Comments on: If it’s Rudd’s idea, I oppose it

By: Luke

Luke — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:31:48 +0000

“It is now obvious that free market extremism got us into this mess in the first place” – err… wasn’t it government intervention during the Clinton era that encouraged Fanny and Freddie to loan to low income individuals in order to boost housing? How is that the fault of free markets? If anything, this mess shows that big government is the problem, free markets work.

By: Dam Buster of Preston

Dam Buster of Preston — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:12:39 +0000

Well done Ollie – I asked in Bolt’s column if he had a salary sacrificed car. I haven’t bothered to check if the post made it up.

By: Nickws

Nickws — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:05:08 +0000

“The Rudd plan is a corporate handout… does anyone seriously think Australia will be any more competitive in the hybrid-making market than it is in any other facet of the auto industry, which is not at all?”

That’s a cogent argument, Dave, yet it’s not one Bolt can actually bring himself to make. You’re confusing him with the likes of Peter Walsh if you think he’s expressing support for a ’sink-or-swim’ industry policy–he doesn’t even have the balls to explicitly criticise the corporations in the article Ollie linked to. In fact, apart from one sentence about consumer demand for Australian-built vehicles in this country, Bolt’s article is almost entirely concerned with his opinion of the linkage between taxpayer subsidies and job/environmental policy.

There’s nowt there about microeconomic policy or the evils of interventionism or corporatism.

Because the columnist we’re talking about is not a policy wonk–he’s a partisan hack with _very_ flexible big government conservative beliefs.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:38:32 +0000

The original snowy mountain scheme was a government enterprise that created a public good and was central to the integration of postwar immigrants into Australian life. The Rudd plan is a corporate handout. It only gets past the exhausted bullshit-detectors of the electorate because of the prevailing “sentimental attachment to building things like cars,” which has been carefully cultivated by decades of previous handouts for the auto industry, all of which similarly promised that they were creating a “viable industry for the future.” They never specify whether that means “not dependent on constant bailouts.” Why do people suspend their natural disgust at this kind of corporatism whenever the corporate partner can issue some cheap talk about the environment? And does anyone seriously think Australia will be any more competitive in the hybrid-making market than it is in any other facet of the auto industry, which is not at all?

By: Celetina

Celetina — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:07:25 +0000

This is the same Andrew Bolt who tried to excuse Gerry Harvey’s disgusting comments about how homeless and low income people don’t deserve charity because they are no-hopers who don’t deserve to live, is it not?

It’s very easy for Bolt to criticise while he has his high salary and safe job. Holden workers don’t have that luxury. Unlike Bolt, they don’t get the opportunity to complain about everything because they are too busy working their guts out to feed their families and pay their bills whilst thinking they could be sacked anytime.

I’ve said it before but Andrew Bolt and his lemmings are NOT conservatives, they are hard core rightists. Us real conservatives DON’T think like Bolt.

By: Vernon

Vernon — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:02:33 +0000

Great post Ollie! Please write again soon.

By: Nickws

Nickws — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:20:33 +0000

Heh, I imagined I’d written “you don’t get to just _imagine_ the values of your opponents”

By: Nickws

Nickws — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:15:13 +0000

To be fair to Captain Rule-of-Ten he wasn’t very ideological during the Kennett years (not that his ideology these days is a great improvement on his time as the Hun’s resident mini-paulkelly centrist.)

“Exactly how does someone on the “left” come around to the point of view that “what’s good for General Motors is good for Australia”?”

Umm, see, there’s these traditions in Australia of things called the ‘Industrial Left’ and ‘The Next Snowy Mountain Scheme’ being really popular with us bleeding hearts. I don’t know if Ollie is a Green or an ALP supporter, but most progressives who read blogs like this still have a sentimental attachment to bulding things like cars in this country (even if it’s long meant the profits leave these shores).
You don’t get to just _imagine_ the values of you opponents into being.
In fact it’s the ‘traditionalist’ Bolt who’s going against his self-styled heritage by implying our blokey nation doesn’t have to make cars, regardless of whether they be V8s or hybrids.
(Personally I think Bolt fancies his audience have the values of Wall Street Journal readers on this particular issue. Hey Andy, if you want your sheeple to be free-market purists about Holden, then perhaps you shouldn’t stoke their Hansonism with 3/4 of what you write.)

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:29:27 +0000

Exactly how does someone on the “left” come around to the point of view that “what’s good for General Motors is good for Australia”?

By: BadBob

BadBob — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:06:37 +0000

I love Phillip Adams’ coining of “USSA”. Of course, Bolt had no need to criticise Bush’s financial bailout plan, because it was done to support the free market, not to replace it. Rudd, by contrast, is merely pursuing Labor’s “socialist objective”, which was only removed from the party’s constitution 20+ years ago for cosmetic reasons.