PDA

View Full Version : You know you're a lefty if ...



Pages : 1 [2]

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2010, 02:21 PM
I expected lefties to argue that their answers are correct.


Very few of the questions are matters of objective fact irrespective of circumstances and even the one that most clearly is ("A company with the largest market share is a monopoly") is still capable of misinterpretation.
That's why there is an option "not sure", which is not counted as incorrect answer.

Desmond
10-06-2010, 02:22 PM
Without a rider to say whether they are talking about *all*, *some* or *most* third-world workers, the question simply does not have a valid answer.
They address this in the paper:

We think it is reasonable to maintain that if a respondent disagrees with the statement “Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable,” the respondent betrays a lack of economic enlightenment. Challengers might say something like: “Well, not every restriction on housing development makes housing less affordable,” but such a challenger would be tendentious and churlish. Unless a statement in a questionnaire explicitly makes it a matter of 100%, by using “every,” “all,” “always,” “none,” or “never,” it is natural to understand the statement as a by-and-large statement about overall consequences. Do restrictions on housing development, by and large, make housing less affordable? Yes they do. Does free trade lead, overall, to greater unemployment? No, it does not. For someone to say the contrary is economically unenlightened.

which I don't agree with at all. The answer to vague questions is usually a vague answer like "it depends".

Desmond
10-06-2010, 02:28 PM
I expected lefties to argue that their answers are correct.

That's why there is an option "not sure", which is not counted as incorrect answer.Is "not sure" the same as saying there is no valid option? I don't think so.

antichrist
10-06-2010, 03:35 PM
A friends of mine who was a ship's captain and rightard war monger in his day - eventually seen the light and now attends antiwar demos and pro-Gaza rallies. so be careful Igor and Jono you never knows what is around the corner.

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2010, 04:38 PM
Here is one of the meaningless questions included in the eight:

Without a rider to say whether they are talking about *all*, *some* or *most* third-world workers, the question simply does not have a valid answer.
Then say so, rather than "agree". In reality, most multinationals pay their workers in third-world countries much better than the going rate for local jobs, so the locals are eager to get in.

Other questions are also objective: minimum wage laws really do increase unemployment, and rent control produces housing shortage.

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2010, 04:43 PM
They address this in the paper:

We think it is reasonable to maintain that if a respondent disagrees with the statement “Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable,” the respondent betrays a lack of economic enlightenment. Challengers might say something like: “Well, not every restriction on housing development makes housing less affordable,” but such a challenger would be tendentious and churlish. Unless a statement in a questionnaire explicitly makes it a matter of 100%, by using “every,” “all,” “always,” “none,” or “never,” it is natural to understand the statement as a by-and-large statement about overall consequences. Do restrictions on housing development, by and large, make housing less affordable? Yes they do. Does free trade lead, overall, to greater unemployment? No, it does not. For someone to say the contrary is economically unenlightened.

which I don't agree with at all. The answer to vague questions is usually a vague answer like "it depends".
Maybe, but that still doesn't justify the leftard answers. Also, apply it to chess: "A queen is stronger than a knight", and options: Yes, Mostly, It depends, Not usually, Never. The leftard answers are akin to "Never"; "It depends" is right but pedantic and unhelpful; "Yes" is an answer often given to a beginner before talking about knight forks, "Mostly" is hard to fault.

Desmond
10-06-2010, 04:49 PM
Maybe, but that still doesn't justify the leftard answers. Also, apply it to chess: "A queen is stronger than a knight", and options: Yes, Mostly, It depends, Not usually, Never. The leftard answers are akin to "Never"; "It depends" is right but pedantic and unhelpful; "Yes" is an answer often given to a beginner before talking about knight forks, "Mostly" is hard to fault.
At best they are poorly worded questions.

Kevin Bonham
10-06-2010, 04:55 PM
That's why there is an option "not sure", which is not counted as incorrect answer.

But "not sure" is not the same as "sometimes, sometimes not" or "in some circumstances". If I am presented with a blanket generalisation that I believe is actually true in only some or most contexts and asked to give an agree/disagree I will actually give a "somewhat disagree" type response rather than a "not sure". Because actually I may well be sure that the statement is only sometimes true.

And if the question "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable" is meant to be a question about general tendency meaning "Do restrictions on housing development, by and large, make housing less affordable?" then why not ask the question in the latter form?

To ask someone to comment on a sweeping unqualified generalisation, then dismiss a "somewhat disagree" type response on the grounds of their being some exceptions as "tendentious and churlish" is, well, tendentious and churlish, not to mention disingenuous and clueless.

Indeed, if a sweeping generalisation has even one exception, and it is phrased in an absolute form, then its actual truth value is false and the correct answer is to disagree.

I think the survey proves nothing about economics whatsoever. What it may really show is that people are more likely to respond pickily to a generalisation if that generalisation is embraced by their ideological opponents, and more likely to respond favourably to it if it is embraced by their allies.

If lefties really are so economically clueless it should be easy to demonstrate it without resorting to such an abysmally badly designed study.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2010, 04:59 PM
And if the question "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable" is meant to be a question about general tendency meaning "Do restrictions on housing development, by and large, make housing less affordable?" then why not ask the question in the latter form?

That's a valid point, many questions could indeed be put in a better form.
But answer "strongly disagree" still shows misunderstanding of economy.

Would you agree with original answers if they included appropriate ",by and large,"?

Kevin Bonham
10-06-2010, 05:25 PM
That's a valid point, many questions could indeed be put in a better form.
But answer "strongly disagree" still shows misunderstanding of economy.

Would you agree with original answers if they included appropriate ",by and large,"?

The questions being:


1. Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.
• Unenlightened: Disagree

This question cannot be answered unless you know whether there is government intervention in favour of affordable housing. Such intervention is too common for the statement to be considered "by and large" true. If the statement was in the form "All other things being equal ..." then I would agree with it.


2. Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those
services.
• Unenlightened: Disagree

I would say that this is true by and large but that the increase is not necessarily significant depending on the licence process. Furthermore the question is slightly tricky because while mandatory licencing may increase the cost it may also increase the quality, so are you really getting the same "services"?


3. Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.

I would say that this is true in most places.


4. Rent control leads to housing shortages.
• Unenlightened: Disagree

I would say that this is only true in some cases and for some levels and too broad a generalisation to even pass as "by and large".


5. A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.
• Unenlightened: Agree

This question is ambiguous as stated, because a respondent could reasonably argue that "the largest market share" = the largest market share possible = 100% therefore yes.

Question should be reworded: "In a market with several competing companies, the company with the largest market share by far has a monopoly". With that rewording the statement becomes categorically false.


6. Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being
exploited.
• Unenlightened: Agree

This question is hopelessly subjective and ideological and cannot be meaningfully answered.


7. Free trade leads to unemployment.
• Unenlightened: Agree

This question is also too vague even with a "by and large" attached. Does it mean net unemployment globally, or does any contribution to unemployment (putting anyone out of work) count? Question needs rewording. Also "free trade" needs defining to indicate whether it also includes free movement of potential employees across borders, and whether it also exists in the area being free-traded with. Insufficient information to answer question.


8. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.
• Unenlightened: Disagree

I would probably answer "somewhat agree" if this was put in the form "By and large ...".

TheJoker
10-06-2010, 05:52 PM
I would say that this is true by and large but that the increase is not necessarily significant depending on the licence process. Furthermore the question is slightly tricky because while mandatory licencing may increase the cost it may also increase the quality, so are you really getting the same "services"?.

The statement can often be false mandatory licensing can create increased consumer confidence and removes the need for firms to enact private mechanism to ensure confidence (such as private standards, or advertising to increase quality perceptions). Were the costs of the public licensing scheme outweigh the costs of private mechanism, there can be cost savings. If increased consumer confidence results in higher utilisation rates of services prices can fall through economies of scale. It can also add to costs where the licensing scheme provides little in the way of consumer confidence, creates high barriers to entry or where private mechanisms can achieve the same results at a lower cost. So basically the question should be included the phrase "all other things being equal". But that really doesn't serve any purpose since all other things are never held equal.

pax
10-06-2010, 06:47 PM
Then say so, rather than "agree". In reality, most multinationals pay their workers in third-world countries much better than the going rate for local jobs, so the locals are eager to get in.

Unfortunately, the options "ambiguous" "this is a loaded question" and "the question is not valid" were not available.

pax
10-06-2010, 06:53 PM
It's interesting to note that there was practically zero correlation between level of education and the "correctness" of responses.

Kevin Bonham
10-06-2010, 08:17 PM
I also note that the study was co-authored by the editor of the journal, and that the journal is one normally dedicated to reviewing errors in other journals. Very strange.

Some other replies to this piece (one from a fellow psephologist!):
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/are-you-smarter-than-george-mason.html
http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2010/06/klein-and-buturovic-are-back-more.html
Plenty of others out there.

Capablanca-Fan
11-06-2010, 01:50 AM
I think that the common polling questions measuring degrees of agreement were wrong. "Strongly agree" should be "always true"; agree should be "mostly true", ... strongly disagree should be "never".

The authors are right in noting a difference between actual results as opposed to possible mitigating circumstances for a policy.


The questions being:

This question cannot be answered unless you know whether there is government intervention in favour of affordable housing. Such intervention is too common for the statement to be considered "by and large" true. If the statement was in the form "All other things being equal ..." then I would agree with it.
But when land is locked up and housing is prevented, then of course housing will become more expensive. It is no accident that the most expensive housing in America was in places with "open space" and "smart building laws" were enacted. They have the support of existing home owners because their own property increases in value and poorer people are kept out. These laws were especially good at keeping blacks out. Thomas Sowell documents this in his book The Housing Boom and Bust (http://reason.com/archives/2009/05/20/the-housing-boom-and-bust) (2009).


I would say that this is true by and large but that the increase is not necessarily significant depending on the licence process. Furthermore the question is slightly tricky because while mandatory licencing may increase the cost it may also increase the quality, so are you really getting the same "services"?
I read an article recently about how licencing has driven up the costs of medicine, since by artificially restricting the supply of doctors, their remuneration is much higher. There are also far too many cases of immigrant doctors whose qualifications are not recognized by the local doctors' trade union medical association, even when they come from countries with a sound health system like Germany.


4. Rent control leads to housing shortages.
• Unenlightened: Disagree

I would say that this is only true in some cases and for some levels and too broad a generalisation to even pass as "by and large".
There is also empirical evidence that rent control produces housing shortages. Many rent controlled areas have homeless people as well as boarded up apartments that are not economical to rent out. Such controls also encourage the building of luxury apartments that are exempt from controls. Again, see Sowell The Housing Boom and Bust.


This question is ambiguous as stated, because a respondent could reasonably argue that "the largest market share" = the largest market share possible = 100% therefore yes.
A monopoly requires more than that: it requires an impossible barrier of entry to that product or alternatives. For example, there was a typewriter company that had a huge market share in the American typewriter industry, but it did them no good when computers and word processors reached a high enough level.


Question should be reworded: "In a market with several competing companies, the company with the largest market share by far has a monopoly". With that rewording the statement becomes categorically false.
True. But it still wouldn't stop the lefties, or the vexatious "anti-trust" lawsuits by Justice Department sharks.


This question is also too vague even with a "by and large" attached. Does it mean net unemployment globally, or does any contribution to unemployment (putting anyone out of work) count? Question needs rewording. Also "free trade" needs defining to indicate whether it also includes free movement of potential employees across borders, and whether it also exists in the area being free-traded with. Insufficient information to answer question.
I fail to see why. And what's the excuse for the lefty answer, which sad to say is held by some alleged conservatives as well. This is an empirical question rather than an ideological one. When protectionism is enacted, the protected company benefits, but companies that use the protected goods are harmed more, with more job losses than are saved in the protected industry.


6. Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being
exploited.
• Unenlightened: Agree

This question is hopelessly subjective and ideological and cannot be meaningfully answered.
So why did leftards answer it? In reality, there is an objective answer: these workers receive much more than they would receive in local industries. How is it exploitation if these workers are desperate to be employed by the multinationals?


I would probably answer "somewhat agree" if this was put in the form "By and large ...".
I would rather see the possible answers include "by and large".

Kevin Bonham
11-06-2010, 03:47 AM
But when land is locked up and housing is prevented, then of course housing will become more expensive.

Only in the absence of government intervention to the contrary. (I am not saying this to support such intervention, just indicating that simple supply and demand principles are not the only thing controlling the price of housing.)


There is also empirical evidence that rent control produces housing shortages.

Does this evidence establish whether this causal link operates always, usually or sometimes?


True. But it still wouldn't stop the lefties, or the vexatious "anti-trust" lawsuits by Justice Department sharks.

Well, that's a question of policy. The question as phrased (if cleaned up to make it unambiguous) becomes a question of fact.


I fail to see why.

Well, local unemployment is sometimes created when companies decide (in the absence of barriers otherwise) to source labour from overseas rather than locally, which can happen as a result of higher wage expectations locally irrespective of actual wage controls (although wage controls are often the underlying trigger). But to say whether unemployment increases locally or nationally constitute an increase in unemployment caused by free trade you have to say on what scale you are measuring it.


So why did leftards answer it?

Because anyone can "answer" it (rightards or leftards alike), but what the answer really does is describe your definition of the subjective term "exploited" rather than convey objective facts.


In reality, there is an objective answer: these workers receive much more than they would receive in local industries. How is it exploitation if these workers are desperate to be employed by the multinationals?

I would say this is actually not an objective answer at all, and even a potentially misleading one. Workers may be desperate to be employed by multinationals if they see the conditions offered by the multinationals as less exploitative, but this does not resolve the question of whether either employer pays them a fair wage. Additionally, some might define exploitation relative to the employer's ability to pay. To give an artificial example, a person who earns $4/hour for a struggling third-world company that just can't afford to pay its workers more than that, will jump at a chance to earn $8/hour, but if the company paying the latter is ludicrously wealthy and can afford to pay far more than that, there is still a case (depending on your definition) that $8/hour is "exploitative".

TheJoker
11-06-2010, 11:01 AM
Of course it is usually existing residents that cause most of the housing affordability problems by blocking the building of high density housing in their areas. But how can a rightards argue against this since it represents their free choice about their particular living environment.

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2010, 02:18 PM
Of course it is usually existing residents that cause most of the housing affordability problems by blocking the building of high density housing in their areas.
I agree, and Dr Sowell made this point too.


But how can a rightards argue against this since it represents their free choice about their particular living environment.
No, they own their own property. They do not own the vacant lot down the road.

How can leftards not see that their support for big government often helps the wealthy at the expense of the poor, if said wealthy have government connections? "Smart housing" is one example, "eminent domain" as per Kelo v. City of New London is another, where all the leftard SCOTUS judges ruled to allow the city to take over private land so big businesses could build and contribute more tax revenue (nothing has been built yet).

TheJoker
15-06-2010, 03:33 PM
No, they own their own property. They do not own the vacant lot down the road.

A development that has a negative effect on the value of their property is an infringement on their private property rights is it not?

Given a lack of any public zoning regulatino and where residents don't have a say in what developments occur in their local area, wouldn't that have a massive effect on number of consumers willing to purchase a home, the number of developers willing build homes (given that another development could dramtically change the value of their property)?

Imagine taking out a 30 year mortage only to have some sort of factory built next door.

Capablanca-Fan
17-06-2010, 09:46 AM
Economic Myths, Fallacies and Stupidity (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/walter-e-williams/2010/06/16/economic-myths-fallacies-and-stupidity/)
By Walter E. Williams 16 June 2010

...

How about the criticism that businesses are just in it for money and profits? That's supposed to be an anti-business slam but upon simple examination, it reflects gross stupidity or misunderstanding. Wal-Mart owns 8,300 stores, of which 4,000 are in 44 different countries. Its 2010 revenues are expected to top $500 billion. Putting Wal-Mart's revenues in perspective, they exceed the 2009 GDP of all but 18 of the world's 181 countries. Why is Wal-Mart so successful? Millions of people voluntarily enter their stores and part with their money in exchange for Wal-Mart's products and services. In order for that to happen, Wal-Mart and millions of other profit-motivated businesses must please people.

Compare our level of satisfaction with the services of those "in it just for the money and profits" to those in it to serve the public as opposed to earning profits. A major non-profit service provider is the public education establishment that delivers primary and secondary education at nearly a trillion-dollar annual cost. Public education is a major source of complaints about poor services that in many cases constitute nothing less than gross fraud.

If Wal-Mart, or any of the millions of producers who are in it for money and profits, were to deliver the same low-quality services, they would be out of business, but not public schools. Why? People who produce public education get their pay, pay raises and perks whether customers are satisfied or not. They are not motivated by profits and therefore under considerably less pressure to please customers. They use government to take customer money, in the form of taxes.

The U. S. Postal Service, state motor vehicle departments and other government agencies also have the taxing power of government to get money and therefore are less diligent about pleasing customers. You can bet the rent money that if Wal-Mart and other businesses had the power to take our money by force, they would be less interested and willing to please us.

The big difference between entities that serve us well and those who do not lies in what motivates them. Wal-Mart and millions of other businesses are profit-motivated whereas government schools, USPS and state motor vehicle departments are not.

In the market, when a firm fails to please its customers and fails to earn a profit, it goes bankrupt, making those resources available to another that might do better. That's unless government steps in to bail it out. Bailouts send the message to continue doing a poor job of pleasing customers and husbanding resources. Government-owned nonprofit entities are immune to the ruthless market discipline of being forced to please customers. The same can be said of businesses that receive government subsidies.

...

pax
17-06-2010, 02:11 PM
1
If Wal-Mart, or any of the millions of producers who are in it for money and profits, were to deliver the same low-quality services, they would be out of business, but not public schools.

This is utterly laughable.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-06-2010, 02:12 PM
This is utterly laughable.
Why?

Desmond
17-06-2010, 02:22 PM
Why?
Dunno about Walmart, but retail giants here do specialise in low quality products. And people keep coming back buying the same junk every 13 months.

pax
17-06-2010, 03:02 PM
Dunno about Walmart, but retail giants here do specialise in low quality products. And people keep coming back buying the same junk every 13 months.
Right. Low quality, low price, high volume. It's a perfectly valid business model of course, but not one intended to maximise quality.

Zwischenzug
17-06-2010, 04:06 PM
Dunno about Walmart, but retail giants here do specialise in low quality products. And people keep coming back buying the same junk every 13 months.
Walmart is the world's largest retailer and became so by being the first to rely on Chinese imports.

Desmond
17-06-2010, 04:48 PM
Walmart is the world's largest retailer and became so by being the first to rely on Chinese imports.Which makes Jono's comment all the more peculiar.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-06-2010, 08:44 PM
Right. Low quality, low price, high volume. It's a perfectly valid business model of course, but not one intended to maximise quality.

Walmart is the world's largest retailer and became so by being the first to rely on Chinese imports.

Isn't it what most shoppers prefer?

Zwischenzug
17-06-2010, 09:17 PM
Isn't it what most shoppers prefer?

