he flew to a London specialist where he paid the full cost of the operation (Marchall, ‘The House of Hancock’ 2012).
So a self-interested business man, so scrupulous with his donations, decides to give millions with no strings attached. And you say that it must be true, because he himself said so … and in Lang we trust and there could be no conflict of interest there. Despite the fact that the Royal Commission found that there was “an obvious connection in time between donations and events in which the donors were concerned with Government” and that, “the circumstances should give rise to suspicion that improper practices might have occurred and undue influence might have been exercised”.
You only have to look at his cronies and the tycoon culture of the era … just look at his corrupt mate Joh Bjelke-Petersen (the only politician he ever approved of) who by the way similarly didn’t have a problem with conflict of interest when he allowed Oilmin, a company in which he and his wife were large shareholders, to tender to supply coal to his state when he was Premier.
Especially in historical context, anyone who blindly swallows Hancock’s flimsy defense is unfathomably naive.
Given how evil the WA State Liberal Party of Sir Charles Court was, it is easy to see how throwing money at the WA State Labor Party could be considered worthwhile.
Gina Rhinehart is fat, ugly and stupid. And it would be really nice if she would shut the fuck up!
Mr Jane: Please stop holding back your criticisms and using such vague language. You don’t even say what you disagree with! For example, do you disagree with the idea of investing in Australian projects?
Classic satire.
For those who want a serious engagement with the topic, instead of the coarse, outdated fundamentalism on offer here, I recommend Economist Paul Collier’s book “The Plundered Planet”.
It goes into the issues of propinquity (e.g. on what basis and to what sensible degree are the people of a nation entitled to a share of resource profits?) and also many case studies of resource extraction and taxation throughout the developed and developing world. Supported by extensive recent studies, the analysis is within a pragmatic classical economic context but, crucially, sans the libertarian dogma holding back the simplistic arguments on this website.
How are the arguments on this website simplistic?
i am not about politics im about the person its simple she is a self obsessed bitch who is looking out for no one but her self, she has never shown a glimmer of thorght or words for any one outside her own body.
Craig: You have not read the essay above that that comments here are meant to be commenting on!
“the taxation industry — the largest extractive industry in the world.”
Tax isn’t an industry, but I like how you make it seem like it’s a global business. I know that’s a quote and you didn’t say it, but you shouldn’t use it.
“If the taxation industry thinks it is useful and justified, then it should rely on voluntary mutually consensual payments and investments, rather than its current protection racket model.”
Well, I’d say the “taxation industry” is VERY useful, maybe not so much justified, but that’s another matter. Tell me, good sir, of how much of her endless (because it almost is) wealth will Gina Rinehart so generously hand over to improve the lives of all Australians, if tax was based on “voluntary mutually consensual payments and investments”. And can you promise that her investments would not be selfishly motivated to earn her even more than $600 a second?
Honestly, if she is so generous and selfless, and cares about the well-being of ALL Australians, then why is she not already spending millions of dollars on national schemes to stamp out homelessness, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, teen suicide, etc etc.
“(despite the unwillingness of many Australians to work in remote locations)” the link provided with that sentence does NOT express “the unwillingness of many Australians to work in remote locations”. All it shows is that there is a competitive worker market BETWEEN MINES. THIS DOES NOT AT ALL INDICATE “the unwillingness of many Australians to work in remote locations”
“and that she’ll spend $26 million training them.” The way this is worded, implies that $26 million is coming out of her own pocket! But in fact, it is the COMPANY which she is a CHAIRMAN OF that is spending the $26 million. MISLEADING
“You are ignorant of where your own arguments lead. Why not argue that only workers born and bred in the Pilbara be allowed to work there? And why not say that all food available in the Pilbara must also be produced in the Pilbara?”
What is the point of this point exactly?
“It is ridiculous that Sydneysiders complain about the employment of foreigners in W.A. when the capital of Indonesia (Jakarta) is closer to Perth than the capital of Australia (Canberra), and Sydney is further still. Sydney is closer to the capitals of New Zealand (Wellington), Fiji (Suva), Vanuatu (Port Vila), Solomon Islands (Honiara) and Papua New Guinea (Port Moresby), than to Perth.”
IT IS RIDICULOUS THAT YOU PUBLISH SUCH CLAIMS WITHOUT ANY CITATION
“The more efficiently and cheaply that mines operate, the more affordable will be the resources mined and the more capital there will be to invest in more mines and other projects that increase the standard of living for everyone,”
YES, THAT IS HOW THE PERFECT WORLD WOULD WORK. IS THIS GINA RINEHART’S ULTIMATE BUSINESS PLAN AND IF SO CAN YOU PROVIDE A LINK WITH PROOF?
“…making luxuries like cars and computers the necessities of tomorrow that everyone can afford.”
YOU MUST BE PRETTY FUCKING IGNORANT IF YOU DON’T REALISE THAT CARS AND COMPUTERS ARE ALREADY AFFORDABLE BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF AUSTRALIANS
“And if you think that employers must be forced to pay more to their employees than their employees consensually agree to work for, then equally all readers of this essay should pay me, as I agree to make this essay available to you for free, and given the low price of “free””
FREE IS NOT A PRICE. FACT!
“it must mean that you should be forced to pay me more. After all, there are far more of you than there is of me, so I am at a great disadvantage in my negotiations with you.”
WELL NO, BECAUSE I DID NOT EMPLOY YOU TO WRITE AN ESSAY IN THE FIRST PLACE. THIS IS A VERY POOR COMPARISON. IT’S LIKE WALKING INTO A RANDOM BUSINESS, WORKING FOR THEM, WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE, THEN SAYING THEY SHOULD PAY YOU BECAUSE YOU WORKED FOR FREE.
