As we have seen Jason Soon and his contributers have settled in favour of arbitrarily altering our rules for the benefit of Rio Tinto bigshots and in order to allow the nationalisation of our resources by the Chinese communists. Is it necessary to point out here that China is our key strategic threat? And the most likely country to undermine our sovereignty by direct influence over Canberra politicians? Why is Jason in favour of nationalisation? And being that this is the case why is he in favour of nationalisation specifically by the communists? Specifically by the one band of cutthroats, student-mincers and organ-snatchers that ought to be at the top of our resistance list?
We see that other cuckoo-baby leftists like Sinclair Davidson, Kirchner, John Humphreys and pretty every idiot in the treasury, are also in favour of this hand-holding between crony-town and communist-nationalisation. This is a no-lose situation for the bigshots. They can buy a string of leases, outbidding the small-caps, and if things go wrong they can change the rules on the fly and then our gear is nationalised. Not by our government but by the Chinese communists. This is akin to a local property-developer who can get an unearned capital gain by manipulating the council to change zoning laws.
Supposing that these people aren’t merely traitors or lunatics and have just been taken in by poor definitions, well we have done our best on this forum to get the definitions right and show that this is not privatisation, or free trade, but is nationalisation by the Chinese.
So its at this point that we ask Kirchner, Sinclair, Soon, Cambria, Humphreys and others to back away from this anti-sovereignty, anti-economics idiocy, after having given them time to think about it.
The ideas of these people are treasonous. But what really is driving it is their near total non-understanding of economics.