Yes. Wallmart (with the help of Chinese manufacturing) merely responded to the American consumer's need for cheaper products.

Garvinator
17-06-2010, 09:38 PM
Yes. Wallmart (with the help of Chinese manufacturing) merely responded to the American consumer's need for cheaper products.I think that should be: Merely responded to the American consumer's WANT for cheaper products.

Usually this means that in the battle between quality and lower price, people will choose price when it comes to everyday type items.

That being said, quite often the price is higher on some items because of government, instead of just being market forces.

Capablanca-Fan
18-06-2010, 04:44 AM
I think that should be: Merely responded to the American consumer's WANT for cheaper products.
This is not unjustified for low-income people. The Dems on their anti-Walmart crusade care more about their union donors than the poorer people they claim to care about.


Usually this means that in the battle between quality and lower price, people will choose price when it comes to everyday type items.
Yes, for some things, there is little difference in quality.


That being said, quite often the price is higher on some items because of government, instead of just being market forces.
Yes, America has high tariffs and subsidies, as well as long red tape. Don't believe their claims about being "the land of the free".

Capablanca-Fan
18-06-2010, 04:47 AM
Right. Low quality, low price, high volume. It's a perfectly valid business model of course, but not one intended to maximise quality.
It's not that low; we use it often, and it is just as good as the Australian supermarkets, and more convenient for one-stop shopping. For many things, it is fine. And shoppers in my area also have Krogers, Publix and Ingles, which keeps a check on Walmart, and they are better for some things. Unlike the public schools, Walmart can't force a single shopper to buy from it, and this keeps their quality higher. And unlike the public schools, most customers are happy with it.

Capablanca-Fan
18-06-2010, 04:48 AM
Which makes Jono's comment all the more peculiar.
Why? I support free trade. And the comment is a major reason: it leads to cheaper goods for consumers.

Garrett
18-06-2010, 09:56 AM
Yes, for some things, there is little difference in quality.




Even when there is a large discrepancy in quality a higher price may not be justified.

I will buy a really cheap hammer because I use it once a year, but it could be silly for a carpenter to buy the same hammer, who uses one everyday.

I think we could consider quality in association with a purpose, and not just as an intrinsic value.

cheers
Garrett.

Desmond
18-06-2010, 11:35 AM
Why? I support free trade. And the comment is a major reason: it leads to cheaper goods for consumers.Because your comment was that companies that provide low quality goods go out of business, but in reality they thrive.

TheJoker
18-06-2010, 12:44 PM
How about the criticism that businesses are just in it for money and profits? That's supposed to be an anti-business slam but upon simple examination, it reflects gross stupidity or misunderstanding.... In order for that to happen... millions of other profit-motivated businesses must please people.

In order to make a profit business only need to be concerned with pleasing their customers and not necessarily the broader population. I could make a profit selling alcohol to underage teens, I'd have plenty of happy customers but it's not beneficial to the community. Same could be said for selling arms to terrorists etc. Some businesses behave ethically others don't.


Compare our level of satisfaction with the services of those "in it just for the money and profits" to those in it to serve the public as opposed to earning profits. A major non-profit service provider is the public education establishment... Public education is a major source of complaints

I'd say the majority of Australian tax payers (and they are the customers of public education not the inidividual parents) are quite happy with the public education system in this country. Just because the US is doing a poor job in implementing public education doesn't mean it cannot be implemented well. Remember public education is generally a much lower cost service than private education so you would expect to see some differences in quality. Last time i check it was a public high school that topped the NSW HSC results.



If Wal-Mart, or any of the millions of producers who are in it for money and profits, were to deliver the same low-quality services, they would be out of business, but not public schools. Why? People who produce public education get their pay, pay raises and perks whether customers are satisfied or not. They are not motivated by profits and therefore under considerably less pressure to please customers. They use government to take customer money, in the form of taxes.

Not true if overall taxpayers didn't think public education benefits exceeded the costs then they elect a party that was proposing to abolish public education.

I see paying taxes (at least income taxes) as choice not a force. Think about the public services such as rule of law it's fundmental to the operation of most businesses. Everybody who derives an income in Australia does so by utilising public services either directly or indirectly. So by chosing to derive an income by accessing those benefit you are chosing to pay taxes.

Consumption tax is a different kettle of fish, the only reason i think it is necessary is to collect from those people who avoid paying income taxes.

pax
18-06-2010, 02:02 PM
And unlike the public schools, most customers are happy with it.

My children attend the local public primary school, and I am extremely happy with the quality of their education.

In fact, there is a fair level of competition even in the public school sector here in WA. We are free to send our child to any school we wish, providing they have a place. I know of some public schools that are suffering from very low numbers (and consequently diminished funding), because parents are not satisfied with the quality and choose to send their children elsewhere.

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2010, 12:01 AM
My children attend the local public primary school, and I am extremely happy with the quality of their education.
That's nice.


In fact, there is a fair level of competition even in the public school sector here in WA. We are free to send our child to any school we wish, providing they have a place.
This is a good thing, surely. It is probably one thing that keeps your local one honest.


I know of some public schools that are suffering from very low numbers (and consequently diminished funding), because parents are not satisfied with the quality and choose to send their children elsewhere.
Again, proves my point that competition is good. American public schools lack this.

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2010, 12:03 AM
Because your comment was that companies that provide low quality goods go out of business, but in reality they thrive.
This is a totally different issue from free trade. In reality, WalMart provides quite good quality, easily comparable with Woolworths and Coles. As I have shopped in both WalMart and in the Soviet Union, I can tell the difference that competition makes.

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2010, 12:12 AM
In order to make a profit business only need to be concerned with pleasing their customers and not necessarily the broader population.
Good enough though. Much better than having to please politicians and bureaucrats who only pretend to speak for the "broader population". The "broader population" should have no say in my choice of car, computer, house, or wife.


I could make a profit selling alcohol to underage teens, I'd have plenty of happy customers but it's not beneficial to the community. Same could be said for selling arms to terrorists etc. Some businesses behave ethically others don't.
Quite a different issue to providing cheap goods to those who want to pay for it—goods that are morally neutral unlike arms to terrorists. BTW, it's often your beloved governments that do this.


I'd say the majority of Australian tax payers (and they are the customers of public education not the inidividual parents) are quite happy with the public education system in this country.
The reason is precisely as Pax pointed out: there is genuine competition. Also, John Howard pointed out that partly funding private schools achieves almost the same as vouchers by increasing the options available (although I would still prefer vouchers or tax credits and get the government out of education).


Just because the US is doing a poor job in implementing public education doesn't mean it cannot be implemented well.
Australia does a better job precisely because public education is not such a union-dominated monopoly here.


Not true if overall taxpayers didn't think public education benefits exceeded the costs then they elect a party that was proposing to abolish public education.
As Reagan said, the nearest thing on earth to eternal life is a government program. Bureaucrats fight tooth and nail to keep their fiefdoms.


I see paying taxes (at least income taxes) as choice not a force.
Crap. Try not paying your taxes, and you'll see government force against you.


Think about the public services such as rule of law it's fundmental to the operation of most businesses. Everybody who derives an income in Australia does so by utilising public services either directly or indirectly. So by chosing to derive an income by accessing those benefit you are chosing to pay taxes.
Yawn, stretch, how many times do I have to point out that free market supporters believe that the government has a legitimate role in enforcing rule of law, hence some taxation is necessary to fund it.


Consumption tax is a different kettle of fish, the only reason i think it is necessary is to collect from those people who avoid paying income taxes.
Given that when you tax something, you get less of it, if I were designing a tax system from scratch, I'd rather tax consumption than production. But now, I would still go with the LDP's policy.

Desmond
19-06-2010, 08:40 AM
This is a totally different issue from free trade. Oh that's good to know. SHould be obvious why your original quoted comment was peculiar then.

TheJoker
22-06-2010, 10:38 AM
The "broader population" should have no say in my choice of car, computer, house, or wife..

Wrong again on all fronts:rolleyes: The broader population has the right to make sure your house is safe and is not going to fall apart in the next storm and cause damage to surronding properties or people, or to ensure that it is hygenic and not going to fester disease. The broader community has the right to ensure your car is roadworthy and not likely to cause accidents. The broader community has the right to ensure that the wife you choose is of sufficient age to make an informed consent to marry you.



Quite a different issue to providing cheap goods to those who want to pay for it—goods that are morally neutral unlike arms to terrorists.

Exactly that's why the original article chose Walmart of an example. However, there are examples of how people and businesses will behave unethically to make a buck and can thrive in a free market doing so.



The reason is precisely as Pax pointed out: there is genuine competition.

Which shows that there is no need to discontinue public education.



Australia does a better job precisely because public education is not such a union-dominated monopoly here..

I'd like to see evidence of that I'd say the teachers union is Australian public education is a massive force. By the way how as a libertarian can you argue against people's right to unionise?


Crap. Try not paying your taxes, and you'll see government force against you..

Obviously over your head yet again, if chose not to earn an income (or gain any other benefit out of our publically administered economy) you won't have to pay taxes. If you chose to earn an income in Australia you are automatically benefitting from the public services. Once you choose to access the benefits its only fair you pay for them



Given that when you tax something, you get less of it, if I were designing a tax system from scratch, I'd rather tax consumption than production.

Supply is driven by demand, you won't get more production because demand is reduced when taxing consumption.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-06-2010, 11:32 AM
Wrong again on all fronts:rolleyes: The broader population has the right to make sure your house is safe and is not going to fall apart in the next storm and cause damage to surronding properties or people, or to ensure that it is hygenic and not going to fester disease. The broader community has the right to ensure your car is roadworthy and not likely to cause accidents. The broader community has the right to ensure that the wife you choose is of sufficient age to make an informed consent to marry you.
To paraphrase it in plain English:
Lefty will always find an excuse to stick his beak where it's not welcome.



Exactly that's why the original article chose Walmart of an example. However, there are examples of how people and businesses will behave unethically to make a buck and can thrive in a free market doing so.

Because of some hypothetical examples,
Lefty will always find an excuse to stick his beak where it's not welcome.



I'd like to see evidence of that I'd say the teachers union is Australian public education is a massive force. By the way how as a libertarian can you argue against people's right to unionise?


Libertarians don't object to people's right to unionise. They object to:
Lefty will always find an excuse to stick his beak where it's not welcome.


Obviously over your head yet again, if chose not to earn an income (or gain any other benefit out of our publically administered economy) you won't have to pay taxes. If you chose to earn an income in Australia you are automatically benefitting from the public services. Once you choose to access the benefits its only fair you pay for them


Lefty will never understand how his position is contradictory and self-defeating. "Choosing to pay tax by choosing to earn income" is one of the most laughable remarks I ever saw. Keep up good work!:hand:

TheJoker
22-06-2010, 01:19 PM
To paraphrase it in plain English:
Lefty will always find an excuse to stick his beak where it's not welcome.

Your paraphrasing skills need some serious work:rolleyes:


Lefty will never understand how his position is contradictory and self-defeating.

It's only free market fundies like yourself who too stupid to realise the benefits of paying tax, even Jono recognises the benefit of payng taxes to ensure rule of law (and effective law making) that is a prerequiste for efficient markets. It's just his understanding of market efficiencies is old school calssical economics and doesn't take into account the real world role of asymetries of information and externalities. Both of which require some regulatory intervention to improve market efficiencies. You might be suprised that I actually think there is a very strong arguement for a very significant reduction in regulation, but being a conservative (in the true sense, in that I reject the need for radical change) I don't support the radical minimalist position held by Jono or the free market fundmentalist position held by yourself. I don't support other radical leftist idea's like socialism or communism either.

I recognise that if it wasn't for this country's great public institutions such the legislature, the courts, the police, roads, schools, healthcare and social security systems. I wouldn't be able to earn the fantastic income that I do and have the great quality of life that I have. Perhaps the difference is that I've spent time in countries where the public institutions are so bad it makes it impossible to do business. You've probably experienced the opposite end of the spectrum where government control stiffled the economy in the USSR, that probably influences our relative positions. In reality the optimal amount of market regulation lies somewhere in the middle. Question is where? I don't think there is a definitive answer to that and it keeps shifting as circumstances change.

My main beef with you guys is continually claim to have the answer, either a totally free market, or minimalist state without any real evidence to support that morever you ignore all the evidence to contrary. I support deregulation where it can be shown to result in better community outcomes, I also support increase regulation where it can be shown to produce better outcomes.

I suggest you take a look at www.prosperity.com (http://www.prosperity.com/) it contains the Legatum Index which examines what factors make a more properous society

Igor_Goldenberg
22-06-2010, 02:06 PM
It's only free market fundies like yourself who too stupid to realise the benefits of paying tax, even Jono recognises the benefit of payng taxes to ensure rule of law (and effective law making) that is a prerequiste for efficient markets. It's just his understanding of market efficiencies is old school calssical economics and doesn't take into account the real world role of asymetries of information and externalities.

Read: I want your money.



Both of which require some regulatory intervention to improve market efficiencies. You might be suprised that I actually think there is a very strong arguement for a very significant reduction in regulation,

I am indeed surprised, as it is not reflected in your posting



but being a conservative (in the true sense, in that I reject the need for radical change) I don't support the radical minimalist position held by Jono or the free market fundmentalist position held by yourself.

The minimalist state is the idealistic goal. I don't advocate jumping there overnight, but would like to gradually move towards.


I don't support other radical leftist idea's like socialism or communism either.
It is not evident from your posts.

TheJoker
22-06-2010, 02:15 PM
Read: I want your money..

You need reading lessons by the look of it!!!




I am indeed surprised, as it is not reflected in your posting.

No it's your in ability to understand my postings. As evidenced by your attempts to paraphrase.



The minimalist state is the idealistic goal.

As I said idealism, without evaluating the realities. Let's just aim for a minimalist state even though the most properous countries are not the most minimalist.



It is not evident from your posts.

Again it's your comprehension ability causing the problem.

Got any comments that might add value to debate of the optimal amount of public governance?

Igor_Goldenberg
22-06-2010, 02:35 PM
Again it's your comprehension ability causing the problem.

Got any comments that might add value to debate of the optimal amount of public governance?
Haven't you read anything on this forum?:wall: :wall: :wall:

TheJoker
22-06-2010, 02:47 PM
Haven't you read anything on this forum?:wall: :wall: :wall:

Yes, hence the comment:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

Desmond
22-06-2010, 02:50 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol:

You guys should charge admission.

Capablanca-Fan
23-06-2010, 04:14 AM
Your paraphrasing skills need some serious work:rolleyes:
Seemed quite apt to me. :P:lol:


It's only free market fundies like yourself who too stupid to realise the benefits of paying tax, even Jono recognises the benefit of payng taxes to ensure rule of law (and effective law making) that is a prerequiste for efficient markets.
“Even Jono”? This is mainstream among libertarians/free market advocates/


It's just his understanding of market efficiencies is old school calssical economics and doesn't take into account the real world role of asymetries of information and externalities.
Classical economists do take these into consideration. Friedman and Sowell are on record supporting taxing things that genuinely hurt third parties, e.g. real pollution.


You might be suprised that I actually think there is a very strong arguement for a very significant reduction in regulation,
I certainly am surprised, given that on this board, there seemed to be no regulation or tax increase that you didn't like.


but being a conservative (in the true sense, in that I reject the need for radical change)
While I am not a conservative in that I see a number of things that I don't want to conserve, such as government schooling and our convoluted tax system.


I recognise that if it wasn't for this country's great public institutions such the legislature, the courts, the police, roads, schools, healthcare and social security systems. I wouldn't be able to earn the fantastic income that I do and have the great quality of life that I have.
Again, you group a lot of things together. Free market supporters agree with having the legislature, courts and police funded by government. But the only reason that our schools are not as bad as the American ones is that there is much more competition. Public health has been rocked with scandals, and overgrown with bureaucracy. Social security not only harasses unemployed people pointlessly to make it seem like they are preparing them for the workforce, but punishes them for working with a huge effective marginal tax rate.


Perhaps the difference is that I've spent time in countries where the public institutions are so bad it makes it impossible to do business.
Quite, the rule of law is vital. Must you keep prattling on as if libertarians deny this role for the government?


I support deregulation where it can be shown to result in better community outcomes, I also support increase regulation where it can be shown to produce better outcomes.
Yet the onus should be to prove that regulation will be beneficial, including the likely side-effects.

Capablanca-Fan
23-06-2010, 06:08 AM
Ken Henry has long ago abandoned the role of impartial civil servant for one of Labor hack, but this really takes the biscuit (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/henry-urges-wider-profits-tax/story-e6frg6nf-1225882484014):


A super-profits tax should be rolled out for all companies in Australia as a long-term reform.

Treasury secretary Ken Henry says the tax would be similar to the model proposed for mining groups.

Companies would be able to earn up to the government bond rate tax-free, but would then pay a heavier tax on “super-profits” above that level — although less than the 40 per cent mining tax.

For this envy-coddling tax louse, it's not enough to get rid of our miners—we need to get rid of all entrepreneurs and investors. The only problem is, who would actually produce things and employ people.

Leftards love to talk about a more equal sharing of the pie, but their policies punish the bakers.

****

From another report (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/pm-kevin-rudd-rules-out-expanding-super-profits-style-tax-to-other-sectors-of-the-economy/story-e6frf7jo-1225882848255):


Mr Rudd scoffed at an Opposition suggestion that companies, such as supermarket giant Woolworths, would be slugged with a super-profits tax under Labor.

"There is a big distinction between what Woolworths would pay in terms of company tax under this government's proposals as opposed to those opposite," he said.

"We will bring Woolworths' tax down two percentage points, you will put it up two percentage points."

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's plan to impose a 1.7 per cent levy on Australian companies with a turnover in excess of $5 billion — to help fund the coalition's paid parental leave scheme — would push tax up for the likes of Woolworths four percentage points, Mr Rudd said.
KRudd has a point here—Abbott needs to dump his tax-coddling politically correct scheme that discriminates against stay-at-home mothers.

****

Labor MP, a unionist from Kevin's neck of the woods, explains the mining tax :lol:
UjoyFGRchVo&feature=player_embedded

TheJoker
23-06-2010, 10:31 AM
Classical economists do take these into consideration. Friedman and Sowell are on record supporting taxing things that genuinely hurt third parties, e.g. real pollution..

A very limited concept of externalities in neo-classical yes, but they hardly accept pervasiveness of externalities. I've yet to see any serious recognition of asymmetries of information. Also why just tax why not be proactive and prohibit such externalities where possible through regulation where appropriate.


I certainly am surprised, given that on this board, there seemed to be no regulation or tax increase that you didn't like.

Not support, but often refused to codemn without sufficient evidence. I've certainly voiced my disapproval of market distortions like the first homebuyer grants. I think I've mentioned I favour enterprise agreements to industry awards among other things.