“Foreign investors are risking their capital in the Hancock Prospecting projects that Australian investors neglected, and now the same Australians who did not invest in the project are hypocritically complaining that they will not be employed there!”
AGAIN CITATION NEEDED
“Lang Hancock and Gina Rinehart have only ever asked for a 20 year income tax holiday, when a better compromise from her point of view, and a more proportional one, would be 70 years, because that is how long the income tax has already been around. And it is not proportional that her ideas should have sunset clauses, when the government, even when they do something only for wartime, emergency or temporary measures (like, say, the income tax!)”
Taken from (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_did_John_Curtin_do_as_Prime_Minister_of_Australia_that_made_him_so_well_known):
“…to rationalise the income tax system so that there was only one income taxing authority – the Commonwealth Government which returned to the States their share of income tax revenue”
SO HERE WE HAVE THE FACT THAT THE INCOME TAX HAS BEEN AROUND FOR MORE THAN 70 YEARS, JUST NOT ON A FEDERAL LEVEL. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT ANY TRUE AUSTRALIAN WOULD REALISE THAT THE COUNTRY ITSELF HAS ONLY BEEN AROUND, AS A FEDERAL BODY, FOR 111 YEARS.
“Wherever government interference decreases, productivity increases.”
PROOF? REFERENCES? CITATION NEEDED!!! QUITE A BOLD CLAIM WITH NO BACKUP.
“Why is it that people are allowed to divorce themselves from their marriages, which actually involves saying in front of witnesses “till death do us part”, but are not allowed to divorce themselves from the political bonds that there was never any evidence they consented to?”
NOT SURE WHAT YOU’RE ON ABOUT HERE, BECAUSE IT IS A HORRIBLE COMPARISON.
“Speaking of which, she is too modest and humble…”
TOO MODEST AND HUMBLE WHILE SHE WEARS PEARLS THE SIZE OF GRAPES AROUND HER NECK TELLING AUSTRALIANS THAT THEY ARE LAZY AND OVERPAID AND COMPARING THEM TO AFRICAN WORKERS THAT WORK FOR $2 A DAY.
“…to hijack the feminist movements to attract sympathisers in her push for less government interference and secession.”
“That if the vote on it was valid, then that only means it may have the support of the majority, which is no justification for oppressing the minority!”
MAJORITY CAN BE ANYWHERE BETWEEN 51% AND 100%!!! THAT’S A BIG DIFFERENCE. PLEASE BE MORE SPECIFIC, FOR THIS POINT IS COMPLETELY INVALID.
“That it is equal to the pact of association of a criminal band that outlines how to elect gang leaders and distribute the loot!”
A HILARIOUS AND HILARIOUSLY NON-BACKED COMPARISON OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION
“That it is totally different to shareholders voting in a public company, because shareholders choose to be shareholders, consent to the voting arrangement when they buy the shares, and are allowed to sell their shares and keep the proceeds!”
YES IT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. BECAUSE OUR CITIZENS ARE NOT SHAREHOLDERS AND OUR COUNTRY IS NOT A BUSINESS.
OK THAT’S IS ENOUGH, I’M TIRED OF SEEING YOU QUOTE YOURSELF IN YOUR OWN ARTICLE. IF YOU WANT A STRONGER ARGUMENT, _USE_ _CITATIONS_ AND DO MORE _RESEARCH_ AND USE MORE VARIED REFERENCES (MANY LINKS ARE TO ARTICLES ON THE SAME WEBSITE WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED BIASED).
Daniel: Thanks for your comments.
You ask, “why is she not already spending millions of dollars on national schemes to stamp out homelessness, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, teen suicide, etc etc.” Unlocking resources and creating jobs is a great way to prevent them!
On the introduction of the federal income tax: it greatly increased the income tax rate and the potential for wealth redistribution!
It is not misleading to say: that when the majority, controlling and dominant shareholder in an enterprise has their company spend money, that it is coming out of their own pocket.
As for your claim that I did not back my arguments against the Constitution: well I did repeatedly reference Lysander Spooner and link to such writing as this: http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/2195/202978 .
Also, I realise, as you point out, that I did not provide references to the fact that Gina Rinehart has foreign investors. I thought it was such public knowledge that it did not need referencing. Evidently I was wrong.
So I know that does not address all your points, but I think it addresses a representative sample.
I think the underlying issue is that you find Lysander Spooner’s ideas on the constitution so unusual that you refuse to seriously consider it.
What you need to do is leave responses on a level that the person you are responding to can understand, that is, if you actually did counter my arguments, because I don’t see any sort of reference to what I was actually saying.
BTW “On the introduction of the federal income tax: it greatly increased the income tax rate and _the potential for wealth redistribution!_”
So does that make it a good thing?
Sorry, meant to say “So doesn’t that make it a good thing?”
Also, you said unlocking resources and creating jobs is a great way to prevent the social problems we have. Please explain how “unlocking resources and creating jobs” can prevent me from deciding to take heroin.
By giving your life purpose, meaning and satisfaction.
Indeed Daniel – Gina doesn’t encourage people to take heroin. That’s unproductive. Instead Free Market Capitalism without Evil Interfering Governments gives rise to a far better vision – SELL HEROIN. If only the government would get out the way a huge profit could be made for Australia in this way and as we all know profit in the hands of a limited few individuals solves all social problems and produces a utopia.
Daniel: When you quote me saying that the current system follows the “protection racket model”, you misquote me, because when I wrote it it hyperlinked to: http://mises.org/books/private_production_of_defense.pdf .
