expired

[eBook] Free - 1984 / Animal Farm by George Orwell @ Amazon AU

2730

[eBook] Free - 1984 / Animal Farm by George Orwell @ Amazon AU

Affiliate

Go to Deal

Cashback

HamBoi69 on 12/03/2024 - 07:03 amazon.com.au (5324 clicks)

This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

As spotted on HUKD

Always a good read for both books!

"1984" is set in a dystopian future where the world is divided into three superstates, with the story focusing on Airstrip One (formerly Great Britain), part of the totalitarian superstate of Oceania. The novel introduces us to Winston Smith, a member of the Outer Party who works at the Ministry of Truth, where his job is to alter historical records and ensure they match the Party's current official version of the past. The society is under the omnipresent surveillance of Big Brother, where independent thinking is a crime, and the Thought Police brutally enforce loyalty to the Party. Through Winston's eyes, Orwell explores themes of surveillance, censorship, the manipulation of truth, and the loss of individuality, illustrating a harrowing world where freedom and truth are subverted by propaganda and power.

"Animal Farm" presents a satirical tale set on a farm where the animals revolt against their human farmer, aspiring to create a society where animals can be equal, free, and happy. However, the rebellion's initial noble goals are quickly overshadowed by the rise of the pigs, who establish themselves as the new ruling class. Led by the cunning pig Napoleon, the new regime becomes indistinguishable from the oppressive human rule they overthrew. Through the allegory of the farm, Orwell critiques the Russian Revolution and the subsequent corruption of socialist ideals in the Soviet Union, exploring themes of power, corruption, and betrayal, ultimately conveying the cynical message that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Enjoy!

Books & Magazines eBook

Freebie
5 Apr 7:37am

Related Stores

Amazon AU

Marketplace

Amazon Cloud Reader

closed Comments

ilove on 12/03/2024 - 07:06

+10

Great books.
ilove on 12/03/2024 - 07:07

bTW audible - I had 3 credits. Then I unsubbed. the credits disppeared. if I resub will the extra credits appear again? anyone know?
- Banj0 on 12/03/2024 - 07:42
  
  +4
  
  Give it a go and let us know. I’ve always made sure I use my credits before I unsub, since Amazon seems to imply that they’ll disappear.
  - ilove on 12/03/2024 - 07:50
    
    you can pause the sub now? as a option instead of unsubbing
    - Banj0 on 12/03/2024 - 08:14
      
      …and of course, often they'll give you an offer for a few months to try and retain your sub. I'm on one of those right now…might pause at the end of that (if it's still available).
- joelmuzz on 12/03/2024 - 08:19
  
  +1
  
  No they are forfeit
- cryptowiz on 12/03/2024 - 09:23
  
  As joelmuzz has stated, they are forfeited. Here's Audible actual statement…
  
  Do I keep my credits when I cancel?
  No. Your credits will be lost along with your other membership benefits. Any title you get with a credit is yours to keep, though, so use your credits before the end of your final billing period.
  
  Note: Credits received through an App Store membership or an Audible Google Play membership don’t expire and will remain in your account after cancellation. Extra credits purchased in the iOS and Google Play apps do not expire either.
  - ilove on 12/03/2024 - 10:13
    
    so…. 4 credits. $34.95 plus $16.95 unused. and down the drain?
    - Horacio on 12/03/2024 - 11:18
      
      +1
      
      Yes and this is what made me very very angry when I realised I had been keeping my account open in order not to 'lose' the credits - i did that for a couple of years before admitting to myself that I was making a false saving my hanging on. Just quit while you're only a little behind, as it were. They actually paid out a class action over this
irresistibl on 12/03/2024 - 07:26

Thanks mate 😊
admr on 12/03/2024 - 07:33

+14

Hated it in year 9, life changing now.
- Whisper Quiet on 12/03/2024 - 08:44
  
  +8
  
  Really? I loved it even back then. So surprising that they gave us a book to read and study in school that was actually brilliant.
- dexpointdexter on 12/03/2024 - 09:03
  
  +1
  
  Animal farm was great in year 9, hated 1984 in year 12.
  - soan papdi on 12/03/2024 - 10:00
    
    +4
    
    I think Brave New World is a much better reflection of today's society than 1984.
    - jv on 15/03/2024 - 16:33
      
      -1
      
      A Clockwork Orange trumps them all for representing Melbourne under the Andrews/Allan governments…
jeneral426 on 12/03/2024 - 07:37

+14

US link - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CW18R65D
KevinFine on 12/03/2024 - 07:52

+23

Is that "1984" or 2024? - By the synopsis … I can't tell
- ForkSnorter on 12/03/2024 - 08:00
  
  If you're talking about Russia or North Korea, then your comment is valid.
  - AustriaBargain on 12/03/2024 - 08:09
    
    Probably an allegory for Australia's landed gentry by now. Or whatever, I didn't get the point of Animal Farm.
    - ForkSnorter on 12/03/2024 - 08:46
      
      +16
      
      Animal Farm was a direct critique of Joseph Stalin's totalitarian style of communism. But it indirectly shows how all communist states trend toward totalitarianism.
      
      What I got from it was that the only unquestionable ideal/principle a society should be based on is democracy. All other idealist societies trend towards totalitarianism, because the underlying principles must be imposed, rather than debated and voted on. Without democracy, all societies trend toward totalitarianism. All non-democratic societies require their leaders to have unlimited power, in the respect that the leaders are generally exempt from the rules they impose, and they can change the rules at whim by claiming the changes are in the interests of the underlying principles of the society. Power generally leads to corruption, and unlimited power leads to unlimited corruption.
      
      1984 explores some of the same themes of Animal Farm, but goes further to imagine a future Earth where totalitarianism has prevailed and personal freedom utterly destroyed. I got the sense that Orwell was insinuating that there is no longer anyone in charge. The totalitarian state has become like an unstoppable machine, where every single person has no option but to play their part due to the well-oiled machinery that imposes total control over every individual. Maybe I'm wrong, but the fact is, you never really glimpse anyone who is really in charge, and Big Brother is obviously a non-existent person, he is more a concept designed to provoke fear and compliance.
      
      In my opinion, Animal Farm depicts societies like Russia and North Kora, where the leaders have pretty much absolute control and can do what they want. Whereas 1984 kinds of depicts a society a little bit like China, where even the leader is just a cog in the machinery (although China is still a lot nicer and allows much more personal freedom than Oceania in 1984). In all other respects, though, the society in 1984 is very similar to present-day North Korea.
      - SpainKing on 12/03/2024 - 09:18
        
        +6
        
        @ForkSnorter: If that was an essay I'd give you an A+
      - 1st-Amendment on 12/03/2024 - 10:07
        
        +8
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        What I got from it was that the only unquestionable ideal/principle a society should be based on is democracy
        
        You must have missed the part where the animals voted in the tyrants.
        I think the message was that democracy can also be bad, since stupid people will happily give away their rights for the perception of security and/or comfort.
        
        where totalitarianism has prevailed and personal freedom utterly destroyed
        
        Agree, which is an extension of Animal Farm's themes. It's not just democracy, it's personal freedom. Huxley had similar themes in Brave New World, but where Orwell's message is too much stick = tyranny, Huxley's was that too much carrot can also be a form of tyranny.
        
        In my opinion, Animal Farm depicts societies like…
        
        In my opinion, it's less about that (although it's important) and more about the process of how they got there. Because unless you are aware of how tyranny takes hold we could all easily fall into the same trap. The animals voted in the pigs because they offered them security and comfort, it's a common trap. Just look at how easily people here gave up their freedoms and were happy to throw anyone else under a bus during the Covid scare.
        
        Igaf on 12/03/2024 - 16:39
        
        -8
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Just look at how easily people here gave up their freedoms and were happy to throw anyone else under a bus during the Covid scare.
        
        I see below you're still making ludicrous comments about things you don't understand. Forksnorter already has your number so I'll concentrate this bit of nonsense, I'l make it simple for you given your previous congitive problems on climate change.
        
        Covid wasn't a "scare", it was real. It has killed ~7 million worldwide and >24,000 in Australia, put enormous pressure on hospitals and health systems/workers, and left a growing list of people dealing with Long Covid, (PACS), the effects of which are still to fully play out. Particular health professionals are already seeing people - including normally healthy 'sporting types' - suffering from PEM fatigue.
        
        Our society temporarily sacrificed their "freedom" - and more in some cases - for the common good, understanding that the pandemic had many unknowns - including the effects of Long Covid above.
        
        Health officials wisely adopted the precautionary principle because a small minority of selfish eejuts either didn't care or were blissfully unaware of the consequences of their actions in not following simple guidleines.
        
        Most lockdowns occurred before mass vaccination had occurred. This took FAR longer than it should have due to the effwit at the helm. Quote "It's not a race". Pretty much anyone with more than half a brain knew it WAS a race - against a serious, highly infectious disease, health system overload, economic hardship, and ultimately for some people - death.
        
        PS you comment about Labor's economic record is as ignorant and peurile as most of your comments when we last 'met'.
        
        1st-Amendment on 12/03/2024 - 17:09
        
        -8
        
        @Igaf:
        
        I see below you're still making ludicrous comments
        
        I see you still haven't got a handle on your emotions…
        
        Covid wasn't a "scare"
        
        Yet you clearly sound scared…
        
        It has killed ~7 million worldwide
        
        OMG that sounds scary. You know that 1 million people die every week from other causes right? So 7 million over the course of over 3+ years is a rounding error. That number also doesn't take into account the numbers of people that would've died during that time anyway from other causes. Unless you know this data it is just a great example of FUD. And FUD is no reason to throw a global economy down the toilet.
        
        Our society temporarily sacrificed their "freedom"
        
        Exactly what I said… and see how easily it happened. People were told to be afraid and people like you lapped it up and immediately rolled over.
        
        Pretty much anyione with more than half a brain knew it WAS a race
        
        Great argument. Anyone with more than half a brain knew! This is what passes for a sound logical argument to you?
        