Again, you group a lot of things together. Free market supporters agree with having the legislature, courts and police funded by government. But the only reason that our schools are not as bad as the American ones is that there is much more competition. Public health has been rocked with scandals, and overgrown with bureaucracy. Social security not only harasses unemployed people pointlessly to make it seem like they are preparing them for the workforce, but punishes them for working with a huge effective marginal tax rate..

You've got no idea. If you go to country with little or no public education, you'll find out how hard it is to employ workers with even basic reading or writing skills, this makes doing business a lot harder, if you go to country without social security (including healthcare) you'll find people are less likely to consume their disposable income (which makes it harder to sell products beyond the basics), you will also find that to retain quality workers you need to engage in significant corporate welfarism, which makes it difficult to be globally competitive. You'll find that the outbreak of disease is more common without a healthcare system.

For business strategy considerations of public insititution certainly go beyond the rule of law.


Yet the onus should be to prove that regulation will be beneficial, including the likely side-effects.

If it's a new regulation I agree, if it's an existing regulation then the onus should be on the person proposing the change to the status quo to show that it will be beneficial to deregulate.

Capablanca-Fan
23-06-2010, 01:21 PM
PM accused of panic in global crisis (http://www.smh.com.au/business/pm-accused-of-panic-in-global-crisis-20100622-yvtr.html)
PETER MARTIN AND KATHARINE MURPHY
June 23, 2010

“PROMINENT university economist and member of the Reserve Bank board has delivered a scathing critique of Kevin Rudd's response to the global financial crisis, saying his government “panicked” and “rammed through” decisions fraught with risk.

Warwick McKibbin, of the Australian National University, accused the government of overspending on its stimulus package, and then coming up with “a really badly designed resource tax” to try to compensate.”

...

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2010, 01:24 PM
Q: How many Leftards does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Twenty. One to change it; Three to do an environmental impact study; Two to ensure that affirmative action criteria are being met; One to liaise with the unions; Five to grumble about how Righties were trying to keep everyone in the dark; Two to get an abortion to celebrate the occasion; Three to hold a press conference calling attention to their accomplishment and proclaiming how much more brightly the bulb would be shining if we elected more leftists to office; and three to pass a law banning incandescent light bulbs, because they cause global warming. However, when it's all over, everyone is still in the dark because the leftards don't have enough sense to flip the switch.

ER
27-06-2010, 02:50 PM
Q: How many Leftards does it take to change a light bulb?

A: .... Two to get an abortion to celebrate the occasion;
:eek: Real leftards never have intercourse in couples only! it's considered reactionary and sexist!

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2010, 12:02 AM
The Difference Between a Rightie and a Leftie

If a Rightie doesn't like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a Leftie doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Rightie is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a Leftieis a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Rightie is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Leftie is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a Rightie is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Leftie wonders who is going to take care of him..

If a Rightie doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Lefties demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a Rightie is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Leftie non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a Rightie decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Leftie demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a Rightie reads this, he'll post it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Leftie will delete it because he's "offended".

Well I posted it, so where does that put me?

Desmond
30-06-2010, 10:14 AM
Well I posted it, so where does that put me?If you were any further to the right you'd drop off the edge of the Earth.

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2010, 10:36 AM
If you were any further to the right you'd drop off the edge of the Earth.
Why, thank you.:owned: :cool:

ER
30-06-2010, 12:49 PM
If you were any further to the right you'd ...

... end up being a a lefty??? :hmm:

Igor_Goldenberg
30-06-2010, 01:10 PM
If you were any further to the right you'd drop off the edge of the Earth.
Are all atheists flat-Earther? Or is it just you?:owned: :owned: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ER
30-06-2010, 01:22 PM
Are all atheists flat-Earther? Or is it just you?:owned: :owned: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: Classic!!! :clap:

Desmond
30-06-2010, 01:39 PM
:lol: Classic!!! :clap:
Really? I thought he just gulped down some rancid bait. To each his own I guess.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-06-2010, 02:58 PM
You guys read too much into a harmless joke, I didn't expect it to touch some nerves!

morebeer
30-06-2010, 03:12 PM
Really? I thought he just gulped down some rancid bait. To each his own I guess.

I thought it displayed uncharacteristically inventive humour from Igor.

Four stars from me...what about you Margaret?.

Desmond
30-06-2010, 04:35 PM
You guys read too much into a harmless joke, I didn't expect it to touch some nerves!
Quite possibly true. Tell me, what does the :owned: emote mean to you?

Igor_Goldenberg
30-06-2010, 04:57 PM
Quite possibly true. Tell me, what does the :owned: emote mean to you?
It was part of the joke.

ER
30-06-2010, 05:16 PM
It was part of the joke.
lol which part? :lol:

Really? I thought he just gulped down some rancid bait. To each his own I guess.
Boris, you won't be able to realise why I laughed unless you have a visual image of Igor telling jokes with his semi - serious, semi - confidential, semi - conspiratorial manner! :lol:
He had me in stitches the other day at Box Hill Chess Club when he explained to me his theory about dealing with certain kinds of people! :lol:

pax
01-07-2010, 03:10 AM
If a Rightie is homosexual, he ...
runs for Congress on a 'family values' platform while cheating on his wife with male prostitutes.

Desmond
01-07-2010, 09:56 AM
lol which part? :lol:

Boris, you won't be able to realise why I laughed unless you have a visual image of Igor telling jokes with his semi - serious, semi - confidential, semi - conspiratorial manner! :lol:
He had me in stitches the other day at Box Hill Chess Club when he explained to me his theory about dealing with certain kinds of people! :lol:I accept that Igor was joking. He may or may not have realised that I was joking with Jono.

Does anyone think that I was serious and believe the Earth is flat? Does anyone think m/any atheists do?

Did it touch nerves? No of course not. Why should it, it is not apt, there is no clever truth behind it.

At best I think his joke is a continuation of mine, which suprises me why people would express their mirth at his and not mine. You're right, I don't really think it was that funny. As I said, to each his own.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-07-2010, 10:12 AM
runs for Congress on a 'family values' platform while cheating on his wife with male prostitutes.
Do you mean David Campbell?

pax
01-07-2010, 11:09 AM
Do you mean David Campbell?

What do you think?

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2010, 11:51 AM
runs for Congress on a 'family values' platform while cheating on his wife with male prostitutes.
Far more likely to join Gay Patriots (http://www.gaypatriot.net/).

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2010, 02:43 AM
Philosopher John Searle on affirmative action (http://reason.com/archives/2000/02/01/reality-principles-an-intervie/5):


Also, affirmative action had a disastrous effect. We created two universities during affirmative action. We had a super-elite university of people who were admitted on the most competitive criteria in the history of the university, but then we had this other university of people who could not have been admitted on those criteria, and who had to have special courses and special departments set up for them.

Now affirmative action meant two completely different things. When it first started out the definition was that we were going to take affirmative actions to see that people who would never have tried to get into the university before would be encouraged and trained so that they could get admission. I was all for that—that we were going to get people into the competition who would otherwise not have been in the competition. What happened though, and this was the catastrophic effect, is that race and ethnicity became criteria not for encouraging people to enter the competition, but for judging the competition.

But now a lot of that is changing. The idea that we're going to admit people just on racial and ethnic criteria, we've given up on that. Now we're trying to get people prepared to compete in the university, and that's a good thing if we can do it.

An interesting interview where Searle also defends freedom of speech, demolishes deconstructionism, and notes, “It seems to me the leading sociopolitical event of the 20th century was the failure of socialism.”

ER
02-07-2010, 05:32 PM
I accept that Igor was joking. He may or may not have realised that I was joking with Jono.
I am sure he was, as I said, Igor's (wonderful) sense of humour, has to be witnessed in real life to be appreciated thoroughly! He is a character, believe me! Some years ago, I met him in St Kilda and asked him if he was going to play in an important tournament... Igor just looked at me as if I was from another planet, looked at his watch , then answered, "oh no, I am late, it's my mum's birthday today!" or something like that, but the way he said it was enough to crack me!:lol:
...

At best I think his joke is a continuation of mine,...
Exactly, maybe It's my fault that I did not quote your part of the equation. It was very much like a complement to your joke in response to Jono's. Actually, the reason I really laughed was that the flat earth thingy is usually connected with super conservative creationist way of thinking. Again, knowing Igor, I imagined him actually saying it, rather than typing it!
Having said all this, you know by fact that I really enjoy your sense of humour and that's one of the main factors I have you in my list of favourite chatters!

Igor_Goldenberg
28-07-2010, 09:53 AM
The return of DIY moralism (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_return_of_diy_moralism/)



The refugee activists so keen to deplore fellow citizens as heartless and racist will, under the Liberals, be given the chance to prove how morally superior they truly are - not by mere words, but louder deeds.
Abbott will let them sponsor the entry of an extra 1250 refugees, provided they stump up a bond to guarantee their guests will pay their own way.
Now that would make such moralisers serious indeed. Or show them not to be


Let's see how many refugee advocates will take up this offer




Abbott isn’t the first to think of such a wheeze, of course. Queensland’s Bligh Government last year called out the kind of greens who blithely demand the rest of us light our homes with nothing more than fireflies.
From now on, Premier Anna Bligh sweetly suggested, such noble people could, if they wished, demonstrate the way to utopia by making the tiniest of sacrifices of their own.
For just a $59 tax-deductible donation for tree-planting on top of their rego, motorists could offset their wicked car emissions for the whole year.
And wait, there’s more: the Government would match their donation dollar for dollar.
Waddaya say? Erm, not much. Of all the Queenslanders to renew their rego in the first six months of Bligh’s plan, just 230 took up her offer. Tells you a bit.



If we extrapolate 230 for six month into a full year, we'll have less then 500 genuine greens. I disagree with them, but take my hat of in a respect.
The rest don't put their money where their mouth is.





Now Victorian Premier John Brumby, a teaser behind that grim face, is copying this same mischievous policy to stick it to the greens he secretly despises.
Last week he said he’d give green drivers the option of paying a voluntary fee of up to $80 to offset their emissions - and bankroll his own green schemes.
With a straight face, he suggested 20 per cent of drivers in this reddest of mainland states would cough up.


Let's see.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-07-2010, 10:25 PM
You know you are a lefty if you believe that:
Labor mining tax is good, but Coalition maternity leave scheme is bad.

Desmond
31-07-2010, 11:54 PM
You know you are a lefty if you believe that:
Labor mining tax is good, but Coalition maternity leave scheme is bad.
Do you actually support the maternity scheme?

Garvinator
01-08-2010, 10:01 AM
From now on, Premier Anna Bligh sweetly suggested, such noble people could, if they wished, demonstrate the way to utopia by making the tiniest of sacrifices of their own.
For just a $59 tax-deductible donation for tree-planting on top of their rego, motorists could offset their wicked car emissions for the whole year.
And wait, there’s more: the Government would match their donation dollar for dollar. Waddaya say? Erm, not much. Of all the Queenslanders to renew their rego in the first six months of Bligh’s plan, just 230 took up her offer. Tells you a bit.

If we extrapolate 230 for six month into a full year, we'll have less then 500 genuine greens. I disagree with them, but take my hat of in a respect.
The rest don't put their money where their mouth is.
I think there is a bit more to it than just a straight line from pay the $59 to it going to off setting car emissions.

There is a huge amount of cynicism up here regarding anything Bligh does that I imagine most people would think when being asked to do something as suggested above, how much of it is really going to go to off setting car emissions? It is much more likely to go to general revenue and very little of that $59 will go to car emissions.

If people had a greater belief that the money would actually go to where they were paying for, then I think the take up rate might have been quite a bit higher. Or better still, the Bligh Government actually had a track record of doing what it says.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-08-2010, 11:41 AM
Do you actually support the maternity scheme?
No, I don't.
FYI, I was the first on the forum to post against it.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-08-2010, 11:43 AM
I think there is a bit more to it than just a straight line from pay the $59 to it going to off setting car emissions.

There is a huge amount of cynicism up here regarding anything Bligh does that I imagine most people would think when being asked to do something as suggested above, how much of it is really going to go to off setting car emissions? It is much more likely to go to general revenue and very little of that $59 will go to car emissions.

If people had a greater belief that the money would actually go to where they were paying for, then I think the take up rate might have been quite a bit higher. Or better still, the Bligh Government actually had a track record of doing what it says.
The cynicism is warranted. However, even greater cynicism should be applied to any "green" scheme, as they are usually a waste of money and often detrimental to environment.

Desmond
02-08-2010, 09:04 AM
No, I don't.
FYI, I was the first on the forum to post against it.
As I thought. In which case I am struggling to make sense of your

You know you are a lefty if you believe that:
Labor mining tax is good, but Coalition maternity leave scheme is bad.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2010, 10:12 AM
As I thought. In which case I am struggling to make sense of your

You know you are a lefty if you believe that:
Labor mining tax is good, but Coalition maternity leave scheme is bad.
Do you think mining tax is good?

Desmond
02-08-2010, 10:52 AM
Do you think mining tax is good?
I'm not sure. I lean towards "no".

Anyway back to the point which is the logic of your post.

If I said
yes and yes then I am a lefty.
no and yes then I am not a lefty.
yes and no then am I or not?

I put it to you that the second condition is irelevant, and that if the answer to the first condition is yes then you consider them a lefty irrespective of the second answer.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2010, 12:55 PM
I'm not sure. I lean towards "no".

Anyway back to the point which is the logic of your post.

If I said
yes and yes then I am a lefty.
no and yes then I am not a lefty.
yes and no then am I or not?

I put it to you that the second condition is irelevant, and that if the answer to the first condition is yes then you consider them a lefty irrespective of the second answer.
Lefties are mostly characterised by the set of self-contradicting believes.

If you say yes to both question, you might be green or some other loony.
Or you might be a person of principles and convictions that I don't share, but respect that the person has consistent views and applies them without looking at the party line.

However, many lefties would applause a policy coming from the Labor party, but oppouse when the same or similar policy is coming from the Coalition.

Goughfather
02-08-2010, 02:15 PM
Lefties are mostly characterised by the set of self-contradicting believes.

If you say yes to both question, you might be green or some other loony.
Or you might be a person of principles and convictions that I don't share, but respect that the person has consistent views and applies them without looking at the party line.

However, many lefties would applause a policy coming from the Labor party, but oppouse when the same or similar policy is coming from the Coalition.

So according to your criteria, what do you call Mr. Abbott, considering that he supports a levy on companies for his maternity scheme, while opposing the mining tax? Does he incur your wrath for what you regard as inconsistency?

For the record, when we walk away from your convoluted logic, I can say that I don't think that Abbott is being inconsistent, because like myself, he knows that the two different taxes are different beasts, even if we disagree concerning the relative merits of the two taxes.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2010, 03:27 PM
So according to your criteria, what do you call Mr. Abbott, considering that he supports a levy on companies for his maternity scheme, while opposing the mining tax? Does he incur your wrath for what you regard as inconsistency?
I call Mr Abbott Liberal party politician, and I was the first on this board to strongly criticise him for that policy.
I doubt many people with classical liberal views support this policy either (unless they are Coalition members or staffers).


For the record, when we walk away from your convoluted logic, I can say that I don't think that Abbott is being inconsistent, because like myself, he knows that the two different taxes are different beasts, even if we disagree concerning the relative merits of the two taxes.
No, they are both populists tax grabs.

Capablanca-Fan
02-08-2010, 03:39 PM
Yeah, what Igor said.

TheJoker
02-08-2010, 03:55 PM
No, they are both populists tax grabs.

One major difference, IIRC, is that there is some evidence to suggest that maternity leave schemes actually boosts productivity.

Desmond
02-08-2010, 03:58 PM
So according to your criteria, what do you call Mr. Abbott, considering that he supports a levy on companies for his maternity scheme, while opposing the mining tax? Igor's logic would seem to call Abbott a lefty.

Goughfather
02-08-2010, 04:06 PM
I call Mr Abbott Liberal party politician, and I was the first on this board to strongly criticise him for that policy.
I doubt many people with classical liberal views support this policy either (unless they are Coalition members or staffers).

So you keep telling us, as if that matters or as if we care. At least then, according to your criteria, you are criticising Abbott of being disingenuous and every bit as bad as your strawperson lefty.


No, they are both populists tax grabs.

If something is popularist, you would expect it to at least be popular :confused:

As is typical for rightist commentary, your analysis is rather simplistic. To determine the efficacy of each tax, one would have to look at the party being taxed, the specific direct and indirect consequences of that taxation and the intended outlays in connection with revenues gained from the tax. As each of these considerations would be answered differently, it stands to reason that the two taxes will achieve different outcomes and can be differentiated on that basis.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2010, 04:15 PM
So you keep telling us, as if that matters or as if we care.
Then nobody pulls your tongue to speak.



At least then, according to your criteria, you are criticising Abbott of being disingenuous and every bit as bad as your strawperson lefty.

I criticise him for a bad policy. Your beloved Labor have a bag of stupid policies which you are lapping up.



As is typical for rightist commentary, your analysis is rather simplistic. To determine the efficacy of each tax, one would have to look at the party being taxed, the specific direct and indirect consequences of that taxation and the intended outlays in connection with revenues gained from the tax. As each of these considerations would be answered differently, it stands to reason that the two taxes will achieve different outcomes and can be differentiated on that basis.
If that's the case, you might want to put some coherent argument why is it so.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2010, 04:19 PM
Igor's logic would seem to call Abbott a lefty.
On this one - yes.
Of course Labor have many more silly policies.
The main reason I want to see Coalition in government is not because they are classical liberal/libertarian (unfortunately they are not), but because Labor (judging by both their policies and track record) are much further away from being classical liberal/libertarian.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2010, 04:19 PM
One major difference, IIRC, is that there is some evidence to suggest that maternity leave schemes actually boosts productivity.
If there are indeed some evidences, you might want to provide them.

Desmond
02-08-2010, 04:29 PM
On this one - yes.
No. You were talking about a person being a lefty, not about them being left-leaning on one particular topic.


Of course Labor have many more silly policies.
The main reason I want to see Coalition in government is not because they are classical liberal/libertarian (unfortunately they are not), but because Labor (judging by both their policies and track record) are much further away from being classical liberal/libertarian.Fine but at least have the consistency (what you accuse others of lacking) to call him lefty if that's what you think he is.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2010, 04:33 PM
Igor's logic would seem to call Abbott a lefty.
How did you come to that conclusion?

Goughfather
02-08-2010, 04:40 PM
No. You were talking about a person being a lefty, not about them being left-leaning on one particular topic.

It's all one and the same, according to the rightist ideologue. As Jon Stewart's parody of Glenn Beck observed:

“If you subscribe to an idea, you also subscribe to that idea’s ideology and to every possible negative consequence that that ideology even remotely implies when you carry it to absurd extremes.”

It doesn't seem to occur to righties that one can lean left on some issues, while rejecting other leftist tenets and accepting some rightist tenets. In the world of the rightie, you're either an ideologically pure conservative, or a Communist pining for total government control. For the rightie, there are no nuances.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2010, 04:44 PM
No. You were talking about a person being a lefty, not about them being left-leaning on one particular topic.

