Why is Gina Rinehart so hated?
Gina Rinehart is so hated because her envious critics can only think up (or parrot) self-contradictory socialistic complaints. Here are nine standard criticisms of Gina Rinehart, alongside something the same critic would agree with that totally undermines their criticism:
- Gina Rinehart is selfish, greedy and cold-hearted; and, provides what others value highly, at a price they happily pay voluntarily.
- Gina Rinehart wants too much control of the media through voluntary means; and, government should stop her through coercive means.
- Gina Rinehart is unfairly rich; and, tax-recipients in Sydney-Melbourne-Canberra “deserve” resources she discovers, mines, sells and transports.
- Gina Rinehart’s mining activities are unsustainable; and, she should be taxed/donating more, rather than preserving and enlarging her capital.
- Gina Rinehart is evil wanting to employ people for below the minimum wage; and, there would be workers wanting such work.
- Gina Rinehart is a bit rich to complain about government when she could live in luxury without doing another day’s work; and, she does still work.
- Gina Rinehart should not want more influence; and, politicians are corrupt, incompetent, inefficient, populist and untrustworthy.
- Gina Rinehart is richer than almost everyone; and, almost all Australians are richer than most people; and, foreign aid has not succeeded against world poverty.
- Gina Rinehart’s politics, being consistent with her actions and source of wealth, can be dismissed as self-interest; and, those who argue against what makes them wealthy cannot be dismissed as hypocrites.
So it is easy to imagine how ecstatic Gina Rinehart’s critics were to hear that her children appear to have substantive differences of opinion with her. Finally, the critics thought, here there must be something that will take a little longer than one sentence to refute and mock. In this article we will see how much mud sticks, if any; and how much longer than one sentence it will take to counter, if indeed it can be countered at all.
Is there a family dispute?
For many Australians, our legal system is more for entertainment than justice; that way, at least we get something out of it. Gambling is a popular Australian pastime, whether it be at the local or against the Crown. And there are quite a few of our countrymen who like to play (or gamble on) games where one adrenalin-charged sweaty player runs very fast, into others running very fast in the opposite direction, until they all end up on the ground — despite knowing that the media are likely to capture it and broadcast it around the nation and even the world. Sometimes the combatants make rough injury-causing physical contact and even exchange hurtful words. But just because this happens, is it really right to deduce that the players on different teams are enemies or don’t have high opinions of each other?
The press releases both sides churn out are meaningless to us, because we can’t tell the difference between genuine criticism and trash talking mind games with the opponent, crowd or referee for the purpose of winning the match, play or call.
On top of all that, there’s the fact that Gina Rinehart, being a media owner, has a vested interest in creating news items that people want to read, and people love to read anything that feeds their envy.
I haven’t a clue what the situation is with the litigious/playful Rineharts, but I find it hard to believe that everyone else has inside knowledge; they’re just speculating and tapping shallow populist sentiments, especially envy.
The family does have a long history of being at Court, whether it be the WA Supreme, the NSW Supreme or the Sir Charles — and I’m not talking about the basketballer, although they do have plenty in common.
If there is a family dispute, so what?
Anyway, assuming the media is right and Gina Rinehart really does not get along with three of her four children, the question arises: So what? Having difficult children, of itself, is neither unusual nor something Gina Rinehart deserves any criticism for. Many of the greatest of thinkers and communicators also had children who did not appreciate their parent’s most passionately held beliefs. Erasmus, one of the fathers of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, put forward an interesting theory to explain this common occurrence:
But admitting him [Marcus Aurelius, the greatest of statesmen] good, he did the commonwealth more hurt in leaving behind him such a son as he did than ever he did it good by his own government. For these kind of men that are so given up to the study of wisdom are generally most unfortunate, but chiefly in their children; Nature, it seems, so providently ordering it, lest this mischief of wisdom should spread further among mankind. For which reason it is manifest why Cicero’s son [Cicero being the greatest of orators] was so degenerate, and that wise Socrates’ children [Socrates being the greatest of philosophers], as one has well observed, were more like their mother than their father, that is to say, fools.1
Referencing this, Robert Burton, unanimously considered the best-read person in the history of the world, agreed. His 1621 masterpiece, The Anatomy of Melancholy, lists various historical and biblical figures and includes such observations as “wise men’s sons are commonly fools” and “scarce any great man has left a virtuous and active son”.2
The example and experience of Socrates has many parallels to the life and times of Lang Hancock and Gina Rinehart. A difficult wife in Xanthippe (who no doubt had many redeeming features, like Rose Porteous), difficult children, and a will to martyrdom. Socrates famously could have escaped rather than become martyred. This is a perfect analogy with Gina Rinehart deciding to continue reinvesting in Australia, rather than flee overseas to countries with less sovereign risk, smarter citizens and better media commentators.
A more recent example of a family dispute is Rand Paul, who is the first United States Senator in history to serve alongside a parent in the United States House of Representatives. His father is free-market advocate Ron Paul, who is currently running for the Republican Presidential Nomination. Paul senior has attracted a huge, passionate and growing following, which is leading people to make all sorts of romantic predictions. But if Ron Paul is so likely to succeed, how is it that someone who owes Ron Paul so much — as a son does his father — and has been subjected to more of Ron Paul’s arguments than anyone else — namely, his most political child, Rand Paul — is far less principled than his father and many of his supporters who have such high expectations of where the Ron Paul movement will lead?3
I recently heard a speech at a free-market economics conference where a leading follower of the deceased free-market economist, Murray Rothbard, (who had no biological children), said that Rothbard’s followers can be considered his “children”, because they follow in his tradition.4 This is a clear case of (the word) “child” abuse, as it is false to draw an analogy between being a child and being in ideological agreement with your parents. The (sad) fact is: most of those who knew, read and were taught by Rothbard were not in ideological agreement with him.
In conclusion, the Rinehart family dispute, even if it is far worse than has been reported, does not give the envious socialistic mudslingers anything that sticks; their criticism continues to contain neither rhyme nor reason. Far from Gina Rinehart’s family troubles being a cause for criticism, they are actually a cause to compare her to Socrates and other heroic figures.
Incidentally, when Ron Manners, who is another great Australian mining industry hero, was criticised by his kids for spending so much time away from home drinking with his mining buddies, he chastised them with this beauty: “you only get one nickel boom in your lifetime, but you can always have more kids.”5 I don’t know whether I agree with that or with its sentiments, but it is such a funny line I couldn’t resist sharing it.
Is Gina Rinehart fit to rule?
Rather than complaining about the apparent influence she has, and the increased influence she wants, critics should keep in mind that she actually has a better right to run the country than any politician. Consider this passage from Frank Fetter:
The market is a democracy where every penny gives a right of vote. It is the thought of the society called “The Consumers’ league” that through purchases, pressure may be brought to bear upon the employer to provide better conditions of work. The members of The Consumers’ League refuse to buy goods not made under sanitary conditions. Undoubtedly there is here a great economic force which an enlightened public opinion, even without a formal association, can make in large measure effective. Every individual may organize a consumer’s league, leaguing himself with the powers of righteousness. Will he read a yellow journal or a pink or a white one? A nickel or two will buy either. He has a dollar; will he go to the theater or buy ten dishes of ice-cream? He decides to buy a book, and more type and paper are made, and more printers are employed; he subscribes to foreign missions and Christian workers penetrate farther into Africa. Every purchase has far-reaching consequences …
In many cases, little thought of as economic distribution, the authoritative method is followed. Literary and oratorical contests are passed upon by a set of judges whose opinion of merit determines the award. It is a poor method, often resulting in injustice (as every defeated candidate will admit) but it is the only way practicable for deciding such contests. Yet there are literary and oratorical contests decided very differently. If a man advertises himself as an orator and charges fifty cents admission to his lecture, everyone who goes to hear the man votes that he is an orator; everyone having money but staying away votes that he is not of such value. The one is judgment by the authoritative, the other by the competitive, method. The essence of the method of distributing by authority is that one individual (or group of individuals) judges of the deserts or duties of others, decides what others must get or must pay, not what he himself is willing to pay.6
It is the government and its supporters who are trying to distribute their ideas through the use of force. Gina Rinehart has the more challenging and useful job of distributing her ideas in a voluntary manner. Ludwig von Mises continued on from Fetter:
The consumers determine ultimately not only the prices of the consumers’ goods, but no less the prices of all factors of production. They determine the income of every member of the market economy. The consumers, not the entrepreneurs, pay ultimately the wages earned by every worker, the glamorous movie star as well as the charwoman. With every penny spent the consumers determine the direction of all production processes and the details of the organization of all business activities. This state of affairs has been described by calling the market a democracy in which every penny gives a right to cast a ballot. It would be more correct to say that a democratic constitution is a scheme to assign to the citizens in the conduct of government the same supremacy the market economy gives them in their capacity as consumers. However, the comparison is imperfect. In the political democracy only the votes cast for the majority candidate or the majority plan are effective in shaping the course of affairs. The votes polled by the minority do not directly influence policies. But on the market no vote is cast in vain. Every penny spent has the power to work upon the production processes. The publishers cater not only to the majority by publishing detective stories, but also to the minority reading lyrical poetry and philosophical tracts. The bakeries bake bread not only for healthy people, but also for the sick on special diets. The decision of a consumer is carried into effect with the full momentum he gives it through his readiness to spend a definite amount of money.
It is true, in the market the various consumers have not the same voting right. The rich cast more votes than the poorer citizens. But this inequality is itself the outcome of a previous voting process. To be rich, in a pure market economy, is the outcome of success in filling best the demands of the consumers. A wealthy man can preserve his wealth only by continuing to serve the consumers in the most efficient way.
