Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Yoda

World's Richest Woman gives some Advice to the Poor...

Recommended Posts

046297-gina-rinehart.jpg

Gina Rinehart tells whingers: "Get out of the pub!"

http://www.news.com.au/business/worklife/gina-rinehart-tells-whingers-get-out-of-the-pub/story-e6frfm9r-1226461328341

The controversial mining magnate also attacks Australia's "class warfare" and insists it is billionaires such as herself who are doing more than anyone to help the poor by investing their money and creating jobs, The Australian reports.

Mrs Rinehart also suggests the government should lower the minimum wage of $606.40 per week and cut taxes to stimulate employment.

In her regular column in Australian Resources and Investment magazine, she warns that Australia risks heading down the same path as European economies ruined by "socialist" policies, high taxes and excessive regulation.

"There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," writes Mrs Rinehart, who has built a $20 billion-plus mining empire since inheriting lucrative tenements from her father, Lang Hancock, in 1992.

"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."

Ms Rinehart questioned whether "lowering minimum wages and lowering taxes would make employers hire more people''.

She said to many people this would be "common sense 101'' but warned that unless these "common sense'' measures were embraced, Australia risked replicating the problems of Greece and Spain.

The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) - which has been involved in a spat with Ms Rinehart over her plans to import foreign "guest'' workers - also took aim.

Referring to her plans to import workers for the Roy Hill project, CFMEU national president Tony Maher said Ms Rinehart was doing her best to prevent other Australians from sharing the benefits of the mining boom.

"At the same time as trying to import cheap foreign labour and avoid paying tax, Rinehart claims it's millionaires and billionaires who are the greatest for social good. What planet is she living on?'' Mr Maher said.

Dear Ms Rinehart,

Who do you think listens to you? All you care about is money and even your children don't like you.

Nobody is going to believe you want a lower minimum wage and lower taxes so you can help people find jobs. And why do you tell people to "work more" when you simply inherited your empire?

Kind regards,

Australia

post-5992-137982359315_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supply-side economics always works.

Incorrect. There is no such thing as a cure-all policy in economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the worlds richest woman was Oprah.

Anyway, seeing as how she's rich, I'm assuming her advice has some quality to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Get out of the pub" may have been slightly insensitive, but I think she's brilliant. Supply-side economics always works.

I applaud the sentiment, but I think what you mean is "supply-side economics describes its subject better than alternatives" :3c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Get out of the pub" may have been slightly insensitive, but I think she's brilliant. Supply-side economics always works.
Except that since the arrival of supply-side economics in the 1980s growth in median family income growth has slowed. I do not believe in a self-correcting market, so I am very distrustful of any free-market policies. Right now, businesses are reporting that lack of effective-demand is the main economic problem. Ours does not appear to be a supply-side problem, but a demand-side problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I applaud the sentiment, but I think what you mean is "supply-side economics describes its subject better than alternatives" :3c

True, true. I get carried away :taz:

Except that since the arrival of supply-side economics in the 1980s growth in median family income growth has slowed. I do not believe in a self-correcting market, so I am very distrustful of any free-market policies. Right now, businesses are reporting that lack of effective-demand is the main economic problem. Ours does not appear to be a supply-side problem, but a demand-side problem.

We've barely had any supply-side economics, though. After Reagan, we had some random bits from Clinton, and random bits from Bush (note that the Bush tax cuts have been both very popular and very derided, which in my mind indicates success). Not very much to counteract the increasing demand-based policies. Anyway, I think looking at our problem as a demand-side one is too short-sighted. Behind the demand issues are supply ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We've barely had any supply-side economics, though. After Reagan, we had some random bits from Clinton, and random bits from Bush (note that the Bush tax cuts have been both very popular and very derided, which in my mind indicates success). Not very much to counteract the increasing demand-based policies. Anyway, I think looking at our problem as a demand-side one is too short-sighted. Behind the demand issues are supply ones.
Demand-side policies and supply-side policies are not necessarily at odds with one another. For example, you could cut corporate taxes in an attempt to stimulate economic growth while passing an industrial policy aimed at developing a green economy in the United States. Post-Keynesian theory generally asserts that the government should have a role in maintaining a steady level of investment, to ensure a stable level of capital expansion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always thought the worlds richest woman was Oprah.

Anyway, seeing as how she's rich, I'm assuming her advice has some quality to it.

haha me too

Oprah has a lot of money still

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Get out of the pub" may have been slightly insensitive, but I think she's brilliant. Supply-side economics always works.

Anyway, seeing as how she's rich, I'm assuming her advice has some quality to it.

Even if everything she said is correct, she only had self-serving intentions. She doesn't care about Australia's economy, or the well being of workers, or how much people invest into Australia, unless it helps her make even more money. That's the only reason she wants lower taxes and a lower minimum wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The minimum wage is vital to protecting society's poorest - to lower it or get rid of it is crazy... If a company can't afford to employ workers at above the minimum wage, then quite frankly they're not a feasible business and shouldn't continue as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if everything she said is correct, she only had self-serving intentions. She doesn't care about Australia's economy, or the well being of workers, or how much people invest into Australia, unless it helps her make even more money. That's the only reason she wants lower taxes and a lower minimum wage.