Left-leaning - accepting a policy that has a socialist bias.
Leftie - a left leaning who also holds a set of contradictory believes (see the list at the beginning of the thread).

TheJoker
02-08-2010, 04:45 PM
I think Igor is right.

He did say you know you are a lefty if you believe that:
Labor mining tax is good, but Coalition maternity leave scheme is bad.

And not vice versa.

Then again he did also respond to the claim that the two taxes were different beasts with "No, they are both populist tax grabs".

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2010, 04:50 PM
It doesn't seem to occur to righties that one can lean left on some issues, while rejecting other leftist tenets and accepting some rightist tenets. In the world of the rightie, you're either an ideologically pure conservative, or a Communist pining for total government control. For the rightie, there are no nuances.
I understand you are trying to make a cheap shot, but miss as usual.
You lump together that you don't like and call it "rightie", which is convenient, but very far from the truth.

Desmond
02-08-2010, 04:52 PM
How did you come to that conclusion?
Because you made it clear that the defining characteristic of lefty is the self-contradictory beliefs.

You then asserted that supporting one tax and not the other is self-contradictory due to the parallels that can be drawn between the two.

Abbott supports on of the taxes and not the other.

According to your logic, he is a lefty.

Goughfather
02-08-2010, 05:01 PM
I think Igor is right.

He did say you know you are a lefty if you believe that:
Labor mining tax is good, but Coalition maternity leave scheme is bad.

And not vice versa.

Then again he did also respond to the claim that the two taxes were different beasts with "No, they are both populist tax grabs".

I understood that perfectly, which is why I suggested that Igor was unwittingly identifying Abbott as being as disingenuous and/or illogical and the strawperson lefty that Igor is constantly berating, rather than suggesting that he was a lefty. The basis of Igor's initial slur is his belief that the two taxes are fundamentally the same and that the inconsistency of the lefty was indicative of his or her hypocrisy and/or illogicality. If Igor wants to make this criticism, he needs to acknowledge that it also applies to Abbott, even though Abbott's "inconsistency" materialises the other way around.


I understand you are trying to make a cheap shot, but miss as usual.
You lump together that you don't like and call it "rightie", which is convenient, but very far from the truth.

On the contrary, is this not what you are doing with your elusive and non-existent "lefty"?

TheJoker
02-08-2010, 05:10 PM
I understood that perfectly, which is why I suggested that Igor was unwittingly identifying Abbott as being as disingenuous and/or illogical and the strawperson lefty that Igor is constantly berating, rather than suggesting that he was a lefty. The basis of Igor's initial slur is his belief that the two taxes are fundamentally the same and that the inconsistency of the lefty was indicative of his or her hypocrisy and/or illogicality. If Igor wants to make this criticism, he needs to acknowledge that it also applies to Abbott, even though Abbott's "inconsistency" materialises the other way around.

They key incorrect assumption being made by yourself and Boris is that there is any logic behind Igor's comments. Therefore, trying to follow them through to any logical conclusions is futile and you give Igor to much credit by attempting to do so ;)

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2010, 05:42 PM
Because you made it clear that the defining characteristic of lefty is the self-contradictory beliefs.

You then asserted that supporting one tax and not the other is self-contradictory due to the parallels that can be drawn between the two.

Abbott supports on of the taxes and not the other.

According to your logic, he is a lefty.
OK, self-contradictory beliefs are necessary, but not sufficient condition.
Those beliefs must be socialist in nature:D

The opposing side, of course, has it's share of contradictions, but the left beats is hands down.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2010, 05:46 PM
I understood that perfectly, which is why I suggested that Igor was unwittingly identifying Abbott as being as disingenuous and/or illogical and the strawperson lefty that Igor is constantly berating, rather than suggesting that he was a lefty. The basis of Igor's initial slur is his belief that the two taxes are fundamentally the same and that the inconsistency of the lefty was indicative of his or her hypocrisy and/or illogicality. If Igor wants to make this criticism, he needs to acknowledge that it also applies to Abbott, even though Abbott's "inconsistency" materialises the other way around.

Didn't I say that maternity tax is inconsistent with liberal ideology (or illogical for that matter)? What are you complaining about?

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2010, 05:49 PM
They key incorrect assumption being made by yourself and Boris is that there is any logic behind Igor's comments. Therefore, trying to follow them through to any logical conclusions is futile and you give Igor to much credit by attempting to do so ;)
Says someone who did not know what a compound or loaded question is.:owned:

Desmond
02-08-2010, 07:25 PM
OK, self-contradictory beliefs are necessary, but not sufficient condition.
Those beliefs must be socialist in nature:D The MRRT is socialist? Give me a break.

Capablanca-Fan
03-08-2010, 01:07 AM
It's all one and the same, according to the rightist ideologue.
No, one thing about the rightist position or the "tragic vision" is that we talk about incremental changes not categorical ones. Hence we would normally vote for the best candidate actually available, rather than refuse to vote because no candidate is perfect.


As Jon Stewart's parody of Glenn Beck observed:

“If you subscribe to an idea, you also subscribe to that idea’s ideology and to every possible negative consequence that that ideology even remotely implies when you carry it to absurd extremes.”
Was that meant to be an astute analysis of the Leftard view, given their frequent caricatures of conservative libertarianism? I.e. frequently leftards accuse conservative libertarians of being "warmongers" for supporting the nuclear deterrent in the Cold War or supporting the removal of the butcher Saddam Hussein. They accused Churchill of the same when he supported massive re-armament in the 1930s. Another accusation is that conservative libertarians don't care about the poor because they oppose the bloated government welfare bureaucracy, or don't care about education because they don't support pouring more money down the black pit of the government educracy.


It doesn't seem to occur to righties that one can lean left on some issues, while rejecting other leftist tenets and accepting some rightist tenets. In the world of the rightie, you're either an ideologically pure conservative, or a Communist pining for total government control. For the rightie, there are no nuances.
A caricature in itself. A real rightie, not the caricature in the Leftmedia or Leftacademia that forms GF's thinking, can point out inconsistencies in broadly conservative politicians, such as this paid maternity scheme funded by a surtax. This is surely better than a blind camp follower of Coalition policies, right or wrong.

pax
04-08-2010, 03:10 PM
The MRRT is socialist? Give me a break.

Apparently it's also socialist to oppose a more-generous Maternity leave scheme ;)

Igor's dug himself a deep hole this time..

Capablanca-Fan
04-08-2010, 03:15 PM
The MRRT is socialist? Give me a break.
Of course it is. It confiscates money from the most productive miners to fund KRudd's mad socialist spending schemes.


Apparently it's also socialist to oppose a more-generous Maternity leave scheme ;)

Igor's dug himself a deep hole this time..
What are you on about? The point was that opposition to the bad surtax to fund selective maternity rewards is hypocritical because the opponents supported the even more rapacious mining profits tax. Both are leftist policies, but one is being promoted by the Coalition so Leftards attack it anyway.

Desmond
04-08-2010, 03:25 PM
Of course it is. It confiscates money from the most productive miners to fund KRudd's mad socialist spending schemes.Either you are grossly overstating your case or you don't know what socialism is.

pax
04-08-2010, 03:32 PM
What are you on about? The point was that opposition to the bad surtax to fund selective maternity rewards is hypocritical because the opponents supported the even more rapacious mining profits tax. Both are leftist policies, but one is being promoted by the Coalition so Leftards attack it anyway.

Best ask Igor what he's on about: "self-contradictory beliefs" .. "those beliefs must be socialist in nature".

No, I don't know either..

Igor_Goldenberg
04-08-2010, 04:47 PM
Best ask Igor what he's on about: "self-contradictory beliefs" .. "those beliefs must be socialist in nature".

No, I don't know either..
Socialists beliefs are self-contradictory in nature, that's why socialism failed across the globe. I lived in a socialist state and saw it from inside.

pax
04-08-2010, 06:17 PM
Either you are grossly overstating your case or you don't know what socialism is.

Oh, didn't you know? Socialism is spending taxation revenue on anything other than policing and military.

ER
05-08-2010, 08:28 PM
Socialists beliefs are self-contradictory in nature, that's why socialism failed across the globe. I lived in a socialist state and saw it from inside.

They didn't do that bad in producing an excellently brought up and highly educated conservative young man out of you though! :)

george
05-08-2010, 10:31 PM
hi All,
I thought this worth mentioning dont really know why but my 93 year old mother just completed her postal vote and voted straight green.

Captain Underpants - she is not a loony leftie just plain loony perhaps but certainly not lefty.

If her switch is anything to go by the Greens will get a LOT of first preference votes in both houses - probably wont translate to a single house of rep seat but the election looks interesting if only to see how many votes the greens actually pick up.

She used to vote straight liberal then in last 20 years straight labor now switched to straight green - GO FIGURE?

Basil
05-08-2010, 11:38 PM
She used to vote straight liberal then in last 20 years straight labor now switched to straight green - GO FIGURE?
George, I assume you are holding this up as a refutation to the idea that the grey vote is a conservative vote? This is similar to using a smoker aged 100 to illustrate that there are no ill-effects of smoking. With such large numbers of course there are vagaries, but generally, older people are more conservative; younger people the other way. I know it. Julia knows it. Psephologists know it - you probably know it.

Spiny Norman
06-08-2010, 08:31 AM
I'm old, but not THAT old; and I say "a pox on all their houses!" :owned:

Capablanca-Fan
06-08-2010, 12:42 PM
I'm old, but not THAT old; and I say "a pox on all their houses!" :owned:
At least under Preferential Voting, a vote for LDP is not a wasted vote, because the major parties are still ranked. I reject the idea that there is little difference between the major parties, as much as Abbott's maternity leave surtax and KRudd's mining tax grab were both asinine.

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2010, 06:39 PM
With such large numbers of course there are vagaries, but generally, oler people are more conservative; younger people the other way. I know it. Junia knows it. Psephologists know it - you probably know it.

Yes, the over-60 vote and especially the over-65 (ie pre-boomer) vote is heavily Lib and a black hole for the Greens. Becoming more radical in retirement happens but it's the exception that proves the rule.


I.e. frequently leftards accuse conservative libertarians of being "warmongers" for supporting the nuclear deterrent in the Cold War or supporting the removal of the butcher Saddam Hussein.

What's the difference between "conservative libertarian" (ugg) and neo-con?

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2010, 01:29 AM
Yes, the over-60 vote and especially the over-65 (ie pre-boomer) vote is heavily Lib and a black hole for the Greens. Becoming more radical in retirement happens but it's the exception that proves the rule.
Yes, most people have grown up by the time they retire.


What's the difference between "conservative libertarian" (ugg) and neo-con?
I know what a conservative libertarian is, since that is described in reference to the political quadrant test. I don't know what a neo-con is.

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2010, 01:30 AM
Oh, didn't you know? Socialism is spending taxation revenue on anything other than policing and military.
Pretty much: any time the government takes money by force from some citizens to give to a particular group of other citizens, it is practising an element of socialism.

Goughfather
07-08-2010, 02:12 AM
Yes, most people have grown up by the time they retire.

Didn't you criticise me for allegedly psychologising the political positions of people?

Oops.

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2010, 03:47 AM
Didn't you criticise me for allegedly psychologising the political positions of people?
Yes, and the connection with what I said is, what, exactly?

It is very common for people to become conservative as they get older, and much of this is due to exposure to the real world and human nature as it really is. For example, government bureaucrats and politicians are just as self-interested as anyone else, so it's folly to think that we'll improve society by giving them more power over people's lives. Yet left-wing schemes require a more powerful government. They are also more likely to have seen that people respond to incentives, so will judge policies by what they are punishing and what they are rewarding, rather than falling for lofty rhetoric about noble goals and intentions.

Goughfather
07-08-2010, 04:47 AM
Yes, and the connection with what I said is, what, exactly?


I would not have had to spell this out to most people, but I do acknowledge that you are a little bit slower than most people to latch onto these types of things. The connection with what you said is that you were psychologising the political positions of people, by equating inexperience and immaturity and left-leaning political views and experience and maturity with right-leaning political views. The connection was quite direct and much less cryptic than you thought.

You really are a first-rate hypocrite. I suspect that there are even times when vague feelings of self-awareness keep you awake at night until cognitive dissonance kicks in and proves to be an appropriate sedative.

The question of why people drift right on the political spectrum as they age is an interesting question - indeed a question that deserves more careful consideration than the simplistic analysis provided by yourself and Howie. Indeed, that a statistical minority of older people actually become more progressive also requires some explanation. Why is it that the life experiences of some people leads them to trend towards the right, while the life experiences of others lead them to trend towards the left?

One explanation could be that as most people age, they embrace a social conservatism, but not necessarily an economic conservatism. People are creatures of habit and they have learnt to be comfortable with the social and moral norms that they grew up with. Because political parties with a socially conservative platform are identified as being conservative regardless of their economic ideology they appeal more to older people and hence in almost circular fashion, it is suggested that older people are more conservative. However, this says little about whether older people are more likely to favour laissez-faire economics than the rest of the population.

An interesting case study has proved to be the issue of climate change. Regardless of political persuasion, climate change seems to have divided on generational lines, rather than on economic philosophy. One explanation is that this is largely attributable to self-interest - namely, that older people have no desire to sacrifice for something that is unlikely to impact upon them greatly in their lifetime. Another explanation is that this is simply a manifestation of a cultural war in which baby-boomers have responded defensively to the implied suggestion that they have treated the environment irresponsibly and that they are culpable for our current problems.

This may well be an issue best discussed in a religion thread, but among those who identify as Christians, there seems to be a trend in the opposite direction. That is, in their late teens and early twenties, people are at their most theologically conservative and as they age, their beliefs tend to become more liberal as they gain a broader understanding of the world, themselves and their faith. Care to explain this one?

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2010, 06:14 AM
I would not have had to spell this out to most people, but I do acknowledge that you are a little bit slower than most people to latch onto these types of things.
Ah yes, typical fact-free intellectual snobbery from the Anointed.


The question of why people drift right on the political spectrum as they age is an interesting question — indeed a question that deserves more careful consideration than the simplistic analysis provided by yourself and Howie. Indeed, that a statistical minority of older people actually become more progressive also requires some explanation. Why is it that the life experiences of some people leads them to trend towards the right, while the life experiences of others lead them to trend towards the left?
In many cases, the aging left are found in places where ideas don't have to actually work to survive, e.g. in Academia and the media.


One explanation could be that as most people age, they embrace a social conservatism, but not necessarily an economic conservatism. People are creatures of habit and they have learnt to be comfortable with the social and moral norms that they grew up with. Because political parties with a socially conservative platform are identified as being conservative regardless of their economic ideology they appeal more to older people and hence in almost circular fashion, it is suggested that older people are more conservative. However, this says little about whether older people are more likely to favour laissez-faire economics than the rest of the population.
That's all reasonable. But it's notable that Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher all started poor and left. Even a left icon like George McGovern, who won only one state against Nixon, re-thought his leftism when he tried running a business himself (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1038/is_n2_v37/ai_15419771/pg_4/):


George McGovern laments that after his experience in the bed-and-breakfast business he realizes that laws and regulations pertaining to small business are actually hurting the lower-wage workers whom he had tried to help during his entire political career. With his Stratford Inn in bankruptcy, McGovern now says:


In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business.... I wish that during the years I was in public office I had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better Senator and a more understanding presidential contender... To create job opportunities, we need entrepreneurs who will risk their capital against an expected payoff. Too often, however, public policy does not consider whether we are choking off those opportunities.


An interesting case study has proved to be the issue of climate change. Regardless of political persuasion, climate change seems to have divided on generational lines, rather than on economic philosophy. One explanation is that this is largely attributable to self-interest
And of course, young people are not self-interested.


- namely, that older people have no desire to sacrifice for something that is unlikely to impact upon them greatly in their lifetime. Another explanation is that this is simply a manifestation of a cultural war in which baby-boomers have responded defensively to the implied suggestion that they have treated the environment irresponsibly and that they are culpable for our current problems.
Or else, as long as they can remember, Australia has had hot seasons, droughts and fires. Compare Dorothea McKellar's iconic poem of 1904, My Country:


I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges, of droughts and flooding rains.

...

Core of my heart, my country! Land of the rainbow gold,
For flood and fire and famine she pays us back threefold.

They have also seen so many scare-mongering scams that they are no longer fooled, esp. if they remember the global cooling scare of the mid 1970s.

Similarly with economics: those old enough to remember the long petrol queues and carless days of the 1970s will not want to repeat the disastrous price controls that caused them.


This may well be an issue best discussed in a religion thread, but among those who identify as Christians, there seems to be a trend in the opposite direction. That is, in their late teens and early twenties, people are at their most theologically conservative and as they age, their beliefs tend to become more liberal as they gain a broader understanding of the world, themselves and their faith. Care to explain this one?
You would need to prove that there is something to explain. I'm the opposite. It could be that the ones you know are like yourself: going to the leftist universities and being bombarded with leftist propaganda and actually swallowing it.

Spiny Norman
07-08-2010, 06:27 AM
Goughfather, I've met numerous left-inclined Christians, especially so in my current work environment. In political and economic terms, I consider them to be just as dopey as the left-inclined non-Christians that I have met. In the last few months I've had to endure overheard cubicle talk with them gushing about how fabulous it is that Gillard is the leader now and how wonderful it is that a woman is in charge now. Fatuous and sexist dribble quite frankly.

A trend towards political conservatism as people age is fairly well known. The reasons for it probably aren't well established, but I would put it down to a more mature and knowledgeable outlook and a realisation that left-leaning economics is less effective most of the time than right-leaning economics.

But both left- and right-leaning policies have benefits and a price to pay. Some benefits are bigger, some smaller; some prices are higher, some lower. Older people have generally "seen it all before".

I'm nearly 50 and I see Whitlamesque tendencies in the current Labor government. Having seen it before, I'm less inclined to tolerate it now. I'm also mature enough to back away from some (not all) criticisms I had of Keating in earlier years, as I can recognise some of the really good things he did for the country (e.g. floating the Aussie dollar).

As for religious views, I've not noticed this trend towards theological liberalism with advancing age. What I have noticed though is that as one ages (and this is true of me) one tends to simplify beliefs and jettison some of the inveitable religious baggage that accumulates when one spends a lot of time in churches.

Perhaps this is viewed by some as liberalism. If so, then I'm a liberal. I think Christianity is a whole lot simpler than churches/pastors make it out to be. Whilst I think that this actually makes me a true fundamentalist, others may perceive it as liberalism. So be it.

Desmond
07-08-2010, 09:40 AM
^ good post Spiny

Basil
07-08-2010, 09:52 AM
^ good post Spiny
Yeah, he does that every now and again :D ;)

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2010, 03:37 PM
Yes, most people have grown up by the time they retire.

I'm not sure how much that explains it in the case of the Greens. Elderly voters who don't vote Green have most likely never voted Green. I suspect over time that we will see higher levels of Green vote among elderly voters as the proportion of elderly voters who have voted Green increased. There will still be the trend of elderly voters being more conservative but I think it will become weaker.