You’re still not countering my argument. Like a politician, you dodge the question and point out irrelevant items.
“Daniel: When you quote me saying that the current system follows the “protection racket model”, you misquote me, because when I wrote it it hyperlinked to: http://mises.org/books/private_production_of_defense.pdf .”
No, I really don’t see how that’s misquoting.
Not that it matters.
Because what I wrote was:
“Well, I’d say the “taxation industry” is VERY useful, maybe not so much justified, but that’s another matter. Tell me, good sir, of how much of her endless (because it almost is) wealth will Gina Rinehart so generously hand over to improve the lives of all Australians, if tax was based on “voluntary mutually consensual payments and investments”. And can you promise that her investments would not be selfishly motivated to earn her even more than $600 a second?”
The QUESTION being;
If tax was based on “voluntary mutually consensual payments and investments” as you suggest, then how much will Gina Rinehart hand over to improve the lives of all Australians (remember, you said she’s “overly-generous, too tolerant and hyper-conciliatory”)?
And can you promise that her investments would not be selfishly motivated to earn her even more than $600 a second?
Daniel: There is nothing wrong with selfishness. What do you think of Adam Smith’s famous line: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” ?
But to specifically answer your question about whether Mrs Rinehart will spend any of her wealth on others if not forced to do so by government: Yes, she will; in fact, she already spends far more than she is forced to; and even borrows money to spend even more on others. She spends money for personal and professional reasons on a huge variety of goods and services, on infrastructure and equipment, and on paying people to work for her. The money she gives to those providers of goods and services will improve their lives. You should be celebrating her, not criticising.
Yes, let’s celebrate! Let’s celebrate money and greed, let’s rejoice for the selfish and the ruthless, let’s worship profit and set it as the yardstick of ‘success’, let’s all secede from one another, let’s be islands onto ourselves, let’s negotiate our personal lives like that Wagnerian behemoth, Gina Rinehart, with an army of lawyers, let’s fight everyone in court, let’s not give a toss about our fellow man, let’s sing selfishness to high heaven and mistrust the intentions of our brothers and sisters, let’s create more accountants who beget more wonderful accountants, let’s talk down to the poor (after all they’re all just losers at the bottom of the heap), let’s pretend that concentrated wealth does not beget concentrated power and concentrated power is not a form of tyranny, let’s ignore that in the market the ideal condition for labour is slavery, let’s ignore the fact that weak governments in the Third World are the reason the Third World looks the way it does.
Yes, let’s celebrate y’all!
Lee: Mrs Rinehart tries her utmost to unlock resources, create jobs and make important commodities affordable. I don’t see any downside. Also, your comments totally ignore my essay above, which the comments here are meant to be commenting on.
“She spends money for personal and professional reasons on a huge variety of goods and services, on infrastructure and equipment, and on paying people to work for her.”
You still are yet to provide me with any proof of these comments. And if she spends so much, why is she still the richest woman in Australia?
Because she spends to make herself richer, whether it helps people or not.
Daniel: She can’t become richer unless she offers something that investors and customers want at a price they are willing to pay, otherwise they will not invest in her projects or buy her resources!
She seeks “to make important commodities affordable”? Really? If you think she sets the price of iron ore you have no concept of market economics.
So she creates jobs, great. When commodity prices drop she will kick them out in droves onto the street much quicker than she hired them, with no regard for social impact. Let’s have no delusions, open the papers, it’s happening right now.
If it was more economical to take mining operations to the Third World, where she could get (next to) slave labour, she would. By your reasoning she would be stupid not to. The only reason she doesn’t is because mining is one racket that cannot be outsourced, unlike manufacturing. By the way, it’s not Gina, she’s not special, it’s the sociopathic nature of the corporate mentality. Let the numbers decide, let the people be damned.
If you want to celebrate greed and gluttony, good luck to you, but don’t tart it up to look like it’s in the interest of a greater social good.
Explain to me how the mere act of employing people and ‘unlocking resources’ for the benefit of others are necessarily personal virtues. The Nazi party succeeded in employing almost 6 million people in 5 years of running the German economy; they succeeded in unlocking labour and productivity; the standard of living of most Germans rose dramatically, manufacturing was revived, etc. I don’t see anyone arguing that Franz Seldte or Hermann Göring are decent human beings based on their economic productivity. There is a clear logical disconnect in your argument.
Also, to simply look at the cost/benefit of an isolated economic transaction at the moment of exchange, without looking at the long term impact of similar ongoing transactions is an exercise in faulty logic. The mining boom has had serious and damaging implications for retail, manufacturing and all other export sectors of the Australian economy. The mining of cheap coal has curtailed the development of alternate energy sources, not because they’re not viable or vital (!!!) but because special interests want cheap, dirty coal to keep flowing. For them it makes economic sense, after all, they’re making a killing!
And…. and her “investors and customers” are largely foreign owned banks, corporations (BHP, Rio) and foreign governments (China, Japan, etc). It’s nice that she rapes the resources of this country to satisfy them so magnanimously!
Robert: Do you use any products containing mined resources? If you don’t like mining, then quit buying resources that have been mined. Mrs Rinehart is not forcing you to use coal or iron if you don’t want to. She is catering to consumer preference.
Did you read my essay above? Feel free to start a new thread if you have any disagreements.