So what? Markets operate effectively when people can signal their own self-interests to others, so that others may provide to buyers what they're selling, and know what to sell. Whether what they're selling is land, minerals, or labor, people are brought together in the market by the ability to signal and act on those incentives conducive to people acting with self-interest. So long as she isn't insisting that she have the opportunity to increase her wealth by coercive means (unlike those demanding greater welfare of various forms), and what she says is true, what are you opposing? Lower taxes would make people better off, and a lower (or nonexistent) minimum wage would also make people better off. Everything she said was correct, and people's knee jerk reactions that involves pointing out how she has interests of her own or that there are exceptions to her generalized solution misses the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what? Markets operate effectively when people can signal their own self-interests to others, so that others may provide to buyers what they're selling, and know what to sell. Whether what they're selling is land, minerals, or labor, people are brought together in the market by the ability to signal and act on those incentives conducive to people acting with self-interest. So long as she isn't insisting that she have the opportunity to increase her wealth by coercive means (unlike those demanding greater welfare of various forms), and what she says is true, what are you opposing? Lower taxes would make people better off, and a lower (or nonexistent) minimum wage would also make people better off. Everything she said was correct, and people's knee jerk reactions that involves pointing out how she has interests of her own or that there are exceptions to her generalized solution misses the point.
Metaphysical articles of faith, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Metaphysical articles of faith, mate.

I have proposed that prices are informative. If the best you can muster is some sort of derogatory and inaccurate objection, I wouldn't have any faith in your own counter-proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if everything she said is correct, she only had self-serving intentions. She doesn't care about Australia's economy, or the well being of workers, or how much people invest into Australia, unless it helps her make even more money. That's the only reason she wants lower taxes and a lower minimum wage.

*tilt head* She said that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have proposed that prices are informative. If the best you can muster is some sort of derogatory and inaccurate objection, I wouldn't have any faith in your own counter-proposition.
Meh, I find no good evidence that price signals actually function like laissez-faire economists suggest. It is an unproven claim (a metaphysical article of faith), and therefore I do not care to respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*tilt head* She said that?

Maybe people outside Australia aren't as familiar with Gina Rinehart. :P

However, she hasn't explicitly said that she only cares about money. It's just very clear from her actions (e.g. hoarding money that was meant to go to her children), and the other things she's said...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh, I find no good evidence that price signals actually function like laissez-faire economists suggest. It is an unproven claim, and therefore I do not care to respond.

So you are saying that you know how to correctly balance between the demand and supply of everyone and everything in economies comprising quadrillions of individual variables? If not, then what? What remains unproven, what else needs to be proven, how are prices formed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe people outside Australia aren't as familiar with Gina Rinehart. :P

However, she hasn't explicitly said that she only cares about money. It's just very clear from her actions (e.g. hoarding money that was meant to go to her children), and the other things she's said...

So, she seems less than virtuous because of the popular understanding of her in Australia, therefore she can't honestly believe in her stated opinions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are saying that you know how to correctly balance between the demand and supply of everyone and everything in economies comprising quadrillions of individual variables? If not, then what? What remains unproven, what else needs to be proven, how are prices formed?
I am a staunch believer in industrial policy, which distorts price signals through government interventionism. It was successful in East Asia. In other words, I view the idea that distorted price signals are harmful to be an act of faith. One I do not hold. Do not feel like arguing this, though. Read post-Keynesian theory if you are interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, she seems less than virtuous because of the popular understanding of her in Australia, therefore she can't honestly believe in her stated opinions?

She might honestly believe that lower taxes/lower minimum wage helps the economy of Australia or the well being of Australians. But because she's Gina Rinehart, nobody believes that's her reason for wanting them.

It's just like casinos who lobby against mandatory pre-commitment by saying that "responsible adults shouldn't be restricted" or "we give money back to the community" or other such excuses. But everyone knows they profit considerably from gambling addicts who can't control themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a staunch believer in industrial policy, which distorts price signals through government interventionism. It was successful in East Asia. In other words, I view the idea that distorted price signals are harmful to be an act of faith. One I do not hold. Do not feel like arguing this, though. Read post-Keynesian theory if you are interested.

"Was successful" meaning what? There was over-investment which eventually led to rapid market restructuring which was a sign that capital was not being placed in its most effective place? Gee, sounds like a real success, if that's what you're trying to do.

You keep calling my view "faith" but you won't even defend it! I can lay out my views in plain without a problem, but you keep referring me to this vague collection of "post-Keynesians" like its your gospel. You're undermining any interest I might have in trying to understand these ideas, since the impression I'm receiving is that you're completely disconnected from reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: Now Gina Rinehart is saying we need to give special tax concessions to Australia's mineral rich regions, and decrease the amount of Government regulation in those areas. This is supposedly to "help attract global investment." We also need to become more like Africa, where they pay their workers $2 a day, in order to properly compete internationally.

http://www.thesatellite.com.au/story/2012/09/05/give-north-tax-concessions-rinehart/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×