I know what a conservative libertarian is, since that is described in reference to the political quadrant test.

I prefer to just use terms like "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian". "Conservative libertarian" is a nonsense term, firstly because economic libertarianism is one of the most radical ideologies with any political influence today (Ayn Rand knew this and nothing has changed), secondly because conservatism is innately anti-ideological whereas economic libertarianism is a fundamentally ideals-driven philosophy, and thirdly because "conservative" as often understood implies moralistic baggage. So I wonder if what you call "conservative libertarianism" is really conservatism with libertarian leanings.

Patrick Byrom
07-08-2010, 11:26 PM
I'm not sure that people do become more conservative as they grow older. I believe that they mainly vote for the same party they've always voted for as an adult (there is some evidence for this).

And the Coalition vote is steadily declining in the oldest generation - which would imply that older people are becoming 'younger' :hmm: .

ER
07-08-2010, 11:40 PM
... And the Coalition vote is steadily declining in the oldest generation - which would imply that older people are becoming 'younger' :hmm: .
Or Duggan's conclusions are pure crap! :P

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2010, 11:49 PM
I think that's the first wave of boomers making it into the over-60 set. These are people who grew up through the sixties and lived their early adult political life through the post-Menzies mess, the Whitlam breakthrough, the Dismissal and so on - some of them have turned into Lib voters since but people in the 60-65 age bracket are a lot less blueblood than the over-65s.

ER
08-08-2010, 12:48 AM
Spiny pls concentrate on your Chess leadership, you are doing fine there! :)
Old age and young age have nothing to do with political conscience as Left and Christianity are incompatible in theory and practice.



I've met numerous left-inclined Christians, especially so in my current work environment.

Leftists who usually know shit about religion, consider Christianity as the main ideological base of the Bourjeois, whereas Christians who in their ignorance confuse Left with Communism consider leftists as atheistic materialists who should rot in hell.
The fact that some idiotic and sexist conservative morons, including some onanisticly inclined churchies - not necessarily Christians, cannot stomach someone like Gillard being the leader of a political party doesn't mean that those who barrack for Gillard are freeking leftists.
I don't know how many of you here are business people who employ others and of course want to protect your interests by oppressing workers. That I could find logical and understandable, therefore, I would understand you being conservative and right wing bozzos. But age isn't a factor in this way of thinking. It's economic and social interests. That's why a rich, or comfortably well off person would have crap for brains if they voted left, not that there aren't some who do so. On the other hand, people who have worked or are still working for their daily bread would be very stupid to think likewise and vote for right wing parties unless they are machochists or stupid, not that there aren't such cases. These working class people usually get together and fight for their rights in unions and political parties which are directing their energy toward those goals or even when they don't do that they just sit around vegitating in front of TVs or chess boards etc. Again, age isn't the decisive factor here. It's the class interests of people who are trying to improve their superannuation conditions, pensions etc in the same way as they fought to improve their wages before they retired.
I can also understand some dreamers who fancy themselves as becoming rich one day and have started already behaving as such, running the risk of becoming ridiculous in the eyes of the real rich as well as the real working class. I also understand some well off people (Engels was one of them) who not only see themselves as champions of working class and have sacrificed their riches to start movements and begin revolutions, but also threw away comfortable lifestyles (Lenin, Fidel and Che belong in this category) just for the thrill of it.
Another fallacy of Christians when they talk about the "common enemy" is that they think they are united as a solid undivided force. What crap!!! There are so many different Christian groups, sects and splinter reformist Christian movements today, that make the Holly Church look like swiss cheese at best.
Anothe fallacy of Crhistians is that when thinking about religion they consider only their own Church. No word here about Muslims or Hindus, or Jews or whatever other denomination is there. They have political power and can be as conservative shit or leftist crap as anyone!
Another fallacy of conservatives is that they face Leftists as some kind of a United Front with common strategical goals and tactical targets. Holly Crap! The Left today is as divided as Christianity and the chances of bringing left parties and splinter groups together are as real as me becoming a GM! (not that it's impossible anyway)!
So give me a break! Look for and find your real enemies around you and leave Julia alone! I will vote for her not because I expect from her or her stupid party to solve my financial or social or whatever other problems! The reason why I will vote for her is that I find her sexually attractive! I like watching Julia in the news rather than Tony whom i find repulsive! Similarly, I would have voted for Sophie Panopoulos (who's a Coalition MP) instead of Julia (Sorry Julia, but I think Sophie is sexier) if she was leading the Libs.

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/NewPol/SophiePanopoulos.jpg
Sophie Panopoulos
She bashed up a couple of
lefty MPs too, don't try to
be smart with her!

I know people who think that way too, (men and women who 'd vote for representatives of the opposite or the same sex for sexual reasons or simply because they are attracted by the personality of the candidate). In fact I think that in reality we are the majority. Otherwise, if there are really people who still think that politicians and their parties can solve any problems, then allow me not to have much hope for positive results of their voting. Does that make me a lefty? if yes so be it! Does it make me a conservative? If yes so be it again. All I have to say is that any of those questions posed here could possibly make me choke... laughing! :P

Spiny Norman
08-08-2010, 07:14 AM
:lol: LMFAO :lol: Always suspected you were a closet political nutter JAK ... but you're well and truly out of the closet now! :doh:

ER
08-08-2010, 12:16 PM
:lol: LMFAO :lol: Always suspected you were a closet political nutter JAK ... but you're well and truly out of the closet now! :doh:

LOL you 've seen nothing yet Spiny, wait till I get out of Public Servive! :P

Patrick Byrom
08-08-2010, 12:24 PM
I think that's the first wave of boomers making it into the over-60 set. These are people who grew up through the sixties and lived their early adult political life through the post-Menzies mess, the Whitlam breakthrough, the Dismissal and so on - some of them have turned into Lib voters since but people in the 60-65 age bracket are a lot less blueblood than the over-65s.
That is definitely true. But there also seems to be a decline in the Coalition vote even among voters born at the same time (the cohort):
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/10/15/the-grey-vote-ageing-and-cohort-succession/

And even in the oldest cohort, the Coalition only leads the ALP by about 10-15% on the primary vote (and probably less on preferences).

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2010, 12:51 PM
I prefer to just use terms like "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian". "Conservative libertarian" is a nonsense term, firstly because economic libertarianism is one of the most radical ideologies with any political influence today (Ayn Rand knew this and nothing has changed), secondly because conservatism is innately anti-ideological whereas economic libertarianism is a fundamentally ideals-driven philosophy, and thirdly because "conservative" as often understood implies moralistic baggage. So I wonder if what you call "conservative libertarianism" is really conservatism with libertarian leanings.
Yet Thomas Sowell would probably qualify. From what I've read, his view is pragmatic rather than ideological. His main guiding policy is to judge policies in advance by their incentives, and in retrospect by their results, rather than intentions and goals.

His support for the free market is largely because it actually works; he doesn't go along with what he calls libertarian fetishes. He explains its success by pointing out that the diffused knowledge of millions of people communicated by prices will always outweigh the knowledge of a few central planners. Conversely, government intervention provides the wrong incentives, and has failed in practive.

His conservatism in support for traditional values has a similar rationale to his support for libertarian economics: that traditions resulted from millions of people over many generations dealing with the same problems trying for the best trade-off, so they are likely to be superior to radical departures urged by a few Anointed elitists with a fraction of the combined knowledge and experience.

See How and why had I changed from a young leftist to someone with my present views, which are essentially in favor of free markets and traditional values? (http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/markets/1331-From-Marxism-the-Market.html)

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2010, 01:44 PM
I don't know how many of you here are business people who employ others and of course want to protect your interests by oppressing workers. That I could find logical and understandable,
I couldn't. Any logical businessman would realise that it would lose staff to employers who treated them better. The free market has a great civilizing effect. Similarly, the market punishes unfair discrimination: e.g. Obamov's claim that women earn only 77% of men makes no sense, because then no employer would hire men for a 30% extra cost.


therefore, I would understand you being conservative and right wing bozzos. But age isn't a factor in this way of thinking. It's economic and social interests. That's why a rich, or comfortably well off person would have crap for brains if they voted left, not that there aren't some who do so.
Usually those living on trust funds and inheritance (like John Kerry, the unlamented Teddy Kennedy) or from professions where success is largely a matter of getting the right breaks (acting).


On the other hand, people who have worked or are still working for their daily bread would be very stupid to think likewise and vote for right wing parties unless they are machochists or stupid, not that there aren't such cases.
Or else, they have brains: they know that the best protection for workers is other employers.


It's the class interests of people who are trying to improve their superannuation conditions, pensions etc in the same way as they fought to improve their wages before they retired.
Again, if they have brains, they would realize that anti-business laws will hurt the businesses in which their super funds invest. The biggest shareholders are superannuation funds held by ordinary working citizens.


I can also understand some dreamers who fancy themselves as becoming rich one day and have started already behaving as such, running the risk of becoming ridiculous in the eyes of the real rich as well as the real working class.
Or else, they realise that hurting their employers won't make the employees better off.


I also understand some well off people (Engels was one of them) who not only see themselves as champions of working class and have sacrificed their riches to start movements and begin revolutions, but also threw away comfortable lifestyles (Lenin, Fidel and Che belong in this category) just for the thrill of it.
Or because of the power over people's lives. And the big government essential for the left is just the thing to attract and enable power-mad people.


Another fallacy of conservatives is that they face Leftists as some kind of a United Front with common strategical goals and tactical targets. Holly Crap! The Left today is as divided as Christianity and the chances of bringing left parties and splinter groups together are as real as me becoming a GM! (not that it's impossible anyway)!
What they have in common is their faith that concentrating power in government is a good thing.


In fact I think that in reality we are the majority. Otherwise, if there are really people who still think that politicians and their parties can solve any problems, then allow me not to have much hope for positive results of their voting.
I don't--that's why I want them to have as little power over our lives as possible.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2010, 02:01 PM
That's why a rich, or comfortably well off person would have crap for brains if they voted left, not that there aren't some who do so. On the other hand, people who have worked or are still working for their daily bread would be very stupid to think likewise and vote for right wing parties unless they are machochists or stupid, not that there aren't such cases.
That's a commonly (or maybe not as commonly as I think) held view, which I strongly disagree.
Liberal economy (or right wing party approach as you call) mostly benefit poor people who aspire to become rich.
Socialist policy (or left-wing approach) help very rich to enforce their position.
As far as workers are concerned, under left policies they win a cent and lose a dollar. In other word their position is entrenched, they have more certainty in a job and a guaranteed small pay increase, but miss bigger opportunities and larger pay increase.
Compare unionised workers on large building sites with non-unionised traders and workers working for small builders. If you are skilful, confident and ambitious, you'd want to work for a smaller builder. If not - unionised workforce is for you.

ER
08-08-2010, 03:00 PM
Liberal economy (or right wing party approach as you call) mostly benefit poor people who aspire to become rich.

Do you mean all poor bastards should be voting Conservative?


Socialist policy (or left-wing approach) help very rich to enforce their position.

So all the filthy rich should vote Left yeah?


Compare unionised workers on large building sites

Unionism is compulsory in those sites, you won't survive an hour without a union ticket! they do it willingly too, because even unskilled workers in those jobs get top wages and conditions!


(compare with....) non-unionised traders and workers working for small builders.

there is not such a thing... They have to be union members unless you are talking about small business sub contractors who don't have to work for wages anyway!

Unionism has a proud history in Australia - one of the best in the western world. Don't knock unions and unionists. They stuffed up involving commo politics in their campaigns but still it's due to them that I will retire with a super many right wing redneck retards would kill for!

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2010, 03:44 PM
Do you mean all poor bastards should be voting Conservative?
Definitely. The left always talk about giving the poor a bigger share of the pie, but they never consider how the pie it baked in the first place, and their policies hurt the bakers. But the real reason the poor are better off is because the pie has grown, and nothing grows the pie better than the free market.


So all the filthy rich should vote Left yeah?
A lot of them do. Many businessmen hate capitalism because it would mean competition. So they hop into bed with government to impose regulation, taxes and tariffs that hurt competitors far more. Warren Buffet for example just loves the death tax, because it has forced grieving business owners to sell at firesale prices to him to pay this greedy government tax grab aka taxation without respiration. The difference between left and right is not wealth but how much government we want in our lives.


Unionism is compulsory in those sites, you won't survive an hour without a union ticket! they do it willingly too, because even unskilled workers in those jobs get top wages and conditions!
At the expense of everyone else. The evil of unions is how they hurt other workers. I have no objection to workers unionizing--people should be free to ally with whoever they wish, and strike whenever they wish. The problem is when they impede the free choice of other workers to work in their place, often with the backing of Labor governments.

TheJoker
10-08-2010, 10:18 AM
Yet Thomas Sowell would probably qualify. From what I've read, his view is pragmatic rather than ideological. His main guiding policy is to judge policies in advance by their incentives, and in retrospect by their results, rather than intentions and goals.

His support for the free market is largely because it actually works... He explains its success by pointing out that the diffused knowledge of millions of people communicated by prices will always outweigh the knowledge of a few central planners.

His conservatism in support for traditional values has a similar rationale to his support for libertarian economics: that traditions resulted from millions of people over many generations dealing with the same problems trying for the best trade-off, so they are likely to be superior to radical departures

Then why does Sowell ignore the fact that government regulation of markets has evolved over many generations through people trying to deal with the inherent problems of unregulated markets.

It's selective conservatism, claim that the status quo is result of generations of trial and error and therefore shouldn't be tampered with drastically, except for the areas that don't suit his personal ideology.It smacks of hypocrisy. Economic libertarianism is as Kevin suggested radical/progressive position, that is at odds with the prinicple of conservatism.

TheJoker
10-08-2010, 11:20 AM
I couldn't. Any logical businessman would realise that it would lose staff to employers who treated them better. The free market has a great civilizing effect.

This is true but overlooks one key element, bargaining power of employees and employers.

Not all workers have market value capable of sustaining a living. Public systems need to address this.

Secondly it assumes that there is demand for labour that exceeds supply, we know that in many market segments the reverse is true. This means in some cases an employer can treat staff poorly where the prospect of them finding another job is low. Even though the business model could potentially support a much better standard for employees.

A logical businessman will also realise that a strong social security net will increase the propensity to consume, and therefore benefit business.

A logical businessman will realise that many regulations increase consumer confidence by protecting markets from shonks or quacks. Increased consumer confidence equals bigger markets.


Or else, they have brains: they know that the best protection for workers is other employers.

Not so. In some circumstances competition can drive down wages and conditions. In other circumstances it drive up wages and conditions

Best protection for workers is a set of skills that can generate value.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-08-2010, 11:58 AM
This is true but overlooks one key element, bargaining power of employees and employers.

Not all workers have market value capable of sustaining a living. Public systems need to address this.

That's your assumption


Secondly it assumes that there is demand for labour that exceeds supply, we know that in many market segments the reverse is true. This means in some cases an employer can treat staff poorly where the prospect of them finding another job is low. Even though the business model could potentially support a much better standard for employees.

Which world are you living in?


A logical businessman will also realise that a strong social security net will increase the propensity to consume, and therefore benefit business.
Can you demonstrate a logical link between those two?


A logical businessman will realise that many regulations increase consumer confidence by protecting markets from shonks or quacks. Increased consumer confidence equals bigger markets.
Rather create a false sense of security.

TheJoker
10-08-2010, 12:23 PM
That's your assumption.

No that's fact, not all workers are capable of sustaining a living in their current labour market. Which is why so many people around the world die from hunger and preventable disease everyday.



Which world are you living in?.

The real world, are you telling me you don't think diamond mines in Africa could afford to pay there employees a better wage?



Can you demonstrate a logical link between those two?

Where a higher level of social security exists the consumption rate of disposable income will be higher due to decreased need to save for the possibility of being out of work.


Rather create a false sense of security.

Doesn't matter whether the perception is real or not, fact remains that people are more likely to see seek the services of a doctor if they know that doctor is licensed, people are more likely to buy a product (e.g. medicine) if they know that product meets certain safety standards. Our financial sector was responsible for this country avoiding a recession, that may well be due to fact that globally consumers had more confidence in our system becuase it was well regulated.

Of course other private mechanisms are available to increase consumer confidence such as branding and private industry standards. However these are also not without their problems.

Capablanca-Fan
11-08-2010, 08:18 AM
This is true but overlooks one key element, bargaining power of employees and employers.
Well, an employer is not obliged to hire anyone. He is not doing any harm, since he is providing an extra option that no one has to take.


Not all workers have market value capable of sustaining a living. Public systems need to address this.
The reason that the standard of living is higher is that productivity is higher.


Secondly it assumes that there is demand for labour that exceeds supply, we know that in many market segments the reverse is true. This means in some cases an employer can treat staff poorly where the prospect of them finding another job is low.
Hence a variety of possible employers is good protection for workers. Lots of red tape hinders businesses from starting, so provides workers with less protection.


Even though the business model could potentially support a much better standard for employees.
Yet even in the multinational sweatshops, the jobs pay far better and have much better conditions than local jobs.


A logical businessman will also realise that a strong social security net will increase the propensity to consume, and therefore benefit business.
Only if they don't understand Bastiat's point that the security net comes from taxes that would otherwise have been consumed (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html), and worse, that the government took its 75% cut to re-distribute.


A logical businessman will realise that many regulations increase consumer confidence by protecting markets from shonks or quacks. Increased consumer confidence equals bigger markets.
More likely, crony capitalists love lots of red tape because it increases the barrier to entry to competitors.


Not so. In some circumstances competition can drive down wages and conditions. In other circumstances it drive up wages and conditions
Yes, competition between workers can drive down wages and conditions; competition between employers can drive up wages and conditions.


Best protection for workers is a set of skills that can generate value.
That's pretty important. And a great way for beginners to acquire them is to take any job. But thanks to minimum wage and hour laws, they are not allowed to take jobs if their productivity is worth less than a politically imposed minimum or if they can work for fewer than the politically decreed hours.

Capablanca-Fan
11-08-2010, 08:23 AM
Then why does Sowell ignore the fact that government regulation of markets has evolved over many generations through people trying to deal with the inherent problems of unregulated markets.
But here, it was not traditions of society, but a case of a few Anointed replacing market problems with bigger government problems, and a growth of government. In America, it was quite a sharp change under FDR.


It's selective conservatism, claim that the status quo is result of generations of trial and error and therefore shouldn't be tampered with drastically, except for the areas that don't suit his personal ideology.
I remember the free market reforms in New Zealand in the mid 1980s. They were necessary and beneficial, but they have happened too drastically for a lot of people at the time. I see now why it had to be drastic otherwise the vested interests would have been able to prevent the reforms.


It smacks of hypocrisy. Economic libertarianism is as Kevin suggested radical/progressive position, that is at odds with the prinicple of conservatism.
Only your misunderstood version of it. It's an understood label, but in reality, there are many things that should not be conserved, such as the government foot on the economy.