I don’t follow your response. Where did I say I “don’t like mining”? Are you referring to the “rapes the resources of this country” hyperbole? It’s an expression of the lack of public consent and public interest. It has nothing to do with not “liking” mining. All businesses “cater to consumer preference”, so what? It doesn’t make them or their CEOs praiseworthy … let alone “caring, honest, sympathetic, soulful and transparent”. By the way, I have read your essay, the one in which you loosely meander from Gina’s honesty, to secession, to a critique of Liberal Party politics, to armchair economics, to feminism, to Kennards … then routinely retort to perfectly legitimate objections (ones often directly or indirectly QUOTING YOU) with the same obstinate shtick: “Did you read my essay?” I’m afraid the only response you will find pertinent is the one you can easily dismiss.
As someone who worked in the Pilbara (mainly Dampier) in the 70’s and appreciated the massive wealth of iron ore that was pretty much discovered by Gina’s Father, Lang Hancock, I have retained a strong interest in the region, in iron ore mining, in mining in general, in all wealth-creating industries and in risk-taking-entrepeneurs of all kinds: people like Gina Rinehart.
I am 59 years old and have been in small business for pretty much 40 of those years. As a result of my “real-world” experience in the market-place I have no hesitation in endorsing the words written here.
I wholeheartedly, yet sadly, agree with Lang Hancock that the Liberal Party is a party with a semi-socialist philosophy. Unfortunately, especially these days, far too many Liberal Party candidates have never had a real job in the real world, let alone been a small business owner.
Australia, unlike the United States, has always had a liking for socialist-type policies. Whitlam, of course, was able to use that “affection” that Australians have for a “mothering, nanny-state” society to get Labor elected in 1972. And as those of us who were around in those days know only too well, he pretty much destroyed Australia in three years.
Therein lies the problem: The socialist tendencies that were around within the Australian populace in 1975 have continued to grow (should I say fester) until now; so that many Australians really believe that government is the only source of wisdom and somehow think that governments “somehow” create wealth!
Crazy I know. But whenever Labor is in power in any territory, state or federally a program of big government, including additional rules and regulation and massive expenditure of silly-social policies. All increasing the need for more taxes and additional borrowing, whilst reducing productivity, competitiveness and destroying the wealth of the nation.
I do not believe in socialism. I do believe in freedom – in all aspects of human endeavour.
The Labor Party is clearly a socialist party. The Liberal Party says they are against socialism yet rarely demonstrate through actions that they practice what they preach; that is small limited government, low taxation and minimum regulation and intervention in the marketplace or in the lives of individuals.
Gina’s views, and indeed many of Lang’s views are in line with my personal political philosophy.
This is commonsense from one of Australia’s millions of small business owners, each in his/her own way, doing exactly what Gina does. No better, no worse, just and most importantly, the bedrock of society’s economy. Making a living for themselves by taking the initiative and risk, and in the process creating jobs, prosperity and the products/services we need and want. (and, incidentally creating the taxes to pay for welfare, etc and millions of bureaucrat salaries). So, thank you, Dave, and your millions of fellow “Daves/Davinas”, and Gina too. Big and small, it all adds up.
Thanks Sally.
Whilst there are other wise folk like you out there, I often feel like I am crying in the wilderness, as so many Australians are afflicted, or at best partially afflicted with the socialist disease.
The over-regulated, over-taxed, big-government, nanny-state is now apparently popular. The once legendary self-reliant Australian has been replaced, in the main, by wimpish yet loud-mouthed parasites who want even more taxpayer-funded largesse and even less productivity – and all supported by “the government”.
Of course the numbers of wealth-producing, productive Australians is rapidly decreasing, so the obvious question is “where will the money come from?”
But as we know,Gillard, Rudd and other Labor Socialists just go out there and borrow it on our behalf. Eventually the interest bill starts consuming more and more or the government’s income; then along comes more taxes and charges. This further destroys the economy, weakens business and consumer confidence and creates more unemployment.
This is the typical Labor/Socialist way from the party that claims to look after the so-called “.workers”.
Clearly the answer is far smaller government, and all that goes with that, including: far less regulation, much lower taxation and much more freedom for individuals and business.
But the majority of people can’t or won’t see that smaller government, less regulation, lower taxation and increased economic and personal freedom will actually increase prosperity and so enable workers to be better off, and enable us to have a sustainable and sensible welfare safety net and maintain a nice environment. Governments will just keep near-killing “the goose that lays the golden egg” (business) in order to buy the votes of government employees and those that receive net government benefits. These people comprise more than 50% of the population/votes now.
To pay for the ever increasing demands of these dependent majority of constituents, governments will have to keep increasing taxes (killing initiative, raiding private savings such as Super) and/or increasing debt (eg Spain, Greece) in order to pay for their accelerating outgoings, or print money (eg 1920’s hyperinflation Germany). Eventually the country will become broke and totalitarian (eg Nazism which came out of 1920’s Germany), and/or there will be massive civic unrest and violence (eg Greece today). There won’t be any welfare, and government employees will either be put off or not get paid. The socialist dream was a mirage all the time.
Because most of the Western World is headed down this path now, there won’t be any rich USA to rescue us like it did after WW2 to Germany, not any rich contemporary Germany to bail us out like it is doing for Greece (Germany has enough on its hands with not just Greece but also Spain and Italy). Goodbye democracy, freedom and prosperity, hello poverty, corruption (look at Greece!) and a world of “dog-eat-dog”, with the ever dwindling wealth held in the hands of an elite few. How perverse – socialism ultimately leads to inequity and poverty, capitalism to greater equity and prosperity.
Well said Sally. So obvious, yet so few are willing to accept it.
Thanks,
Regards,
Dave Wane
well said sally and dave..
if nothing else, this page of ben’s using gina as a springboard, will help you and the silent thousands become aware that you are not alone.
Democracy whilst better than most of the other political models is still the tyranny of the majority, especially those that want to vote for a living rather than work for a living.