        I'd love to hear how your hypothesis on why Victoria with far more lockdowns ended up with more deaths than NSW which had far fewer.
        Maybe too much brains contributed to the Covid deaths? Those Victorians just had too many brains for their own good…
        
        Igaf on 12/03/2024 - 18:53
        
        -3
        
        @1st-Amendment: Back to the old habits I see, Guess I'll have to strap in for another long haul as you expose your naivety, ignorance and junior high school level acuity on yet another topic.
        
        OMG that sounds scary. You know that 1 million people die every week from other causes right? So 7 million over the course of over 3+ years is a rounding error. That number also doesn't take into account the numbers of people that would've died during that time anyway from other causes. Unless you know this data it is just a great example of FUD. And FUD is no reason to throw a global economy down the toilet.
        
        OMG indeed. Your climate knowledge was next to non-existent, so bad you completely reversed the effect volcanoes have on warming (as you now know they're negative forcings overall), but this bit of buffoonery is next level. After you efforts on climate and USA Immigration I shouldn't be surprised that you'd be totally ignorant of the concept of Excess Mortality. Yet again you've judged others - in this case statisticians/demographers/epidemiologists - by your own kiddie level knowledge and acumen. Reality is that those experts (and most 'amateurs' with at least moderate acuity) long ago understood that you can't judge the effects of certain events on mortality rates without first having baselines - baselines established with valid, published statistical standards (https://elifesciences.org/articles/69336). Still with me, or do you need to phone a friend?
        
        The link below explains, in very easy to understand terms, what Excess Mortality is a measure of (as obvious as it is to most) - something anyone offering opinions like yours SHOULD already know. It even provides a primary school equation (EM=TD-ED) for dribblers. But wait, there's more. The website also explains how excess mortality is calculated for interested new chums and assorted opinionated fools who still haven't grasped the concept. Look and learn, education can be helpful and fun if you let it: https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid
        
        But wait, there's even more! The site has some very useful tools to enable visitors to view and graph all sorts of interesting data. You can select data based on your interest (country, age groups etc) and view that data in tabular or graphic form. Here's an example which charts excess deaths in just 9 countries. You'll note the top four together total about 4.2M alone. India's data is missing for reasons you already know (cough), but on very conservative estimates (3M) if we add them in that gives a total of over 7M in just 5 countries.
        https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-…
        
        And, as you're no doubt expecting, I ain't finished by a long shot, so stay tuned.
        
        1st-Amendment on 13/03/2024 - 10:50
        
        -1
        
        @Igaf:
        
        Guess I'll have to strap in for another long haul as you expose your naivety, ignorance and junior high school level acuity on yet another topic.
        
        I see you still haven't got a handle on your emotions…
        
        QED
        
        Igaf on 13/03/2024 - 11:15
        
        -3
        
        @1st-Amendment: You've tried that before and it didn't work. Old saying reworked: banging your head against a wall is no substitute for learning and knowledge, both of which you refuse to embrace for some reason. Corollary - opinionated ignorance is no substitute for knowledge.
        
        No comment on the simple, very well nown, concept of Excess Mortality? Yet again, I'm not surprise because it completely dismantles your obviously witless and unread view that : "That number also doesn't take into account the numbers of people that would've died during that time anyway from other causes." If nothing else you might have learned something.
        
        As we discovered on climate change it helps if you're at least familiar with the basics before you enter a discussion. I'm sure some of your blissfully unaware redneck supporters were convinced as you regaled us with your fabulously insightful but totally irrelevant opinion that millions of people die every week. I doubt they'll have bothered to do any reading on the topic but as I've suggested many times - hope springs eternal.
        
        Igaf on 12/03/2024 - 19:32
        
        -5
        
        @1st-Amendment: So much juvenile tosh, so little time
        
        Our society temporarily sacrificed their "freedom"
        Exactly what I said… and see how easily it happened. People were told to be afraid and people like you lapped it up and immediately rolled over.
        
        Still quoting out of context and with no apparent grasp of the pandemic and our responses to it I see. Seems you misread the message political leaders of all clours and their health experts went to pains to explain. Am I surprised? Not in the least. Here's a quick summary of the messages I and most of the country got:
        - Covid-19 is a very transmissible virus which affects various demographics differently (our officials were using the freely available data from the UK)
        - Covid-19 has killed and hospitalised hundreds of thousands overseas and overwhelmed health systems and has the potential to do the same here.
        - Reducing transmission will mitigate against illness, death and health system overload while vaccines are devloped and made available.
        
        Pretty much anyone with more than half a brain knew it WAS a race
        Great argument. Anyone with more than half a brain knew! This is what passes for a sound logical argument to you?
        
        No logic needed, it was a very straightforward and accurate observation. Morrison was renowned for his buster and thin skin, it was just another of his throw away lines like "I don't hold a hose mate" and the “This is coal, don’t be afraid, don’t be scared” stunt in the House. Even he knew it was a race, he simply didn't like being held to account for fcuking up vaccine purchases which meant late rollout and exposing people to AstraZeneca - which stats showed was more dangerous than the Pfizer vax he and his mates received.
        
        Igaf on 12/03/2024 - 22:34
        
        -4
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        I'd love to hear how your hypothesis on why Victoria with far more lockdowns ended up with more deaths than NSW which had far fewer.
        
        Did you already mention logic somewhere? Could it be that lockdowns were a direct response to the number of deaths and hospitalisations in Vic, or were simply a responsible govt acting on Vic CHO advice? 2021 death numbers suggest the strategy worked to some extent, but correlation isn't causation as you know. It's VERY likely many factors were involved, just as they were during 2020 waves.
        
        It appears experts have yet to find convincing reasons for the early mortality discrepancies (or if they have they're well hidden), but since you asked so nicley I'll have a crack at joining some dots.
        
        A quick glance at the stats show that in 2020 VIC had two major waves while other states only had one. Since death rates correlate closely with infection rates it's logical that VIC's death number would be higher. But that doesn't account for the huge discrepancy in 2020 (805 VIC, 63 NSW) in my inexpert opinion.
        
        As you know, 95% of all aged care deaths occurred in mainly private Victorian facilities. How did that happen I hear you ask? We know from the Vic enquiry that early on Vic Health made many BIG mistakes, some of which had repercussions for aged care facilities (transmission via contractors moving beteween jobs iirc). We also know that the Morrison govt had done sfa about fixing the many problems highlighted by the Aged Care RC prior to covid. The hapless/incompetent Minister, Richard Colbeck, presided over this lack of action. He then exacerbated it by failing to act decisively to rectify staffing and training problems when covid hit our shores despite warnings from Prof Joe Ibrahim (look it up). If you're looking to apportion blame or find reasons for the Vic/NSW discrepancy you have a good starting point right there. https://michaelwest.com.au/yes-minister-aged-care-its-not-my…
        
        During Vic's major lockdowns in 2021 the numbers were much more even - 706 VIC, 630 NSW. "Logically" that might appear to suggest that therefore Vic's lockdowns worked. Care to hypothesise on that possibility?
        
        Interestingly NSW has now (end 2023) surpassed VIC for total covid deaths - VIC 5276, NSW 5659. Care to hypothesise about that turnaround?
        
        glennski on 13/03/2024 - 11:14
        
        -1
        
        @Igaf: @Igaf
        
        It has killed ~7 million worldwide and >24,000 in Australia
        
        Please, how many has the common cold and flu killed for these same timelines, assuming the same metric is being used for capture (i.e if I'm 90 and go into the hospital with a cold, then die due to complications such as pneumonia, that is a cold caused death - same as for covid)?
        
        Igaf on 13/03/2024 - 12:34
        
        -1
        
        @glennski: I assume you didn't bother to read the links on Excess Mortality glennski? There are thousands of other references to it IF you're interested in learning.
        
        Here's WHO's definition in relation to covid: Excess mortality is defined as the difference between the total number of deaths estimated for a specific place and given time period and the number that would have been expected in the absence of a crisis (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic). This difference is assumed to include deaths attributable directly to COVID‑19 as well as deaths indirectly associated with COVID-19 through impacts on health systems and society, minus any deaths that would have occurred under normal circumstances but were averted due to pandemic-related changes in social conditions and personal behaviours.
        
        In simpler terms - Excess Mortality is the difference between Actual Deaths and Expected Deaths (EM=AD-ED). "Average" (it's not that simple) deaths from all causes are already factored into the "expected death" rates.
        
        Excess deaths due to covid are NOT precise numbers (same applies to many death/cause figures, even in Australia) for a range of reasons, mostly related to reporting, urgency during the pandemic, related illnesses/cause of death etc. They do however give a very good overall picture of covid death rates. In 10 years time we might have a more precise picture as experts analyse data and publish papers (which are likely to vary widely but still show reliable trends/estimates).
        
        Interestingly, during covid, influenza was comparatively non-existent in this country (very few cases and zero deaths - dubbed 'flu-zero' - for a 12 month period around mid 2020-21 iirc) yet the expected death rate for Australia would have included averaged annual deaths for that disease (~2800). 2017 and 2019 saw severe outbreaks of the flu and spikes in deaths. According to one paper our annual average annual influenza death rate is ~2800 (based on 2010-19 figs).
        
        Excess mortality doesn't just track covid deaths. In 2022 Australia experienced its highest mortality rate in over 80 years, with only about a third of that attributed to COVID-19. The other two thirds is largely unexplained. Quite disturbingly that excess mortality was a significant percentage across all age groups.
        
        glennski on 13/03/2024 - 13:12
        
        -1
        
        @Igaf: @Igaf definitely interested in learning.
        
        Very interested to learn why excess deaths increased in places where there weren't yet any covid outbreaks e.g WA.
        
        Of course this would have nothing to do with the safe and effective vaccine which as we were told stopped the spread. In fact just to be clear, any suggestion that this medical treatment would have any negative effect on the population is baseless conspiracy theory. So I'm keen for an explanation on anything but that.
        