Thus the owners of the material factors of production and the entrepreneurs are virtually mandataries or trustees of the consumers, revocably appointed by an election daily repeated.7
And here is Murray Rothbard driving the point home even more:
It may be objected that, while the average voter may not be competent to decide on issues that require chains of [economic] reasoning, he is competent to pick the experts — the politicians — who will decide on the issues, just as the individual may select his own private expert adviser in any one of numerous fields. But the critical problem is precisely that in government the individual has no direct, personal test of success or failure of his hired expert such as he has in the market. On the market, individuals tend to patronize those experts whose advice is most successful. Good doctors or lawyers reap rewards on the free market, while poor ones fail; the privately hired expert flourishes in proportion to his ability. In government, on the other hand, there is no market test of the expert’s success. Since there is no direct test in government, and, indeed, little or no personal contact or relationship between politician or expert and voter, there is no way by which the voter can gauge the true expertise of the man he is voting for. As a matter of fact, the voter is in even greater difficulties in the modern type of issueless election between candidates who agree on all fundamental questions than he is in voting on issues. For issues, after all, are susceptible to reasoning; the voter can, if he wants to and has the ability, learn about and decide on the issues. But what can any voter, even the most intelligent, know about the true expertise or competence of individual candidates, especially when elections are shorn of all important issues? The only thing that the voter can fall back on for a decision are the purely external, advertised “personalities” of the candidates, their glamorous smiles, etc. The result is that voting purely on candidates is bound to be even less rational than voting on the issues themselves.
Not only does government lack a successful test for picking the proper experts, not only is the voter necessarily more ignorant than the consumer, but government itself has other inherent mechanisms which lead to poorer choices of experts and officials. For one thing, the politician and the government expert receive their revenues, not from service voluntarily purchased on the market, but from a compulsory levy on the inhabitants. These officials, then, wholly lack the direct pecuniary incentive to care about servicing the public properly and competently. Furthermore, the relative rise of the “fittest” applies in government as in the market, but the criterion of “fitness” is here very different. In the market, the fittest are those most able to serve the consumers. In government, the fittest are either (1) those most able at wielding coercion or (2) if bureaucratic officials, those best fitted to curry favor with the leading politicians or (3) if politicians, those most adroit at appeals to the voting public.8
As long as the voting public is filled with envy, politicians will continue to act destructively, and at Gina Rinehart’s expense. Even if she is sinful, and I’m not convinced that she is, her sins pale against those of her critics; as Cardan said: “Other sins last but for a while — the gut may be satisfied, anger remits, hatred hath an end — but envy never ceaseth.”9
Footnotes
- Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly (1509), 1688 translation by John Wilson. ↩
- Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy (New York Review of Books, 2001), pt. 1, sec. 2, mem. 1, subs. 6, p. 214; and pt. 3, sec. 2, mem. 5, subs. 3, p. 221. ↩
- Justin Raimondo, “Rand Paul’s Problem, and Ours,” Antiwar.com, May 24, 2010. ↩
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “The Science of Human Action,” Mises University 2011 Opening Lecture, uploaded July 25, 2011. ↩
- “Manners saved for the Palace,” The West Australian, September 18, 1999. Reprinted in Ron Manners’ Heroic Misadventures: Four Decades – Full Circle (West Perth, Australia: Mannwest Group, 2009), p. 191. ↩
- Frank Fetter, The Principles of Economics (New York: The Century Co., 1905), pp. 394-95 and pp. 407-08. Italics mine. ↩
- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 1998), pp. 271-72. Footnote to Fetter deleted. ↩
- Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute), pp. 888-90. Italics mine. ↩
- Quoted in Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, pt. 1, sec. 2, mem. 3, subs. 7, p. 265. Grammar mine. ↩
[...] our latest project: GinaRinehart.info. Its first article disposes of all the socialistic criticism of her wealth and puts her family feud in historical context. Bait your friends with it. [...]
Dear Mr B,
A very interesting article! Great research on Gina and all your historical information & quotes.
“The market is a democracy where every penny gives a right of vote.”
“Critics should keep in mind that she actually has a better right to run the country than any politician.”
A person who inherits a large sum of money, who has never stood for public office, never been elected by the people to represent them – has the right to rule? More right than representatives elected by the people?
And anyone who criticises such a view is simply ‘envious’ of her wealth?
I don’t know where you got this rubbish from?
Mr Falken: You evidently have not read the passage from Frank Fetter that you quoted from, nor the Rothbard passage that followed. Yes, Gina Rinehart has more right to rule than the so-called representatives of the people, because she is not trying to force others to spend money in a certain way, but only trying to keep the fruits of her own labour. Moreover, those you allege are our representatives are not. For example, how can they be said to represent those who vote against them? And how can they be said to have popular support when they need to force people to pay them (taxation), whereas Gina Rinehart relies on voluntary customer support?
As for you complaining that she inherited her wealth. That is not entirely true, but admitting that it is for the sake of argument, if she were to become Prime Minister, she would “inherit” all the nation’s wealth, and so her proven track record of increasing what she was left with is a big argument in her favour. So your attempt to criticise her has totally backfired. You say envy is not behind your criticisms. Logic isn’t either.
What an amazing load of drivel. Of course everyone has the right to seek out & provide for themselves, and good luck to Ms Rinehart for taking her INHERITED WEALTH & INCOME STREAM and expanding it on the coat-tails of the resources boom.
But to suggest she has more right to rule than ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ?? Trying to keep the fruits of HER labour ?? Doesn’t try to force people to spend money, ie taxes (society would be sooo much better off without those nasty taxes, you know the ones that pay for schools, hospitals, roads, grants to irrelevant libertarian organisations, etc.)
Just as we should let her let rip with the NUKES to create open pit mines & harbours. And how we should create a free-economic zone where she can import foreign labour to undercut Australian jobs.
Seriously, loonies like you on the far-Right AND far-Left are completely distorting the landscape for the rest of us non-sycophants who sit somewhere in between.
And society would be much better off for EVERYONE if the extremes of poverty and riches were elimanated to better reflect the actual value of human beings and their efforts in society.
But wait, i’m sure it will be just easier for you Mr Marks to label me as ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ or ‘whatever-ist’..
Troy: I don’t merely label you as socialistic; I also explain why you are wrong. Your entire argument seems to be that taxes pay for schools, hospitals and research organisations. Well, consistent free-market advocates, such as myself, oppose all government funding for them. You imply that, because we oppose government funding of schools, we must oppose schooling itself. That is ridiculous. We also oppose government provision of food; according to your argument, that must mean we oppose the supply of food altogether! In fact, according to your argument, any time anyone opposes government providing any thing, they must not want anyone else to provide it either. If that is not your argument, then you will have to communicate more clearly.
I also thought you were pulling my leg!
Show me a single “free market society” please. Is there one? Dreamworld? If you think that economic mantra is consistant with human well being dream on. Taxes or car-jackings; your choice.
Lang Hankock using the words “power grasping tentacles”; what a laugh! Then, you lot repeating them (more laughter).
Troys comment on the nuke mining are classic. we would be nuke mining if anyone turned their back for a second I am not joking.
Why dont we get people to fight in a “Thunderdome” or Colloseum for their jobs? Why not?- they want to work. then we can find people who will work for less and get them to fight it out.
Gina R. is not about to “flee overseas”. Try digging uranium and iron out of malaysia..oh that’s right they dont have any. By the way, the australian people own the minerals, that’s why its called the Commonwealth.
Mining magnates are spending big on ads for how generous they all are-not just paying what’s owed. No wonder though, there’s personal $billions to lose.
It’s analogous to “terra nullus”. That is, if it’s in the ground and none is using it right now then nobody owns it. Therefore Australia can be beholden to me if I magnanimously allow you to work for me.
I’m sorry, but Gina R writing “poetry” about helping pleading billions makes me choke on my toast.
$Billions gets you quite a few flower throwers and thralls, maybe a million slaves and a lovely gold capped pyramid.
Just pay the rightful tax for your use of the Commonwealth.
Mr Ranter: You ask, “Show me a single ‘free market society’ please. Is there one?” Well, show me a single large society without thefts, murders and rapes. Since there isn’t one, no doubt you think people are crazy who advise against thefts, murders and rapes. So much for that argument. (More on this here.)
You say there are only minerals in Australia, as the reason she could not spend her money overseas. What a stupid comment (and I don’t know why you mentioned Malaysia). There are many resource projects all around the world, some of which she is competing with and some of which she could invest in; this is hardly controversial. Also she could put her money in something other than mining.
As for your claim that people in Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne have just as much right to resources discovered and mined in W.A. as those who discover and mine them: that theory of property rights is a combination of might makes right and majority rule; it is not democracy, but the philosophy of the pack hunt, the lynch mob and the gang rape. And you are trying to ridicule me!?
And no, my idea of property rights is not analogous to “terra nullus”. Lang Hancock himself said Aboriginals have just as much right to it as anyone else, provided they discover it and mix their labour with it.
Do you think Gina Rinehart, or anyone else, has the knowledge or experience to be able to make such an assessment of other human beings? I wouldn’t begin to claim that I understand the the life experience of a beggar, or the african slaves, or the first settlers. I can imagine, but those who’s reality it constitutes are the only authority on their experience. Don’t you see that what she says about society is pure conjecture and has no basis on truth?
“There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire. If you’re jealous of those with more money, don’t just sit there and complain. Do something to make more money yourself — spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working. Become one of those people who work hard, invest and build, and at the same time create employment and opportunities for other”
I think that if she had ever experienced undernourishment, or poor education, or any of the things she claims make no difference to your opportunities in life, (though she probably wouldn’t be who she is) I would listen.
‘You have to be a certain kind of person to be a millionaire’ – tell me why that statement is wrong?
So if your not that person you just have to live with it and just live on what billionaires feel like giving you at the time, when times get tough, or they don’t feel like giving anything, you will not get anything, but you’ll know that that is because you failed, so you commit suicide and that’s one less parasite to infect the arian wealthy. Sound like the gist of it to me.
You could not be more wrong. It is precisely large accumulations of capital that allow for investing in projects that unlock resources and create new jobs. Without large accumulations of capital there would be no mass production for mass consumption, which makes the luxuries of today, the everyday items of tomorrow. Joe, here is a question for you: do you believe in economics?
Where do all these morons think we’ll end up? Capitalism means permanent growth. Unsustainable. Greed. Madness.There is something intrinsically wrong with the uber-rich. They never have enough. Besides it’s easy – if you inherit great wealth to make even more from it. Having no morals helps. Just pay starvation wages. As that great intellectual Gina Rinehart said – Africans will happily work for $2 a day.
