Donor and philanthropist George Soros (IMAGE CREDIT: Flikr/Michael Wuertenberg)

Readers were quick to point out yesterday that, while billionaire donor (and recent bomb-scare victim) George Soros may be an easy target for reactionaries on the right, there are real reasons to scrutinise his past. In other news, readers took the government’s energy divestment strategy with a grain of salt (it had a mixed reception from Bernard Keane), with readers unsure if the Coalition’s track record can be trusted.

On George Soros

Niall Clugston writes: I don’t see how you can have an article entitled “Who is George Soros?” and leave out his role in Black Wednesday in Britain in 1992 or the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. Clearly, his role in financial manipulation is a part of the criticism of him, which has been voiced by many including the economist Paul Krugman, who is also of Jewish descent.

Beenaround writes: The test of these conspiracy theories against Soros is: how is alleged conduct meant to benefit him? That is the problem with all right-wing antipathy to what they characterise as “left”. Right-wing policies are invariably designed to benefit elites who support right-wing “think tanks”. On the other hand, the left always pursue policies that benefit the majority. And, unsurprisingly, that is why self-interest is despised by the left. I think it was Bertrand Russell who said that when faced with two contentions, always prefer the contention that does not involve self-interest.

Paddy writes: I can’t believe you’ve written an article about George Soros and left out the bit that caused him to be come so well known.
The man who broke the bank of England. (Not really true, but he & others sure gave it a scare.) It’s a fascinating tale and well worth looking up.

On the Coalition’s divestment policy

Draco Houston writes: Tim Watts is currently screeching that the policy will make us Venezuela. Who knew anti-trust powers were socialism?

R. Ambrose Raven: Divestment appears little more than a vague thought-bubble. So far there appears no clear statement of what could or should be divested, nor to what degree. Not only is it not a substitute for an intelligently designed electricity supply structure, it appears little more than the latest desperate idea.

Jock Webb writes: Rumtytum [Crikey Comments, 26/10] is right to ask about corruption. It is indeed corrupt, partly from bribes, otherwise known as donations. The more so because an amazing number of Nationals seem to find themselves on coal company boards, notably as chairmen. Whitehaven, Santos, etc. Is there nothing we can do to stop these lying scum blathering about clean coal when there is no such bloody thing?

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to [email protected]. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name.

Get Crikey for $1 a week.

Lockdowns are over and BBQs are back! At last, we get to talk to people in real life. But conversation topics outside COVID are so thin on the ground.

Join Crikey and we’ll give you something to talk about. Get your first 12 weeks for $12 to get stories, analysis and BBQ stoppers you won’t see anywhere else.

Peter Fray
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
12 weeks for just $12.