        Igaf on 13/03/2024 - 14:29
        
        -1
        
        @glennski: I'll assume you last par wasn't sarcasm. Many vaccines have significant negative effects on a tiny number of people - sadly including the ultimate price as we know - but invariably the statistics show the benefits FAR outweigh the risks.
        
        This ABS article might be of interest, if only to outline the complexity of modelling precise excess death numbers. It has data and graphs for WA. No explanation for increases but the Actuaries Institute aggregated 2022 national excess death numbers show significant increases in heart disease (17%), obesity (12%) and cerebrovascular disease (8%).
        
        It may have appeared that WA didn't have "outbreaks" (looking on from the outside Sandgropers appeared to have taken the pandemic seriously and behaved accordingly, unlike sections of Vic and NSW), but it certainly did have many serious covid-19 cases. Currently1399 deaths have been recorded in WA, which may be a pointer to what may have happened if border restrictions etc hadn't been applied. https://covidlive.com.au/
        
        glennski on 13/03/2024 - 18:04
        
        @Igaf: @Igaf
        
        No sarcasm here. I have a lot of friends that believe in all sorts of rubbish and for a time I believed them but now I've seen the truth. What I'm still struggling with is how to argue with them, so your help is appreciated.
        
        I understand that even though there thousands and thousands of unexplained excess deaths relating to heart and vascular conditions, it's nothing to worry about because the main thing is we got through the pandemic thanks to forced lockdowns and effective vaccines. In fact I feel very confident that the covid vaccines shouldn't come into question. There's no incentive for either major political party to play anything down since they both agreed on the policy, and therefore these decisions were the right ones.
        
        So I guess I can just tell these pesky antivaxxer cooker horrible people friends of mine that the unexplained excess deaths are irrelevant?
        
        Igaf on 13/03/2024 - 20:31
        
        -1
        
        @glennski: I'll take your word for it although your last line suggests I shouldn't.
        
        Where were these thousands and thousands of "unexplained" deaths? How do they know the numbers and that they were "unexplained"?
        
        Comorbidities for corona viruses were reasonably well known before the sars-cov-2 virus emerged. That knowledge expanded very quickly as data was collected and analysed during the pandemic. Australia was very fortunate in that we had the luxury of learning from the UK experience.
        
        Cookers - like climate deniers - work on the same well-worn playbook of mis- and dis-information. They obfuscate, cherry pick, exaggerate, invent, lie, regurgitate garbage, ignore experts, deny facts, and almost invariably will not be specific because they know they'll be fact checked. They like to imply rather than state. They also rely on their target not being sufficiently informed - or willing - to rebut their tosh. The technique is a variation of the Gish gallop, rinsed and repeated. Face to face that presents obvious difficulties. On forums it's far easier, with occasional extremely puerile exceptions.
        
        Knowledge and honesty will always defeat opinionated ignorance, fabrication and deception in rational, ordered, democratic societies. Unfortunately, thanks largely to USA events and influences, we appear to be experiencing a time where - in some demographics - false equivalence ("my opinion is as valid as an experts"), self-inflicted ignorance and celebrating stupidity are lauded. In the USA this phenomenon is often put down to "cuture wars", here fortunately it appears to be restricted to a very small, amorphous bunch of “freedom” protesters, anti-vaxxers, "sovereign citizens" etc with a variety of often unfounded grievances and demands. As one journo put it during covid - "Fringe parties, white supremacists and other grifters are mining the paranoia of our times".
        
        Igaf on 14/03/2024 - 13:14
        
        -1
        
        @glennski: @glennski An update in case you're interested.
        
        I wrote above:
        
        In 2022 Australia experienced its highest mortality rate in over 80 years, with only about a third of that attributed to COVID-19. The other two thirds is largely unexplained.
        
        I've since done some more research/reading and about two thirds of the 2022 excess deaths are directly covid related - death either from (52.5%) or with (14.5%).
        The Covid-19 Mortality Working Group has also had a crack at explaining the other 33%.
        Here's their current (first cut I believe) thinking:
        
        What could be causing the non-COVID-19 excess deaths?
        The measurement of higher numbers of deaths than predicted does not tell us why this is occurring. There are several reasons hypothesised around the world (where this effect is occurring to a greater or lesser extent). It isn’t possible to identify from death counts alone what is causing the non-COVID-19 excess deaths, but we have listed below the most likely explanations. We note that multiple factors are likely in play, and different factors may be more or less pronounced at various times.
        
        To summarise the evidence from earlier sections:
        
        deaths with COVID-19 have followed the same pattern as deaths from COVID-19 in 2022;
        non-COVID-19 excess deaths have been highest when there have been peaks in COVID-19 deaths and peaks in influenza deaths;
        
        deaths due to some causes (dementia and “other” diseases in particular) are closely correlated to the level of respiratory disease (including COVID-19) circulating;
        
        non-COVID-19 excess deaths are particularly apparent in the oldest two age groups for both genders, and the youngest two age groups for females only;
        
        non-COVID-19 excess deaths are less apparent when there is no or little COVID-19 circulating, as illustrated by the difference between WA and the other states in early 2022. (my emphasis)
        
        Based on these observations, the following indicates which factors, in our view, are likely to be having a greater or lesser impact on Australian excess mortality in 2022.
        
        -Post-COVID-19 sequelae or interactions with other causes of death: Studies have shown that COVID-19 is associated with higher subsequent mortality risk from heart disease and other causes, but certifying doctors would generally not identify a causative link several months after recovery from COVID-19. Therefore, it seems likely that there would be more of these deaths than identified. The age-based analysis supports this hypothesis, with non-COVID-19 excess deaths occurring in 2022 even in those under 45, noting that this age group has had low levels of COVID-19 deaths. The absence of excess deaths in WA in January also supports this explanation. Likely impact in Australia: High.
        
        Delay in emergency care: Pressure on the health, hospital and aged care systems, including ambulance ramping and bed block, could lead to people not getting the care they require, either as they avoid seeking help, or their care is not as timely as it might have been in pre-pandemic times. The peaks in non-COVID-19 excess deaths at times of high COVID-19 and/or influenza deaths supports this hypothesis. Likely impact in Australia: High during COVID-19 and influenza peaks.
        
        Mortality displacement: Australia had negative mortality displacement (i.e. fewer deaths than expected) in the first year or so of the pandemic, resulting from the absence of many respiratory diseases. The lower-than-expected mortality from respiratory disease was again apparent in 2021. As such, some of the excess we have seen in some causes in 2021 and 2022 may be the reversing of this effect. People who otherwise may have died earlier had their systems been stressed by respiratory disease may now be succumbing to their underlying illnesses. Conversely, the earlier-than-usual flu season in 2022 appears to have resulted in some forward mortality displacement. Likely impact in Australia: Moderate, likely to reduce over time.
        
        Delay in routine care: Opportunities to diagnose or treat non-COVID-19 diseases have been missed for various reasons including fear and lack of opportunity. There is some evidence that this may be affecting cancer deaths. It may also be a factor in higher deaths from other causes, such as ischaemic heart disease, diabetes, and the large “other” category. Likely impact in Australia: Low to Moderate, likely to increase over time.
        
        Undiagnosed COVID-19: Some of the excess deaths could be from unidentified COVID-19. This effect happened early in the pandemic, but it seems less likely in 2022, as testing is much more available, particularly for those who are seriously ill (although for mild illness, testing is clearly reduced). While for any deaths where COVID-19 may be suspected, post-mortem testing is occurring in Australia, it is possible that some deaths caused by COVID-19 with unusual symptoms (e.g. some sudden cardiovascular deaths) may not be identified as caused by COVID-19. The timing of the higher levels of non-COVID-19 excess deaths (once deaths with COVID-19 are also removed) coinciding with high levels of COVID-19 deaths suggests that there may be some undiagnosed COVID-19 deaths. Likely impact in Australia: Low, perhaps higher during COVID-19 peaks.
        
        Mental health issues: There has been much discussion throughout the pandemic about the impacts on mental health, including commentary that lockdowns and other measures are causing an increase in suicide deaths. Data from the latest ABS Causes of Death, Australia publication shows that age-standardised suicide rates for both males and females were lower in 2020 and 2021 compared with the preceding three years, noting that the 2020 and 2021 data is preliminary. The publication also shows that 3.2% of suicide deaths in 2020 (0.06% of all deaths) and 2.6% in 2021 (0.05% of all deaths) had the pandemic mentioned as a risk factor. Even where the pandemic was a risk factor, there were, on average, five other risk factors. The suicide monitoring reports for NSW and Victoria show the same picture for 2020 and 2021, with 2022 slightly higher in NSW and Victoria, but a very small proportion of all deaths. (Lifeline: 13 11 14) Likely impact in Australia: Low.
        
        Pandemic-influenced lifestyle changes: There is evidence from the UK that a higher proportion of people made less healthy lifestyle choices during lockdowns (e.g. drinking more alcohol, exercising less, higher rates of childhood obesity), and that these less healthy practices have continued. It is unclear to what extent similar factors may be affecting mortality in Australia in 2022. Deaths directly caused by drug and/or alcohol abuse are relatively low, compared with those from other causes, but there would be an indirect impact. Likely impact in Australia: Low.
        
        Vaccine-related deaths: While there have been deaths in Australia caused by the administration of COVID-19 vaccines, the number of such deaths has been small. Australia has a very good vaccine approval and safety monitoring processes, administered by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The latest vaccine safety report (to 23 February) shows that, of the 976 reports of death following vaccination, only 14 were found to have been caused by the administration of the vaccine. (my emphasis) The TGA makes it clear that the remaining 962 were not caused by COVID-19 vaccination. That is, they were due to other, unrelated causes. In addition, the vaccine rollout ramped up slowly from February 2021, with high rates of vaccination in August to October 2021 and again in January 2022, but has been low for most of 2022. This does not fit with the timing or shape of the excess mortality. Likely impact in Australia: Negligible.
        
