Readers were quick to point out yesterday that, while billionaire donor (and recent bomb-scare victim) George Soros may be an easy target for reactionaries on the right, there are real reasons to scrutinise his past. In other news, readers took the government’s energy divestment strategy with a grain of salt (it had a mixed reception from Bernard Keane), with readers unsure if the Coalition’s track record can be trusted.
Niall Clugston writes: I don’t see how you can have an article entitled “Who is George Soros?” and leave out his role in Black Wednesday in Britain in 1992 or the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. Clearly, his role in financial manipulation is a part of the criticism of him, which has been voiced by many including the economist Paul Krugman, who is also of Jewish descent.
Beenaround writes: The test of these conspiracy theories against Soros is: how is alleged conduct meant to benefit him? That is the problem with all right-wing antipathy to what they characterise as “left”. Right-wing policies are invariably designed to benefit elites who support right-wing “think tanks”. On the other hand, the left always pursue policies that benefit the majority. And, unsurprisingly, that is why self-interest is despised by the left. I think it was Bertrand Russell who said that when faced with two contentions, always prefer the contention that does not involve self-interest.
Paddy writes: I can’t believe you’ve written an article about George Soros and left out the bit that caused him to be come so well known.
The man who broke the bank of England. (Not really true, but he & others sure gave it a scare.) It’s a fascinating tale and well worth looking up.
On the Coalition’s divestment policy
Draco Houston writes: Tim Watts is currently screeching that the policy will make us Venezuela. Who knew anti-trust powers were socialism?
R. Ambrose Raven: Divestment appears little more than a vague thought-bubble. So far there appears no clear statement of what could or should be divested, nor to what degree. Not only is it not a substitute for an intelligently designed electricity supply structure, it appears little more than the latest desperate idea.
Jock Webb writes: Rumtytum [Crikey Comments, 26/10] is right to ask about corruption. It is indeed corrupt, partly from bribes, otherwise known as donations. The more so because an amazing number of Nationals seem to find themselves on coal company boards, notably as chairmen. Whitehaven, Santos, etc. Is there nothing we can do to stop these lying scum blathering about clean coal when there is no such bloody thing?
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name.
Update: I asked Tim Watts why giving the ACCC a divestment power is going to make us Venezuela and he replied that he has a PhD from studying anti-trust in the US and knows what he is talking about, then straight up told me the coalition will use it to buy Liddel. So not only does he want to mislead people on the idea of divestment powers, he wants me to believe the coalition can tell the ACCC to jump and they’ll ask ‘How high?’. All within half a year of a federal general election they will go on to lose.
He stopped replying when namedropping his uni didn’t help.
The issues surrounding Soros and his activities transcend both sides of politics.
He operates within both the Left/Right spheres to promote his Open Society, aka NWO.
It’s alarming how the Left rush to support Soros just because the Right opposes him. Equally
alarming in a similar context is the Right rushing to support Trump just because the Left are
condemning him.
If your god is a politician and your religion is politics you are in bad shape.
Beware the Hungarian bearing gifts.
Err, I hate to break it to you guys but the last couple of comments are in the wrong place.
this is where the rules need to be changed…that politicians need to be held accountable to their constituents…reminded on a regular basis of who pays their income & of course their ”expenses”…no matter how dodgy….I would suggest there needs to be a list of boards that they aren’t able to work for, after they leave/or are voted out of parliament…their pension shouldn’t kick in until they’re either 65 or 70 years old (depending on their length of service) this should apply to all politicians…there needs to be a serious clean up…less wastage more investment in areas that are sadly lacking, health, education & disability support/services…