Just read this http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...smine-revolution/story-e6frfkui-1226008866612 And it got me wondering what would happen if a Egypt style revolution. Thoughts?
Gerald forecast this as a growing trend this year and I'm honestly not surprised. I personally think it will spread, especially to those nations with a population who are known for protesting and speaking out. If China went into meltdown ala Egypt we'd have one hell of a mess on our hands. China's problems are Australia's problems in many ways. This is already spreading anyway. It's not JUST Egypt anymore... http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/20/3143496.htm
China is already sinking slowly into a slow down, as they seem to be constantly upping their interest rates and banking reserve requirements. I wonder when China will stop repeating this deflationary behavior...yep, probably by the time the Aussie economy tanks due to diminishing terms of trade.
Yeh the Aussie economy is so entwined with China BHP etc.. But would America be rubbing their hands if their biggest creditor suddenly had to contend with a revolution. Conflict in East means the USA can sell their war machines to China's neighbours, good for the American economy. If the middle East is anything to go by I'd be very worried if the USA tried to broker peace in the East
And Gillard wants to introduce a carbon tax on fuel. She has the foresight abilities of a goldfish. When the AU dollars drops back to it's real value petrol will become extremely expensive, and she wants to load a new tax onto it first.
Quote Julia: Well if it's alright for the Poms to pay a fortune for their petrol it must be OK for all Australians to share the pain, to bare the cost of Global warming at an individual level. To make our nation truly great we all need to suffer ! "Arms Outstretched" Well she didn't say that yet but I can imagine that's the idea.
Of course she doesn't mention that the money goes to a derivatives trough for Goldman Sachs and JP morgue to play in, and will do nothing to curb greenhouse emissions. Guess we know who owns her now, don't we. Our politicians are every bit as owned and corrupt as America's.
Not sure if I believe that she is owned. I just think that she is stupid, and by default, a reflection of Australians. Of course this statement doesn't apply to the intellectuals here, who realise what is just around the corner.
Oh go easy boston we didnt elect her she got in by default .The only thing i like about her is shes an atheist & cant be corrupted by the church driven hierachy which has been an influence on prior governments.Agree shes not the brightest light on the tree. not that im against religion i believe religion & politics need to be totally seperated
Woah woah woah... back up a minute! Didn't we go through nearly 10 pages recently discussing the virtues of altruism and forced austerity? Were there not some very strong voices of support for it? A little pain in the hip pocket is nothing to complain about if it's in the interests of this idealised nation? Now you WILL pay this bloody tax in the interests of the collective good and you will damn well APPRECIATE IT people! Let's not start back pedalling now. This is what everyone WANTED, remember?
In this particular instance, I disagree with austerity because this Co2-induced global warming is a con job by the banksters, the earth will see no benefit. Global warming is really due to solar activity. Did you see the scene in Apocalypto where the Indian High Priests used the effect of [predicted] solar eclipse to strike fear into the populace? They then offered the "solution" in the form of blood sacrifice to bring back the light. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Oh, and the Austerity vs Altruism isn't a binary on-off switch, its on a dimmer.
China won't allow the situation to get to a point where a revolution occurs. They learnt after Tiananmen Square that they need to take people's complaints seriously or things end up going bad, so while the crackdown on the protesters back then was brutal, the government also made a fair number of changes to address the issues that the people were protesting about. Deng (the progressive-socialist leader of the communist party) took a political hit for his stance on the Tiananmen because the hardliners didn't think he was tough enough on the protesters, but three years later he was out declaring that "to get rich is glorious" and pushing the kinds of reforms that Hu Yaobang supported (who's death was the catalyst for the Tiananmen protests in the first place). Deng's hybrid capitalist-socialist economic model is what is powering China today and since it is based largely on pragmatism rather than ideology, I think China will deal with any complaints before they turn into something worth revolting over. The Middle East, on the other hand, is a basketcase and I wouldn't be surprised to see half a dozen regimes collapse if the wave of protests continue. Tunsia helped kick things off on Egypt. Egypt inspired the protests in Bahrain. Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain together will keep the domino effect going.
Big AD I have to disagree "They learnt after Tiananmen Square that they need to take people's complaints..." the Uighurs in China a case in point how many other hotspots exist?. What we saw in Tiananmen Square was the protests of the educated when it comes down to religion and culture it is entirely another story. I think they have just managed their PR better, being aware of international scrutiny. "Indeed, the Uighurs and the popular Islamist Muslim Brotherhood have much to commiserate over. The Uighurs complain of religious and cultural persecution and economic marginalization by China's Han-dominated government. Not unlike Egypt's heavy-handed treatment of the Brotherhood which is banned from participating in politics, and whose members are frequently subject to arrests and interrogations China also limits the Uighurs' international travel and maintains a degree of control over the sermons they provide at local mosques." Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1911002,00.html#ixzz1ETLKCaUZ
I'm aware of the Chinese repression of the Uighurs, but I don't think that is a big enough issue to start a full scale revolution. If it did become a big enough problem, the Chinese government would back down and make concessions. I certainly don't support the Chinese government's treatment of the Uighur people (or the Tibetans) but unfortunately it doesn't affect enough ordinary Chinese people for them to want to see it stopped.
I dispute that Deng Xiaoping's model is a "hybrid capitalist-socialist economic model", I tried to get a feel for it while I was studying there 2 years ago, and it seemed to me to be pure capitalism on an economic basis, with layers of nationalism, totalitarianism and bureacracy piled on top. Commentators I respect like Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff have stated that China is more capitalist than America these days, and from my first-hand observations of their society, I would say that they are out to get rich as individuals, but they still have enormous pride and feeling for their nation, culture and race.
Yeah, they call it "socialism with Chinese characteristics" but as you say its a bit mix-n-match in terms of what to call it. Whatever it is, it seems to be working.
Yeah, u would have thought that the one-party regime would be grudgingly borne, but secretly loathed, but its not like that at all. Most Chinese, even *(actually, especially) twenty-somethings genuinely love the State. I used to work with a lot of Chinese ppl in Oz on student visas and it was a real eye-opener for them when they would say that China is democratic and I would say no u need to have 2 parties for it to be a democracy, not just one CCP, and they would be like "oh, yeah... I guess", but it didn't stop them defending their government vehemently.. So yeah, it does seem to be working, whatever it is. Whether or not its sustainable if they have an economic slowdown or not, I don't know.