        Igaf on 15/03/2024 - 14:09
        
        @Igaf: Lol. If anyone needed proof of my earlier comment about puerility and denial of expertise I give you the (atm) lone negger. Too puerile to respond like an adult, and almost certainly too witless to understand what the CMWG have opined based on their interpretation of the statistical evidence.
        
        glennski on 15/03/2024 - 15:28
        
        @Igaf: @Igaf thanks for taking the time.
        
        Australia has a very good vaccine approval and safety monitoring processes, administered by the Therapeutic Goods Administration
        
        My friends always crap on about the TGA, comparing it to the FDA in the US and complaining about the opioid epidemic, AIDS drugs etc.
        But where you can see an obvious route for corruption there with the FDA receiving most of its funding from the industry, here with the TGA it's completely publicly funded, ensuring independence from the pressures of some of the richest companies on the globe.
        
        Additionally we don't have the revolving door here of the FDA where the higher ups that help facilitate the rubber stamping of pharmaceutical companies' products are later rewarded after their public life with high paying jobs in these companies and industry lobbying bodies.
        
        Igaf on 15/03/2024 - 16:15
        
        @glennski: Broad brush generalisations like that are almost invariably not even close to the mark when put under a spotlight. That's not to say that particular instances of questionable conduct or undue influence don't occasionally crop up in regulatory environments. Suffice to say that when they do, it's very hard to keep them secret in the USA.
        
        I'm far from expert on either the FDA or the TGA but on what I've read I don't agree with that broad characaterisation of the FDA at all, esp given the huge amount of hoops required (and people involved) in drug approval. They are not simply rubber stamped by any single individual or even a small cabal with links to pharma companies. Does that organisation or anyone else (including medical scientists) get everything 100% right? No, for obvious reasons.
        
        Simple question - out of the thousands of medical (and other) experts involved in drug regulation in the USA how many have done what you claim, and what is the evidence that something nefarious - or at least highly questionable - was involved? It seems reasonable that certain people would be headhunted by pharma companies, just as govt tax experts and ex-politicians are here for example.
        
        You should ask 'your friends' what they're explicitly suggestng and what their alternatives are? That covid vaccines were inadequately tested perhaps?
        
        In any big organisation problems involving humans will always exist. At times of deadly pandemics some compromises may be required (I'm unaware of any in particular but I'm just an interested member of the public so that means sfa). Would your friends prefer a completely unregulated, unscientific system perhaps, or only drugs perfectly safe for 100% of the population (lol), or maybe no drugs whatsoever?
    - 1st-Amendment on 12/03/2024 - 09:14
      
      Probably an allegory for Australia's landed gentry by now.
      
      Yes that exactly it. Living in probably the most peaceful and prosperous place and time in all of human history is an allegory for totalitarian dystopia…
      
      Or whatever, I didn't get the point of Animal Farm.
      
      Nor 1984, nor the modern Australian political landscape…
      - AustriaBargain on 12/03/2024 - 09:19
        
        @1st-Amendment: Things must have seem peaceful from the pig's point of view after the events of Animal Farm unfolded. I forget if the pigs won or not, but if they did then things would have seemed very peaceful.
        
        1st-Amendment on 12/03/2024 - 09:24
        
        -1
        
        @AustriaBargain:
        
        Things must have seem peaceful from the pig's point of view
        
        Well feel free to give objective examples of the dystopia that you think are living in, sitting around browsing websites for bargains to purchase. I'm happy to be educated…
        
        things would have seemed
        
        Not 'seemed', objectively provable. But let's see your evidence and see if your claims stack up.
        
        AustriaBargain on 12/03/2024 - 09:26
        
        +2
        
        @1st-Amendment: Well the people that inherited houses from their parents and bought even more houses probably don't know what people mean when they talk about cost of living crisis or housing crisis. High rents must seem like a good thing to them, hardly a crisis at all. They are like the pigs who learned to walk like the farmer.
        
        1st-Amendment on 12/03/2024 - 09:36
        
        -1
        
        @AustriaBargain:
        
        probably don't know what people mean when they talk about cost of living crisis or housing crisis
        
        Try less opinion, and more actual objective evidence. Or do you not understand what that is either?
        Imagine how good life must be that the very worst thing you come come up with is that the rent where you live is slightly higher than you'd like. No war, no famine, no political oppression, just slightly higher rents that you would like.
        Have you thought about moving somewhere to where the rent is within your budget? You know like every other generation in history did? Or is moving considered tyranny too?
        
        ForkSnorter on 12/03/2024 - 09:39
        
        +3
        
        @AustriaBargain: You're right, we live in a very unfair society, particularly with respect to housing inequality. The only consolation is that because of democracy, we can potentially do something about it one day, although it can be slow to implement changes via democracy. Don't forget, when Bill Shorten proposed scrapping/changing negative gearing in 2019, he lost the election. I would argue this is the main reason Labor lost the election. The other reason is because he proposed scrapping a tax loophole that allows the wealthiest Australians to get free money added to their superannuation, which the Liberals deliberately lied about and mislabelled as a "retiree tax". It wasn't a tax, it was a proposal to remove a tax loophole that sucked money out of the economy and deposited it in the superannuation balances of the wealthiest Australians. And we voted against it.
        
        1st-Amendment on 12/03/2024 - 10:21
        
        -2
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        You're right, we live in a very unfair society
        
        Life is not fair, but it's hardly 1984, Imagine being so emotionally fragile that you think 2024 Australia is Orwell's 1984. I wonder if you've ever been to any socialist country?
        
        Don't forget, when Bill Shorten proposed scrapping/changing negative gearing in 2019, he lost the election.
        
        Because it was such a stupid idea that only stupid people bought into it. Income tax is tax on income, but Bill's brain fart of an idea was to also tax losses. And you wonder why the Labor party/voters have such a poor reputation economically…
        
        get free money added to their superannuation
        
        All Australians get a lower a tax rate on their super contributions as an encouragement to boost their super and relieve taxpayer burden of the age pension. How is this unfair when it applies equally to ALL Australians?
        
        that sucked money out of the economy
        
        Tax is not 'the economy's' money, it yours and mine. Why do Labor voters always think that other people's money belongs to them? It's seems to be a pathological flaw that affects every idea they have. 'Here's a great idea, and to pay for it we'll use someone else's money'. Can you give me a Labor idea that doesn't involve taking someone else's money to implement it?
        
        And we voted against it.
        
        Yes we voted against Bill brain farts. And thank fire truck we did. I mean you got Albo running the show now and the economy is the weakest its been in 27 years. Why do you think it is that the economy always suffers under Labor?
        
        Raynes on 12/03/2024 - 10:33
        
        +3
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Why do you think it is that the economy always suffers under Labor?
        
        I'm no Labor fanboy but that is an absolutely insane thing to say
        
        1st-Amendment on 12/03/2024 - 11:51
        
        -2
        
        @Raynes:
        
        I'm no Labor fanboy but that is an absolutely insane thing to say
        
        So the economy isn't tanking right now?
        
        ForkSnorter on 12/03/2024 - 11:17
        
        +3
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Life is not fair, but it's hardly 1984, Imagine being so emotionally fragile that you think 2024 Australia is Orwell's 1984. I wonder if you've ever been to any socialist country?
        
        You clearly didn't read my original reply and my subsequent replies. I was arguing that Australia today is utterly unlike Orwell's 1984.
        
        Because it was such a stupid idea that only stupid people bought into it. Income tax is tax on income, but Bill's brain fart of an idea was to also tax losses. And you wonder why the Labor party/voters have such a poor reputation economically…
        
        Nevertheless, negative gearing and CGT discount have made property investment extremely popular in Australia, and this has played a big part in the housing affordability crisis, the increasing disparity between median income and median property prices, and housing inequality.
        
        All Australians get a lower a tax rate on their super contributions as an encouragement to boost their super and relieve taxpayer burden of the age pension. How is this unfair when it applies equally to ALL Australians?
        
        Franking credits overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Australians, and Labor's proposed changes (in 2019, and 2023) would overwhelmingly impact people with the largest superannuation balances. The proposed changes in 2023 would only impact on earnings on the portion of a wealthy individual's superannuation balance that is above $3 million.
        
        Why do you think it is that the economy always suffers under Labor?
        
        This is absolutely not true, and any unbiased analysis of economic parameters correlated with ruling political party over the past 40 years would demonstrate this. It is only cherry picking that leads to simplistic generalisations like this. Conservatives love to cherry pick, unfortunately.
        
        1st-Amendment on 12/03/2024 - 11:47
        
        -2
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        You clearly didn't read my original reply
        
        You replied to AustriaBargain's post that said "Probably an allegory for Australia's landed gentry by now." with "You're right"
        
        I was arguing that Australia today is utterly unlike Orwell's 1984
        
        By agreeing with someone that just said it was the same?
        
        this has played a big part in the housing affordability crisis
        
        Not really. This is where a basic understanding of economics comes in.
        All markets are driven at a fundamental level by supply and demand. Prices go up when demand outstrips supply, so you only have to look at what the barriers are to supply in the building industry that has caused prices to rise. It's not tax, that mainly affects demand, it's heavy government regulation that prevent builders from building. We've known for decades that Australia's increasing population would cause housing supply issues, but both governments keep adding tighter regulations which limit supply, then act surprised when prices go up. It truly is clown world.
        
        overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Australians
        
        Of course. When it comes to money, the people with more money have more benefits. That will always be true. But the answer to some people being wealthier than other isn't to hobble those who have things, it's to create opportunity for those that don't. Labor's policies are always about hobbling the very people that create all the opportunity.
        
        This is absolutely not true
        
        So it's just a coincidence that the economy tanks when Labor takes office, yet again?
        https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-06/gdp-december-quarter-…
        
        Conservatives love to cherry pick, unfortunately.
        
        I'm sure the irony of this comment is lost on you.
        
        ForkSnorter on 12/03/2024 - 12:05
        
        +1
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        You replied to AustriaBargain's post that said "Probably an allegory for Australia's landed gentry by now." with "You're right"
        
        No, I was replying to his post about inequality and the cost of living crisis or housing crisis. And I mentioned that we live in a democracy, so we can do something about that (my point was that, in a totalitarian society, we wouldn't be able to do anything about it).
        