The only model that has not been given a chance in political evolution is that of the libertarian. maybe because there are so few like ben who give up their time to help us all understand the libertarian model better
Please may I ask a few simple questions here (?) :-
1. How many paid staffers are ‘ replying to the comments’ made here ?
2. If Gina( as staed, withinthe above) is prepared to employ Aussies (?) and train them as such stated, ” Where do i apply ? ‘
3. I am certain there are many people within the Pilbara/Kimberley’s [East and West] that would like a chance of employment ! i have never seen/heard or found a recuitment person throughout the last 30 odd years living up here pass through Derby or our northern regional areas !
4. i suspect it’s another bit of a Public Realations ‘STUNT’ in the effort of shining/ showing a glowing light on GINA to look good to continue her merry way of whatever plans she has made or decided to do ???
# So, if this is true dinkum, honest in facts;- Am i going to be offered a job ?
yep, i am a electrican, with practical ” Kimberley experience ” that not a FIFO creeper !
I am not paid anything. This is my site. I answer to nobody and am endorsed by no one and never have claimed to be. As for your alleged interest in working on Hancock Prospecting projects, why haven’t you thought of going through their website? http://www.hancockprospecting.com.au/go/employment
If I was an electrician living in the Pilbara (where I worked in the 1970s) I would have my own small electrical contracting business, and probably be doing well. I eventually left Dampier and came to Darwin, then left Darwin for Queensland – and after starting and operating the first legal Jet Ski Hire business in the state of Queensland, I returned to Darwin, where I have run a small plumbing business for the past 33 years. Semi-retired now, I have travelled to many parts of the world near and far. I strongly recommend all young tradespeople seriously consider going into business. Not that there was anything wrong with working in the mining industry on wages. I liked that too. Although I did not like parasitical union bludgers coming around telling me I must join their union. I managed to get away without joining, even though my employer Fluor Corporation did all they could to push me into the union’s clutches – to try and keep the industrial peace. One maori unionised(sheep-like) employee even threatened to kill me if I did not join. Have a go MALMAC, do not whinge and whine about things. Have a go! Trust your judgement. And never ever become a horrible sheep-like union bludger who wants more, more, for less, less, less. Be enterprising. Be productive. Then rewards will come your way.
Dave Wane,
I too, am a licenced electrical contractor of the Kimberley’s area ! ( I love the place) or i wouldn’t be here. my point I was trying to make is those that FIFO have very little regards to just “WTF US LOCALS HAVE TO PUT UP WITH” and the excessive cost of living is over infl;ated due to them.
It don’t bother me, much at all (thou;- All the minnow’s ‘ shire workers and the lower paid people’ are suffering from it!) i am or rather trying to highlight just what has been offered to the northern locals as per said is total shit, in regards of looking after the local yokels of the Pilbara/Kimberley region!
yet they cxan fly others from over from the East Coast [ over night in perth and jet them almost straight to site] … Come on now, they have never looked after or tried helping or using local people since the age of time! Unless, they score a helping hand from the government to do it. If not, they more interested in the 457 visa holders… So, as we say up here locally, ” STOP BULLSHITTING AND DRIBBLING SHIT TO THESE MEDIA OUTLETS AS THEY DO ! and show some true respect for us bush/ outer metro mob! ”
# P.note: I’m bloody white skinned,too…. yet the offers are rarely given to the locals ever….
Benny M,
i would like to ask do ya have any idea as to the percentages of local employee’s to the FIFO crowd ? it would be interesting to know! claiming ya own the site, and not a paid employee of the gina crowd/group of mining cohorts… Cheers for the supplied info, if ya supply ittoo.
Whilst FIFO was pretty much unheard of in the Pilbara of the 1970’s, I guess it simply reflects supply and demand pressures for those personnel who are required. If the required people cannot be sourced locally, then obviously they will need to be brought in from somewhere else. I fail to see what your gripe is. You are a contractor. But in regards to others: Are you seriously suggesting that there are productive, qualified and reliable people living in the Pilbara who cannot find a job? If true, I find that amazing. Back inthe 1970s I arrived in Dampier with no prior notification and within a few days had work. Good productive people will always be hired. Darwin is awash with FIFO people at the moment. They are obviously good productive folk. That is just how it is. The marketplace at work, as it should be.
Dave,
here is the straight cut and pasted part of this BS Spill that i say is “BULLSHIT! ” re-read the above statement as follows ( check it out and have a think if it’s true ?)….
C&P’ed ;- ‘ When criticised about wishing to employ foreigners, Gina Rinehart tries to appease her critics by saying: that she wants to employ many more times as many Australians (despite the unwillingness of many Australians to work in remote locations) and that she’ll spend $26 million training them. This is a very soft and caring response to the egos of her critics, making them feel that their argument has some merit. The reality is that those who criticise the employment of foreigners have not given the matter the slightest thought. ‘
### Now after living in the kimberley’s for over 30 years, it’s shit… never heard/seen or ever recall any offers or chances of employment from this group!
Hello, ” we are the true bloody “NORTHWEST WORKING PEOPLE WITH FAMILY TIES, and also,love our country dearly to stay up this part of AUSTRALIA… “
Dude, why would any company want to employ someone who doesn’t even think to try to get a job with that company through that company’s website!?
Malmac, could it be that the locals are just not as experienced, qualified or productive as those they import from the eastern states?
In Darwin right now, there are hundreds of people working on the INPEX project who come from all over the Australia and overseas. I have no problem with that.
Surely the company should be able to select the best ,most suitable,most experienced and productive workers for their project?
part of the cut and pasted section;- YOU HAVE STATED ” that she wants to employ many more times as many Australians (despite the unwillingness of many Australians to work in remote locations) and that she’ll spend $26 million training them. This is a very soft and caring response to the ego of hers! Come bl;oody on get real bro!
