Incredibly moving read that I unfortunately can't find now, but it covered how the Sydney office ended, from memory it was a combination of CGI changing the industry, and cost - Australian wages weren't cheap and the studio was mostly used for producing direct-to-video sequels which was a market that dried up.

The actual big influence on the Australian-American cross pollination though, I suspect, was Rupert Murdoch's expansion into the American film and TV industry. For all his faults, he was a big champion of talent from his homeland in both his movies and Fox TV network. Even the infamous Simpsons Australia episode was likely influenced by the big influence of Australians at Fox at that time.

Didn't Australia used to have an auto industry? I kinda feel like Australia stopped producing culturally relevant output in the late 80s or 90s.

In other online spaces, I've seen some conservative commenters from the US asserting that America is so powerful, the rest of the world has no choice but to go along with them, and therefore there is no need to maintain good relationships and the US should do what most immediately benefits itself at all times. Certainly, there are some areas where we simply have to play along with the US, but I think they are underestimating the amount of things where they will no longer be our first choice to deal with.

We still had dual citizen brits running government departments making pro UK decisions until like the 70s or 80s. The UK/US have sort of shared us until the 90s. We let the poms nuke SA.

In NZ, I approached the immigration desk with my American partner at the time, they stamped her passport with a visa but said to me I didn't need one.

Big cars, the slow incursion of American sports, more American brands popping up (including Starbucks actually getting a foothold), Gen-Z using American terms like math and trash, and a rise in the “screw you” style of American individualism.

I don’t think any of this is making Australia a better place to live.

Halloween is nearly 100% Irish/Scottish. The only American contributions are using a pumpkin, and sometimes holding it in a parking lot.

To educate: socialism has nothing to with how influence the execute or legislative has. Nor has it anything to do with health insurance.

The central point of the ideology called "socialism" is that control of the state (not of private owners) over the "means of production". Like capital, land, workforce. To gain this control, socialism is keen to use force. They call it e.g. "dictatorship of the proletariat". Usually this leads to heavy oppression of the people, to some sort of police state. If you look at any real socialist country (like GDR, USSR, Yugoslavia, Cuba, North Korea) you'll always find it to some sort. Even in today's China the banks are still under government control, so "the party" has the ultimate say in everything.

You usage of "socialism" doesn't fit that at all. Perhaps you meant something that isn't fully libertarian?

My guess is the US people are badly educated these days. And thus easily influenced with false factoids coming from libertarian oligarchs like the Koch brothers.

And also it seems like they never heard about "social market economy" ... I mean, there is a spectrum between a fully socialist country like e.g. North Korea and a fully capitalist like ... actually we don't have one that is purely capitalist. Not even in the USA does the "market regulates everything".

And also I think that quite a few people never pondered about the idea that there are two words ("social" and "socialism") for a reason.

You are probably listening or watching the same folks who are calling the UK an "Islamic sultanate".

(I'm not arguing that the reverse is true, just that Singapore proves nothing.)

It's weird India gets held to this standard. Don't European countries still buy some natural gas from Russia?

It helps to be familiar with realism in international relations theory starting with Machiavelli and Hobbes, and postwar realism which developed over the Cold War. The ethics have been debated for centuries and the mainstream interpretation is that leaders have a fiduciary obligation to the population they are responsible for, which fundamentally changes ethical considerations.

It’s a completely different moral question when you’re responsible for a billion people, many of whom may suffer or die due to the cost of fuel. It is in principle a violation against their own people for Indian leaders to prioritize Ukraine’s people over their own.

Which high performing economy DOESN'T struggle with housing affordability?

>mostly through immigration

*SKILLED immigration

If America goes fully fascist by then, then the wisdom of that contract will be the least of our problems (or to put it another way: what's the alternative? Because if you're serious about the threat it's "crash course nuclear weapons and a delivery vehicle" if you want to guarantee our sovereignty).

My purely observational understanding is that there are fundamental incompatibilities between aboriginal and 'western/British' culture. "Ownership" of land as probably the primary example. I don't know how that gets 'dealt with'.

However, I could see a big argument for a labour mobility agreement similar to the NAFTA model, where EU citizens in a long list of professions have the right to work in Canada and vice-versa.

Sanctions in general don't work. They don't work against enemies. Arguably they only work against allies (eg apartheid South Africa). Sanctions were never going to work against Russia and Russia has more manpower to throw at the meat grinder than Ukraine does.

And that changing situation has come to Putin with the Iran War. The US has lost. It has been strategically and militarily defeated by a lesser regional power. It's just a matter of time before it accepts this loss.

Because of attacks from Ukraine on Russian energy infrastructure, Russia has changed from a net diesel exporter to banning diesel exports and arguably being a diesel importer. That's a big problem that we're all about to learn. China too has banned the export of refined petroleum products (including diesel) for months now. Diesel prices are about to go way up and the US is now considering a ban on diesel exports. All this "energy nationalism" is going to torch Europe, Asian economies and South America. Just you wait.

By foolishly attacking Iran, Trump has made Russia's position much stronger. So yes, the Ukraine war predates the Iran war but the Iran war has made the Ukraine war much better for Russia. That's the point.

Australia can sell raw materials anywhere but the Red Sea being closed makes it take longer and be more expensive and who is really going to demand raw materials in Europe when the energy crunch hits? And we're bouldering towards that energy crunch (both natural gas and diesel). One of Australia's biggest competitive advantages in selling raw materials to China has always been relative proximity. Lower shipping times and costs.

Yes, the US has used Israel as a weapon in the Middle East (since ~1967) but what kept Gulf powers in line was the supply of weapons (to prop up unpopular regimes) and the free flow of trade. This war has shown that the US cannot defend its own bases in the Gulf let alone any of its client states (sorry, "allies").

I believe there's a nonzero chance the Israeli state collapses within the next decade. That's how much things are shifting and what a blunder this has been.

The GCC countries are going to have the redefine a new regional security architecture that includes Iran. That's inevitable at this point. If the US had been smart they simply would've admitted defeat ~5 months ago but they can't. Because of Israel. For now.

So Iran is America's Afghanistan (USSR era). The quagmire of Afghanistan was a huge factor in the collapse and breakup of the USSR. This isn't like Vietnam, which we could simply walk away from. Iran won and the Israeli state in its current form is doomed.

And rethoric doesn't matter in international relations. It's empty posturing. When is France going to send troops to Ukraine?

Sorry pals, this is one of the failings/successes of k12. We are taught Idealism. Words don't matter.

It's wild the disconnect between people who study international relations and highly educated westerners.

Not to mention the total unwillingness of congress to restrain trump.

The american left likes to pretend trump is the problem, and if he goes then everything is fine. That is wishful thinking; he is just the symptom.

But yeah the quality of people in politics is terrible. I thought very highly of Obama in terms of intellect, honesty, pragmatism, etc. Postcard leader. but he seemingly still managed to mess lots of things up. Or maybe we over-estimate the impact this one person on the top actually has on anything.

Intellectual property laws being recognized, US fiat currency, etc. vs. the hard value of natural resources of these other countries (that the US would prefer to try to annex and loot since the former is not a base you can build on)

When you're deciding on long term trade and economic policy, are you thinking about fabricated valuations of US tech companies, or whether you have energy, minerals, and food supply that have an actual value attached?