'Drink Less, Work More', Billionaire Tells Non-Rich

[Jamie B]

I apologize for my oversight.

From scanning the article at a ridiculously late time, I believed that she had inherited most of her money from her father.

After being lambasted, and re-reading in a more awake mental state, coupled with some Googling, I see that I was grossly mistaken.

I apologize again for jumping to incorrect conclusions.

Fifty lashes with a wet noodle for me.

[dm1333]

There's solid historical precedent for what she said.   Marie Antoinotte had similar ideas. 

Encouraging an angry, disempowered mob to "stop being lazy and do something" is just about the level of brilliance I'd expect from a billionaire heiress.

Except she never said "stop being lazy and do something".  And there were no angry mobs.  And she isn't a billionaire heiress.  She took 75 million and turned it into 1000 million dollars all on her own.  Now I understand why there used to be all those RIF commercials on tv! 

[De Selby]

Let's see here - holding a piece of paper that forces mining companies, which provide one hundred percent of the machinery and expertise required to make money, is a hilarious definition of a "necessary contribution."

Ms Rinehart inherited those same deals - she didn't get a lump of cash, she got mining leases that kept paying. The money her dad got without lifting a shovel kept paying and is still paying. 

Hence the billions when she's had the financial "sense" in the past to buy off witnesses, make a huge political contribution to avoid prosecution after her paid witnesses failed to frame her step mom for murder, and is now buying newspapers (a winner of an investment for sure!).

Yah folks, female John Galt she is not.

[dm1333]

Hence the billions when she's had the financial "sense" in the past to buy off witnesses, make a huge political contribution to avoid prosecution after her paid witnesses failed to frame her step mom for murder, and is now buying newspapers (a winner of an investment for sure!).

I'm impressed with your skill at clicking on highlighted names in Wikipedia but do you have any actual proof other than the allegations listed in Wiki?   

[De Selby]

I'm impressed with your skill at clicking on highlighted names in Wikipedia but do you have any actual proof other than the allegations listed in Wiki?   

Seriously!?  The Politiciians who received money intervened to open an inquest, and have spoken openly about the witness payments on television in the past month here in Oz.

[birdman]

Let's see here - holding a piece of paper that forces mining companies, which provide one hundred percent of the machinery and expertise required to make money, is a hilarious definition of a "necessary contribution."

Ms Rinehart inherited those same deals - she didn't get a lump of cash, she got mining leases that kept paying. The money her dad got without lifting a shovel kept paying and is still paying. 

Hence the billions when she's had the financial "sense" in the past to buy off witnesses, make a huge political contribution to avoid prosecution after her paid witnesses failed to frame her step mom for murder, and is now buying newspapers (a winner of an investment for sure!).

Yah folks, female John Galt she is not.

And how many mining leases DON'T pay off?

[dm1333]

Seriously!?  The Politiciians who received money intervened to open an inquest, and have spoken openly about the witness payments on television in the past month here in Oz.

So the answer is "no"?

[Perd Hapley]

You can always spot those who truly hate the poor. They're the ones telling them that hard work won't really help them. Or that they have no chance of changing their fortunes by exercising some self-control. This keeps the poor down where the haters want them to be; where they can admire their resistance to the elitist, bourgeois social values that might actually help them.

Or if they do admit that the gospel of Not Screwing Around and Drinking, and Getting a Job has some validity, they'll twist things around and claim that the evangelists of said gospel are not really helping, just trying to assign blame.

Some say that such poor-haters are just confused. Since their own socioeconomic status helps them dodge the consequences of poor decisions, they really don't understand how devastating it all is for those with less margin for error. Maybe they're on to something.

[De Selby]

So the answer is "no"?

I'd think the video broadcast word of the Attorney General, the DPP officers involved, and the Coroner constitute something like proof.

[De Selby]

And how many mining leases DON'T pay off?

Probably about as many as rolls of the dice that don't pay off.  That doesn't make roulette a "capital contribution" to a valuable business enterprise.

[birdman]

Probably about as many as rolls of the dice that don't pay off.  That doesn't make roulette a "capital contribution" to a valuable business enterprise.

You sir, must be inconceivably dense to both make that analogy.  Mining leases are a capital investment to secure rights to both resource exploration and extraction.  In order to make any money off them, choice of lease to purchase requires substantial forethought (otherwise,it is a roll of the dice) and the lease price (since they are resold on a secondary market) is a way to market price the risk and potential value of the resource rights, to allow property owners who don't have e capital to explore or extrat resources to benefit from leasing the land to those that do.  Due to a relatively efficient market in resoure lease pricing, ultra-high payoff leases are exceedingly rare, as high probability one's are priced higher accordingly.  Additionally, leases in government owned land provide a tax revenue stream that is not only valuable, but well indexed to root economic growth---success in mineral recovery translates to a greater economic benefit for both the private and public sector, while allowing government held land to be utilized efficiently, without the government itself having to be in the exploration and extraction business, and allow efficient selection of the most cost effective private firm (comparable to spectrum auctions, where the company that sees the most potential profit in a segment will also likely be able to bid the most, allowing market maximization of a societally shared resource).