I find it totally BULLSHIT is sure a dribbling out here!
## if the local’s need to apply via: ‘ her website for a job, really is she such a caring person ?
She and yaself stateing she’s a cares to employ local aussie’s it bs to me and others up in the north!
sorry, i feel ya ain’t telling the truth here after all is said and done…
as they say, “THE TRUTH BLOODY HURTS , ONCE THEV TRUTH IS KNOWN…”
oh yeah, enjoy the backhands i reckon ya scoring here,too!
Are you saying that the locals are too useless, tired or just plain lazy to bother checking out opportunities on the web site?
This seems to be the Australia of today, where everyone wants to be spoon-fed.
Whitlam’s “dream” is well and truly still with us. But of course it was always a nightmare in the making, as your comments sadly suggest.
## if the local’s need to apply via: ‘ her website for a job, really is she such a caring person ?
She and yaself stateing she’s a cares to employ local aussie’s it bs to me and others up in the north!
sorry, i feel ya ain’t telling the truth here after all is said and done…
as they say, “THE TRUTH BLOODY HURTS , ONCE THEV TRUTH IS KNOWN…”
oh yeah, enjoy the backhands i reckon ya scoring here,too!
part of the cut and pasted section;- YOU HAVE STATED ” that she wants to employ many more times as many Australians (despite the unwillingness of many Australians to work in remote locations) and that she’ll spend $26 million training them. This is a very soft and caring response to the ego of hers! Come bl;oody on get real bro!
I find it totally BULLSHIT is sure a dribbling out here!
GIna,
I would like to know if as mining magnate and largest female Aussie’s producer of fossil fuels, whether you would support an endeavour to create workable realistic solutions to energy creation in the form of technologies that are similar to voltaic solutions and would need little development using modern mechanical technologies to provide a different yet highly marketable energy facilitator, assuming you were in the drivers seat of the push towards such goals and stood to further your profits?
If you know of somebody ‘appointed by you’ who would like to be in this position please contact me as I have solutions but no funding and find that most businesses I have approached have have been afraid of being bought out by the magnates and sold for parts.
I am interested in a direct reply and response and could use your experience and influence or even interest.
How much did that fat slut pay you to write this propaganda?
To whom are you asking that silly question?
All my words are my own and based 100% on my philosophy of freedom, small government, minimum regulation and low taxation.
In the main Gina Rinehart supports these basic principles, so I therefore am a supporter of her.
Of course, I am also impressed by her business skills, her enterprising foresight, and her passion to create a far more productive Australia – especially in the north.
What do you believe in?
Are you a socialist? If so, there is little point in continuing to correspond with you. I have found throughout my life that socialists have precious few arguments to back their views.
If you are not a socialist, I would be interested in hearing your views on how we can improve Australia’s pathetic productivity and thereby increase the wealth of all Australians.
Please stop holding back your criticism with your vague dismissive comments. Why do you call her a “fat slut”? This is a political website, not Sunday School. I’m not going to censor you. Don’t be so afraid. As for your question of whether I was paid anything by anyone for anything on this site: no, I have never been paid a cent by anyone. In fact, in the first paragraph of the article above (which the comments are meant to be commenting on), it even says:
So do you have any comments to make about what I actually wrote?
I find it absolutely astonishing when people are critical of an individual, or even a company for no apparent reason.
For example:I am often critical of Julia Gillard and the destructive socialist government she leads. Similarly I am critical of premiers O’Farrell and Barnett, and former premier Baillieu for failing to seriously reduce the massive size of the governments they inherited from previous Labor governments.
However, I cannot say that I have any serious criticism of Gina Rinehart. I have met her once and found her to be a very pleasant and interesting person.
If people have a gripe, a belief or an opinion about anything or an individual, of course they should express a view. But surely the criticism should be based on facts and should offer an alternative argument? Do you agree?
I agree Dave. If only there were more like you. Great to “connect”.
Thanks, Benjamin.
Gina is a wonderful woman who is also caring and kind.I would be quite happy to work for two dollars a day if a house only cost $1000 and a new car $100.Can Gina sort this out?
PS to Gina.Please stop donating money to bad causes on Cambodia, the abused and homeless in this country should be first in line.
Ken,
In Australia, the main reason almost everything is so expensive is due to the actions of governments – local, territory, state and federal. The massive taxes and charges that are applied to so much of what we do and what we buy; together with state-owned electricity utilities;green subsidies; unnecessary rules, regulations and red-tape as well as general government intervention in the market place all make the once “lucky country” one of the world’s most expensive countries in which to live. It is the cancer of Big Government and all that goes with it that is destroying Australia and making life difficult for people wanting to buy a house at an affordable price, or a litre of fuel, a carton of beer and a whole lot more. The smaller the government, the more wealth can be created by individuals and retained by individuals to buy houses or whatever they want.
This site is comedy gold.Henry Ford was quite a successful caplitalist and he doubled the workers wages so they could buy his products.Lord Lever was another highly successful capitalist, he introduced all sorts of improved pay and conditions for his huge workforce and even housed them all!
Gina claimed a while back that third world people were happy to work for two dollars a day- no they are not happy at all.Poor housing, poor diets, horrific health issues for their children, no educational opportunities- the list goes on.
Ghandi said that there is enough in the world for everyones need but not everyones greed, take note Gina.And why is it that the high wage, high tax scandinavian countries do so well and have the happiest people?