Exploiting people in this manner is not only despicable, it is wicked. Sans doubt Ms Rinehart is a Christian. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
Or Steal a little & they’ll put you in jail. Steel a lot & they’ll make you a king.
Liz, what has Gina stolen? Do you realise the minimum wage hurts the poor more than any other group, as is proven in this short fun video? And how can you call Gina greedy when she only wants control of her own property, not anyone else’s, unlike her critics.
And Liz, as for your your comments on growth, are you familiar with such concepts as capital accumulation, technological progress, the division of labour, and new energy daily from the sun?
Liz Peck-”Capitalism means permanent growth. Unsustainable. Greed. Madness.”
Everything YOU/WE have is because of CAPITALISM.
I was born in SFRY that “S” stand for Socialist — well i have news for you; that country run out of other people money and fall apart in civil war. If you think that Socialist Republic of Australia will have different future than continue this pat that you are going now.
Liz Peck “Having no morals helps. Just pay starvation wages. As that great intellectual Gina Rinehart said – Africans will happily work for $2 a day.
Exploiting people in this manner is not only despicable, it is wicked”
Socialist do not have morals—Yes all of them promise haven but people get Hell–Hitler,Mao,Stalin,Polpot…
Employers compete with employers and workers compete with workers this mean she need to pay market price to get people working for her, otherwise they will go to the competition.
If people thing they deserve more they will not work, no one forcing them ( well big government big taxes, everyone want free lunch, free education, medicare, social security, free,free,free … Well i have news for you: There is no such thing as a free lunch
Why on earth is money so so important, if I was going to vote for someone to rule this country , I would vote brains before money. Money is a just tool to get by in life the brains to rule a country
Tanya: Did you read the last section of my essay? It explains what I mean by “rightful democratic ruler”.
At first I thought you were having a lend of us all.
I’ve read the Fetter quote but I just don’t understand it.
A market is a plutocracy, perhaps. Maybe it is even a democracy – but a democracy of money only. That’s the whole point. Democracy normally aspires to be one man [sic] one vote, not one dollar one vote.
Of course, there is not a perfect democracy according to this model, any more than there is really a perfect market. One notable imperfection of democracy is its limitation to operation within nation states. Another is that any democratic system has its own rules and structure which can be “gamed.” Another very big imperfection is the capacity of people with a lot of money to throw their weight around.
It’s not a matter of envying Gina Rinehart, because clearly the scope for many people to have that kind of wealth is extremely limited. It’s actually a matter of fearing her and wishing to be protected from what she can and does do to get her own way.
But how can you fear Gina Rinehart wanting to get her own way, when she only wishes to keep the fruits of her own business activities? She does not want to forcibly take earnings away from anyone, which is precisely what politicians and their supporters do in forcing people to pay tax. The only people who pay for Gina Rinehart’s services are those who voluntarily choose to; she does not force anyone to pay her if they don’t approve of her services. What is so fearsome about that?
“She does not want to forcibly take the earnings away from anyone else, which is precisely what politicians and their supporters do in forcing people to pay tax.”
To preempt a retort from a critic, I would say a typical argument here would be that the resources in the ground rightfully belong to “us” and that, by wanting to pay less tax, she’s ipso facto forcibly taking away the earnings/wealth that belongs to “society.”
The best response to that one is Lang Hancock pointing out the proximity to Perth of Singapore, Malaysia, etc., relative to Sydney-Melbourne-Canberra, showing how ridiculous the claims that minerals dug up in one corner are the property of everyone within an arbitrary border. Here is a nice quote:
Yeah, I agree, but I think people would say that the border that delineates a country is *not* arbitrary. I, of course, don’t think that’s a very good argument but I’m sure that’s what many would say.
LukeM;”I would say a typical argument here would be that the resources in the ground rightfully belong to “us” and that, by wanting to pay less tax, she’s ipso facto forcibly taking away the earnings/wealth that belongs to “society.”
to have free society you need to start with Moral laws
free individual, private property, …
problem is, that resources in the ground to not belong to “US” or “society” or country… it belong to the person who found it and who develop it simple as that.
if you do not respect that, than you do not have free anything.
How do you know this is the case? How do you know what motivates Gina, are you a spokesperson, do you have some insight into her modus operandi?
If she’s such a benign creature then obviously we, as a democracy, have absolutely nothing to fear in her recent media acquisitions. That it’s silly to be concerned that she (and Clive, Twiggy et al) aren’t trying to simply gain as much influence as possible in order to steer the national conversation in ways that suit them? No! Of course not, such a thing would never happen!!
Dazzler: I never claimed to have any inside knowledge about Mrs Rinehart. As for your concern that Mrs Rinehart might be wanting to influence people into defending self-ownership and its implications and opposing socialisation of resources: why do you think it would be bad if she had more influence? Please tell me: do you believe in self-ownership and private property, or do you believe that resources are the property of everyone in a certain arbitrary boundary, even if they did nothing to help discover, mine and sell them?
By going to the other extreme in your response you prove that you miss, or choose to ignore, my point.
So you think taxation is a tool of socialism? Or only when it comes to national resources?
I provide my services to the company I work for, they pay me for said services. Nothing to do with the government in terms od resources exchanged but I am perfectly happy to pay a proportion of my income as taxes, to contribute. As is my employer.
If by socialism you mean society and the process of contributing to said society via a taxation system then I think you’re a little confused.
Yes, taxation is a tool of socialism. Capitalism does not require any taxes; only voluntary contractual exchanges including donations, user-pays and insurance arrangements, etc. If you are happy to pay taxes, then that’s fine, but many people who pay taxes are forced to pay for what they object to, whether it be parliamentary salaries, wars they object to, bad schooling, etc. Why should those who don’t want to pay tax be forced to? When the Mafia forces people to use a service they provide or does not allow competitors to the service they provide, that is called a protection racket; how is that any different from when the government does it? Don’t forget the Mafia also provides something that people value, looks after those who it claims need help, etc.
I have insight into her motivations. As a small child I watched her daily on Fraggle Rock. She is a Gorg, their motivations and personalities came to the fore in most episodes. Her whole family and race is mean and bad.
Jason: Please stop holding back your criticism and giving only vague comments. Do you have any specific objections to this essay that you are commenting on?
I am from Africa. I have gone through your portfolios and you deserves to rule your people. Why is it difficult for people to believe the truth and go for it. Anyway, I pray everything goes well for you and I am believe that God will see you through.
Thanks and stay bless.
Barr. Robert Ken.
Hi Ben
I was wondering who you are and what your background is? I have sent you my email address if you could contact me.
Regards
Susannah
Thanks Susannah. I emailed a reply at about 5pm Friday, March 16. Did you receive it? I’m happy to answer any questions.
Great work Ben, your essay and rebuttals are spot on. It’s a way of viewing the world that most Australians are unfamiliar with… consistency in logic. We need to hear more from people like you who can subject our prejudices to the intellectual scrutiny of reason and justice.
..and for goodness sake stop quoting scripture.. even the devil does that..
Where did I quote scripture?
[...] Excerpts from Joanna Parson’s “Gina Hancock: Australia’s iron-ore heiress … cool, quiet girl with the power to move mountains,” Woman’s Day, June 16, 1975, pp. 4, 7, 19. [...]
This is the most pathetic defence of privalege I’ve ever read.
Thanks Tony. But I can’t seem to find the reasoning behind your condemnation. Please stop holding back your criticism.
Hey Tony my father was communist party member in former SFRY.
He work there 25 years and my mum 20 years and they have 1 car paid of and furniture in 2 bedroom apartment that belong to the company that my dad work for.
We came to Australia as refugee and after 11 years of hard work he pay of 2 bedroom
unit and have 2 cars paid of.
Well wish you well in your quest for Socialism.
At last some sanity has been restored. An argument of logical progression over emotive unfounded conclusions.
How about you do an article on Asbestos and the impacts to the health of Australians. Then link it in to Gina Rinehart courtesy of her father’s fortune, gained from Asbestos mining.
People dislike Gina because she’s so incredibly selfish and greedy that she whinges about paying tax and being hard done by (poor little billionaire is on struggle street). Plus her industry is about destroying the environment (she also complains about “Green tape” e.g. any sort of environmental protection).
Keep in mind that while she gets out of paying tax – the rest of us pay for it.
I’m not happy that the rest of us pay taxes. What makes you think I am?
When people rely on government to decide whether or not something is healthy, and give government that monopoly of certifying things healthy, then it is no wonder that asbestos was legally deemed fine.
On the environment: Gina Rinehart does not destroy the environment; she adds value to it and increases the number of people who can make use of it. She is a better environmentalist than all the Greens combined.
Ben, your anti-govenment ideology is naive. It was government funded scientific research that identified the dangers of asbestos and subsequent government regulation that has prevented corporations from selling it. Without government who would have paid for the research? Do you think business would regulate itself? Can’t you imagine all the advertisements praising the qualities and cheap price of the “healthy for your children” asbestos? A free market world like the one that you and Gina hope for is a lot closer to communism that you think. Have a think about that…
For one thing, there is a long history of private life insurance companies researching and educating about the dangers of asbestos. Governments largely ignored them, and governments had little incentive to do anything about it relative to life insurance companies.
You question whether business can regulate itself. It does a better job of it than government, at the very least because government is by definition a monopolist and does not allow competitors.
It is you who is naive. All your objections to anti-government ideology are dealt with in the middle and right columns of Economics.org.au.
Your assertion that private life insurance companies fund more scientific research and education into issues of public safety is absolute rubbish!! You live in fantasy land Ben.
If you complain that capitalists are self-interested, then why do you think they, all of a sudden, would not be self-interested in the private life insurance field? And the history, of course, is that they did try to get the word out, as is explored briefly here.
“Gina Rinehart is evil wanting to employ people for below the minimum wage; and, there would be workers wanting such work.”
Appalling sentence structure aside, these two statements contain more bias than your garden-variety republican referendum question.
Why use ‘evil’? Why not simply ‘unethical’? It’s much closer to the truth.