        Not really. This is where a basic understanding of economics comes in.
        All markets are driven at a fundamental level by supply and demand. Prices go up when demand outstrips supply, so you only have to look at what the barriers are to supply in the building industry that has caused prices to rise. It's not tax, that mainly affects demand, it's heavy government regulation that prevent builders from building. We've known for decades that Australia's increasing population would cause housing supply issues, but both governments keep adding tighter regulations which limit supply, then act surprised when prices go up. It truly is clown world.
        
        Over-investment in property has massively increased demand.
        
        Of course. When it comes to money, the people with more money have more benefits. That will always be true. But the answer to some people being wealthier than other isn't to hobble those who have things, it's to create opportunity for those that don't. Labor's policies are always about hobbling the very people that create all the opportunity.
        
        So do you think taxing earnings on the portion of a superannuation balance that is above $3 million will hobble someone? Did you know that spending stimulates the economy. If you give more money to a poor person, they will spend it all. If you give more money to a rich person, they'll often lock it away in property or superannuation, or offshore tax havens, etc. Fair enough, investment in shares can contribute to the economy, but it is not always direct or immediate, the way spending is.
        
        So it's just a coincidence that the economy tanks when Labor takes office, yet again?
        https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-06/gdp-december-quarter-…
        
        This is called cherry picking. Keep in mind, I am not 100% a fan of Albanese, who owns multiple investment properties.
        
        I'm sure the irony of this comment is lost on you.
        
        It's not ironic. It's an absolute fact. They just love to cherry pick, and they are very, very uninterested in taking an unbiased look at the facts.
        
        1st-Amendment on 12/03/2024 - 12:46
        
        -2
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        Over-investment in property has massively increased demand.
        
        Sure, so how do you address increases in demand? You don't artificially limit demand, that is nuts as it then only stifles economic growth (The Labor way!).
        Increases in demand are satisfied by greater supply (Economics 101). So what is preventing supply of new houses? Government over-regulation on new builds, see the problem now?
        
        So do you think taxing earnings on the portion of a superannuation balance that is above $3 million will hobble someone?
        
        Yes. Every dollar to taken from someone is a dollar they cannot spend themselves.
        
        Did you know that spending stimulates the economy.
        
        Yes, so why not let people spend their own money how they see fit? Why do you think the government is more productive at spending money than the citizens who made the money in the first place? Because if you look at all the most economically stimulating things, they are all private business related.
        
        If you give more money to a rich person, they'll often lock it away in property or superannuation, or offshore tax havens, etc
        
        Lol this is comical left wing crazy talk which is exactly one of the messages from Animal Farm. Poor people good! Rich people bad!
        When someone buys a property the money isn't locked up, all of it goes to another person, the seller of the property, maybe the bank gets some, lawyers will get some, RE agents will get some etc, builder if a new build or renovation, who can all then spend that money, often to grow their own businesses and hire more staff.
        Superannuation is an investment into public companies that create goods and services and jobs. No money is 'locked up'.
        Even these so-called 'tax havens' are instruments to minimise tax, the money still exists and still gets spent.
        
        It's not ironic.
        
        The irony is that are cherry picking right now, and that was very clearly lost on you.
        
        It's an absolute fact.
        
        You opinion is not a fact.
        
        ForkSnorter on 12/03/2024 - 13:01
        
        +2
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Sure, so how do you address increases in demand? You don't artificially limit demand, that is nuts as it then only stifles economic growth (The Labor way!).
        Increases in demand are satisfied by greater supply. So what is preventing supply of new houses? Government over-regulation, see the problem now?
        
        According to the ATO, 2,245,539 Australians owned an investment property in 2021. A portion of these would own multiple investment properties. This number would also have increased since 2021. This is not a negligible impact on supply and demand. It far outweighs the impact of immigration.
        
        I do not see any evidence that Labor is trying to artificially limit demand (quite the contrary, they have increased immigration), and I don't see any evidence that the Liberal government has been more successful in increasing supply than Labor.
        
        Lol this is comical left wing crazy talk which is exactly one of the messages form Animal Farm. Poor people good! Rich people bad!
        
        I didn't say that, but I get the impression I'm arguing with someone who is defending inequality and who loves Liberal, hates Labor. You come across as extremely biased, and I wonder if you will ever say something positive about a Labor government. Keep in mind, I have never voted Labor, and possibly never will.
        
        Also, my argument is not invalid. In my experience, conservatives rarely consider the positive economic impact of redistributing wealth to poor people. Pretty much 100% of that money gets spent on goods and services. On the other hand, if you gave the same money to rich people, a portion of that money would not get spent. It is a very simple argument, but it is worth considering.
        
        Superannuation is an investment into public companies that create goods and services and jobs. No money is 'locked up'.
        
        Superannuation includes all kinds of options, including cash, bonds, overseas shares, etc.
        
        1st-Amendment on 12/03/2024 - 14:37
        
        -3
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        This is not a negligible impact on supply and demand
        
        This says nothing about supply, only demand…
        So what about supply? If I'm a builder and I know more people want to buy property, what is stopping me for supplying more property to satisfy demand? I tell you what, all the stupid rules that both governments bring in make building harder and more expensive. This is the root cause of housing issues. Have you tried to build a new house lately? I have, all the regulations are insane. If you want more houses, which we clearly do, then make it easier for people to build more houses. (ie implement policies that will increase supply) It's that simple.
        
        I do not see any evidence that Labor is trying to artificially limit demand
        
        You said that they proposed an increase taxes, this limits demand. When things cost more you can afford less of them… demnad is constricted.
        
        quite the contrary, they have increased immigration
        
        So increasing demand for more housing then… Do you see the pattern now?
        
        I wonder if you will ever say something positive about a Labor government.
        
        Not while they keep coming up with dumb already debunked policies I won't. I mean the Voice referendum is an example possibly the dumbest decision made by any government in at least 40 years. FWIW Liberals also do stupid shit, but at least they keep the economy ticking over. And they at least seem to grasp the basic of supply and demand.
        
        conservatives rarely consider the positive economic impact of redistributing wealth to poor people
        
        Evidence for this claim? Maybe your left wing media sources just don't tell you about it because they are so biased. But it's been very well covered and debunked decades ago. Here's good start: https://www.amazon.com.au/Wealth-Poverty-Politics-Thomas-Sow…
        
        All your ideas have been heard before and are debunked in this book.
        
        On the other hand, if you gave the same money to rich people,
        
        What money? Whose money are you taking?
        Lefties always confuse tax breaks with 'giving money away'. A tax break is simply letting YOU keep some more of YOUR OWN money. It is not the government's money.
        
        Superannuation includes all kinds of options
        
        Which all involve more use of the money. At no point is money 'locked up' anywhere, not even in a bank. Because even cash deposits are used as leverage for more credit, ie more money created to be used by others.
        
        including cash, bonds, overseas shares, etc.
        
        All examples of money being reused. Not 'locked up'.
        
        ForkSnorter on 12/03/2024 - 15:55
        
        +2
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        FWIW Liberals also do stupid shit, but at least they keep the economy ticking over. And they at least seem to grasp the basic of supply and demand.
        
        Again, I think you are generalising. If you look back over the past 45 years, your generalisations just don’t stand up.
        
        I mean the Voice referendum is an example possibly the dumbest decision made by any government in at least 40 years
        
        I admit, having a referendum about this may not have been the best way forward. But the actual proposal was not a big deal. There was a lot of misinformation about it, but it was basically just giving Indigenous Australians the opportunity to stand up in parliament and voice their opinion on legislation that directly concerned them. It didn’t give them any special legislative powers or anything.
        
        Evidence for this claim? Maybe your left wing media sources just don't tell you about it because they are so biased. But it's been very well covered and debunked decades ago.
        
        https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gini-coefficient-vs-gdp-p…
        
        This is data showing that, on average, societies with higher levels of income equality tend to have higher levels of per capita GDP. When you plot all the nations(economies) on a graph, there is a clear trend. I have seen more detailed data than this, and different data which corroborated it, so I can assure you this is not a one-off anomaly. You can slide along the time axis to see that this trend remains true over time. If you stop cherry-picking your sources, and look at all the data, this is what you see. There are, of course, exceptions (outliers) in the data, but what we are interested in are trends and correlations.
        
        1st-Amendment on 12/03/2024 - 16:39
        
        -2
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        If you look back over the past 45 years, your generalisations just don’t stand up.
        
        Well they do, after the last recession in 1992 when Labor were charge (notice the pattern?) Australia has had many years of consistent solid growth since then. The biggest dips were during the Rudd/Gillard government and now with Albo. The pattern exists, even if you refuse to admit it.
        
        But the actual proposal was not a big deal.
        
        It actually was. Rather than run the country Albo decided that a racially divisive argument that would last 9 months would be a great idea. This distraction is at the cost of economic management, hence why things are tanking right now..
        
        "but it was basically just giving Indigenous Australians the opportunity to stand up in parliament and voice their opinion"
        
        Everyone already has that, it's called voting. To give some citizens more power based on their race is the literal definition of racism. Something we haven't seen since the 60's. This is Albo's legacy.
        
        This is data showing that, on average, societies with higher levels of income equality tend to have higher levels of per capita GDP
        
        What does this have to do with the discussion? The claim was about wealth redistribution policies. Nothing in this link talks to that.
        Firstly I see no correlation. eg Pakistan has more equality according to your source than Australia and it has much lower GDP. Would you prefer to live in Pakistan than Australia? How about East Timor? The data does not show what you think it does.
        Secondly, remember when I said your ideas have already been debunked? Correlation is not causation, here's the quote from the Author I already linked to: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3237859-one-of-the-first-th…
        
        I suggest you read a book or two of his, or just watch some of his clips on YouTube. All the common left wing myths about economics have been debunked by him.
        
        If you stop cherry-picking your sources
        
        Like you just did here… and they weren't even on topic.
        