Yes Ken,
Henry Ford was interested in his workers doing well. Ford was also very interested in productivity – realising that without productivity there can be no profit, and without profit there can be no commensurate wage increases. It is all relative, Ken. However, never forget that Henry Ford did not have to deal with anything like the plethora of industrial laws, state-controlled wage-fixing and unrealistic union demands. Ford operated his car-making business in a free-market in almost every sense of the word. This is what is required in Australia today – far more market freedom. Excessive government control of the marketplace has plenty to do with the failure of the Australian car industry. A fully flexible wage-fixing arrangement negotiated between employer and employee, with no government control, would have possibly saved Australian car-making.
Again, get Big Government out of the way, and everyone who wants to be productive will prosper. Government is rarely “the solution”, but nearly always “the problem”.
Wow – you’re ignorant of history mate. Ford had WAY bigger problems with unions than just about anyone today – so much so that he employed people like Harry Bennett (former Navy boxer and violent strike breaker) to actually physically beat UAW (a unions) representatives with clubs. Indeed so fanatical against the unions was he that he nearly broke up his company out of spite rather than find some kind of working relationship with them – something that was only stopped when his wife threatened to leave him if he did so. He later came to agree that she was right incidentally.
Further whilst Ford didn’t like unions he also LOATHED people like Gina Rinehart who he’d have said was practically the epitome of bad management and the CAUSE of unions – he believed that smart managers would look after their workers so as to prevent unions from gaining ground, to prevent the need for and appearance of excessive regulations. As for wage fixing – Ford realized that by paying his workers far more than the minimum he’d encourage productivity and wouldn’t need the government to step in to fix poverty created by underpaying workers.
The problem is there aren’t many Henry Fords – most capitalist and free market obsessed types simply want to take and take and take and give absolutely nothing back. Hell Gina wants to pay Aussies 2 dollars a day (Ford paid his workers more than that in 1914). Indeed so incensed are they at paying taxes that they wish to remove all welfare and social safety nets. This is counter productive because poverty reduces demand and EVERY country that has introduced welfare has massively reduced poverty.
http://penhpal.com/2013/08/sisha-the-anti-trafficking-org-finally-unravels/
Talk about silly,she wants to pay workers two dollars a day but gives money away to an opportunist? And people think that she is clever?
Ken, it’s great you are so concerned about Mrs Rinehart’s welfare and intelligence. What do you think of the essay above that these comments are meant to be about?
Well I hate to be cruel but the essay is rubbish.The best countries in tne world have strong well funded governments.What do you want, a privatised defence force.Gina would last five minutes, they would grab her wealth with both hands just as they do in the third world.Most countries in the world are run by greedy despots backed up by the military, I would much rather have a rule of law.
Mrs Rinehart does not want a privatised defence force. She is a friendly voice of moderation trying to find a compromise between: on one side, advocates of big government like both major political parties; and on the other side, famous Australian businessmen like Neville Kennard, John Singleton and other Workers Party veterans who do favour defence that is not funded in the manner of a protection racket (as is convincingly argued in the middle and right columns of http://www.economics.org.au).
As for your claim that you support the rule of law: How do you equate your belief in the Constitution with the rule of law? Do you consider the Constitution a contract? Is not a tax-funded protection agency an expropriating property protector?
Oh I see, she doesnt want to privatise every government agency.Only privatise the ones that waste our money, like health and education.Defence of course with 10 billion dollar submarines and 200 million dollar aeroplanes doesnt waste money at all.Would the fire service be privatised I wonder, it would be like Cambodia.If Ginas house was on fire at the same time as mine then she sould be able to pay more than me to save her house but not mine- that seems fair.
Gina is one of these people who knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
Are you seriously criticising her for not advocating the privatisation of defence?
sorry she now is being proven well beyond all doubt she hasn’t got a very good example from the Saturday’s west ! page 9 ! Gives a true and different realistic view of gina… 4 all to see what’s she is like !
How so? And why have you made no comment on the essay that the comments here are meant to be commenting on?
When a person can’t be honest and does whatever they need to do, (in BOOSTING 1’s EGO ! or to aid thy REAL TRUTH OF THE PERSON). The truth is and will always be skewed to hide those parts of whatever story one tells to DEFLECT whatever they are trying to hide… As per what I even messaged you ref: ‘Steve P’s report ….. in the WEST ‘ It might now be safer if I start to change my views to suit all you mob [that try making her as if the sun shines from her is good ? Sorry it will never ever happen whilst I draw breath !!! A true bitch, as per her own dad, treated her. nothing more than a greedy person as per the rest of those born into money rich familes…
In my view, there are rarely good arguments for having governments running businesses – of any kind. In my view,electricity, water, sewerage, communications, even parts of defence and a whole lot more should be privately run or contracted out to private companies. Building massive and very expensive bureaucratic empires to run these various “enterprises” where unions run the show is hardly the way to show respect for taxpayer’s funds and therefore spend those funds effectively and efficiently.
Hey ATT:- MARK,
Now may I suggest you get a copy of today’s ‘ WESTERN AUSRTALIAN NEWSPAPER ‘, bro. If you do, feel free to check out page 9, of it !
lang hancock fallout ;- ‘ GINA LETTERS REVEAL FAMILY SPLIT ‘
# The Exclusive written by – Steve Pennells #
Please Note;- It makes for very interesting reading for one and all ! It even highlights [ A DEAR DAD ] letter, too…. dated jan 1987.
And another point of interest is the 5th paragraph ( She is now following suit as her own daddy did to her, To her own CHILDREN NOW!
This proves beyond all reasonable doubt that she is a liar to the hilt of being corrupt as her own daddy was ! Sorry bro, you lost this one for sure. And I wish to say a big thanks to ‘STEVE PENNELLS ‘ for this bit of info, too… :). maybe try another course of boosting her ego,now,eh ?