Sure, getting short-term migrant workers to dig shit up while being paid less than any Australian provides jobs for said migrants, and allows Ms Rinehart to dig up yet more shit due to the increased profits generated. But is it ethical to pay these workers less than the minimum that an Australian citizen is legally entitled to?
Are they not doing the same work? In the same country? Is their work somehow less valuable, or does it add less value to the products they create?
Simply stating that people would undertake this work is facile. Ignoring the ethical issues raised Special Economic Zones (which Ms Rinehart advocated in her execrable poetry here http://prestoninstitute.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/ginarinehartpoem/ ) ignores the fact that paying foreign workers less than what we would expect ourselves implies that we, as a people, are worth more.
Mr Gatfield: You may well dislike Mrs Rinehart’s poetry, but your own arguments have neither rhyme nor reason.
Criticising my sentence structure is easy when you get rid of my emphases within the sentence and the context of the sentence in my essay.
It is amusing that you call “shit” what people pay good money for and what is necessary for the manufacture of many things you presumably use regularly. And you criticise my use of language?
I used “evil” synonymously with “unethical”; I did not even realise that the words had different meanings.
As for your comments on wages, what do you think of this short fun video? It is always important to keep costs down; that way products can be sold cheap and more people can afford them. It is ethical to employ someone for cheaper at the expense of someone who refuses to do it for what someone else is willing to. The consumer wins.
Your line of argument shows its absurdity if you were to argue that employers should only employ people who were born within walking distance to the mine. Since you do not only want to employ those who were born within walking distance, then you must believe that it is okay that people travel, but it can only be arbitrary what limitation you put on travel. After all, many “foreign” workers in the Pilbara are closer to their place of birth than workers from Sydney would be.
Apparently not a joke, but certainly a reductio absurdam. To take the most central point, Gina Rinehart has, to the best of my knowledge, never discovered, mined, sold or transported even a single kilogram of minerals of any kind (well, perhaps she transports a kilo of precious metals around with her in the form of jewellery).
I’d be fascinated to read responses from other libertarians to this piece. Certainly, given their presumptions you can make a logical case that Gina Rinehart is indeed our rightful ruler, and that, should the courts decide in their favour, her children will rightfully inherit this position. Any system of thought that yields this outcome is obviously wrong.
What do you think of the Frank Fetter and Murray Rothbard quotes in the last section of the essay? They explain what is meant by “democratic ruler”.
I think Gina Rinehart is a perfect example to show how silly these ideas are when taken, as you have done, to their logical conclusion. A system that produces Gina as our natural leader is as bad as a hereditary monarchy, or worse, given the lack of any noblesse oblige on her part.
You still have not engaged with the Frank Fetter and Murray Rothbard quotes in the last section of the essay. They explain what is meant by “democratic ruler”.
If Gina Rinehart was “democratic ruler” in the same sense that, say, Julia Gillard is considered our “democratic ruler,” then that would mean Gina Rinehart could: focus on short-term payouts without regard to the long-term due to the electoral cycle, use a large chunk of voters to take away the liberties of a smaller chunk of voters, live off taxes rather than voluntary payments from customers, etcetera.
It is your ideas, not mine, that are silly.
I am guessing you just have a warped sense of humour as that was the most ridiculous piece of propaganda I have seen in a long time. Hope you were paid well for it.
Mr Garofani: Thanks for your brilliant commentary. I hope you were paid well for it.
What I can’t understand is why doesn’t she do like all the other rich folk and buy herself a few politicians instead of pissing them off? Surely that is not the smartest thing to do?
that would mean spending money though and god forbid… she can’t even look after her own.
leo: I have disposed of the “can’t even look after her own” criticism in my essay. Please read it before commenting.
Renier, why do you assume she hasn’t? The only problem for her at the moment is that the ones she’s paying for aren’t currently in government.
But don’t worry, in the meantime, the media they own have done everything in their power to undermine the incumbents so that the preferred puppets get in come the next election.
A perversion of democracy, if you like.
Dazzler: What do you think of Lang Hancock’s repeated statements that the Liberal Party is just as bad as the Labor Party (if not worse)? What do you think of the fact that Hancock would often give money to the Labor Party just to keep the Liberal Party out?
Robin Hood is not remembered as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity.
He is the man who became a symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors.
It is this foulest of creatures – the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich – whom men have come to regard as the moral idea.” “. . . Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Rearden. Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.”
The argument could be made that he earned it all by being better than anyone else at robbing people.
What this website doesn’t address is POWER… remove the money and what have you left but the desire for total power… who would want that as a leader of the country.
leo: Gina Rinehart wants less power than her critics, not more. She only wants control over her own property; her critics want control over the property of others! No one is less power-hungry than Gina Rinehart.
This website is a great example of the current culture of stupidity attempting to triumph over reason by assuming we’re all thick and using wealth as a bludgeon against dissent.
Dazzler: How am I, as you contend, “using wealth as a bludgeon against dissent”? This site is not funded by anyone but myself, and my income does not come from the mining industry, the lobbying industry or anything like that.
I wasn’t referring to you when I said that part, I was referring to the likes of Clive, Gina and Twiggy. They’re attempting to bludgeon democracy with their financial clowt. Your contribution is being some sort of simpering mouth piece for their machinations, trying to justify their right to exercise their considerable power to undermine our democracy.
Dazzler: Define “bludgeon”.
bludg·eon (bljn)n.
A short heavy club, usually of wood, that is thicker or loaded at one end.
tr.v. bludg·eoned, bludg·eon·ing, bludg·eons
1. To hit with or as if with a heavy club.
2. To overcome by or as if by using a heavy club. See Synonyms at ‘intimidate’.
Mrs Rinehart is using voluntary means to prevent coercive confiscation of her wealth. It is you, or those you are defending, that bludgeon.
Define “voluntary means”?
An example of “voluntary means” is the voluntary mutually consensual payment for advertising and media shares.
An example of “coercive means” is a gang of tax-funded people use force or the threat of force (force being non-consensual property confiscation/prison time for evasion), as they do with taxes.
No Mr. Marks, you appear to be an editor of a website, that seems to be owned as a subsidiary of fair fax media, I think that speaks more for bias than anything you sad above.
Mr Sanders: I have never received any funding from Fairfax. What makes you think I have please?
However, I guess if one objects to being ruled ruthlessly in an absolute monarchy, whose line of accession is based purely on wealth, where an individual has no right to vote, and no right of representation other than a single appointed individual voted in by noone..
One must be just envious?
By that line of reason… taxation that takes from the rich to give services to all, must also be based on pure envy?
And the desire for suffrage… for a say.. must be based on envy also?
If I am envious of all this, I am certainly not envious of your IQ.
Thus my comment ends.
Good day.
John Falken….
Lol
Mr Falken: You have totally ignored the Frank Fetter and Murray Rothbard quotes in the last section of my essay. You should read what I write before you criticise me. Also, specifically on your claim that taxing the rich to give services to all is not based on envy: if it is not envy, then it is basic economic ignorance, as you fail to realise that it is large accumulations of capital to invest in mass production for mass consumption that has done most to raise the standard of living for all, especially the poor.
For John Falken:
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.
Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.
Cada pais tem a cultura que os seus governantes dao ao seu povo. Sou de pais emergente, um pais lindo com pessoas inteligentes, mas ingenuas perante seus governantes. Tivemos um presidente que veio da pobreza e nem isso o sensibilizou, fez demagogia com sua origem e fez vista grosa para a corrupção ( infelizmente nada provado) então fica difícil , eu entender as analogias sobre a Sra. Gina pois nossa cultura e diferente, mas a admiro pela sua forma de empreendimento e trabalho. Seria tao comodo para ela se aposentar e viver a sua vida, comprando e viajando, alheia a tudo e olhando apenas para si própria.
E família e filhos são iguais em todo o mundo. Imagine o que seria do amarelo se todos gostassem do azul?
What does that mean in English, please?
Portuguese (translated via the help of Google translate):
Each country has a culture that their rulers dao to his people. I am emerging from parents, a beautiful country with smart people, but naive before their rulers. We had a president who rose from poverty and that’s not touched, made demagoguery to their source and turned a rasp for corruption (unfortunately nothing proven) then it becomes difficult, I understand the analogies about Mrs. Gina for our culture and different, but admire its form of enterprise and labor. It would be so convenient for her to retire and live your life, shopping and traveling, oblivious to everything and looking only for itself.
And family and children are the same worldwide. Imagine what it would be yellow if everyone liked the blue?
Thanks Jenni.
Nous sommes une ONG “AFRIEURO” Basée en Belgique. Nous aidons tous les enfants malades de L’Afrique qui sont atteints du SIDA et des maladies rares. Nous sollicitons votre aide,
Pour y parvenir nous sollicitons une aide qui permettra de faire des compagnes de dépistages des malades attteints du SIDA et maladies rares soulager et la recherche des familles d’accueil en Afrique et le reste du monde pourquoi pas.
Dans l’espoir d’une réponse favorable.
Recevez Madame Gina Rinehart nos salutations fraternelles
Charles Onana
Président
ONG
AFRIKEURO
Tél: 0032477712880
Tél: 0032485790060
Fax: 003227318274
Hofakker 50
3061 Bertem-Leefdaal
Belgique
charles_onana@yahoo.fr
hi dear Gina…you must to be very happy in your life…for all..well done for all..but i want to work all my life for a house…God with you..this is the life in this world..kiss from ALBANIA
write me some sugestion for my life
Your article was really amusing, i haven’t laughed out loud so much for years. If I had a time machine I would go back to a feudal time and drop you there, without wealth, as a serf, and let you live the life for a while, then, pick you up and return you to our contemporary Australia. I do believe you would write a different sort of article.
Why do you believe that? It is Mrs Rinehart’s opponents that defend feudalism when they argue that those who do not participate in the discovery, mining and sale of resources are entitled to a percentage of it.
Gina,
I hope you get to reading this. You are a wonderful, virtuous, and productive woman. I believe you are on the right track and I admire you, you are the first prime-mover I’ve ever seen in my life to take such a stand for Capitalism. There is this book, Atlas Shrugged, and it’s like something out of that book. I want you to read it.