Normally I don't demean myself, or waste my time, responding factually to your typical poorly researched, talking point based, quasi-Marxist drivel, but this was the last straw.  Either post information of value, or don't post at all.

[dm1333]

I'd think the video broadcast word of the Attorney General, the DPP officers involved, and the Coroner constitute something like proof.

So when the attorney general says something is highly suspicious that constitutes proof?  Thank god I live in the USA with that whole "innocent until proven guilty thing"!  I tried googling several different combinations to see what comes up about her allegedly paying people off and really didn't come up with much.  In the interest of being fair and educating me maybe you can provide a few links to something concrete?  I don't have much of an impression, one way or another, of this woman other than what she said makes a hell of a lot of sense.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/the-iron-ore-lady-why-the-worlds-richest-woman-is-mired-in-controversy-7848535.html

The soap opera of Hancock's inquest revealed allegations his widow – now Rose Porteous – had hired her former husband to kill Hancock. But it emerged the supposed hit-man had been paid AUD$250,000 by Rinehart, "for his own protection", to take the stand. The inquest found no evidence Porteous was involved in Hancock's death, but the attorney-general declared Rinehart's payment "highly suspicious".

Lawyer Nicholas Styant-Browne, who acted for Porteous, describes the inquest as a "disaster" for Rinehart, saying she used her wealth to pursue a vendetta to her detriment. "Gina is an extremely litigious individual, and utterly indefatigable."

[De Selby]

Birdman, all those things are true - but not applicable to how Rinehart's dad acquired his land.  That's part of the reason Australians have such reactions to statements about his and his daughter's work ethic.

I can see that you disagree with my politics.  Review my post history and you'll see that none of my disagreements with yours or anyone else's here come with personal insults or hair pulling frustration.  For my part, I don't like spending time in ideological echo chambers.

[De Selby]

So when the attorney general says something is highly suspicious that constitutes proof?  Thank god I live in the USA with that whole "innocent until proven guilty thing"!  I tried googling several different combinations to see what comes up about her allegedly paying people off and really didn't come up with much.  In the interest of being fair and educating me maybe you can provide a few links to something concrete?  I don't have much of an impression, one way or another, of this woman other than what she said makes a hell of a lot of sense.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/the-iron-ore-lady-why-the-worlds-richest-woman-is-mired-in-controversy-7848535.html

http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx?ItemId=123790

The payments to witnesses and potential witnesses included:
in excess of $200,000 paid to a key witness, Louise Black, who was a former employee of Mrs Porteous;
$50,000 paid to Nina Paderna, a friend of Ms Black;
$250,000 to Julian Teodoro, a former husband of Mrs Porteous; and
amounts ranging in size from hundreds of dollars to tens of thousands of dollars to various other witnesses or potential witnesses, including staff at Prix D’Amour, the former home of Lang Hancock.
Mr McGinty said an exhaustive examination by Solicitor General Rob Meadows QC of the individual payments concluded that many were highly suspicious and raised real concerns about their potential impact on testimony.

[MicroBalrog]

Let's see here - holding a piece of paper that forces mining companies, which provide one hundred percent of the machinery and expertise required to make money, is a hilarious definition of a "necessary contribution."

See if you get that:

You own the actual land to be mined. If it weren't valuable people wouldn't be mining it.

[dm1333]

You did read the whole article that you linked to, right?  Because it shoots down some of the assertions you have made here.

In his report, Mr Meadows said some of the payments immediately aroused suspicions that they were made to induce the witnesses in question to give evidence favourable to Mrs Rinehart’s cause.

The Solicitor General agreed that it could easily be surmised that the payments were made to induce false testimony or at the very least, to colour testimony so as to cast Mrs Porteous in an unfavourable light. The sheer size of some of the payments tended to reinforce those suspicions.