        ForkSnorter on 13/03/2024 - 09:34
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Well they do, after the last recession in 1992 when Labor were charge (notice the pattern?) Australia has had many years of consistent solid growth since then. The biggest dips were during the Rudd/Gillard government and now with Albo. The pattern exists, even if you refuse to admit it.
        
        I'm going to link to a few non cherry-picked articles/graphs on this question. These are not cherry-picked. I just opened the first ones that came up in a Google search:
        
        The first is a graph of Labor and Liberal terms vs GDP growth. It shows that there is no simple answer to this question.
        Source: ABS
        
        The graph (data sourced from ABS) came from this article:
        https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/labor-liberal-manage-econo…
        
        This article contains more data (graphs) concerning unemployment, taxes, and interest rates:
        https://www.smh.com.au/national/does-the-coalition-always-ma…
        Again, it shows there is no simple answer to this question. The data is official data released by the treasury.
        
        Of course, you could keep looking for sources that support whatever viewpoint you prefer, but I prefer articles that look at official data, and important economic indicators.
        
        Firstly I see no correlation.
        
        That's funny, because there is a correlation. Your ability to see it is irrelevant. Can you see the moons around Jupiter with your naked eyes? No. Does that mean they don't exist?
        
        Regardless of which year you look at, if you plot the average, there is a clear line showing the trend. Just do a google image search for Gini coefficient vs GDP per capita, and you'll see countless graphs demonstrating this.
        
        If you stop cherry-picking your sources
        Like you just did here… and they weren't even on topic.
        
        This is not cherry-picked data. In fact, it is the opposite, they looked at all the available data. This is a well-known, decades-long enterprise to chart correlations between income equality and economic indicators. This data has been analyzed by countless institutions across the globe. They did not expect to find a correlation between income equality and GDP per capita, but that's what they found. They might have expected to find a correlation with economic growth, but they didn't. The correlation they found was between income equality and GDP per capita.
        
        The reason I highlighted this, is because we were talking about wealth redistribution. There is obviously a correlation between wealth redistribution and income equality, and one of the purposes (and outcomes) of wealth redistribution is to increase income equality.
        
        eg Pakistan has more equality according to your source than Australia and it has much lower GDP. Would you prefer to live in Pakistan than Australia?
        
        You are complaining to me about cherry-picking, and you are cherry-picking individual nations out of this graph to prove there is no correlation???
        
        The data shows a clear correlation. Not all nations fit the trend, but there is still a trend. Do you know how to analyse data? You look at all of the data, not just single points of data that conveniently fit your argument.
        
        How low are you going to stoop to continue to demonstrate your extreme bias?
        
        1st-Amendment on 13/03/2024 - 10:46
        
        -1
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        That's funny, because there is a correlation
        
        So why is East Timor both 'equal' and 'poor'? Just saying something is true doesn't make it true.
        
        Just do a google image search for Gini coefficient vs GDP per capita, and you'll see countless graphs demonstrating this.
        
        Yet you couldn't produce a single one…
        
        The correlation they found was between income equality and GDP per capita.
        
        Except in East Timor and many other examples, how does your theory explain that?
        
        You also missed the part about correlation not being causation. This is high school statistics, here's a humourous way to learn this basic lesson: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
        
        There is obviously a correlation between wealth redistribution and income equality
        
        That's right but it's not what you think. North Korea redistributes wealth and has equal income, ie everyone is equally poor. Do you prefer North Korea to Australia?
        
        and you are cherry-picking individual nations out of this graph to prove there is no correlation
        
        Yes because that is precisely how debunking a hypothesis works. The fact that you don't understand this basic principle of logic says a lot.
        
        Let me help you out again with an example:
        If you were to claim that 'only blue cars crash', you can't just cherry pick one example of one blue car crashing to prove your claim, you need to show ALL the data for all car crashes. But for me to debunk your claim, all I need to do is show one single example of a crashed car that isn't blue.
        So yes, cherry picking data cannot be used to prove a claim but it can absolutely be used to disprove one.
        
        Do you know how to analyse data? You look at all of the data, not just single points of data that conveniently fit your argument.
        
        Yes I have university level statistics education as part of my Physics degree. It is obvious that you do not since you keep making rookie errors.
        
        How low are you going to stoop to continue to demonstrate your extreme bias?
        
        I've just demonstrated that my position is based on sound reasoning. Here's the TL;DR version:
        1. There is no obvious correlation in the data you provided
        2. Even if there was, correlation is not causation (statistics 101)
        3. A proof requires all data, a disproof only requires one counter-example.
        4. Bonus point: Disparity is not discrimination (not covered here, but I just know that this myth will come sooner or later as lefties always fall into this trap too)
        
        Which one of those points can you demonstrate is not true?
        
        ForkSnorter on 13/03/2024 - 11:22
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Yet you couldn't produce a single one…
        
        1
        2
        3
        4
        
        So why is East Timor both 'equal' and 'poor'? Just saying something is true doesn't make it true.
        
        Because correlation does not imply causation. Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that correlation does not imply causation. And, if you look back over my previous posts, nowhere did I use the word "causation". I consistently used the word "correlation".
        
        But since you still don't seem to understand the point of my previous replies, I'll spell it out for you:
        
        You linked to a cherry-picked conservative source, which you claims "debunks" the positive economic impact of redistributing wealth to poorer people.
        
        If, as you claim, there is no positive impact of redistributing wealth to poorer people, and if, as you seem to be insinuating, there is a negative impact, then there almost certainly would not be a correlation between income equality and per capita GDP. It is noteworthy that there is even a correlation between income equality and per capita GDP if you exclude developing nations and look only at the major capitalist democracies.
        
        If, as you claim, there is no positive impact of redistributing wealth to poorer people, why do all major capitalist societies around the world include socialist policies (social welfare policies)? Why do the major capitalist countries with higher levels of social welfare policies tend to have higher per capita GDP (e.g. Denmark)?
        
        Proving that outliers exist does not prove there is no correlation.
        
        You have asserted that the positive impact of wealth distribution has been debunked. I'm arguing that if that is true, and wealth distribution has a negative impact on the economy, we wouldn't see trends like the one I indicated.
        
        Yes I have university level statistics education as part of my Physics degree.
        
        I completed university level statistics too, 25 years ago, but you do not need a class in mathematical statistics to understand that correlation does not imply causation if you read books.
        
        1 There is no obvious correlation in the data you provided
        
        Yes there is. Plot the average of the data points and you see a clear line indicating the trend, as I demonstrated above.
        
        2 Even if there was, correlation is not causation (statistics 101)
        
        That is true, but you haven't ruled out a causative effect.
        
        3 A proof requires all data, a disproof only requires one counter-example.
        
        That is one of the most unscientific things I've ever heard. If you hit 50 people in the shin with a baseball bat and one of those people does not end up with a broken leg, does this disprove the hypothesis that hitting people in the shins with a baseball bat is dangerous???? Well, we better classify all modern medical technology and pharmaceuticals as ineffective, because clinical trial results almost always include outliers.
        
        1st-Amendment on 13/03/2024 - 13:49
        
        -1
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        1(researchgate.net) 2(businessinsider.com) 3(stlouisfed.org) 4(media.springernature.com)
        
        Cool. Now we have some data we can analyse it.
        So first obvious point is that you provided 4 links with conflicting results. Two are lines nowhere near most of the dots, one is a curve, the other has no line. Not really the smoking gun you are claiming…
        Second obvious point is that there is no obvious correlation. Correlation is usually when the dots follow an obvious pattern, ie they are mostly all on or near the line. All your links did was randomly draw lines through a bunch of dots, most of which weren't even close to the line. This would not pass a high school statistics report.
        
        nowhere did I use the word "causation"
        
        Right so we agree that no causation has been demonstrated? So what was your point again?
        
        You linked to a cherry-picked conservative source
        
        Basic principles of statistics are 'conservative' now?
        Does 'conservative' now mean anything that disagrees with me?
        My example of East Timor was from your data set. I debunked your claim with one example from your own data, East Timor. I could also provide others, Kiribati, Pakistan, Ethiopia, South Africa etc… all from your data
        
        then there almost certainly would not be a correlation between income equality and per capita GDP
        
        There is no obvious correlation. Your 4 links above show that since they are all different.
        
        There can be many reason for correlation, sometimes it's many other factors, sometimes it's just random coincidence as my previous link demonstrates.
        
        Lots of reason. Correlation is not causation. You seem to keep falling into that trap…
        
        It does when the outliers outnumber the data supposedly being correlated.
        
        You have asserted that the positive impact of wealth distribution has been debunked
        
        Nope. go back and read it again. I debunked your claim that 'income equality is a contributing factor in high GDP'. East Timor debunks your claim, as does the US, not me.
        
        Plot the average
        
        Lol so if I put one foot in the fire and one in ice, on average I will be comfortable. Another rookie error…
        
        but you haven't ruled out a causative effect.
        
        I don't have to. Burden of proof is on the claimant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
        And are you now saying correlation is causation? Pick a lane…
        
        That is one of the most unscientific things I've ever heard.
        
        Cool. 'What you've heard' doesn't decide if something is untrue. Logic error
        
        If you hit 50 people in the shin with a baseball bat and one of those people does not end up with a broken leg, does this disprove the hypothesis that hitting people in the shins with a baseball bat is dangerous?
        
        No. This is another logic error. I want to help you but you don't seem to be interested in listening. Let me try again using this example:
        If your claim was that 'hitting people with a baseball bat will break their legs', and one of those people does not end up with a broken leg, then logically you can conclude that statement 'hitting people with a baseball bat will break their legs' is false. Since you hit someone with a baseball bat and their legs didn't break.
        
        In your case, you seem to claiming that 'income equality correlates to high GDP' when your own data gives numerous examples of this not being true.
        
        Well, we better…
        
        You created an argument then used that to argue against. This is known as a strawman, another common logical fallacy.
        