Atlas Shrugged is the story of a man who decides to shut down the motor of the world, by a strike of the mind. The productive and virtuous like yourself found a hidden city like Atlantis. Gradually, all the productive go there. The story also teaches a philosophy: Objectivism.
To quote Ayn Rand on the matter: “At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.”
This philosophy will better enable you to defend yourself and defend capitalism in a way that is more consistent than defenses in the past. Selfishness is what needs to be defended, that is, rational selfishness not whim worship in the short term. To defend selfishness, you need to understand the nature of the Universe. Objectivist metaphysics are about the primacy of existence, “Wishing won’t make it so,” over the primacy of consciousness. The primacy of consciousness being the idea that reality can change on ones wishes supernaturally. Actually, it’s part of Communism, the idea that reality doesn’t matter, that if ten million people believe a lie it becomes true. The problem is pragmatism, intrincisim, and subjectivism.
John Tate
Hallo,I’m a Italian man…sorry for my english…but I think thath the money not be happy!!!the life are emoctions…understund???If you want really emoction…please,contact me and we cqan a change…one houre of your life for a life whith really emoction,understund????by and good afternoon
hi there! you are the best! if you want to speak about some projects just mail me!
Thanks!
God Bless You!
hi..again..i want so much to teach me to do a bissnes for my life..to win money because i need so much for money..i have a beautiful girl and i want so much to do everything for her..please contact me ..with love MARJETA
Mrs. Gina Rinehart es un honor saludarte desde la ciudad de LIMA – PERU, soy representante del Dr. Carlos Calvo Niño, propietario de varios prospectos mineros como Hierro, Plata, Oro y otros minerales; la cual esta en venta, asi mismo tenemos en venta 700 Kilos de ORO x 24 Kilates. Puede comunicarse Telefono: 001 – 973 – 510 – 1213 – Passaic – New Jersey – USA
Telefono: 011 – 51 – 978360933 – Lima – PERU.
Atentamente
Alvaro Palacios
email: alvarochepen@hotmail.com
buen día,
soy colombiano y desde este querido país deseo comunicarme con la sra gina rinehart para solicitarle su apoyo a una fundación que dirijo, la cual pretende ayudar a las comunidades mas desfavorecidas de nuestra región del sur del cesar y sur del bolívar en la costa norte colombiana.
mi correo es hectormlo@hotmail.com estaré presto a su interés en colaborarnos, en usted ciframos nuestras esperanzas, gracias hector manuel
Ben you represent all that is wrong with this world.
NO ONE should have that much money.
Chad: Do you think capital accumulation and investment enables mass production for mass consumption, which makes things more affordable for poor people?
Benjamin I don’t believe in mass accumulation of assets when the global divide is so large already. Explain to a starving child in Africa why a single individual should have billions.
Mass investment does enable mass production and mass consumption which is producing the worst problems we have seen as a species such as global warming, mass slavery and an the highest obesity rates of all time.
For the starving child in Africa it isn’t affordable enough.
Chad: Are you really blaming Gina Rinehart for child starvation in Africa? Anyway, suppose she gave all her wealth to impoverished Africans; what makes you think they would know where to invest it wisely to maintain and possibly even increase their capital? How is your proposal for capital dissipation, rather than preservation and expansion, a sustainable solution to world poverty?
Yes Gina is definitely responsible for the starving children in Africa.
Does an Arican child deserve to die simply because he is born in to poverty?
Does Gina deserve billions because she is born in to wealth?
Gina has the ability to start initiatives which educate & feed an entire continent.
She would spend her time criticizing and undermining her workers to whom she owes her wealth.
With great wealth comes great responsibility and as the richest women in the world Gina is a disgraceful failure.
She can’t even raise her own children so African child would have a better shot with the lions.
Chad: She is not criticising workers, only bludgers. Your criticism of her vis-vis her children is addressed in the 2nd and 3rd sections of the essay above. And lastly, unlocking resources and creating new jobs are initiatives that help the impoverished. You should be celebrating her, not criticising her!
Chad you must be educated in the Government school. Good luck man.
Attention: Ms. Gina Rinehart
My name is Viorel Stoica of Romania and is Chairman’S Daria Cultural Association. I am writing on behalf of the association and that we support young talents.
Our association organizes international competition Young ballet dancer http://www.youthdancefest.ro Festival Festival is held in the seaside resort of Mangalia in Mangalia Municipal House of Culture in the period July 24 to 29, 2012. On this occasion we require support to perform in good ballet competition. We invite you to Mangalia, Romania was awarded the festival.
more than 300 years, the ballet
represented “Sublime in Art”. Below illustrate something of the purpose and mission “International Ballet Competition – ROMANIA 2012″:
Ballet Competition is designed to move the attention of young super talented vocational schools (state), and young dancers from the Opera and Ballet theaters in Romania and Moldova, along with other competitors in Ukraine, Russia, France, Greece, U.S., Germany, Japan, China, Italy, Slovenia and Hungary, aged 12 to 22 years. All participants are professionals or future professionals of the world ballet scene. Speram ballet scene we can perform a ballet in Australia. Amount needed prime competitors and guests of the gala competition is 15,000 Euros.
Thank you on behalf of the organizers, the judges and contestants.
With respect and consideration,
Viorel Stoica
Festival Director
http://www.youthdancefest.ro
viorelstoicacd@yahoo.com
Well written Gina – Nice article! My aged pension is $19,000 a year after a lifetime of work, but I’m saving hard to get to $29 Billion by Christmas!
You need to blame your self and Government who sheer you up like my Parents in former SFRY.
Dear Gina,
I would like to contact you personally if you can.
Regards,
Zaid
This is not her website, but a fansite.
Hi Gına, i need your help and i am pretty much serious. I need 5000 dolar. But probably i can not give you back even if i want to. I am looking forward to get your reply. Take care…
Serkan
This is not her website. This is a fansite.
At first I was concerned by what I read on this site… then I realised that the author of this site also writes for comedywriter.com.au.
What a great piece of satire.
Thanks Simon. Do you think this article is a cutting satire of the mainstream idea of democracy? Do you think the points the satire makes are true or false? If false, why do you think they are false?
gina to wish to be successful during that all women were like you to mrs,iam from kosovo under the four children am vo raise$150 per month and you milionat that already dream vith no sucsses mj heart i congratulate you
Başarılar demicem zaten başarılısınız.Mutluluklar
“Taxes are what we pay for civilized society” . Oliver Wendell Homes.
What is your reasoning please?
Fi-“Taxes are what we pay for civilized society” . Oliver Wendell Homes
What happen if that Civilized society disappear or do not fulfill promises.
Do we get our moneys back?
Ask my Parents when SFRY fall apart if they get any money back.
Interesting piece Ben. Made me want to put a face to the name, so dug around and found you making some comments here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5or5FAKgepA
What I like best is that you ask people to actually read things, consider them, and to then have an opinion. I encourage you to read more widely yourself though, because you obviously have a keen interest in the wider world and your narrow set of influences and views are going to prevent you from being taken seriously, and that would be a shame. A lot of the issues you mention have been written about at length by better qualified people than either of us, so I won’t try to address them here (analysis of complex issues in a sentence or paragraph is too unsatisfying).
Thanks Andrew. It might be helpful if you name the people/arguments that you suggest I read, so I know what you’re talking about and do not read the wrong people, like you say I have. Feel free to actually make some criticism, rather than merely claim that criticism can be made. If you think there are so many criticisms to be made that they won’t fit in a paragraph, then maybe just pick any one for us to debate.
To dismiss socialistic philosophy and to belittle it exposes the ignorance and underlying greed which is at the very core of our lovely world’s issues. To share when you have more than you need, to put a smile on someone’s face with your generosity, to create a better world where no one goes hungry and people have hope…. These are the ways of the wise and kind. To create a happier world, where exhibiting these benevolent aspirations should be the common goal of all humans…that is a better world for you and me.
And that is exactly what she is doing. She is not the slightest bit greedy. She is risking her own capital to try to create jobs and unlock resources that customers demand. Without capitalists, the standard of living of society in general would be much poorer and the poor could not even afford the little they can today.
Congratuation Ms. Rinehart. I wish you all the very best in your endevours. Don’t let “them” get you down or sway your determination in any and/or all your business endavours. There is much support for you albeit a silent one. If you every get to Queensland it would be a pleasure to meet you. Kind Regards,
Craig Offenhauser, Director, Charter Pacific Securities
craig…it is just not dignified for you to be seen with your head so far up gina’s arse.
Madeline: You should stop hiding your criticism with your empty insults. In the essay above many arguments are made. Evidently you agree with them, since you offer no objection to them.
How can you so vigorously defend such a greedy, selfish, manipulative, power hungry individual? Clearly you’re on her payroll. This obsessive beast does not have an automatic right to power, purely because she is rolling in such obscene volumes of cash. She is the antithesis of what so many good hearted Australians stand for, and represents a tiny minority of very fortunate individuals born into wealth, and desperate for political domination. Her hunger for power is fuelled by her insatiable appetite for fortune. With so many people around the globe experiencing immense suffering, she truly embodies the very worst aspects of our species.
Thanks for your comments Milo. Gina Rinehart is not, as you allege, “greedy, selfish, manipulative, power hungry”. Unlike her critics (who those labels are more suited to), she only wants control over her own property, voluntarily acquired, not anyone else’s. Yes, she does have a lot of property, but she uses it to invest in unlocking more resources at cheap prices that make them more affordable for poor people, and she heroically does this despite the unfair criticism people like you level at her. Instead she could just go on a permanent expensive holiday, and fritter away her capital, rather than try to preserve and enlarge it by creating jobs, unlocking resources and satisfying customers. I guess what you want her to do is to give her money to people with a very poor track record of preserving and enlarging their wealth; geez, what a genius you are. It is capital accumulation that allows investments in big projects for mass production for mass consumption, which has lifted and continues to lift so many people out of poverty. What do you think of Adam Smith’s line that
? Lastly, you say, “Clearly you’re on her payroll.” I get no money from Gina Rinehart, her associates, the mining industry, the think tank industry or the lobbying industry, and I never have.