TheJoker
11-08-2010, 09:47 AM
Well, an employer is not obliged to hire anyone. He is not doing any harm, since he is providing an extra option that no one has to take.

Never said an employer was doing harm, that's a strawman.



The reason that the standard of living is higher is that productivity is higher..

I don't doubt this, point still remains that for some people their productivity in a given labour market may not generate a livable income.



Hence a variety of possible employers is good protection for workers. Lots of red tape hinders businesses from starting, so provides workers with less protection.

I don't disagree, however avariety of businesses and employment opportunities will not guarantee anybody a livable income.



Yet even in the multinational sweatshops, the jobs pay far better and have much better conditions than local jobs.

I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. And having a low conditions of employment often attracts FDI, helps an economy to grow. However, when a country has sufficient wealth such as Australia there is no need for


Only if they don't understand Bastiat's point that the security net comes from taxes that would otherwise have been consumed (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html), and worse, that the government took its 75% cut to re-distribute.

Except they may not have otherwise have been consumed since the marginal propensity to consume decreases as disposable income increases. Secondly, when you consider the number of people accessing social security is very small, but in its absence every individual would have to save for the event of being unemployed, which would require a much larger pool of money not being consumed. Of course you could argue that social secuirty could be provided through optional private insurance, but then you get the major problem of adverse selection.



More likely, crony capitalists love lots of red tape because it increases the barrier to entry to competitors.

That the main problem with industry self-regulation, they create industry standards that create unecessary barriers to entry, government performs much better (although far from perfect) in this respect.

Secondly, the benefits of having shonks and qaucks kept out of market is likely to outweigh the benefits of the increase competition they provide



Yes, competition between workers can drive down wages and conditions; competition between employers can drive up wages and conditions.

No competition between employers can drive down wages, because increased competition between employers within an industry almost almost always results in lower gross profit margins, which means there is a smaller pie to be divided between employees and shareholders. The only time employer competition drives up wages is where there is growing market demand that outpaces the increase in supply and a shortage of skilled workers.



That's pretty important. And a great way for beginners to acquire them is to take any job.

A much better way to access education. Which is why universally accessable education is so important to economic success. Far more important than the absence of a minimum wage. Very few minium wage jobs will ever result the higher skills needed in the modern knowledge economy.

TheJoker
11-08-2010, 09:55 AM
But here, it was not traditions of society, but a case of a few Anointed replacing market problems with bigger government problems, and a growth of government..

Yet the involvement of government in most sucessful economies is roughly the same. So obviously it serves an important purpose. If not other economies with different systems of government and market regulation would have risen to the top. Or would be rising to the top.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2010, 05:07 AM
I don't doubt this, point still remains that for some people their productivity in a given labour market may not generate a livable income.
Most such workers in our society are young people who have family support, and abolishing minimum wage laws would allow them to acquire skills that would increase their productivity.


I don't disagree, however avariety of businesses and employment opportunities will not guarantee anybody a livable income.
It's not their job. Their job is to maximize shareholder return. When they start playing social worker, they fail, because they are no good at it.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2010, 05:08 AM
... when you consider the number of people accessing social security is very small, but in its absence every individual would have to save for the event of being unemployed, which would require a much larger pool of money not being consumed. Of course you could argue that social secuirty could be provided through optional private insurance, but then you get the major problem of adverse selection.
What about Australia's current system? This money is not sucked out of the economy for KRudd-type waste, but largely invested in the economy. Nearly all super funds have an Australian share component, which means it's invested in Australian businesses.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2010, 05:08 AM
That the main problem with industry self-regulation, they create industry standards that create unecessary barriers to entry, government performs much better (although far from perfect) in this respect.
Yet as often happened with government regulation, the industries captured it, and many of the regulators went easy because they hoped for future jobs in those industries.


Secondly, the benefits of having shonks and qaucks kept out of market is likely to outweigh the benefits of the increase competition they provide
Yet the shonks appeared with KRudd's mad home insulation spending spree!

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2010, 08:07 AM
No competition between employers can drive down wages, because increased competition between employers within an industry almost almost always results in lower gross profit margins, which means there is a smaller pie to be divided between employees and shareholders. The only time employer competition drives up wages is where there is growing market demand that outpaces the increase in supply and a shortage of skilled workers.
That's an important consideration. Frequently an employer will lure an employee of another company with better salary and conditions.


A much better way to access education. Which is why universally accessable education is so important to economic success.
OK, but it doesn't follow that the government must provide a monopoly, with all its incompetences and inefficiencies, as opposed to funding education vouchers to give parents choice. Of course, leftards hate to give ordinary people choices (except to kill their unborn babies), since the Anointed know better how people should live their own lives.


Far more important than the absence of a minimum wage. Very few minimum wage jobs will ever result the higher skills needed in the modern knowledge economy.
But that's exactly what they have always done. Some of the most important skills of all for many young people include shedding of immaturity, punctuality, working as a team, serving customers, handling money, following instructions.

TheJoker
16-08-2010, 03:30 PM
Most such workers in our society are young people who have family support, and abolishing minimum wage laws would allow them to acquire skills that would increase their productivity..

We are talking about social security not minimum wage. If a person does not have the skill base to generate an income sufficient to live off, there needs to be a social security program. It's got nothing to do with people who have the support of their families, but rather those that could not survive without assistance due to their value in labour market being less than what is required to make ends meet.


It's not their job.

I never said it was their job, I said this is why a public sector is required.

TheJoker
16-08-2010, 03:43 PM
What about Australia's current system? This money is not sucked out of the economy for KRudd-type waste, but largely invested in the economy. Nearly all super funds have an Australian share component, which means it's invested in Australian businesses.

It's not voluntary it is forced, it is government regulations that mandate super annuation payments are made by employers. The government still has to contribute to those that do not earn enough super to retire on (i.e. those with a low labour market value)

Secondly you can only access private benefits equivalent to what you've contributed plus interest. That's not going to work for unemeployment since most unemployment occurs for youth, who are going to have a pool of savings to draw on.

Voluntary private income unemployment insurance is going to suffer heavily from adverse selection unless it is government regulated.

TheJoker
16-08-2010, 03:59 PM
Yet as often happened with government regulation, the industries captured it, and many of the regulators went easy because they hoped for future jobs in those industries.

Not perfect but the best we have.



Yet the shonks appeared with KRudd's mad home insulation spending spree!

Demonstrates exactly the destructive force of a market that wasn't well regulated enough. Lack of regulation (saftey standards and licensing) allowed the shonks to come in searching for a quick buck, there weren't concerned about longevity or customer satisfaction. Customers (including government) not being able to determine a good supplier from a bad supplier treated all suppliers equally. Initially this was good for the shonks because they could pass of poor quality goods and services as being high quality, the custoemr had no way of telling the difference. Eventually the poor quality issues surfaced, and the good suppliers were tarred with brush of the bad suppliers and the whole market collapsed. If you want to understand more about the effects of shonks on markets read the Nobel Prize winning paper "A Market for Lemons", it helps explain why there is such a price differential between new as used cars.

TheJoker
16-08-2010, 04:19 PM
That's an important consideration. Frequently an employer will lure an employee of another company with better salary and conditions..

Just as frequently competition will erode profit margins and subsequently employee conditions in a partiuclar industry.



But that's exactly what they have always done. Some of the most important skills of all for many young people include shedding of immaturity, punctuality, working as a team, serving customers, handling money, following instructions.

Minimum wage jobs coupled with an education are fine. But on their own they rarely lead to a high income job. For many people who don't have family support and have to work full-time and care for a family, it is impossible to get an education that will give them the higher order skills needed to be more productive and earn better wages.

Capablanca-Fan
03-10-2012, 01:06 AM
You might be a lefty socialist, if...
1. You want to bring Joseph Kony to justice but aren't willing to do anything other than click 'Like' in Facebook.
2. You want to end world poverty—by giving away other people's money.
3. You want low carbon emissions energy but oppose nuclear power, hydroelectric power, and don't want windmills spoiling your view.
4. You think that consenting adults can freely engage in any activity—except freely exchange goods and services without government interference.
5. You want to outlaw cigarettes, but legalise marijuana.
6. You have no problem with movie stars and celebrities flying around in private jets to give speeches on the evils of global warming.
7. You think only white people can be racist.
8. You support the killing of unborn babies, but oppose the killing of criminals convicted of heinous crimes.
9. You think marriage is obsolete—except among homosexuals.
10. You uphold a woman's right to choose—unless she chooses adoption, homeschooling or being a stay-at-home mum.
11. You oppose discrimination against women—except when they're married to, or daughters of, working men.
12. You think it's fine to mock and insult Christians and Christianity, but Islam is untouchable and Muslims must be respected.
13. You value tolerance—except when it comes to opinions you dislike.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2012, 11:44 AM
:lol:

Capablanca-Fan
25-07-2017, 07:36 AM
The Loony Left at Berkeley have now deplatformed the Apostle of Atheopathy, Richard Dawkins (https://pjmedia.com/faith/2017/07/22/berkeley-event-with-richard-dawkins-cancelled-over-hurtful-speech-about-islam/), for his ostensibly hurtful remarks about Islam. To the Left, bashing Christianity is OK, but not bashing Islam, even though Dawkins rightly pointed out that homosexuals are murdered by Islamist governments.

Universities that disallow free speech, even Dawkins', should not receive taxpayer funding.

Ian Murray
25-07-2017, 08:01 AM
The Loony Left at Berkeley have now deplatformed the Apostle of Atheopathy, Richard Dawkins (https://pjmedia.com/faith/2017/07/22/berkeley-event-with-richard-dawkins-cancelled-over-hurtful-speech-about-islam/), for his ostensibly hurtful remarks about Islam. To the Left, bashing Christianity is OK, but not bashing Islam, even though Dawkins rightly pointed out that homosexuals are murdered by Islamist governments.

Universities that disallow free speech, even Dawkins', should not receive taxpayer funding.

It wasn't UC Berkeley. It was KPFA community radio, Berkeley. Can UC have its funding back now?

Desmond
25-07-2017, 05:39 PM
his ostensibly hurtful remarks about Islam. What's that line you're fond of; what do you care?

Capablanca-Fan
26-07-2017, 01:52 AM
It wasn't UC Berkeley. It was KPFA community radio, Berkeley. Can UC have its funding back now?

I guess so—if it allows conservative speakers and takes action against hoodlums who violently disrupt it.

Left-wing radio station KPFA cancels event with noted atheist Richard Dawkins because of his harsh criticism of Islam (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/24/left-wing-radio-station-kpfa-cancels-event-with-noted-atheist-richard-dawkins-because-of-his-harsh-criticism-of-islam)
By Eugene Volokh, 24 July 2017

Now one can agree or disagree with these criticisms of Islam, just as one can agree or disagree with various sharp criticisms of Catholicism, or conservative Protestantism, or many other religions. But I would have thought that these statements by Dawkins would be seen as plausible criticisms — criticisms that merit argument rather than casual dismissal as “abusive or hurtful speech” and “hateful or hurtful language” — of something that is, after all, an ideology: an ideology that ought to be as subject to criticism as other ideologies, religious or otherwise.

And it’s telling, I think, just what criticisms of religion some on the radical left now seem to be consider to be intolerable.

Capablanca-Fan
26-07-2017, 01:53 AM
What's that line you're fond of; what do you care?

Because even Dawkins should be allowed freedom of expression. One doesn't really support free speech unless it includes free speech with which one disagrees.

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2017, 05:08 PM
Deplatforming is only a free speech issue when the deplatformers are receiving government funding. And even then it can cut both ways because there is a strong argument that state funds often shouldn't be used to give platforms to offensive views.

Where there is no government funding, the right to deplatform is not a violation of free speech but is the essence of it.

Patrick Byrom
26-07-2017, 06:00 PM
Deplatforming is only a free speech issue when the deplatformers are receiving government funding. And even then it can cut both ways because there is a strong argument that state funds often shouldn't be used to give platforms to offensive views. Where there is no government funding, the right to deplatform is not a violation of free speech but is the essence of it.KFPA is not government funded, so it's free to interview, or not interview, anybody it wants to. If Capablanca-Fan thinks that Dawkins' right to free speech has been violated, why doesn't he offer him space on his creationist website to promote his views - if he doesn't, then is he also violating Dawkins' right to free speech? :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2017, 12:54 AM
Deplatforming is only a free speech issue when the deplatformers are receiving government funding.
Or else, it's only a First Amendment issue.


And even then it can cut both ways because there is a strong argument that state funds often shouldn't be used to give platforms to offensive views.
That in itself would be a problem, because what views are not offensive to someone? E.g. Dawkins himself says:


I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticise Christianity but not Islam?


Where there is no government funding, the right to deplatform is not a violation of free speech but is the essence of it.
Agree with the sentiment; i.e. that non-government organizations don't owe anyone a platform.

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2017, 12:50 PM
Or else, it's only a First Amendment issue.

It is not a First Amendment issue either. The right to free speech is not the right to make a speech wherever you like irrespective of the consent of the owner of the land or the station.


That in itself would be a problem, because what views are not offensive to someone? E.g. Dawkins himself says:


I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticise Christianity but not Islam?

Indeed, it is a very tricky area - if government is going to provide or fund platforms at all, how to allow for debate and diversity of opinion without also having those platforms abused for ranting by whoever wants to misuse them - however bigoted, factually incorrect, offensive or unrepresentative.

In this case it is not even clear whether Dawkins was de-platformed because of what he was going to say rather than because of what he had said on other occasions.

Ian Murray
27-07-2017, 01:25 PM
It is not a First Amendment issue either. The right to free speech is not the right to make a speech wherever you like irrespective of the consent of the owner of the land or the station.

The First Amendment does nor compel anyone to provide a speaker with a forum

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2017, 12:22 AM
The First Amendment does nor compel anyone to provide a speaker with a forum

Agreed. In the text, it says "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech;" so it's a prohibition on government not private groups.

Still haven't seen a good answer to Dawkins' question: why does that radio station have no problems with his Christianity-bashing but deplatforms him for bashing Islam?

Meanwhile:


A University Stands Up for Free Speech — and Itself (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449828/claremont-mckenna-defends-free-speech-punishing-student-protestors)
by ELLIOT KAUFMAN, 26 July 2017

More schools should follow Claremont McKenna’s lead in punishing students who shut down campus speeches.

Imagine if radical campus activists had to face the consequences of their actions. Imagine if they could no longer suppress and shut down speakers with impunity. Imagine if a college administrator grew a backbone and defended his institution from the barbarians at the gates.

We’re not there yet. But Claremont McKenna College, a prominent liberal-arts school in Southern California, is at least taking action. The school has suspended five students who led attempts to shut down a college-sponsored lecture by Heather Mac Donald, the pro-police conservative commentator, in April. Three will be suspended for a full year, while two will be suspended for a semester. Two more will be placed on conduct probation.

This is a good thing. The university, at least if it doesn't receive government funds, doesn't have to invite anyone. But students have no right to physically stop people from hearing a speaker, and should be punished if they try. If they act violently towards a speaker or to his listeners, then they should be suspended.

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2017, 04:26 AM
Ben Shapiro at the House Oversight Committee about the Leftard intolerance on uni campuses and the disgusting ‘hecklers’ veto’:

First, the Left says the validity or invalidity of an argument can be judged solely by the ethnic, sexual, racial, or cultural identity of the individual making an argument, Shapiro explained. Secondly, the Left says that those who say otherwise are engaging in ‘verbal violence’. Finally, the Left believes that physical violence is sometimes justified to stop said verbal violence.

“All of this destroys free speech. But, just as importantly, it turns students into snowflakes — craven and pathetic, looking for an excuse to be offended so they can earn points in the ‘intersectionality’ Olympics and then use those points as a club with which to beat opponents.”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oMblRBElJk

Patrick Byrom
28-07-2017, 07:13 AM
Still haven't seen a good answer to Dawkins' question: why does that radio station have no problems with his Christianity-bashing but deplatforms him for bashing Islam?The answer is here (https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/307366714105032704?lang=en). His criticism of Islam is much harsher than his criticism of Christianity.

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2017, 10:05 AM
The answer is here (https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/307366714105032704?lang=en). His criticism of Islam is much harsher than his criticism of Christianity.

Not at all. Yes, he has said:


“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”

And this was true! Of course it doesn't suit the absurd moral equivalence beloved by the Left, hence the deplatforming, because the Left hate Christianity above all else.

Rincewind
28-07-2017, 11:24 AM
Timothy McVeigh was not a religious motivated suicide bomber but was nominally christian and blew up a building. Anders Breivik was a christian cultural warrior who was effectively shooting people and using explosives to (in his mind) defend euro/christian culture.

Kevin Bonham
28-07-2017, 01:06 PM
I've seen that the station didn't want to offend and upset Palestinian expats. It might have been more that they didn't want to be targeted by Islamists.

Sometimes radical lefties will use offence to Muslims as an excuse for deplatforming when their real reason is different. In my time in the student press I worked on the 2001 deplatforming of the band Machine Gun Fellatio by certain Melbourne student unions. The deplatforming was over female nudity issues; one of the band members did topless burlesque as part of their stage show. The excuse was that Muslim students would have been offended. There's no evidence any Muslims had the slightest interest in the band or would have been any more offended by that than the drunken debauchery that is the main focus of the rest of a typical campus o-week. The real issue was irate ultra-feminism classifying all nudity as porn. I accused the student unionists in question of being agents of Fred Nile.

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2017, 01:18 PM
Timothy McVeigh was not a religious motivated suicide bomber but was nominally christian and blew up a building. Anders Breivik was a christian cultural warrior who was effectively shooting people and using explosives to (in his mind) defend euro/christian culture.

Oh, this lie again. McVeigh was a defiant christophobe right to the end, and Breivik specifically denied that he was a religious Christian, caring nothing for God and Christ (http://creation.com/norway-terrorist-breivik-not-christian):


“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2017, 01:19 PM
I've seen that the station didn't want to offend and upset Palestinian expats. It might have been more that they didn't want to be targeted by Islamists.
Which would kinda prove Dawkins' point!

Kevin Bonham
28-07-2017, 01:37 PM
“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”

An Islamic State supporter who claimed to believe in Islam as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform and to be a Muslim would certainly be treated as an Islamist terrorist by virtually everybody even if they denied having a personal relationship with Allah. And rightly so.

Indeed almost any connection to Islam at all, almost no matter how confused, seems to get a terrorist assumed to be an Islamist, except in the case of out-and-out wackos like the Melbourne mall killer.

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2017, 03:07 PM
An Islamic State supporter who claimed to believe in Islam as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform and to be a Muslim would certainly be treated as an Islamist terrorist by virtually everybody even if they denied having a personal relationship with Allah. And rightly so.
If someone doesn't believe in Allah or the Koran, then he's not a Muslim.

