Australia has had decades of the
free-market mantras. Just encourage
the landlords and developers with
tax-incentives, grants, special deals,
public land, and God knows what else,
and good affordable housing will be
provided for everyone. The invisible
hand of the "market" will make housing
cheaper and better. Just don't interfere
with the magical process. Trust us!
Non-core John cannot remember whether
he promised affordable housing or
whether he promised no housing.
According to Costello, the unaffordable
housing is evidence that his free-market
theories are working a treat.
Australia the worst is yet to come!
Now go back to your TV and wait for the
"free-market" civil war.
.oOo.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (9)
The Cap'n
said:
 |
When there is the light of love Y'gotta trust us let light shine Y'gotta trust us. let the lying lie... and the dying die... Y'gotta trust us |
Shopping Plazas surrounded by slums
said:
|
"affordable housing" - "deals with property developers" - "Invisible hand" These terms make me think of one thing. The ALP in Victoria. They have even invented and are introducing a way of getting the invisible deals done past the non ALP stacked councils. Remember Kennett? Well the facts have clearly established that the Kennett Government was more transparent than the Bracks Government!! Australia will be a property developers nirvana when ALP run state and federal. |
Ex_Liberal_Voter
said:
|
I notice that "Stumbling" John was received with some butt-sucking hysteria in Tasmania. Too much inbreeding perhaps? A put-up job? A full moon? No matter how hard his fans suck, they will never suck as much as John does. If John thinks you can help his vainglory, you run the risk of having your brains sucked out through your butt! |
Ricardovitz
said:
|
What are you degenerates complaining about now? Is your nanny-government not giving you a tit to suckle? Or did your mummy and daddy kick you out of the house they worked hard for and purchased with their fruits of their labor. And, now your lazy, good-for-nothing, ass doesn't have a place to live? Since when are people "entitled" to get things that they don't work hard for? Wake up white people, this is Darwin's World. There ain't nothing wrong with letting the weakest amongst us starve and die. That's just the natural order of things. Now, Socialists believe that ALL people are entitled to the same things whether they work hard for it or sit around puffing reefer. Socialists believe that it's not fair for people who work hard, take risks, and invest the fruits of their labor to be able to have more stuff than people who dick around in school, get knocked up in high-school, puff reefer or smoke crystal meth. Socialists believe that hard work is evil and that puffing drugs is noble. Socialists believe that when mummy and dadda kick their little rotten asses out, that the NANNY-GOVERNMENT needs to take care of them. Socialists are anti-Darwin. They believe in feeding the losers while starving the winners in an effort to de-evolve society back into furry chimps. Well, most socialist hippies make themselves look like furry chimps - there's your proof! |
The_Exorcist
said:
|
What is your current name demon? Ricardobub? Goblinovitz? How does it feel to have no body but to crave one, Demonovitz? All you massless beings fit the definition of truly spineless. Your mates are having some trouble with Johnny's rotted-out body. You may not need him to have a soul, but a functioning nervous system might reduce his stumbles. Back into the sewer, demon. -anti666 |
Ricardovitz
said:
|
There ain't no Devil. I ain't the Devil. I'm just your worst nightmare, the worst "bad trip" that an LSD-licking lemming ever had - THE NAKED TRUTH. |
Ex_Liberal_Voter
said:
|
Ricky, "If you want a house, then just buy it"... Did you mean that? Maybe you were feeling a bit weak, because your ideology has previously been: "if you want it, just TAKE it!" (presumably with some firepower to back up your claim) Please clarify whether your position is variable or unstable or flaky on this matter. Of course, you are as free as any fruitcake to be as nutty as circumstances demand. There is no implied criticism here, just clinical interest. |
Ricardovitz
said:
|
Sure, I'll clarify this for you. It's quite an old philosophy, actually. Let's start with a fundemental principle of my beliefs: "When in Rome, do as the Romans." Now, lets analyze what Left-Bent-Liberal said: "Ricky, "If you want a house, then just buy it"... Did you mean that? Maybe you were feeling a bit weak, because your ideology has previously been: "if you want it, just TAKE it!" I'm all for getting what you want or what you need the easiest and most efficient way possible. Before reading any further answer this simple question: How many different ways is there to get from point A to point B? Well, here's the way I see it. If I can get from point A to point B by traveling in a straight line, and it's the most efficient use of my resources and least risky, the straight line shall be my path. If I can get from point A to point B, but must travel on a long winding risky path, I might just change my mind and abandon point B. But, what other options do I have? I could structure a payment plan to pay some people to get me from point A to point B safely and expeditiously who might be better equipped to do this than I would be. I could be stupid and blindly put my faith in fate by traveling the long risky road to point B - but that ain't my style. I would much rather pay someone to bring point B to me. Or, if I could get away with it, I might just cheat, change the rules and call point A point B and kill off anyone who dissagrees with me. Give me more time, and I will give you more options. There are always options; ways to get things done or make things happen. Paying for something is one option. And for most people it is the easiest, least risky, and cheapist option. So, why eliminate it as one means to an end? Only an insane fool would cross "paying for something" off the list of options. My options are the same, whether I live in an anarchist society, a socialist society or a capitalist society. Societies change. People don't change. And, when it comes to getting what I want, only the risks and costs change a little. I will always get what I want, unless it contradicts the laws of nature. But, even then, I wouldn't completely rule it out. All rules were designed to be broken, otherwise they wouldn't be rules. |
Write comment