Wow… censoring observations about Gina’s obesity and how it reflects on her personality and suitability to lead? That’s a little precious… I’d understand if I said something like “How many Pizzas do you think this fat slut has for breakfast?” but given her hideous appearance and weight we’re all entitled to wonder about the former proposition.
Sorry, I did not realise you actually intended by your remarks to make some genuine criticism. Well, one easy way to refute your argument is simply to point out that Neville Kennard was always very fit and thin, and he agreed with her politics, and would have gone even further in favour of a free-market. Kennard was the founder of Kennards Self Storage. More on him at http://www.NevilleKennard.info.
That doesn’t refute it at all. Gina can have fit and healthy people agree with aspects of her politics, but that doesn’t make her suitable to lead this country in the same way that the support of obese winos for Romney doesn’t makes him less suitable to lead the US. It’s the people themselves that matter, and Rinehart is an odious and obese mismanager of her own health. If she can’t manage that task and is only successful in business thanks to her father and a ravenous Chinese clientele, then how can she be expected to manage something as massive as a federation?
People who show disdain for themselves will show it for others and we can’t have someone like that dictating how OUR country should be run even if a couple athletic business types subscribe to her Ayn Randt view of the world.
Isn’t Rupert Murdoch known to keep pretty fit? John Howard exercised regularly, and what about Vladimir Putin and Tony Abbott!? And how about that lean vegetarian named Adolf? Good theory though!
As a rule glutenous obese creatures like Rinehart don’t make it into high office in most countries… something about them is just so repulsive and repellant to most people that they’d never get in. Rinehart in particular typifies the worst kind of wealth and her pathetic inability to stop gorging on whatever food comes across her gaze reflects a personality which has little grasp on reality; one which sees the world as hers to consume, yet which has no notion of the repercussions.
And let’s be honest here – her wealth isn’t an achievement… she’s a glorified lottery winner who was lucky enough to be born in an era when Asia’s largest economy (and ironically a command one) has had an insatiable appetite for natural resources. So none of it is really her work, yet she pretends as if she were a self-made billionaire worthy of mention along with truly great people like Frank Lowy or a Bill Gates – people who have actually added value to their own societies and others. She’s not worthy of mention along side the Warren Buffetts, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, nor even the sheryl sandbergs of this world. These are people who have truly built their own success out of nothing.
Funny that you call her glutenous when you mean gluttonous. Or maybe you are gluten intolerant!?
If you don’t respect her wealth, fine. She is not forcing you to. It is you who is trying to force her, through the government, to part with her wealth. Therefore, you do have great respect for her wealth!
Just because she inherited all her wealth does not mean she doesn’t deserve it. Clearly she is not squandering it by progressing even further in her business – she is someone to be admired for this, not scorned. If she was to squander all her wealth, you’d never hear about her.
Anyway, she really does actually need to lose weight – people like her need to stick around for a long long time becuase in a the battlefield of ideas, we need people like her. This won’t happen unless she does something about her health.
Also, I don’t think you have read the last section of my essay, which explains what I mean by democracy.
Also, I’ve noticed that in your quote section for Lang Hancock you seem to be missing a few… why haven’t you posted the quote about how all “halfcast aboriginals” should be sterilised? Or would that make it harder to deify him?
It’s great that you’re interested in Lang Hancock. I’ve put up more stuff by him at http://www.LangHancock.info. In the quote you mention about Aboriginals Hancock was referring to the futility of government welfare and of breaking the cycle it creates when repealing welfare handouts is not an option (which it should be). For example, giving handouts to those who are not productive encourages them to continue being unproductive and discourages taxpayers from continuing to produce. Here are some great essays on Aboriginal welfare by the famous Australian John Singleton:
1. http://economics.org.au/2011/02/singo-and-howard-on-aborigines/
2. http://economics.org.au/2012/03/undeserved-handouts-make-australia-the-lucky-country/
3. http://economics.org.au/2012/03/a-happy-story-about-aborigines/
Interesting piece of right wing propaganda. I can’t imagine Gina Rinehart would allow someone to squat her domain name in any way, and certainly not if that domain was also an attack on her ideologies. So you are either being compensated by her in allowing to keep this domain or possibly in some other way.
Either way, is quite funny how vehemently you attack everyone who disagrees with you. u mad!?
This is not right wing Gareth! It is pro free-market. I oppose government spending for both right wing and left wing causes. I oppose socialism, including national socialism, unlike people on the right and the left, in the Labor and the Liberal Parties. Gina Rinehart and Lang Hancock have similar views. For example, Hancock said:
I am not funded by Gina Rinehart, her associates, the mining industry, lobbyists, think tanks, or anyone like that. I am not squatting on her domain name! This is my site where I provide information defending her against her critics. Judging by your inability to find fault with anything I’ve said, it appears to be working.
“is quite funny how vehemently you attack everyone who disagrees with you”
“Judging by your inability to find fault with anything I’ve said, it appears to be working.”
Lol. I think you’ll find that I didn’t bother to start discussing the faults in your claims… such as the ridiculous liking of her to historical figures such as Socrates. It’s ludicrous to the point that it makes your comparison laughable.
You also failed to acknowledge Gina for her role in Total Recall, which seems a poor oversite in your research.
http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv332/mojosphotos/Funny%20Pics/total_recall_disguise.jpg
No, it wasn’t Gina Rinehart in Total Recall; it was Arnold Schwarzenegger.
You are wrong to conflate something being funny with something being false. As G.K. Chesterton said, “Funny is the opposite of not funny, and of nothing else.”
The comparison with Socrates works perfectly because no one dismisses his ideas and area of interest (philosophy) just because he had difficult family relationships. So if you dismiss Gina Rinehart for this reason, then you also have to dismiss some of the greatest statesmen and philosophers of all time! It is laughable because it makes a mockery of Gina Rinehart’s critics.
You chose to compare Gina Rinehart to one of the seminal individuals of Humanity. The comparison is far too grande and fails for that very reason. It actually detracts away from your message because it is so absurd to compare Gina to Socrates. I just think the choice of individual is poor. Also wasn’t Socrates sentenced to death for corruption?
You question why people do not like the image Gina cultivates for herself? where she enables this very websites existence when it has title “Gina Rinehart Is Our Rightful Democratic Leader”. Fortunately (for her, and everyone else for different reasons) she lives in a place where she can be democratically elected. The reason why she doesn’t run for a ministerial role within Australia is because although you believe that she could change Australia for the good of it’s people, it would require her to relinquish many of the things that are of her own independent interest such as the majority control of her business ventures. As such she will never run for prime minister in the immediate future for the benefit of others, but will instead just attempt to apply pressure to government departments (from the sides) to enable her own self interested agenda. This process has already started by the purchasing of shares in channel 10 and Fairfax as well as her continued interest in bringing American styled right wing media coverage to Australia…. maybe she can become the new Bill O’Riley?
Either way, I feel the main problem with this “essay” Is that it requires the reader to believe that her intentions/actions benefit the majority more than it benefits herself… Which I think it is difficult for people to truly believe. You’re an economist so you must realise the importance of confidence not only in markets but in individuals too, people just don’t have confidence in Gina’s motives.
Either way, while I will agree to disagree with your opinions you articulate your arguments very well.
However, on a comedic front I strongly disagree with this sentence.
“You are wrong to conflate something being funny with something being false.”
The person in that picture is also not Arnold Schwarzenegger but Priscilla Allen. Less time spent on here in future please… more time with other Schwarzenegger films instead…. get to the chopper.
Well, that comment has made clear that you are: (a) ignorant of Socrates; (b) ignorant of basic economics; and (c) have not even read the above essay of mine that you are meant to have been commenting on.
(a) You claim to have a high opinion of Socrates, yet you do not appear to know the first thing about why he was put on trial!
(b) Just because someone benefits by their own actions, it does not mean that it benefits themselves only. As Adam Smith said, “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.”
(c) You have not read the last section of my essay, which explains what I mean by provocatively using the term “democracy”. What most people, including yourself, would mean by democracy is majority rule, which is just the philosophy of the pack hunt, the lynch mob and the gang rape. That is not how I am using it, as the last section of my essay makes clear.
Socrates was on trial for corrupting the minds of his fellow citizens. I trust the irony of your referencing Socrates is not lost on your readers, as the character Socrates in Plato’s ‘Republic’ laid the foundations for modern ‘socialist’ thought.
Your arguments for free market economics are logical and at times elegant, Benjamin, although when defending your idol your language at times borders on worship, which I think puts your critics out and brings them to question your motives.
On motives, the simple and greatest merit of self-interest is also it’s terrible demise; those with the drive (or luck) of having attained great wealth and hence power, will continue to serve their own individual interest, often to the detriment of their fellow citizens.
The free market philosophy requires that all people are inherently selfish, and that each man ought prosper according to his greed. I propose that those able to accumulate great wealth, do so by shrugging the opportunity of sharing their fortune as it occurs.
You represent that we voluntarily elect Rinehart’s power through our purchases, and that elected governments employ coercion. Can you possibly argue that media outlets do not employ subversive tactics, misinformation, misdirection and spin to influence government AND business? Or that Rinehart’s special interest in Australian media would by no means avail her of powers of coercion over the public interest?
The people are right to treat one so powerful with suspicion, if not contempt-
Ash
Ash: Who is my idol? Surely you can’t mean Gina in light of my highly critical essay at: http://www.ginarinehart.info/gina-rinehart-is-our-friendly-voice-of-moderation/ .
You claim Gina’s success on the free-market is to the disadvantage of others, YET you have failed to name even one example of this!
You even claim that she is so wealthy because she doesn’t share the wealth. Such ignorance! It is people like Gina who amass and attract the huge amounts of capital necessary to start risky huge mining projects to unlock resources, create new jobs and provide what customers want as affordably as possible. That is a far more sustainable way of sharing AND GROWING the wealth than mere charity. If poor people have good-paying jobs and can afford resources, they don’t need charity!