        So this is dragging on so let's try and tie this off.
        Your claim of Income equality as a function of GDP is a total deflection from the original discussion. It hasn't been shown, nor does it really matter. Your original claim was that:
        
        conservatives rarely consider the positive economic impact of redistributing wealth to poor people
        
        I gave you a link to book that shows that shows that this has been considered and debunked.
        
        If you need another link, here is Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman considering it and debunking it back in 1970:
        
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMIhzMEAUtY
        
        So in conclusion, Wealth redistribution has been considered, and debunked decades ago. I think the reason you aren't aware of this fact is the diet of left-wing media that most people grow up on never gives you a balanced view of the world. Once you start exposing yourself to other sources you viewpoint is likely to change. I suggest Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell as great starting points.
        
        ForkSnorter on 14/03/2024 - 07:43
        
        @1st-Amendment: This is one of the funniest conversations I've ever had.
        
        You claim that you have debunked the correlation between income quality and higher GDP per capita with a single data point.
        
        In that case, I will debunk your claim that wealth redistribution is bad for the economy with a single data point: Denmark.
        
        See how silly this is?
        
        Denmark:Close to the highest level of income equality in the world. One of the highest levels of wealth redistribution in the world, one of the most extensive social security systems in the world, while simultaneously having an extremely high GPD per capita.
        
        You created an argument then used that to argue against. This is known as a strawman, another common logical fallacy.
        
        No, actually, you started this nonsense:
        
        A proof requires all data, a disproof only requires one counter-example.
        
        ?
        We're not discussing physical laws of the universe, nor mathematical theorems.
        
        If you were to claim that 'only blue cars crash', you can't just cherry pick one example of one blue car crashing to prove your claim, you need to show ALL the data for all car crashes.
        
        I have not said even once that this trend is true of all economies. In fact, I clearly stated it is just that: a trend, a correlation.
        
        The fact that you don't understand this basic principle of logic says a lot.
        
        We are discussing trends in the real world, not mathematical logic.
        
        Do you think clinical scientists say: "oh, the medicine was effective on 99% of patients, but the conclusion that "this medicine is effective" is logically invalid???
        
        There is clearly a correlation between income equality and per capita GDP. Even the articles with those graphs were discussing that correlation. Business Insider, Research Gate, and Bank of St Luouis are clearly not left-wing sources. This is a well-established trend, even if you have difficulty reading those lines/curves (get glasses), and even if you feel more comfortable denying it. You don't even need the line to see the correlation. The countries with highest GDPs are mostly clustered up near the lowest gini coefficient (higher income equality). The countries with the lowest GDPs are mostly spotted near the highest gini coefficient (lower income equality). This is true even if you exclude developing nations.
        
        This does not establish causality, but it can clearly be used to draw the conclusion that higher income equality is not necessarily bad for an economy, and for individual wealth.
        
        Finally, there is clearly a correlation between income redistribution and higher income equality. And we also have plausible causality for this relationship.
        
        But most importantly of all, the trend between income equality and higher GDP among capitalist countries absolutely debunks your ridiculous claim that "the positive economic impact of wealth redistribution has been debunked".
        
        ForkSnorter on 14/03/2024 - 08:25
        
        @1st-Amendment: "A 2011 report by the International Monetary Fund by Andrew G. Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry found a strong association between lower levels of inequality and sustained periods of economic growth. Longer growth spells are robustly associated with more equality in the income distribution."
        
        "Using statistics from 23 developed countries and the 50 states of the US, British researchers Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett show a correlation between income inequality and higher rates of health and social problems (obesity, mental illness, homicides, teenage births, incarceration, child conflict, drug use), and lower rates of social goods (life expectancy, educational performance, trust among strangers, women's status, social mobility, even numbers of patents issued per capita)."
        
        1st-Amendment on 14/03/2024 - 10:47
        
        -1
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        This is one of the funniest conversations I've ever had.
        
        Cool story. Once again, what you think plays no part of whether something is true or not. Try logic over emotion, you will find it works better.
        
        You claim that you have debunked the correlation between income quality and higher GDP per capita with a single data point.
        
        Yes because that is exactly how debunking works. The fact that you do not know this basic fact shows why you are struggling with this.
        
        But don't just take my word for this: https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/math/pure-maths/…
        
        I will debunk your claim that…
        
        I never made that claim. Here it is again since you've clearly forgotten: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/15053119/redir
        You made the claim that "conservatives rarely consider the positive economic impact of redistributing wealth to poor people". I debunked that claim with examples where conservatives have considered it, in great depth and detail, over the course of many decades.
        
        Denmark:Close to the highest level of…
        
        Correlation is not causation… broken record…
        
        No, actually, you started this nonsense:
        
        You think logic is nonsense. This is starting to make sense now.
        
        We're not discussing physical laws of the universe, nor mathematical theorems
        
        Logic is mathematical. This comment explains a lot.
        
        I clearly stated it is just that: a trend, a correlation
        
        But it's not a trend since it doesn't work for most of the data. Go take a look on your chart, most countries don't align to your claimed correlation.
        Using the car car crash analogy, you are effectively saying there is a correlation that only blue cars crash because you found a couple of examples so of crashed cars that were blue, but then ignored all the cars that were different colours.
        
        Do you think clinical scientists say
        
        A scientific report would never use such clumsy language. It would giver actual test results, successes, failures, side effects, risks, error bars etc etc.
        
        In your case, out of the 200 or so countries in the world you have about 6 or so that line up with your so-called 'correlation'. 6 out of 200 is not 99%, it's 3%
        
        A 2011 report by…
        
        No link.
        
        a strong association between lower levels of inequality and sustained periods of economic growth
        
        So does growth reduce inequality or vice versa? Are then even connected or just coincidence?
        Also, this claim doesn't match reality since the most 'sustained period of economic growth' of any nation ever is the US. True or False?
        If true, then the US should have 'lower levels of inequality' right? But it doesn't.
        So how does your correlation hypothesis explain the US?
        
        Using statistics from 23 developed countries
        
        So only 23 countries? Why not all of them?
        
        show a correlation between income inequality and higher rates of health and social problems
        
        So nothing to do with GDP then… You've wandered off topic again…
        
        ForkSnorter on 14/03/2024 - 11:24
        
        @1st-Amendment: What is hilarious is your inability to respond to valid points. You just ignore them.
        
        And you make absolutely insanely stupid comments.
        
        Yes because that is exactly how debunking works.
        
        Ok, so you have now claimed that a single outlier disproves a trend/correlation in the data.
        
        Let’s keep this on record so we can remind ourselves in 10 or 20 years how stupid this claim is.
        
        Again, following in your footsteps, I will claim that a single data point disproves your assertion that wealth redistribution is bad for the economy: Denmark.
        
        The reason the US is an outlier in this data is because it has the highest concentration of wealth in the world among the top 1-5% of the population, which drags up the average income and per capita GDP, while the median income is still quite low.
        
        1st-Amendment on 14/03/2024 - 16:37
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        What is hilarious is your inability to respond to valid points. You just ignore them.
        
        I responded to all of your points, you responded to none of mine. What a weird comment to make…
        It seems you are now reacting emotionally which is a sign of cognitive dissonance kicking in. You need to be careful of that.
        
        And you make absolutely insanely stupid comments.
        
        Definitely cognitive dissonance on display. When you run out of logical arguments, try emotional outbursts instead and see how that works out… Hint: It doesn't, it only makes you look immature.
        
        Ok, so you have now claimed that a single outlier disproves a trend/correlation in the data.
        
        https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/math/pure-maths/…
        
        Feel free to tell me what about that hurts your feelings….
        
        Let’s keep this on record so we can remind ourselves in 10 or 20 years how stupid this claim is.
        
        Right, so you can't get your head around simple logic, even when I provided links to an educational site that explained it, so you just call it stupid and get upset?
        
        I'm more than happy to leave this stinker here for as long as possible. This is better than I could have ever hoped for, and you don't even realise it.
        
        I will claim that a single data point disproves your assertion
        
        And I already told you that I never made that assertion. It's all up there above. Are you so fired-up that you aren't even reading my responses now? Are you so angry that you bash out a shitogram and hit send before actually reading the post?
        
        The reason the US is an outlier in this data is because it has the highest concentration of wealth in the world among the top 1-5% of the population, which drags up the average income and per capita GDP, while the median income is still quite low.
        
        Cool, now what about Albania, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Croatia, East Timor, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Georgia, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, India, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Moldova, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Palestine, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tonga, Tunisia, Ukraine, and Vanuatu?
        
        51 countries similar or greater income equality than Australia but all of them poorer, many much, much poorer.
        It's not a very good correlation when nearly half of your data points don't align to it.
        
        ForkSnorter on 15/03/2024 - 08:55
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/math/pure-maths/…
        Feel free to tell me what about that hurts your feelings….
        
        We are not discussing pure maths. We are discussing economic indicators and trend analysis. Economic data does not give way to universal laws or mathematical theorems. The data is always fuzzy. Here is an example, where there is a clear relationship between change in unemployment rate, and change in GDP growth. Yet as you can see, there are always outliers. The outliers do not prove there is no relationship between change in unemployment rate, and change in GDP growth.
        
        relationship between GDP growth and the unemployment rate
        
        I don't know how this can be so difficult for you to understand.
        
        I admit that the relationship between gini and GDP is not as obvious as the above trend, but it is still there, and it is fairly consistent from one end of the graph to the other.
        
        1st-Amendment on 15/03/2024 - 10:50
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        We are not discussing pure maths.
        
        Already covered. Logic is maths… You cannot create a logically consistent rational argument without it.
        
        but it is still there, and it is fairly consistent from one end of the graph to the other.
        
        Except for the majority of data points which don't align to this supposed correlation, ie so not consistent.
        
        Look you do you. Everyone can look at a cloud and see different things and clearly you're seeing a line among a circular bunch of dots. The funny part is, this has nothing to do with the original discussion. Since you agreed that correlation is not causation, then any correlation, real or imagined, is meaningless on it's own.
        