However, he advised that suspicion was not enough and there were a number of major difficulties standing in the path of a successful prosecution. This included:
that most of the payments were made long before the inquest was called, which would make it extremely difficult to maintain they were made with the intention of perverting the course of justice or in circumstances where they could have a tendency to have that effect;
a paucity of evidence to show that the payments - even though extremely large in some cases - were intended to induce potential witnesses to tell other than the truth;
the difficulty of establishing who was ultimately responsible for the offending payments. While Mrs Rinehart had given authority for hundreds of thousands of dollars to be drawn from HPPL accounts for what was termed ‘long-term support and protection of witnesses’, none of the individual payments were made directly by her, and a chain of people was involved in disbursement and negotiating the amounts to be paid; and
significant concerns about the cogency and reliability of evidence able to be called in support of a prosecution, as the credibility of those who would be witnesses was highly suspect at the very least and in some cases included people who had already been exposed for providing unreliable and inconsistent testimony at the Inquest.
Mr McGinty said he shared the very real concern he believed the community would feel that people involved in the witness payments would not be held to further account.

“What occurred remains highly suspect and will reflect for a long time on the reputations of all those involved,” he said.

“While prosecution has not been recommended, I have provided a copy of the Solicitor General’s report to Director of Public Prosecutions Robert Cock QC for his information.”

I'm a little confused.  You did say this, right?

I'd think the video broadcast word of the Attorney General, the DPP officers involved, and the Coroner constitute something like proof.

The article quoted the Solicitor General and I'm assuming that is who you meant when you referred to the Attorney General.  What is confusing me is that the Solicitor General is saying there isn't enough evidence and that suspicion alone is not enough.  

[De Selby]

Dm1333, that's the Attorney concurring with the report of his Solicitor General. 

They correctly pointed out that technicalities would make a prosecution difficult.  It's not hard for someone using common sense to figure out why all that money was paid, though, which is why they rightly called it improper.   

What possible innocent explanation do you think there would be for this, considering that her personal appeal to the Governor General (ruling over a politician she contributes to) is the only reason that inquest was reopened in the first place???

[dm1333]

So you are saying a lack of evidence is a technicality?  Again, thank god I'm living in the US where we have to depend on evidence to convict somebody.  I don't need an innocent explanation for what she did, what you need is proof that she actually did something and your attorney and solicitor general both agree that there wasn't any, or at least not enough to even try prosecuting.

 Correct me if I am wrong but this thing never even went anywhere near a court room, she is just being convicted in the court of your own personal opinion?

[De Selby]

So you are saying a lack of evidence is a technicality?  Again, thank god I'm living in the US where we have to depend on evidence to convict somebody.  I don't need an innocent explanation for what she did, what you need is proof that she actually did something and your attorney and solicitor general both agree that there wasn't any, or at least not enough to even try prosecuting.

 Correct me if I am wrong but this thing never even went anywhere near a court room, she is just being convicted in the court of your own personal opinion?

Ok, you're confusing something here - not all wrongful conduct, even conduct that is almost certainly illegal, can be proven to be so in court.

The report said essentially "to prove the crime, Id need a tape of her saying 'if I pay you you'll lie right?'".   We don't need a tape to see how suspicious the conduct was, so we said so.

Thats why I'm happy saying "she paid witnesses to say her step mom killed her father."

[dm1333]

what you said was

I'd think the video broadcast word of the Attorney General, the DPP officers involved, and the Coroner constitute something like proof.

I'm not confused about anything, I know that you can't always prove wrong doing.  I just have a problem with your idea of proof.

[De Selby]

what you said was


I'm not confused about anything, I know that you can't always prove wrong doing.  I just have a problem with your idea of proof.

I see the disagreement - I was taking that as proof that she paid witnesses and then asked the .gov to reopen an investigation into her step mom.   That much is certainly without doubt.

[Jamisjockey]

And the lawyer comes along and changes the topic.

[De Selby]

And the lawyer comes along and changes the topic.

I actually think the witness payments are on topic - I mean, you have to see the irony in the person who says "quit being lazy" paying a random collection of folks up to $200,000 just to testify against her step mom.

May be she should have said "get a job, drink less....or drink on me if you testify in my favor!"

[dm1333]

The witness payments may be fair game but even the sources you provided say that it isn't clear what those payments were for and that there isn't enough evidence to even take this to court.  So you are just speculating, even though you don't even have any proof other than somebody saying "Well it sure looks fishy!"  But I'm sure you'll just try to redirect the argument and bring up more nonsensical statements about Marie Antoinette and angry mobs.

Here is what Ms. Rinehart said.

"There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," she writes. "If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain. Do something to make more money yourself - spend less time drinking, or smoking and socializing and more time working."

Sounds like a good remedy to a lot of peoples "problems".  Take charge of your own life.

[Jamisjockey]

I actually think the witness payments are on topic - I mean, you have to see the irony in the person who says "quit being lazy" paying a random collection of folks up to $200,000 just to testify against her step mom.

May be she should have said "get a job, drink less....or drink on me if you testify in my favor!"

 

No, its just standard fare for your postings to take the topic and divert it so the argument goes your way.