The free-market philosophy does not require that anyone is selfish; it just requires that people do what they want (which could include charity, life insurance, cancer research, etc) with what is justly theirs provided they do not infringe the rights of others to do the same.
Benjamin,
Thank you for the prompt reply, and the link to more of your writing, I humbly retract the label of ‘idol’ and proffer avid fan.
I am sorry you haven’t asked me any questions as is often your style in tendering reconsideration in your reader’s opinions.
You may have convinced me on the arbitrary borders vs foreign workers argument.
I’d like to stress I wasn’t stating specifically that Rinehart’s success creates disadvantage in others, but speaking broadly:
“(the wealthy) will continue to serve their own individual interest, often to the detriment of their fellow citizens.”
As examples go, the Atlantic slave trade could well be considered a lucrative investment, but I feel it falls down on ethical grounds.
Mining ventures (again, I’m not targeting Gina) often displace native peoples around the world. The argument that displacement is compensated with initiation into the modern world/economy does not adequately respect/preserve other cultures (the diversity of culture being a wealth of the human experience unto itself, agree?)
Is the free market free of compassion? Is it more than a weaponized law of the jungle?
Slavery in America was abolished by government, not business, by the people, AGAINST market pressures.
I was disappointed that you failed to defend coercive vested interests in media, or incidentally, your own motives for running this site.
Hemlock?
Ash: We need to focus! This article is about Gina, not about corrupt businessmen who have no principles, of which there are many. Talking about Gina and the slave trade is a total distraction. Gina is not forcing anyone to do anything. It is Gina’s critics who want to force her to part with a percentage of her wealth and investments.
You ask, “Is the free market free of compassion?” Well, do you know anyone who would consent to help or be of use to anyone, or do you and all your friends rely on being forced against your will to be compassionate? The free market is consensual; government is not. Taxation is not voluntary.
You ask, “Is [capitalism] more than a weaponized law of the jungle?” As Rothbard says, those who believe “capitalism = law of the jungle” do not realise:
As for your comments on the coercive vested interests in the media: I am against all coercive vested interests, whether they be in the media or anywhere else. Why do you say, or imply, that Gina is a coercive vested interest?
Ash : Mining ventures (again, I’m not targeting Gina) often displace native peoples around the world. The argument that displacement is compensated with initiation into the modern world/economy does not adequately respect/preserve other cultures (the diversity of culture being a wealth of the human experience unto itself, agree?)
Google this article and read:CULTURAL DIVERSITY: A WORLD VIEW
by Thomas Sowell
“Slavery in America was abolished by government, not business, by the people, AGAINST market pressures.”
No free market , there was law which allow it.
i am PS Rafaqatsadiq from pakistan i run my ministry of united presbyterian churches of pakistan. i will wish you to share our views and experiences in this Spiritual work with each other. and find better results in this holy couse.
you are most wel come in pakistan & you alos visit our web site:
http://www.wellcom presbyteriean churches of pakistan.com.pk also see my fb page for more details.
Your Sincere friend
Rev Rafaqat Sadiq
•contact # 03002238948
•BBM# 03008241615
Karachi Pakistan.
This is not Gina Rinehart’s personal website. This is a fansite where we defend her politics against her socialistic critics.
Ha ha,
I love it how you say we are defending her! and that this is a fan site!
ha ha, it doesn’t look like she has too many fans, apart from perhaps a certain mark!
Benjamin, where do you get the “motivation” for first writing such an unbiased piece and then rightly correcting all these stupid socialist commie greenie fools? and can you help me get some of this “motivation” cause This labour is just ruining this great country of ours and enough is enough!
I’m pleased you like it. Thanks for the motivation.
I congratulate you
The best the world’s richest
PERSON
the poorest I
you would like to see closer
I am impressed that the world’s poorest person has access to a computer with an internet connection.
I think you need to reread your quotes and understand what they were really saying. Because they weren’t saying what you hoped they were.
Furthermore your “article” was full of speculation and deliberate disinterest (in the inner workings of the Rinehart family) overlaid with a sycophantic toadying that would make anyone’s nostril curl in disgust. Your desire to be noticed by Gina Rinehart is palpable. Newsflash. She doesn’t know you, she doesn’t care about you. You are the worm that she steps on as she accumulates another million dollars. And as you squeal in her leavings she has already moved on to squish the next poor, deluded unfortunate.
Please stop holding back your criticism with your vague derisory comments. Please point out where any error in my reasoning is.
Mr Marks,
How dare you think that Rinehart could run this country!
With so many idiots here, surely her best efforts would be swiftly sabotaged.
No, why can’t she be joined instead by Clive, James and Twiggy too, at the Lemonade Stand of Australia.
Too busy.
Problem – they’re not qualified. They are toxic, with all that productivity of theirs, frankly, it’s embarrassing to that phalanx of hacks who’ve spent the best (worst) years of their lives grasping in the belly of the political party machine.
Profit is beneath their dignity remember. Grasping for Rinehart’s kitty, on the other hand, is their sacred, solemn duty to the people.
Once again, let me say, how could you stoop to letting politicians out of a job they created for their own ends – without any need for deference to the taxed.
Let them have it. It’s all they’ve got. Least Rinehart as profits to fall back on. They can’t be like Rinehart, it’s beneath them remember, have some heart of your own. Shame on you Mr Marks.
a economic zone up north will solve many a problem go gina
Dont you think its funny that she thinks aussies would have more wealth if they drank and smoked less? I think she would have more wealth if she ate less!
Is that the best criticism you can come up with? That she could be even wealthier!? Ha!
I enjoy your complete failure to consider any sort of human perspective outside the world of economics. I’d love to see you spend a couple of months in a refugee camp. Not only have you failed to consider the sociological impacts of the wide spread greed that pure Capitalism seems to inspire but the mess at which we have arrived due to it. If people like Gina Rinehat are able to roam this world without any checks or balances along the way we will soon have no earth or sociey on/in which to exist.
Please brush up on your complete and apparent lack of historical knowledge with the causes of Failed States and how their colonial masters, spurred on by reforms in the same vein as those for which you are calling, plundered ancient native societies only to leave them to rot for the greater wealth of their homelands (see Spanish Empire and South America).
Bottom line: yes Gina Rinehard is great if the only thing in this world that matters is wealth and living to excess.
You have got things the wrong way around. It is Gina Rinehart who is exploited by the taxation industry. Gina Rinehart is the one who is forced to pay royalties to the government.
[...] of the media through voluntary means; and, government should stop her through coercive means. Gina Rinehart Is Our Rightful Democratic Leader So she ses no problem with buying out media. Wonder if she would feel the same way if someone [...]
The land doesnt belong to Gina, it belongs to the commonwealth of Australia and in a technical way the Queen. What right does she have to any land that she hasnt purchased the rights to? And trying to say that her wealth gives her the right to rule our democratic country is like saying that because I am a relative of the house of York, I should rule Australia. We are a democracy not an oligarchy!
Aaron: Mrs Rinehart is the rightful owner because Hancock Prospecting discovered it and mixed their labour with it. What right does Queen Elizabeth have to the Pilbara?
Ithe sloHave never read such garbage in my life. The only person Gina Hard heart cares about is herself. She is not qualified for anything but inherited greed. She cannot even mange her own family let alone Australia. And the rubbish you put forward about the free market is just that, why do you think third world countries are just that it’s because most have only two classes the very rich and the very poor and it’s because there is no tax collect of the rich that there is no money for schools and education no money for health, When idiots say that they want a country that has low taxes that is what they are really saying that they want a country that is third world were the rich get richer and the poor get poor you are the filth of society for even pushing this sort idea you are scum you greedy dog .west death
Your criticism of Gina Rinehart is addressed in my essay above.
Your only criticism of the free-market appears to be that if taxes do not fund schools and healthcare, then their quality will decrease. If you really do believe this, then do you also think that food should be funded by taxes? And what about shoes, socks and other clothing, aren’t they all important too? So, why do you think some important services should be funded by taxes, and others shouldn’t?
What a joke. A person supporting GR makes up a list of reasons according to them why some other people hate her and then repudiates each reason. That’s really poor work. An old marketing trick but I admit it does work sometimes. First, most people who don’t support, love or admire her don’t hate her. Second, most of these people do not ‘not admire her’ for the reasons given.
So why do people “not admire her” then?
G’day Ben, I’m wondering if I may ask you a question (if not that’s fine). Are you a libertarian by any chance? Also, in your opinion, do you think perhaps Ms Rinehart is? Thanks Ben.
Regards,
Pam
Thanks Pam. Yes, I am libertarian (for example, see here). Mrs Rinehart supports a free-market in many areas, but not all. Are you a libertarian?
I’m still learning Ben, but yes. I’m also fascinated by temperament. What many folks don’t realise is Gina Rinehart is just being her own temperament, that what she was born with, and it is a temperament that is often that of brilliant business people. Warren Buffett is also this temperament, Queen Elzabeth 2. Resilience and toughness, smart business acumen, lodgistical intelligence. GR is a brilliant example. You do a great service to broaden the perception of liberatrianism, and Gina Rinehart, she is herself, she can only be herself, and she is also a great Australian, the best way she can be. ‘We do best that we do, what we do best.’
I personally think jealousy is a part of perceived dislike, for anyone that maybe successful, monetary wise, but I especially think there a resounding gender attack upon her, ‘doesn’t fit that good girl, obliging, run with foxes and fit in the gender pigeon-hole’ box. Also perhaps mining is seen by some as take only, not realising the importance to this country’s economy and people. Credit where credit is due, Ms Rinehart has built her business from virtually ground up, put in the hard yards. Incredible effort. Monumental business achievements.
(Pam)
I just love the cry of ” the resources in the ground belong to all of us”….. ain’t it funny how they spew at the ones who take the risk and invest the dollars to extract the resources, then scream that they want a piece of the action as a reward for sitting in their airconditioned cafes sipping lattes while the investors have been taking the risks, creating the jobs ( don’t give me that ‘cheap labour’ crap, the mining sector is one of the best organised union wise and the workers get good money, especially in remote regions). Get off your soft shiny arses and get a real job in a mining camp and EARN some of your share of the rewards. Left wing bludgers couldn’t work in an iron lung.