Rincewind
28-07-2017, 03:28 PM
Oh, this lie again. McVeigh was a defiant christophobe right to the end

McVeigh was raised a catholic and received the last rites from a catholic priest prior to his execution.

Kevin Bonham
28-07-2017, 03:31 PM
If someone doesn't believe in Allah or the Koran, then he's not a Muslim.

Who knows what someone actually believes? These things are rarely looked at closely. If a terrorist has an Islamic name, looks Islamic and invokes Islamist causes in any way, they are assumed to be an "Islamic terrorist". So the same standard should apply to "Christians".

As for Dawkins' remarks, they are a mess:


If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.

It’s terribly important to modify that because of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else.

They suffer from the homophobia, the misogyny, the joylessness which is preached by extreme Islam, Isis and the Iranian regime.

So is it the religion that's the problem, or the extreme interpretations?

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2017, 11:43 PM
McVeigh was raised a catholic and received the last rites from a catholic priest prior to his execution.

From the leftist Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/11/mcveigh.usa1):


Timothy McVeigh chose the poem Invictus, which means "Unconquerable" in Latin, to be his final statement.


It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2017, 11:44 PM
Who knows what someone actually believes? These things are rarely looked at closely. If a terrorist has an Islamic name, looks Islamic and invokes Islamist causes in any way, they are assumed to be an "Islamic terrorist". So the same standard should apply to "Christians".
That's exactly what Dawkins is doing! It's just that the politically correct Left doesn't like it.

Kevin Bonham
28-07-2017, 11:54 PM
That's exactly what Dawkins is doing! It's just that the politically correct Left doesn't like it.

Except he's not, at least not consistently. He's overgeneralising by saying Christian equivalents do not exist. They do exist but they are a much smaller problem in most of western society at this time.

Capablanca-Fan
29-07-2017, 05:35 AM
Except he's not, at least not consistently. He's overgeneralising by saying Christian equivalents do not exist. They do exist but they are a much smaller problem in most of western society at this time.

Where is the error in Dawkins' statement?


“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.”

Rincewind
29-07-2017, 08:39 AM
From the leftist Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/11/mcveigh.usa1):


Timothy McVeigh chose the poem Invictus, which means "Unconquerable" in Latin, to be his final statement.


It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Right so believed in the existence of the soul.

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2017, 11:45 AM
Where is the error in Dawkins' statement?


“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.”

From time to time people who are loosely "Christians" do blow up buildings or engage in other comparable terrorist acts. If they are not real "Christians" because they do not meet some narrow definition, then it is highly likely that the "Islamist" terrorists are not real Muslims either.

Capablanca-Fan
30-07-2017, 08:32 AM
From time to time people who are loosely "Christians" do blow up buildings or engage in other comparable terrorist acts.
But if asked to provide actual examples, it would be people like McVeigh whose last words were the highly secular poem Invictus, Breivik who denied a personal god, the syncretistic Lord's Army in Africa, or people who commit violence against abortionists who could be counted on the fingers of one hand and are strongly denounced by almost all pro-life groups.

The first suicide bombers were actually the secular Marxist Tamil Tigers, and the IRA was also Marxist (https://www.quora.com/How-Maoist-or-Marxist-was-the-Provisional-IRA-in-practice) not Catholic.


If they are not real "Christians" because they do not meet some narrow definition,
Belief in God and the resurrection of Christ are not narrow definitions, but as important to defining Christianity as being born and raised in Scotland is to defining Scottish. Similarly, believing in Allah, Muhammad as his prophet, and the Koran as Allah's word is not just a narrow definition of Muslim but foundational.


then it is highly likely that the "Islamist" terrorists are not real Muslims either.
A big difference is that these Islamist terrorists shout Allahu Akbar and are supported by many Muslim clergy and by millions of Muslims.

Kevin Bonham
30-07-2017, 12:33 PM
But if asked to provide actual examples, it would be people like McVeigh whose last words were the highly secular poem Invictus, Breivik who denied a personal god, the syncretistic Lord's Army in Africa, or people who commit violence against abortionists who could be counted on the fingers of one hand and are strongly denounced by almost all pro-life groups.

That's why I said "loosely". Though the extent of anti-abortion violence has been a little bit larger than that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence), especially if blockaders are included. "Strongly denounced by almost all pro-life groups"? I'll believe they're serious about that when they stop equating abortion and murder.


Belief in God and the resurrection of Christ are not narrow definitions, but as important to defining Christianity as being born and raised in Scotland is to defining Scottish.

"Belief" is a weaker condition than "having a personal relationship with".


A big difference is that these Islamist terrorists shout Allahu Akbar and are supported by many Muslim clergy and by millions of Muslims.

Generally the terrorists in the west do not have a history of being religiously devout. Yelling "Alluha Akbar" gets more attention and scares people more but is not necessarily religious. Outside of specifically terrorist movements, who are the Muslim clergy who support terrorism?

MichaelBaron
30-07-2017, 12:38 PM
http://reductress.com/post/my-feminist-boyfriend-isnt-working-until-the-wage-gap-is-fixed/

Does it ring a bell? :). Every joke....has some joke.

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2017, 02:38 AM
That's why I said "loosely". Though the extent of anti-abortion violence has been a little bit larger than that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence), especially if blockaders are included.
Your source says, "In the United States, violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eleven people." A typical Islamic attack kills more at once.


"Strongly denounced by almost all pro-life groups"? I'll believe they're serious about that when they stop equating abortion and murder.
Yet they have all denounced violence against abortionists.


"Belief" is a weaker condition than "having a personal relationship with".
Yet Breivik and McVeigh didn't have this "weaker condition".


Generally the terrorists in the west do not have a history of being religiously devout. Yelling "Alluha Akbar" gets more attention and scares people more but is not necessarily religious. Outside of specifically terrorist movements, who are the Muslim clergy who support terrorism?
Compare that with Iran which is a country run under Sharia, and is a funder of terrorism, Islamic murders of "apostates" or "honour killings". The IRA wasn't fighting for transubstantiation or even the deity of Christ.

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2017, 12:48 PM
Your source says, "In the United States, violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eleven people." A typical Islamic attack kills more at once.

A new goalpost but another unsound one. Most terrorist attacks these days are "Islamist" and the mean terrorist attack worldwide (https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2016/272241.htm) kills 2.3 people including 0.6 perpetrators. The mean is doubtless skewed upwards by the rare mass casualty events so the "typical" attack probably kills about one non-perpetrator.


Yet they have all denounced violence against abortionists.

Too often this has been done while making excuses, engaging in implicit victim-blaming or inciting more of the same. For example in the statements in response to the murder of George Tiller (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/may/pro-life-community-condemns-tiller-shooting/?mobile=false), there is sicko stuff like:


Someone, possibly in their frustration at the slowness of the process, decided not to wait on God for the perfection of justice. It is never right to commit a wrong to make something right

... the implications being that the abortionist got what he deserved only it should have been delivered by God not humans, that the terrorist attack had made something right, and that frustration with God for not sorting the situation out faster, while wrong, was nonetheless on some level understandable.


Yet Breivik and McVeigh didn't have this "weaker condition".

Even on the material you provided that can't be said with confidence of Breivik. As noted in a previous post (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?3275-Israel-Palestine-religious-terrorism-(was-non-islamic-religious-terrorism)&p=315366&viewfull=1#post315366) he appears to be a theistic agnostic - his words show plenty of signs of belief in God, he just doesn't claim to be sure and isn't very religious.

McVeigh very clearly stated belief in God in a 1996 interview, the year after his terrorist act.


Compare that with Iran which is a country run under Sharia, and is a funder of terrorism, Islamic murders of "apostates" or "honour killings". The IRA wasn't fighting for transubstantiation or even the deity of Christ.

If funding terrorism made a country devoutly Islamic then the USA would tick the boxes for all the support that it gave to Al-Qaeda.

Capablanca-Fan
01-08-2017, 02:18 AM
A new goalpost but another unsound one. Most terrorist attacks these days are "Islamist" and the mean terrorist attack worldwide (https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2016/272241.htm) kills 2.3 people including 0.6 perpetrators. The mean is doubtless skewed upwards by the rare mass casualty events so the "typical" attack probably kills about one non-perpetrator.
Islamist while clearly praising Allah and appealing to the later violent passages of the Koran that officially supersede the more peaceful passages, and demanding Sharia law.


Too often this has been done while making excuses, engaging in implicit victim-blaming or inciting more of the same.
Yet one of the clearest was Gary North's open letter to Paul Hill (http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/let_2_paul_hill.html), clearly denouncing his acts.


For example in the statements in response to the murder of George Tiller (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/may/pro-life-community-condemns-tiller-shooting/?mobile=false),
The first statement in your article is:


The pro-life community on Sunday denounced the killing of late-term abortion Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kan.


Even on the material you provided that can't be said with confidence of Breivik. As noted in a previous post (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?3275-Israel-Palestine-religious-terrorism-(was-non-islamic-religious-terrorism)&p=315366&viewfull=1#post315366) he appears to be a theistic agnostic - his words show plenty of signs of belief in God, he just doesn't claim to be sure and isn't very religious.
So hardly an example of a Christian terrorist.


McVeigh very clearly stated belief in God in a 1996 interview, the year after his terrorist act.
Did he? Doesn't seem like it when his last words were the Invictus poem about being captain of his own fate.


If funding terrorism made a country devoutly Islamic then the USA would tick the boxes for all the support that it gave to Al-Qaeda.
US foreign policy is another issue, and you certainly have a point, at least about the foolishness of a lot of US foreign policy.

Desmond
01-08-2017, 07:35 AM
Did he? Doesn't seem like it when his last words were the Invictus poem about being captain of his own fate.To true Christians according to you believe in pre-determination?

Kevin Bonham
01-08-2017, 10:04 AM
The first statement in your article is:


The pro-life community on Sunday denounced the killing of late-term abortion Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kan.

So? That is a media summary of the comments. It doesn't change the fact that some of the so-called denunciations were token and inflammatory.


So hardly an example of a Christian terrorist.

Many Christians doubt their beliefs. Either Breivik is a Christian terrorist or the status of every so-called "Islamist terrorist" must be regarded as unconfirmed pending detailed investigation of the confidence of each killer's holding of Muslim religious views and the fidelity of their beliefs. Such investigations will show up that plenty of them are also far from devout.


Did he? Doesn't seem like it when his last words were the Invictus poem about being captain of his own fate.

Even if this is convincing counter-evidence to holding religious views, it is entirely possible McVeigh's religious beliefs changed during his time in jail and as his execution approached.

Patrick Byrom
01-08-2017, 10:23 AM
Did he? Doesn't seem like it when his last words were the Invictus poem about being captain of his own fate.C. S. Lewis also quoted from Invictus - does that mean he wasn't a Christian?

Ian Murray
01-08-2017, 03:22 PM
C. S. Lewis also quoted from Invictus - does that mean he wasn't a Christian?

Likewise Nelson Mandela

Capablanca-Fan
02-08-2017, 12:56 AM
So? That is a media summary of the comments. It doesn't change the fact that some of the so-called denunciations were token and inflammatory.
No praise or dancing in the street.


Many Christians doubt their beliefs. Either Breivik is a Christian terrorist or the status of every so-called "Islamist terrorist" must be regarded as unconfirmed pending detailed investigation of the confidence of each killer's holding of Muslim religious views and the fidelity of their beliefs. Such investigations will show up that plenty of them are also far from devout.
The difference is that Breivik didn't shout any Christian equivalent of Allahu Akbar, and didn't want to impose any Christian laws on anyone that remotely correspond to Sharia.


Even if this is convincing counter-evidence to holding religious views, it is entirely possible McVeigh's religious beliefs changed during his time in jail and as his execution approached.
But where was the evidence that he had any Christian views, let alone that he was inspired by them to murder innocent people.

That's the problem with all the moral equivalence stuff, which doesn't convince Dawkins: you have to stretch to link Breivik or McVeigh with Christianity, and also have to stretch to disconnect the Islamist terrorists from Islamism.

Kevin Bonham
02-08-2017, 01:20 AM
No praise or dancing in the street.

Irrelevant to the question of whether they denounced it strongly enough.


The difference is that Breivik didn't shout any Christian equivalent of Allahu Akbar, and didn't want to impose any Christian laws on anyone that remotely correspond to Sharia.

As already mentioned, shouting Alluha Akbar can be as much about scaring people and making sure you get yourself in the papers as about religious piety. What sort of laws a person wants to impose (or avoid) are irrelevant - one can be a terrorist against existing laws or a terrorist against feared new ones; it doesn't matter.


But where was the evidence that he had any Christian views, let alone that he was inspired by them to murder innocent people.

He stated that he held Catholic core beliefs in a 1996 interview. Sure he could have been lying, but why bother?


That's the problem with all the moral equivalence stuff, which doesn't convince Dawkins: you have to stretch to link Breivik or McVeigh with Christianity, and also have to stretch to disconnect the Islamist terrorists from Islamism.

You have to stretch to do that if you are starting from an assumption that Breivik and McVeigh are non-Christians and that "Islamist" terrorists are Muslims. But just because that starting point suits Christians or some forces in the media doesn't make it any more valid. Devout and considered people of either faith typically don't become terrorists - it more attracts nihilists and misfits whose classification is always problematic.

I couldn't care less what convinces Dawkins.

Capablanca-Fan
02-08-2017, 06:19 AM
I couldn't care less what convinces Dawkins.
Fine. At least it would be nice to see an answer to his question: why is vilifying Christianity OK but not vilifying Islam?

Patrick Byrom
02-08-2017, 11:18 AM
Fine. At least it would be nice to see an answer to his question: why is vilifying Christianity OK but not vilifying Islam?How do you know that the radio station allows the vilification of Christianity? Perhaps you can supply some evidence that it does.

If this is a general question, then the premise is nonsense - Islam is constantly being vilified.

Desmond
02-08-2017, 07:24 PM
Fine. At least it would be nice to see an answer to his question: why is vilifying Christianity OK but not vilifying Islam?

Don't pretend you don't love it. What sort of Christian doesn't want a dose of martyrdom, even if imagined?

Capablanca-Fan
03-08-2017, 12:41 AM
Don't pretend you don't love it. What sort of Christian doesn't want a dose of martyrdom, even if imagined?

So are you offering to make some martyrs?

It's one thing to be prepared to be a martyr, but quite another to seek it out. Paul wrote:


First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:1–4)

Capablanca-Fan
03-08-2017, 12:43 AM
How do you know that the radio station allows the vilification of Christianity? Perhaps you can supply some evidence that it does.
Dawkins admits that he is well known for vilifying Christianity, but clearly that station had no problem with that. But they do with his alleged vilification of Islam.

Countries under Sharia law murder GLBTs and restrict the rights of women. Evidently you have no problem with that, while that station deplatformed Dawkins because he dared to point this out.

Patrick Byrom
03-08-2017, 10:36 AM
Dawkins admits that he is well known for vilifying Christianity, but clearly that station had no problem with that. But they do with his alleged vilification of Islam.Dawkins clearly says worse things about Islam than about Christianity, so you can't say that his vilification of Islam is "alleged" but that he vilifies Christianity. The station presumably felt that his stronger attacks on Islam were unacceptable.


Countries under Sharia law murder GLBTs and restrict the rights of women. Evidently you have no problem with that, while that station deplatformed Dawkins because he dared to point this out.Huh!? Of course Dawkins can point that out. That's not the same as vilifying Islam by saying that it is evil - millions of Muslims do not support that interpretation of Sharia Law.

Capablanca-Fan
04-08-2017, 01:20 AM
Dawkins clearly says worse things about Islam than about Christianity, so you can't say that his vilification of Islam is "alleged" but that he vilifies Christianity. The station presumably felt that his stronger attacks on Islam were unacceptable.
It could be because he thinks Islam really is worse than Christianity. Clearly that's too much for the moral equivalence types, who were only too happy to applaud Dawkins when he vilified Christianity.


Huh!? Of course Dawkins can point that out. That's not the same as vilifying Islam by saying that it is evil - millions of Muslims do not support that interpretation of Sharia Law.
Apparently pointing out problems with Sharia Law is a problem for these moral equivalence types. These are the same types who manage to promote lifelong agnostics into Christians, but insist that Allahu Akbar = Nothing to do with Islam and the first I in ISIS doesn't stand for Islamic.

Desmond
04-08-2017, 07:13 AM
So are you offering to make some martyrs?

It's one thing to be prepared to be a martyr, but quite another to seek it out. Literal martyrs? No. I don't believe in killing with abandon and letting god sort them out afterwards; I leave that to religious types.

To self-styled martyrs along the lines of oh-isn't-it-tough-to-be-a-christian-today I say: get off your cross, we need the wood.

Patrick Byrom
04-08-2017, 08:13 AM
It could be because he thinks Islam really is worse than Christianity. Clearly that's too much for the moral equivalence types, who were only too happy to applaud Dawkins when he vilified Christianity.So where are your examples of people applauding Dawkins' 'vilification' of Christianity but criticising his vilification of Islam?


Apparently pointing out problems with Sharia Law is a problem for these moral equivalence types. These are the same types who manage to promote lifelong agnostics into Christians, but insist that Allahu Akbar = Nothing to do with Islam and the first I in ISIS doesn't stand for Islamic.Dawkins is not just pointing out problems with certain versions of Sharia Law. And which lifelong agnostic are you referring to? The fact that some Muslims are terrorists doesn't mean that Islam is evil - and it's not 'moral equivalence' to point that out.

Capablanca-Fan
11-08-2017, 12:28 PM
So where are your examples of people applauding Dawkins' 'vilification' of Christianity but criticising his vilification of Islam?
The fact that this same radio station was prepared to have Dawk despite his well known vilification of Christianity.


Dawkins is not just pointing out problems with certain versions of Sharia Law. And which lifelong agnostic are you referring to?
McVeigh and Breivik.


The fact that some Muslims are terrorists doesn't mean that Islam is evil - and it's not 'moral equivalence' to point that out.
Also said by those who love to claim that Christianity is evil.

Capablanca-Fan
11-08-2017, 12:31 PM
Literal martyrs? No. I don't believe in killing with abandon and letting god sort them out afterwards; I leave that to religious types.
Like the religiously atheopathically communist regimes who killed about 100 million people, and look to be killing more in Venezuela.


To self-styled martyrs along the lines of oh-isn't-it-tough-to-be-a-christian-today I say: get off your cross, we need the wood.
Then the christophobes need to get the Christians off the crosses and let the wood be used for more productive processes.

Patrick Byrom
11-08-2017, 01:12 PM
The fact that this same radio station was prepared to have Dawk despite his well known vilification of Christianity.Except that he doesn't vilify Christianity - perhaps you can provide some quotes?


McVeigh and Breivik.McVeigh was a Christian, as has been demonstrated.


Also said by those who love to claim that Christianity is evil.Then their statement is as false as yours.

Capablanca-Fan
11-08-2017, 01:19 PM
Except that he doesn't vilify Christianity - perhaps you can provide some quotes?
Not serious. The God Delusion crap comes to mind.


