The Elite (Or An absurd obsession with the Average)

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." - John Adams 2nd President of the United States of America, Founding Father

There's some truly great TV on at the moment, namely the documentary Decadence: The Meaninglessness of Modern Life. (Screening 9pm wednesdays on SBS) for one explored democracy last week. Did you know Australia was regarded as apathetic? also interesting was the fact they had people like the Governer General talking about our democracy starting to 'fray at the edges' and the Senate Clerk saying 'the only way to fix it is if the people rebel' which sounds like the socialist alternative to me, but these are informed people.
Next week looks at education, for a shitcanner like me I can enjoy such programming. I've long been not a fan of democracy.
For me if australians enjoy a punt why do we have one of the most stable, plodding, boring socio-economic-political landscapes in the world? Why are our elections virtually no risk?

I'll answer this in a very roundabout way. Of course. And it's just my answer. A story with a preamble: this year I graduated from fresh out of uni, from a marketing degree. Marketing like any course has some basics, I know them, it also has classic mistakes, I know them. So my gift is not exceptional. The only thing that may make me exceptional is that once I went to a lecture and saw two guys on a video and I went and bought their book and read it. Nothing 'Genius' about it so I'm not trying to say I'm a genius, but I am a pretty big fan of myself. (which hopefully will tie in also)
So my work hires an Add company called W*lson Ev#ra#d (the missing letter's being 'i'
'e' & 'r').
Now every time i've seen the rep come down to me he sits and listens to the feedback for 10-20 minutes from the territory managers talking about what does, doesn't work about the ad campaign. From what I understand of the basics the reps can be hit and miss and the Sales manager and director seem to fall in line with the basics. W-E seem to contradict the basics. So we listen to this guy tell us all about how he is right and spin some bullshit to try and make everyone feel dumb, even in reference to materials that have been 'hated' by customers at every level.
Last time was bittersweet for me, at the start of 'H's Advanced 4 Technology' campaign for Power Equipment I pointed out '4-stroke' is meaningless it's a feature not a benifit and features don't sell. I tried to argue the point more but was shouted down. (I don't know why marketing strategy is done democratically by people with no marketing qualifications)
anyway exactly one year later the group meets again with the guy feedback was - 'Our Managing director asked us "What the Fuck are we selling?"' and it was a debacle. It turns out simple 'benifit' statements had the most impact on the consumers. We'd fallen for the belief that 10 benifits are better than 1 when they appear as bullet points under one Advanced 4 Technology umbrella.
The guy's arguement 'the creative guys use the product, they know the product their not driving porches and dining out at 5 star restaurants every night, they are regular guys'

and hold it:

'the creative guys use the product, they know the product their not driving porches and dining out at 5 star restaurants every night, they are regular guys'

Why is this a good thing?

To me it demonstrates the value of paying for quality when it comes to marketing, I want my ad campaign to be done by exceptional Ad execs that drive porches and eat out because they generate sufficient value for their customer to pocket a tidy sum.
And on this note do you know what label is being given to political discenters in Australia - The Elite this will placate the masses and divide the population against those protesting Iraq wars and Climate Change and Logging and Aboriginal Justice. More or less any thing unjust or inhumane is conveniantly dismissed as the folly cause of the bored 'elite'.
Now what kind of appeal to the masses is that? I want to be on the Elite's side! presuming anything not Elite is mediocre...
Elite means am I mistaken a cut above?
Where did the term 'tall poppy' get coined? is it such an Australian thing that the Bush Administration recently adopted it, or was it introduced by Rapping Rupert Murdoch? (as if Google won't own his arse soon enough) I imagine it was on flanders field where it became noble to be laying down and looking up at the poppies whilst bleeding to death from turkic bullet wounds the fruits of Australian managerial excellence (now that's funny - HAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA)
Some words that are insulting to humanity in General think about these:

1. Eccentric
2. Leader
3. Normal
4. Individual
5. Intelligent

These are relative reflections on the rest of the population. And it all comes down to leadership. The masses is chicken feed you want to dable in the 95 percentile and beyond not below because that's where the action is.
Leadership existing suggests that the majority of the population needs to follow, because they simply aren't naturally equipped to determine purpose in their own lives.
Eccentric makes a phenomenon out of deviating from the norm. It means by mediocre means you can present a challenge to most of society. The majority at large don't have the capacity to cope with difference and thereby assess their own worth by their own values.
Normal means there is an accepted band and it in some way carries some inherent virtue that may be so but it is only of advantage to parties 1,2,4 & 5.
Individual means much the same as eccentric however with the added comparative judgement on yourself that you some people are not individuals (eg. disposable) so human life isn't really sacred after all?
Intelligent, to describe someone, I can't imagine describing anyone as intelligent, most stuff I find clever is really simple, dumb things complex. But some people think they are dumb I can't believe it, and worse some dumb people think they are intelligent? This one's a land mind field to get into I say - long term smart, short term - dumb.