Lang Hancock took no risks. He found the resource, fought for 10 years to have laws changed, without telling anyone of his find, and then bought the land and developed its subsequent mine.
He knew what he had found and was greedy enough to exploit it.
It was underhanded.
I do not care what side of politics you are from…
This was a sleezy and opportunistic move.
Profitable? Yes.
Legal? Um… Yes. (eventually)
Moral? No.
Come on, even a child can see how dodgy it all was.
I am not questioning his right to do it… am just questioning any ‘risks’ he was taking.
He did not buy the land before-hand (he was legally not able), he knew the resource was worth millions (told no-one), fought for changes in law (eventually won), THEN bought the land… KNOWING its worth.
Where is the risk? That he won’t be able to buy the land?…
He ensured that he could.
How was it underhanded, sleazy and immoral? Did someone else discover it and try to develop it?
If you have no idea how his actions could be considered to be unethical or immoral then you are either not very intelligent or a very blinkered thinker.
Even most the conservative thinker would be able to comprehend that some may find his behaviour distasteful.
But good for you, you stick to your guns and keep making that effort to consciously miss the point of peoples comments.
*the most
Thanks. I appreciate your encouragement. It’s a hard slog, but to know I have supporters like you makes it all worthwhile.
Glad to know I have made someone happy.
Happiness is difficult to find sometimes, so knowing that I was able to give a little joy to you has made my day.
Cool. I’m free tonight if you want to catch up. Are you in Sydney?
Sure. When and where? I could do with a night out.
Let’s spread a little cheer.
I’ll be at the old Fox & Lion Hotel at Moore Park in Sydney tonight.
P.J’s?
Ok. Just scream out “Gina!” every half an hour or so… I’ll spot you.
No, I’ve got it.
You yell “Gina!”… then I’ll yell “Rinehart”… and together we will repeat this until contact is made…
It will be like some weird, passive aggresive, Irish pub version of ‘Marco Polo’.
Brilliant.
Looking for Gina
I am looking for a way to get something to Gina herself.
I am a West Australian Female and I need just one chance to reach her, i need her advise and its urgent, so if anyone at all can help me find a way please do so, out of some kindness that people must still have somewhere in their hearts.
Ellie: Have you tried going through the contact page at the Hancock Prospecting website? You probably won’t be the only one trying to contact her. It’s a tough world.
What i don’t understood is in truth how you are not actually much more well-favored than you may be right now. You’re very intelligent.
You understand thus considerably in relation to this matter, produced
me in my opinion imagine it from so many numerous angles.
Its like women and men aren’t involved until it is one thing to accomplish with Woman gaga! Your personal stuffs excellent. All the time deal with it up!
I just wanted to ask:
Do you firmly believe what you have written?
Do you firmly believe that Gina Reinhart is good for Australia?
Do you firmly believe that all arguements that cannot be invalidated by your essay hold no merit?
In short, do you stand by what you have written in the face of all moral and ethical objections?
I am not proposing any arguements, I am simply asking you if you stand by what you have written?
In a court of law, would you swear that what you have written is the truth as you know it to be and what you have written represents your own personal beliefs?
Thank you in anticipation of your reply.
Thanks Karla. Yes, I am guilty as charged and ready for sentencing. I firmly believe in what I wrote, that Gina is good, etc, etc.
Wow. How odd. Guess it takes all sorts to make the world go around.
Are you saying Gina should be defended, then?
I said:
“Wow. How odd. Guess it takes all sorts to make the world go around.”
A common phrase generally used as a form of dismissal. Have you not heard it before?
I am not quite sure how you interpreted that to mean:
“…Gina should be defended…”
Even ‘Google translate’ didn’t come to that result after 15 different language changes.
Carla and Karla: Do you have any actual criticism to make of Gina, or do you just want to make vague dismissals of what she stands for and her achievements?
Mr. Marks,
I do not think I have made any dismissals of her acheivements. Please show me where you have factored this from.
I simply asked if you believe what you wrote to be the truth and then commented that you are one of the people that make the world go around.
I think you may be making assertions about statements I simply did not make.
You said that you described Gina (or those who defend her) as you did “as a form of dismissal”!
No. I said “Guess it takes all sorts to make the world go around”… that statement and my subsequent explanation was in reference to YOU.
YOU are one of the many that makes the world go around.
At no point did I write or imply that I was dismissing “Gina (or those who defend her)”.
Please do not misrepresent my statements.
Okay, so, do you have any actual specific criticism to make about my defence of Gina, or do you just want to make vague dismissive comments?
Vaguely dismissive comments will do for now I think.
I’ll let you know if I come up with something more tangible.
I am not going to bother arguing with you Mr Marks. The shit you posted does not even deserved to be dignified with a rebuttal.
So I will simply rant at you as you have done throughout your “article”.
Fuckwits like you and Gina the Hutt want a world where there are two classes, poor and rich, in the hope that you can fall into the former in order to fulfil your pathetic egotistical desire to be above everyone else. I can only hope that if the neo-capitalist fascists of this world do manage to destroy the middle class and create a two class system that cunts like you find themselves dead smack in the middle of the latter group.
GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU GREEDY, SELF-ABSORBED, ELITIST ARSEHOLE.
Please stop holding back your criticism with your non-specific derisive comments. Do you see any error in any of my arguments? If you do, why are you so scared to point them out?
Also, she is not Gina the Hutt; she is Gina the Friendly Ghost, as is proven in this essay: http://www.ginarinehart.info/gina-rinehart-is-our-friendly-voice-of-moderation/
Hello Benjamin Marks, I thought that this was interesting. I don’t know all that the
Australians have gone through in there carriers, and the struggle that came with all of this that you have gown through. I am a proud God fearing American, and I love Australia and all Australians. I am thankful to get to here some of what is happening in your lives. Thank you for your Kindness.
We can only love and teach them about being good people, and what ever works for your religion. Our children need to all starts with unconditional Love. I know as a parent there is many thing, or time’s that our children have given us a moment, that removes all doubt as to why we love them so much. These are the things and times that make our days, and we must try to hang on to them. I would not like it when my kids are having a moment or two, to share this time with the world. This is only between the children’s and parents for me this is very personal busyness. Wouldn’t Australians want there own busyness there own?
God bless Australia and all Australians.
Stephen
Benjamin Marks,
I don’t like arguing with a fool because it pointless and I will only be brought down to your level. So here are a few question for you instead..
Do you think that it is alright that while Gina Rinehart is worth $23 billion or something ridiculous like that there are children who’s families cant afford to feed them, there are indigenous communities with infant mortality rates equal to that of a developing country, there are families that are so anxious about their futures due to the deregulation of so many workplaces that they feel hopeless every single day. I haven’t even scrapped the tip of the iceberg of the inequality plaguing Australia and the world. So for you to sit behind your computer and rave on about how this woman, who is as ugly as she is evil, is only trying to protect what she has worked for I am going to assume that you have enough money to be comfortable and you are not of Indigenous background.
Gina Rinehart has not worked a day in her life, there are people working 6 days a week just to feed their families, and to cloth them they need to get another job. And here begins the vicious cycle of disadvantage.
Is it fair that Gina Rinehart is making a killing from public land? She is literally killing the PUBLIC land for her own PERSONAL wealth. Gina Rinehart is not worthy of the money that she has and she is not worthy of respect. She could be helping Australian a lot more than she is and still have enough money for several lifetimes. Every mining company should be doing more for the Australian people as its AUSTRALIA’S LAND! Would you support someone owning Australia’s drinking water? What about Australia’s air? Personally I think if anyone has the right to own the land we Australian’s call home its the Aboriginal people, but you Mr. White-Middle-Upper-Class-Gina-Rinehart-Fan wouldn’t like that very much would you? As I am sure you are aware of Gina and her fathers racist past.
And btw capitalism doesn’t work you bloody idiot. Capitalism relies on consumption to keep going, so whats going to happen when there is nothing left to consume? But I guess you haven’t thought that far yet, as your too busy sucking on Gina’s tit hoping to get paid.
You have totally ignored all the arguments I made in my essay above. Nonetheless, I will try to respond to a representative sample of yours. Do you realise that you can have equality of rights or equality of income, but you can’t have both? Which do you want? Massive accumulations of capital are necessary to more efficiently provide what the poor can afford. It is capitalism that lifts people out of poverty, not socialism.
Yes you are probably right about ignoring your arguments in that “essay” as I didn’t read it.
None the less, I am just fascinated (also scared and extremely sad) that there are people out there as blind as you. Anyway I want equality of rights and anyone with half a heart would want the same. However, I do understand that there are countless people out there (like you) who are untouched by the world around them, too busy indulging in the comforts and technology available to us in these so called advanced countries, that you cant see (or simply choose not to) the disgusting amount of inequality consumption brings.
So your a great believer in the trickle down effect.. I can see how amazing it works getting people out of poverty seeings as though there is no poverty left in advanced countries such as Australia and America where we have people worth billions of dollars.
I don’t mean to come on here and attack you, as we are products of our upbringing and I guess your parents were as blind to the world as you are. However it just makes me very fucking mad that there are people out there that think their time is better served defending someone who only cares about themselves (Gina Rinehart) rather than doing something productive for society such as fighting for human rights or even just being a decent person.
But when you sit down after a hard days work of defending one of Australia’s biggest disgraces (Gina Rinehart) how about you just think:
If you were born in a low social economic family would you still have the same views you have now? Because people don’t choose to be born into the environment or skin they are in (funnily enough). So think about how it could have just as easily been you and your family who were kicked off their land so some self righteous pig and his daughter could become billionaires. I am of course making the assumption that you can indeed think.
You are unapologetically commenting on an essay you have not read. Good for you. You have definitely taken the high-ground in this debate. Do you realise that Gina wants to amass and attract enough capital to create jobs and unlock resources that will provide as cheaply and efficiently as possible what poor people and other members of society want? Have you ever tried to start large mining operations without a huge amount of capital? It is a huge risk, especially when so many Australians want to confiscate her hard work and throw obstacles at her.