Who is Mark?
Huussshhh! The’yll hear us!
But Gina is the only true friend we have… She moderates us yesss..
But the others the are jealous of our precioussss…
How do we stop them? So many… so many…
We’ll let HER take care of them… yess…
Her?
Yes, HER!
She’s ALWAYS hungry…
Then maybe, we al should let her eat all her cake too ! Thou, she could do without it. It might even help save her from being the ‘sourpuss’ she’s become, no ? It’s NOT as if she needs it :P…..
Derbyiter – this comment sounds disrespectful to Our Rightful Democratic Leader, please report to one of Mrs Rinehart’s Re-Moderation Centres for Re-Moderation and De-Socialisation immediately.
Ministry of Friendly Moderation
Ok, will do ! I for some unknown reason(ing) of using basic common sense from being to honest, I again will most likely [FAIL] once more to thy joining our great Political Correct CROWD, thou………. But, I guess, the more times we are put through these ‘social work camps’ we will convert or be damned 4 it ! so, Morgan T :- where do I need to appear (?) at her mine, just down thy road. Or at thy HER LORDS side ? for retraining….
Remember citizen-slave derbyiter – more than three failures to complete basic Re-Moderation and De-socialisation will result in mandatory Recycling in Our Glorious Democratic Leader’s privately owned lime kilns.
If you find yourself struggling in your obligations then remember the words of the Great One herself: “Arbeit macht frei!”
As true today as it was in 1938.
Shame they don’t have a like ‘ BUTTON ‘ to see what the true reflection of what them/us lower classed pleb’s think of these replies !
Yes, shame indeed.
I was just wondering if you could give me the details of the book you list in the conclusion – Mine Camp. I tried to find it myself but found it a bit of a struggle.
David: Is that your only question about the essay?
Hi there. Why are your political and religious views on Facebook Women? I am genuinely curious.
What do you mean by “Facebook Women”? Women who have a Facebook page? I have a Facebook page. My wife has a Facebook page. My daughter and my son have Facebook pages. I have many Facebook friends who are women, as I have many who are men. What is it that you are trying to understand about the political and religious views of “Facebook Women”? It seems to me their views are as many and varied as women in the general community. Is that not your view, also?
Since you’re making statements on behalf of Gina Rinehart, and the five reasons below are hysterical, I’m now of the opinion you’ve set this page up as a satirical exercise. If I’d read this earlier, I would have realised. Well done.
[Secession
Rather than calling for secession (as she did when she was younger), Gina Rinehart is calling for the Pilbara (and the rest of Northern Australia) to be made a Special Economic Zone. Here again her modesty shines through, for the following five reasons.
Even if the Special Economic Zone is exactly synonymous with secession, it is not secession down to the individual level, which would be the principled uncompromising position.
And even if it is secession down to the individual level that she is promoting, she wants it to be legislated for by the Canberra Kremlin, as though the authority of Canberra is of some legitimacy. In short, Gina Rinehart is not proposing any civil disobedience, unlike such significant Australian political and business leaders as Hugh Morgan, Neville Kennard, Bert Kelly, John Singleton and Ron Manners.
Lang Hancock and Gina Rinehart have only ever asked for a 20 year income tax holiday, when a better compromise from her point of view, and a more proportional one, would be 70 years, because that is how long the federal income tax has already been around. And it is not proportional that her ideas should have sunset clauses, when the government, even when they do something only for wartime, emergency or temporary measures (like, say, the federal income tax!), see fit to continue it permanently.
She is only asking for part of Australia to receive less government interference, even though she knows that her arguments are equally applicable to all of Australia. Wherever government interference decreases, productivity increases.
She is asking for less than what she and millions of other Australians have already achieved far more radically when it comes to marriage. Why is it that people are allowed to divorce themselves from their marriages, which actually involves saying in front of witnesses “till death do us part”, but are not allowed to divorce themselves from the political bonds that there was never any evidence they consented to?]
Suze: Every statement I make is on my own behalf, and no one else’s. Yes, I do hope people find them funny. But funny and serious are not opposites. As G.K. Chesterton said, “Funny is the opposite of not funny, and of nothing else.” My statements on secession that you quote above clearly show that Mrs Rinehart is your friendly voice of moderation. I agree this point is funny, but it is also serious. When you laugh at something it does not necessarily mean you disagree with it.
She is a fat turd end of story.
Mr Fox: Why are you badmouthing your friendly voice of moderation?
[…] section titled “The Liberal Party Is Socialist” in Benjamin Marks, “Gina Rinehart Is Our Friendly Voice of Moderation,” http://www.GinaRinehart.info, July 26, 2012. In that essay you will also find a link to what she […]
[…] Australian history. This is the first time it has been publicly shown in over 40 years! Thanks to our friendly voice of moderation, the brave and daring Gina […]
[…] of the first idea — pointing out the fact of Gina’s moderation — in such essays as “Gina Rinehart Is Our Friendly Voice of Moderation” and “Gina Rinehart Is Our Least Controversial Celebrity”. And I’ve already […]
Greetings,
before I read any thing here, I want to try remember what the fuck what was my determination, fucking drunk now I reckon, stoned a little still! What was the subject ??? “Gina” fucking what? turns out I’m drunk, fucking don’t anything but,,,, wish..
[…] look like a diplomatic genius, finding a middle-ground between Kennard and the Labor-Liberal Party. Rinehart should consider positioning herself in this way, since it is truthful and helpful for her. It would be useful to her because it would mean she could continue advocating the same policies […]