So this middle band is the basis of power in a democracy, hence if the majority (the worst kind of tyrant) is determining a representative leader we are guaranteeing a leader who is not remarkable at all. America has the potential to produce great leaders at increased risk of bad leaders, but average leaders are worst of all, because chances are their average mistakes snowball whilst having unbrilliant uninspired people succeeding them who don't have the capacity to fix it.
And the big innovaters in history have been tyrants, THe roman emperors for example, had some good values too and combined it with absolute rule. The persians, the greeks everyone had tyrants that innovated. The Japanese renaissance was under Tokugawa rule, the renaissance was funded by tyrants left right and centre.
But more than that there's something more - it's interesting. Democracy isn't. someone like little Johnny can incarcerate children in concentration camps in weather like this summers and never be touched for it. He can have someone like David Hicks (I don't care if he killed children I wouldn't treat anyone that way) and never bat an eyelash. Tyrants got stabbed to death for their oversights, it was exciting, it was taken on by passionate people.
Who did more for NBA? Michael Jordan or the other 99.75% of the league? Sport at least gives a chance for the Elite to come to life. The people that should be running this country let's face it are too young, too smart, too humane and in the wrong country and industry to rule.
Bring on an elite leader.

Our elections are so boring because we are risk averse, the Labour party stuffed up puting beazley in because it was risk averse, leaving us with the same choice as voters had ten years ago, and we are yet to suffer for it (apart from Climate change, HECS raises, we are now at war, Industrial Relation reforms, stem cell research almost banned and Chaplins in schools).
So we vote for nice safe economic growth, or is it?
There was also the 7.30 report with Kerry O'Brian without Kerry O'Brian on Monday looking at the resources boom which gives possibly the most poigniant example of how important Henry George's theories are yet, or at least how correct.
Since my recent windfall of site hits has been dominated by I expect Georgists reading Bob Browns work rather than anything I created myself I thought I'd appeal to the readership and describe it here so they can masturbate or possibly even publish me in Progress (doubtful) It went like this cats:

The Australian Government signed a deal with China to supply quantity X Natural gas and Iron Ore to China for Monies Y. Both quantities X and Y are very large quantities. The respective mining areas signed this deal without actually having the workforce to extract the goods for delivery. This meant demand for Labour skyrocketed - when demand outmatches supply prices go up. So a carpenter earning $30k on the Goldcoast can relocate within Australia and earn $90k in some country town in WA. Now the work is unskilled so this resource boom is like the goldrush - as in any fool can get a high paying job. So a bunch of fools head over to a place that previously had a populations of two fifths of fuck all. But when they pay you $90k you can't exactly live on the goldcoast QLD and work in remote WA and still commute every day - you have to relocate. If you don't believe me download Google earth. So we have sold resources to China for monies Y and need to skim from that money Y to pay for labour to come over. Now as the work is unskilled the labor needs to be Australian you could say that Chinese money Y is now available for any adventurous Australian. Some of money Y gets paid in royalties to the government so it can spend it on services and infrastructure for the good of all, so Australia sells it's resource to China for Money which improves the economic situation of Australians doing the hard work to dig it up and the Australian people by way of the government spending and investing its royalties.
Sounds pretty good. Except when you can't commute to this work and have to relocate and have a massive influx of the population growth, why shouldn't a private citizen who owns the land with direct access to the jobs created put his rent up? I would, demand for accomodation has directly increased along with the supply of labour (driven by equilibrium pricing in accordance with current accepted economic theory) but what rent will the worker pay? there has to be a limit right? well the worker will pay up to the point he deems he is still beniffiting financially from the new location so that he is still better off than home. I'm not eloquent but it's going to be anywhere below $60k taking an oversimplified view.
Now the landowner, doesn't have to do anything, no work no nothing to take all that money from the sale of the natural resource (property of the commonwealth) rent was in some cases up to $2000 a week. Furthermore infrastructure is collapsing, policeforce in a shitty backwater lost 24 employees to mining representing a 'collective 200 years experience' non essential business where shutting down and moving on because of the excessive rents so in a gold rush town they'll probably start paying $20 a litre for milk and $5 an egg. So even though the wages aren't that great they're still attractive but the rent and is going to go up (has gone up $2000 x 52 = $104,000 rent a year) that's a lot for a town that rivals Orbost in size. furthermore although you have to move from the goldcoast to dig up Iron Ore or work on Natural Gas plants you don't have to to own land.
Now that is what we call an unsustainable land advantage, the resource will get raped dry, the monopoly will get broken but something that was the common good of all could end up going to a handful of private land owners.
People were paying $60,000 to live in converted shipping containers for fucks sake. $90k doesn't look that attractive any more.
So if you taxed the land based on it's value (something that brings in that much rent has to be valuable, you wouldn't find a seller just yet) they would be paying tax through the nose, there'd be no point to jacking up the rent because they just increase their tax liability, and if they don't productively earn the income to cover that rent they are going to jail. Again oversimplified you have to read some Progress shite to appreciate fully.
But basically in such a simple market it highlights the fact that under current taxation structure whatever you earn can be taken away by your landlord, and cripple the community at the same time. (Anything too good to be true: is)