TOPIC:

yes, Baz, as you know, they got bogged down a bit by nationalisations, otherwise they might have done a few more things. The irony of all that, was that a Socialist, such as Chifley had trouble nationalising the banks, but a right winger, such as the junior Bush in America, nationalised stuff left right and centre during the great recession.

ArkRoyal wrote: yes, Baz, as you know, they got bogged down a bit by nationalisations, otherwise they might have done a few more things. The irony of all that, was that a Socialist, such as Chifley had trouble nationalising the banks, but a right winger, such as the junior Bush in America, nationalised stuff left right and centre during the great recession.

yeah, Chifley went a step to far with the Bank Nationalisation move, but we had a People Bank, the CBA , plus the PMG, TAA, Qantas, CAA owned all the airports, Commonwealth Aircraft Corp, and the States owned a heap of stuff as well, here the SEC, Water Board, R and I , PWD, State Ships, State Engineering Works etc.

DD wrote:

Bazza wrote:

BC wrote:

DD wrote: With respect I find it laughable that people draw parallel comparisons between Australia and the USA when we have merely around 7% of the population of the USA. But some here are expert's in viruses and how to handle it.

By the way, i believe TFAF is a qualified medical professional if I'm not mistaken.

How about this DD....the US has 272 deaths per million of population and we have 4....does that put it into perspective for you?

The blokes not great at the maths.

Oh really Einstein? I assume you’ve got something to back that up or it’s a throw away line to dismiss someone with a difference of opinion to you?

Mate, I dont think there would be too many people around that dont know US has a bigger population than us, but its the Per Capita results that count.

Dare I say it Baz, the ALP was effectively a 'socialism in one country party' in those days. This meant that it had strong nationalist and socialist tendencies; nationalist in the sense of being less dependent on Britain and owning one's own country. This nationalism is what we see in America today with Trump. Curtin would have understood very well.

ArkRoyal wrote: Dare I say it Baz, the ALP was effectively a 'socialism in one country party' in those days. This meant that it had strong nationalist and socialist tendencies; nationalist in the sense of being less dependent on Britain and owning one's own country. This nationalism is what we see in America today with Trump. Curtin would have understood very well.

Trumps a popularist, not a socialist or even a nationalist, he doesn't believe in state ownership, its the free market - he believes in people working for next to nothing, no leave entitlements, having no minimum wage, and no national health system.

he believes in America first where possible, particularly on industry and trade policy -- that is nationalism, not to be confused with nationalisations integral to socialism.

ArkRoyal wrote: he believes in America first where possible, particularly on industry and trade policy -- that is nationalism, not to be confused with nationalisations integral to socialism.

Check this out , Curtin would detest this.

jacobinmag.com/2019/10/donald-trump-labor-unions-workers

Bazza wrote:

ArkRoyal wrote: he believes in America first where possible, particularly on industry and trade policy -- that is nationalism, not to be confused with nationalisations integral to socialism.

Check this out , Curtin would detest this.

jacobinmag.com/2019/10/donald-trump-labor-unions-workers

Cheers for that Bazza. I suspect John Curtin would also detest the racism, misogyny and sobriety.

Trumps self appraisal from the weekend:

“So I think we had a great weekend. We did a lot of terrific meetings. Tremendous progress is being made on many fronts, including coming up with a cure for this horrible plague that has beset our country,” said Trump on Sunday. “It was a working weekend, it was a good weekend. A lot of very good things have happened.”

WTF does this even mean?

90,000 now dead!

thanks Baz -- even here the environment to unionism is hostile: I am sure at one stage that if you had a government job in WA unionism was compulsory. Is this true? If it is wat has happened to this state?