        Maybe we should just agree to disagree on that, and agree that Australia is not the Orwellian dystopia that some cry babies claim that it is. Not only is not a dystopia, it's probably the closest thing to a utopia that humanity has ever achieved. We enjoy the highest quality of life of anyone anywhere in history, even if property prices are little higher than some would like.
        
        ForkSnorter on 15/03/2024 - 11:34
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Not only is not a dystopia, it's probably the closest thing to a utopia that humanity has ever achieved. We enjoy the highest quality of life of anyone anywhere in history, even if property prices are little higher than some would like.
        
        You are actually correct here. People whining about the good old days of 50 years ago or 100 years ago don't have a clue.
        
        But it's also true that conditions and opportunities have worsened for a significant portion of Australians since COVID (and I admit, probably improved for a significant portion too).
        
        With the rental crisis, I would not want to be a poor student living in inner-city share houses nowadays, and I feel lucky that I was able to get that over with long ago. I also would not want to be a single or married couple on median wage with a small deposit looking to buy a first house nowadays, especially if I was not certain I had a solid career path ahead of me.
        
        Our society (and probably human nature) is probably geared toward the approach where, even when things are good, they can still be improved.
        
        Property laws and policies in Australia could always be improved.
        
        They are currently wonderful for anyone with a lot of money looking to make some more (and have been for a long time), and they are a nightmare for people on median wage starting out in life. I think federal and state governments have been extremely unsuccessful in implementing improvements to housing policy to date.
        
        1st-Amendment on 15/03/2024 - 14:24
        
        -1
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        even when things are good, they can still be improved.
        
        True. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so you need more than that.
        
        This is the common fault with a lot of lefty ideas. Lots of good intentions, not enough thought put into the unintended consequences.
        Here's a good series on Youtube with some examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSwMEtuL-GQ
        
        1st-Amendment on 12/03/2024 - 14:41
        
        -4
        
        @ForkSnorter:
        
        I wonder if you will ever say something positive about a Labor government
        
        Actually I just thought of one good policy of theirs I sort of like. It's not perfect but it's a start. The NSW state Labor Gov have proposed to take planning permission away from councils and allow higher density development in order to increase supply of housing.
        There are all sorts of potential traps and gotchas with a policy like this, (eg high density zoning needs to match public transport infrastructure which it almost never does) but I think it's at least a start in the right direction. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. The devil as always is in the detail.
  - 1st-Amendment on 12/03/2024 - 08:09
    
    Is that what the uniparty told you to believe?
  - CyrusL on 12/03/2024 - 08:38
    
    +2
    
    You missed CHINA
  - EitherWayUp on 12/03/2024 - 09:05
    
    -1
    
    You are so naive
  - dwbr on 12/03/2024 - 11:34
    
    -1
    
    Bro very disconnected from reality.
Vecernik87 on 12/03/2024 - 08:09

+2

Great bargain! much cheaper than buying newspapers. Content seems same.
- King Steuart on 12/03/2024 - 09:20
  
  +1
  
  Your comment has been permanently tracked. Thank you for your participation in society.
Whisper Quiet on 12/03/2024 - 08:34

Amazing read and more things are coming true than people want to believe for George Orwells 1984… Animal Farm is basically the kids version of 1984.

Wouldn't allow me to get it through my Aus account. So had to use my US account
wittyusername on 12/03/2024 - 08:55

Anyway to load these onto a Kobo device?
- Robertiton on 12/03/2024 - 10:09
  
  +9
  
  George Orwell died in 1950, which means all his works are out of copyright. This is true in Australia for any author who died before 1955. You can access ebooks (in multiple formats) of Orwell's work at the Gutenberg Project Australia here: https://gutenberg.net.au/plusfifty-n-z.html#orwell .
  
  There are a bunch of other authors there as well. Note that the Gutenberg Project Australia doesn't list titles that are also already out of copyright in the US, so you can find material that is out of copyright in the US and Australia here: https://gutenberg.org/ .
  - Russ on 12/03/2024 - 20:56
    
    +1
    
    This is true in Australia for any author who died before 1955.
    
    Not quite correct.
    
    Before 1955, copyright was "creator's life plus 50 years", so anything published before 1955 AND the creator died more than 50 years ago (2024-50=1974), is now out of copyright.
    
    The copyright laws changed in 1955 to give a longer copyright term, and have changed a few more times since then. But none of the changes were made retrospective to change the copyright duration of works published pre-1955.
    - Robertiton on 13/03/2024 - 07:35
      
      +2
      
      I don't think that's correct.
      
      "Copyright expired in Australia if text
      Published before 1955 AND
      creator died before 1955".
      
      From the Australian Copyright Agency https://www.copyright.com.au/about-copyright/duration/
      
      So I could have mentioned that the book also had to be published before 1955, but 1974 doesn't come into it. The post-death delay hasn't been 50 years since 2005, when it was increased to 70 years. That's why no books have come out of copyright in Australia in the last 20 years. In 2026 books published before 1956 by authors who died before 1956 will come out of copyright - the first addition to the public domain in two decades.
      - buyer-123 on 13/03/2024 - 09:18
        
        @Robertiton: Intellectual property is the downfall of the sharing of ideas.
      - Russ on 14/03/2024 - 13:09
        
        @Robertiton: Apologies, it appears you are correct.
        
        While trying to uncover what the rules are, I found several poorly-explained descriptions, and they disagreed in some ways.
        
        The link you provided is from a copyright-collection company, so I don't trust their description. I've previously had issues with a different copyright-collection agency, APRA, who had a description that was, in my opinion, misleading and overstated.
        
        Here's a page with a downloadable pdf explaining copyright durations, from the attorney-general's department. Being published as a government document, it's most likely correct, and could be used to defend anyone accused of copyright infringement:
        https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/copyright/copyr…
Murkymerv on 12/03/2024 - 09:50

"1984" . A dystopia , that's becoming a reality !
- 1st-Amendment on 12/03/2024 - 10:24
  
  -3
  
  "1984" . A dystopia , that's becoming a reality !
  
  That punctuation is a dystopia… Where did you go to school?
  - gakko on 12/03/2024 - 13:29
    
    +1
    
    Y U so miserable?
  - Murkymerv on 13/03/2024 - 13:33
    
    I did my best not too .
Robertiton on 12/03/2024 - 10:09

+3

George Orwell died in 1950, which means all his works are out of copyright. This is true in Australia for any author who died before 1955. You can access ebooks of Orwell's work at the Gutenberg Project Australia here: https://gutenberg.net.au/plusfifty-n-z.html#orwell .

There are a bunch of other authors there as well. Note that the Gutenberg Project Australia doesn't list titles that are also already out of copyright in the US, so you can find material that is out of copyright in the US and Australia here: https://gutenberg.org/ .
Perch on 12/03/2024 - 13:02

Expired or am I missing something? I see only hard cover, paper back and print on demand.
- - Perch on 12/03/2024 - 15:58
    
    Ah, I am, but I have my kindle set up for amazon.com. So it wont even let me see the local price here. Odd.
    - - Perch on 12/03/2024 - 16:06
        
        +1
        
        @G-rig: The combined versions with both books (as per this deal) were all 99c on the US site, but I was able to find them individually for free.
        
        If anyone needs:
        https://www.amazon.com/1984-George-Orwell-ebook/dp/B0CD2D66F…
        https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Farm-George-Orwell-ebook/dp/B0…
alidli on 12/03/2024 - 14:49

Talking of great old books, if you’re interested in who really controls things in our misnamed “democracies”, try and read all 800+ pages of “The Rich & The Super Rich: A Study in the Power of Money Today by the very learned Ferdinand Lundberg.
Some of his prose is a bit pretentious but he does masterfully describe the state of things in 1960’s America, the billionaire families of the day, how politics really works and how that politician (of any party) you vote for is not in government to help you, how the rich avoided taxes and so on.

60 years later and nothing at all has changed, the book could be republished today and all they’d have to do is change a few of the names.
The oligarchs rule us.

Now as then, a handful of companies (aka families) in each economic sector have been allowed to buy up, merge or take over any threat to their market dominance and become a law unto themselves, and sovereign countries have little or no power over them.
All of these multi-national companies, big banks, law firms, MIC and Pharmaceutical companies (eg BlackRock, Google, Goldman Sachs, etc, etc) need to be broken up and real competition introduced.
I’ve always believed in “democracy”, but after reading this book I’m not so sure that giving everyone the right to vote IS the best system to serve the common man. Maybe a truly benevolent “man of the people” who rises to a dictator, and then has the singular might to dismantle all of the existing power structures is the only way to REALLY change things for the betterment of the majority.

Someone summed up brilliantly the state of America (it can also be applied to the rest of the world) by revising Lincoln to- "a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations".
- afoveht on 12/03/2024 - 20:26
  
  Much true, but
  
  60 years later and nothing at all has changed
  
  is not quite right. Since the 1980s a lot has changed, much due to what Reagan and Thatcher started. A quick look at tax rates and wealth inequality graphs from WW2 to now shows some glaring correlations. Further inferences to various quality of life metrics can be drawn too.
  - alidli on 12/03/2024 - 22:53
    
    I meant in the context of exactly what you're saying, nothing has changed in that the super rich still pay minimal tax now as was the case back then, and 60 years before that, and will know doubt be the case 60 years from now.
    
    And the person who's down-voted me….you must be a super speed-reader to have read 800 pages in a few hours!
Mondorock on 13/03/2024 - 01:34

I loved the 1984 Apple Mac TV commercial.
buyer-123 on 13/03/2024 - 09:16

I don't like that digital content can be taken at any time..

just saying there are ways to get books forever with Overdrive/Libby ;)
The Cheap Swordsman on 13/03/2024 - 09:21

+1

Some e-books are more free than others
steven7062 on 13/03/2024 - 14:33

free books for everyone = we are all equal after all
AlienC on 15/03/2024 - 08:49

Clever girl.
furyou on 15/03/2024 - 23:38

do kids still have to read this in HS?

[eBook] Free - 1984 / Animal Farm by George Orwell @ Amazon AU

Related Stores

closed Comments

Top Deals

New Deals