McVeigh was a Christian, as has been demonstrated.
McVeigh hated Christianity, as has been demonstrated.

Patrick Byrom
11-08-2017, 01:35 PM
Not serious. The God Delusion crap comes to mind.Evidence please!


McVeigh hated Christianity, as has been demonstrated.Evidence please! The fact that he took the Last Rites is all the evidence I need that he was a Christian.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2017, 02:02 AM
Evidence please!
Have you not even read the book? I thought he was one of your heroes.


Evidence please! The fact that he took the Last Rites is all the evidence I need that he was a Christian.
Atheopaths like you don't get to decide who is Christian. McVeigh's last act was reading the anti-Christian Invictus.

Göring wanted the Lutheran equivalent the day before his scheduled execution as a hedge of his bets, but the chaplain, German-American Lutheran pastor Henry Gerecke, refused because Göring was insincere and unrepentant (http://www.messianicgoodnews.org/henry-gerecke-chaplain-to-nazi-war-criminals/). As he said, ‘I have had many years of experience as a prison chaplain and I do not believe I am easily deluded by phoney reformations at the eleventh hour.’ Chaplain Gerecke's final report (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/may-web-only/would-you-share-gospel-with-hitlers-worst-henchmen.html)recorded that only four of them [the 11 sentenced to death] "died as penitent sinners trusting God's mercy for forgiveness. They believed in Jesus who shed his blood for their sins.""

Patrick Byrom
12-08-2017, 08:39 AM
Have you not even read the book? I thought he was one of your heroes.So no evidence, then?


Atheopaths like you don't get to decide who is Christian. McVeigh's last act was reading the anti-Christian Invictus.You don't get to decide who is Catholic! The fact that the priest gave him the Last Rites proves he was a Catholic.


... Chaplain Gerecke's final report [/URL]recorded that only four of them [the 11 sentenced to death] "died as penitent sinners trusting God's mercy for forgiveness. They believed in Jesus who shed his blood for their sins.""Are you finally admitting that some Nazis were Christians?

Capablanca-Fan
14-08-2017, 02:59 AM
You don't get to decide who is Catholic! The fact that the priest gave him the Last Rites proves he was a Catholic.
Hardly. Some priests give communion to anyone who asks for it. Some think it's OK to give communion to "Catholic" politicians who spit on Catholic teachings on life and marriage.

Similarly, Göring wanted communion in his last hours explicitly to hedge his bets, but Rev. Gerecke, from the theologically very conservative Missouri Synod Lutherans, refused on the grounds that Göring was not a Christian. McVeigh probably also hedged his bets both with the last rites and Invictus, in which he declared:


I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.


Are you finally admitting that some Nazis were Christians?
Don't be ridiculous all your life. What part of "penitent" don't you understand? They repented of their Nazi actions as contrary to the Christian faith. Both Rev. Captain Gerecke and his Catholic Father Sixtus O'Connor were part of the USA Army, and had seen the horrors of the Nazi regime first hand. Two of Gerecke's sons had been severely wounded in the fighting, and O'Connor (a teacher of classics and philosophy in peacetime) was a chaplain with the USA 3rd Army when they liberated the Mauthausen–Gusen concentration camp and had also been to Dachau.

Patrick Byrom
14-08-2017, 10:24 AM
Hardly. Some priests give communion to anyone who asks for it. Some think it's OK to give communion to "Catholic" politicians who spit on Catholic teachings on life and marriage.Communion isn't the Last Rites! And my point was mainly that McVeigh asked for the Last Rites, not that he was given them. A non-Catholic wouldn't ask for them, and a priest wouldn't give them to a non-Catholic.


Don't be ridiculous all your life. What part of "penitent" don't you understand? They repented of their Nazi actions as contrary to the Christian faith. ... So they were Christians and Nazis, as I said!

Capablanca-Fan
14-08-2017, 12:15 PM
Communion isn't the Last Rites!
Same strictures apply. When Göring wanted bet-hedging communion on the eve of the scheduled execution (which he anticipated with suicide by cyanide), it was the Missouri Synod Lutheran equivalent.


And my point was mainly that McVeigh asked for the Last Rites, not that he was given them. A non-Catholic wouldn't ask for them, and a priest wouldn't give them to a non-Catholic.
Depends on the priest.


So they were Christians and Nazis, as I said!
Not at the same time. That's the important thing.

Rincewind
14-08-2017, 12:19 PM
Not at the same time. That's the important thing.

In 1930s Germany 90% of the population identified as either Lutheran or Catholic. You do the maths.

Patrick Byrom
14-08-2017, 12:40 PM
Depends on the priest.You seem to be ignoring my point that McVeigh asked for the Catholic Last Rites! Why would a non-Catholic do that?


Not at the same time. That's the important thing.You have evidence that they converted after their capture? Otherwise they would have been both.

Capablanca-Fan
15-08-2017, 10:51 AM
You seem to be ignoring my point that McVeigh asked for the Catholic Last Rites! Why would a non-Catholic do that?
For the same reason Göring asked for communion, although he claimed that "Jesus was just another smart Jew."


You have evidence that they converted after their capture? Otherwise they would have been both.
That's what repentance means. It was certainly the opinion of theologically conservative Catholic priest and Lutheran pastors, who had seen first hand the horrors that these men wrought.

Patrick Byrom
15-08-2017, 05:35 PM
For the same reason Göring asked for communion, although he claimed that "Jesus was just another smart Jew."Because they were both Christians, even if they had doubts :)


That's what repentance means. ... No it doesn't! You can already be a Christian and still repent - that's the whole point of confession. The question is, did they convert (which could involve repentance, of course)?

Kevin Bonham
15-08-2017, 09:18 PM
In my view neither the taking of Catholic rites nor the choice of Invictus prove anything much about McVeigh's religious beliefs - he most likely chose the poem because he liked it without thinking through its consistency with his other views to any great degree, and his choice of a religious ritual could have been hedging or just because he found it culturally fitting. But as I've already mentioned he stated the year after his terrorist attack that he held Catholic core beliefs, so either he should be considered Catholic or else we should question the sincerity of every Islamist crying Alluha Akbar and waving Daesh flags.

Capablanca-Fan
12-10-2017, 01:56 PM
Stop! Diversity police, this is just too much (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/mark-latham-stop-diversity-police-this-is-just-too-much/news-story/4801d1a4e22f499c6288ec548ea4ee4e)
Mark Latham, The Daily Telegraph
9 October 2017

Among the many changes harming our national way of life, the worst of them is the decline in meritocracy.

Traditionally, the Australian “fair go” principle was based on treating people on merit.

It didn’t matter if someone was male or female, straight or gay, black or white (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/mark-latham-diversity-brigade-kicks-merit-out-the-window/news-story/c7df43367f1fcc6d78d4b5e6cb3cec5d), the best person for the job usually got the job.

But now in the era of identity politics, positions are being reserved for people on the basis of race, gender and sexuality (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/mark-latham-gender-politics-burning-down-the-house/news-story/d50398724cb99baee7f448b088cf26b7) — regardless of merit.

Two months ago, for instance, when the Defence Force was caught out introducing female-only recruitment, it was big news.

People were upset that well-qualified male applicants had no chance of serving their country in uniform simply because they had the wrong genitalia.

Yet two weeks ago, when the Australian Federal Police (AFP) also announced a female-only intake, the political system barely let out a whimper (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/by-promoting-diversity-over-fighting-ability-the-army-is-alienating-its-warriors/news-story/4efdb8d4c4627022cf51c410711684f6).

Commissioner Andrew Colvin believes “gender balance” will foster a wider range of workplace skills but in practice this has been a disaster.

“The place is totally demoralised,” a federal policeman told me last week,

“Automatically picking women makes the male officers feel like we are not wanted here, we’re not part of the AFP’s future.”

Another officer spoke of how bullying and intimidation from recently promoted female managers is now commonplace.

“They have turned the AFP into a political battleground, with conflict between those of us who don’t support the gender focus and those who do”, he said. “Why can’t they just pick the best person for the job and allow us to get on with our work?”

Ironically, female staff have not benefited from the changes.

They are seen as second-class workers, who are seen as having gained their positions through a gender-biased process.

For women who actually got into the force on merit, this is doubly damaging.

They are as good as any man but have to suffer from a workplace perception of favouritism.

Ian Murray
12-10-2017, 02:43 PM
Stop! Diversity police, this is just too much
Mark Latham, The Daily Telegraph
9 October 2017

...It didn’t matter if someone was male or female, straight or gay, black or white, the best person for the job usually got the job.…

Dream on, Mark (https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/Stats_at_a_Glance.pdf)

Capablanca-Fan
13-10-2017, 01:08 AM
Dream on, Mark (https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/Stats_at_a_Glance.pdf)

What do those numbers prove, unless you make the non sequitur: numerical disparity is ipso facto proof of discrimination? Didn't you vote for him as PM?

But the main point he is raising is: since sexual discrimination is wrong, don't discriminate on the basis of sex! Then at the end of the article, he points out that the AFP is asking sexual preferences, so the LGBT can be 10% of the police force by 2020, although they are only 2–3% of the population:


In any case, how does being gay or female or any other personal identity make someone a better police officer?

There is no evidence in any part of the world of this being true.

The AFP has huge responsibilities for keeping Australians safe, especially in its counter-terrorism work and protection of public officials.

It is betraying this sacred obligation by selecting staff on criteria other than merit.

It should never have moved away from an authentic Australian approach to recruitment — judging people fairly and giving the job to the best available person.

Ian Murray
13-10-2017, 03:43 PM
What do those numbers prove, unless you make the non sequitur: numerical disparity is ipso facto proof of discrimination?

The alternative conclusion is that selections were made on merit and men are significantly more meritorious than women. Which is more likely?

Capablanca-Fan
13-10-2017, 05:28 PM
The alternative conclusion is that selections were made on merit and men are significantly more meritorious than women. Which is more likely?

False alternatives. Another is that fewer women applied. Disparities are the norm throughout history, even when the people who ended up in greater numbers were not in any position to discriminate.

Ian Murray
13-10-2017, 08:38 PM
False alternatives. Another is that fewer women applied. Disparities are the norm throughout history, even when the people who ended up in greater numbers were not in any position to discriminate.

From the WGEA datasheet:


Women in leadership

Latest results from the Agency’s dataset show:

Women hold 14.2% of chair positions, 23.6% of directorships, as well as represent 15.4% of CEOs and 27.4% of key management personnel
in Agency reporting organisations

One quarter (25.1%) of Agency reporting organisations have no key management personnel who are women.

Real time statistics from the AICD reveal:

23.4% of directors in the ASX 200 are women in January 2016

Women account for 40.0% of new appointments to ASX 200 boards in January 2016

10.0% of ASX 200 companies do not have a woman on their board

Filling key positions is by selection not application. So, if 36.7% of the fulltime workforce is female and leaders are selected on merit, there should be ~37% women and 63% men. Less than that means women are not being selected fairly on merit.

Desmond
14-10-2017, 07:04 AM
What do those numbers prove, I'd say #473 proves you have trouble counting to 3 paragraphs.

Capablanca-Fan
14-10-2017, 07:44 AM
Filling key positions is by selection not application. So, if 36.7% of the fulltime workforce is female and leaders are selected on merit, there should be ~37% women and 63% men. Less than that means women are not being selected fairly on merit.
Again, not proven. Leadership positions often require long hours at the office, and women are often more sensible about prioritizing family time over work.

But apparently your answer is to select women over men regardless of merit, just like the emasculated politically correct Polizei and military. Of course, affirmative action hires don't get the respect, and neither do they deserve it. The problem is that this disrespect carries over to the members of the favoured group who earned their positions on merit.

Ian Murray
14-10-2017, 09:05 AM
Again, not proven. Leadership positions often require long hours at the office, and women are often more sensible about prioritizing family time over work.

Also speculation. Times have changed - women are no longer prevented from following careers by their biological constraints of bearing children along the way.

What is proven is the under-representation of women in the House of Representatives. The ALP, which has a policy of pre-selecting at least one woman for every three winnable seats, has a 41% female representation. The Libs have 20%, Nationals 6%. Women are standing as candidates in record numbers, but the pre-selection processes of the major parties operate under mens' rules.


Politicians’ positions have never been determined on merit. Of course, there are many people who have merit who come into parliament and that is a mix of the ability and the commitment to what they believe in from their particular political ideology. But we have never been able, in any country that I know of, to actually list these particular criteria for determining who will make a good political representative. Politicians’ positions are determined by their ability to win support from a narrow section of a political party or trade union, by their knowledge and their experience within that structure and their ability to attract the numbers in pre-selection ballots.

‘Merit’ is in the eye of the beholder and traditionally Australian mateship has perpetuated the assumption that men will be more likely to have the appropriate mix of qualities to suit them for parliamentary life. Dale Spender’s assessment of the merit argument suggests that: ‘Men can’t or won’t see that their definitions of merit, expectation and experiences are nothing more than rules they’ve made up to protect their own positions.’
https://www.aph.gov.au/senate/~/~/link.aspx?_id=DB87E15C703242179906EACC1253891C&_z=z


But apparently your answer is to select women over men regardless of merit, just like the emasculated politically correct Polizei and military. Of course, affirmative action hires don't get the respect, and neither do they deserve it. The problem is that this disrespect carries over to the members of the favoured group who earned their positions on merit.

You assume too much. I am challenging the underlying premise - that in the good old days selection was always by merit, which is simply not true. The majority of Australians, women, have always been discriminated against by the minority male population. The situation is slowly improving, aided by quotas when necessary to overcome the inertia.

Ian Murray
15-10-2017, 08:07 PM
...But apparently your answer is to select women over men regardless of merit, just like the emasculated politically correct Polizei and military. Of course, affirmative action hires don't get the respect, and neither do they deserve it. The problem is that this disrespect carries over to the members of the favoured group who earned their positions on merit.

There is a more rational explanation (https://myaccount.news.com.au/heraldsun/subscribe?pkgDef=HS_SDO_DIG17AM01&directSubscribe=true&b=true&sourceCode=HSWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/rendezview/more-women-in-the-adf-can-only-improve-the-culture/news-story/08f4473162ed31b123bfc482263b2d38&memtype=anonymous), to dilute the embedded cultural misogynism in the military.

Capablanca-Fan
17-10-2017, 07:15 AM
Also speculation. Times have changed - women are no longer prevented from following careers by their biological constraints of bearing children along the way.
No they are not. But it is only natural that people who work for longer hours and have less leave will accumulate more hours and experience. As Thomas Sowell points out (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/thomas-sowell/feminist-fraud-2/):


For example, some women are mothers and some men are fathers. But does the fact that they are both parents make them comparable in the labor market? Actually the biggest disparity in incomes is between fathers and mothers. Nor is there anything mysterious about this, when you stop and think about it.

How surprising is it that women with children do not earn as much as women who do not have children? If you don’t think children take up a mother’s time, you just haven’t raised any children.

How surprising is it that men with children earn more than men without children, just the opposite of the situation with women? Is it surprising that a man who has more mouths to feed is more likely to work longer hours? Or take on harder or more dangerous jobs, in order to earn more money?

More than 90 percent of the people who are killed on the job are men.

There is no point pretending that there are no differences between what women do and what men do in the workplace, or that these differences don’t affect income.

When the hours and experience are equalized, then the disparities disappear. Another Sowell column pointed out (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438775/pay-gap-studies-disprove-myth-sexism-responsible):


As far back as 1971, single women in their thirties who had worked continuously since high school earned slightly more than men of the same description. As far back as 1969, academic women who had never married earned more than academic men who had never married.


What is proven is the under-representation of women in the House of Representatives. The ALP, which has a policy of pre-selecting at least one woman for every three winnable seats, has a 41% female representation. The Libs have 20%, Nationals 6%. Women are standing as candidates in record numbers, but the pre-selection processes of the major parties operate under mens' rules.
Any proof of that? Again, a lot of the above presupposes that numerical disparity is in itself proof of discrimination.


‘Merit’ is in the eye of the beholder
If you believe that, then you have no basis for asserting discrimination between men and women of equal merit.


You assume too much. I am challenging the underlying premise - that in the good old days selection was always by merit, which is simply not true. The majority of Australians, women, have always been discriminated against by the minority male population. The situation is slowly improving, aided by quotas when necessary to overcome the inertia.
Quotas are never necessary. What you really mean is: you don't really object to sexual discrimination, as long as it is Left approved discrimination.

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2017, 11:06 AM
Undoing the Dis-Education of Millennials (http://newbostonpost.com/2017/11/09/undoing-the-dis-education-of-millennials/)
By Adam J. MacLeod, associate professor of law at Jones School of Law at Faulkner University in Montgomery, Alabama
New Boston Post, 9 November 2017

So, here are three ground rules for the rest of the semester.

1. The only “ism” I ever want to come out your mouth is a syllogism. If I catch you using an “ism” or its analogous “ist” — racist, classist, etc. — then you will not be permitted to continue speaking until you have first identified which “ism” you are guilty of at that very moment. You are not allowed to fault others for being biased or privileged until you have first identified and examined your own biases and privileges.

2. If I catch you this semester using the words “fair,” “diversity,” or “equality,” or a variation on those terms, and you do not stop immediately to explain what you mean, you will lose your privilege to express any further opinions in class until you first demonstrate that you understand three things about the view that you are criticizing.

3. If you ever begin a statement with the words “I feel,” before continuing you must cluck like a chicken or make some other suitable animal sound.

To their credit, the students received the speech well. And so far this semester, only two students have been required to cluck like chickens.

Capablanca-Fan
22-05-2019, 03:30 PM
Venezuela’s Collapse Is the Worst Outside of War in Decades, Economists Say (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/world/americas/venezuela-economy.html)
Butchers have stopped selling meat cuts in favor of offal, fat shavings and cow hooves, the only animal protein many of their customers can afford.

By Anatoly Kurmanaev
New York Times, 17 May 2019

MARACAIBO, Venezuela — Zimbabwe’s collapse under Robert Mugabe. The fall of the Soviet Union. Cuba’s disastrous unraveling in the 1990s.

The crumbling of Venezuela’s economy has now outpaced them all.

Venezuela’s fall is the single largest economic collapse outside of war in at least 45 years, economists say.

“It’s really hard to think of a human tragedy of this scale outside civil war,” said Kenneth Rogoff, an economics professor at Harvard University and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. “This will be a touchstone of disastrous policies for decades to come.”

To find similar levels of economic devastation, economists at the I.M.F. pointed to countries that were ripped apart by war, like Libya earlier this decade or Lebanon in the 1970s.

But Venezuela, at one point Latin America’s wealthiest country, has not been shattered by armed conflict. Instead, economists say, the poor governance, corruption and misguided policies of President Nicolás Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, have fueled runaway inflation, shuttered businesses and brought the country to its knees.

MichaelBaron
22-05-2019, 07:50 PM
Venezuela’s Collapse Is the Worst Outside of War in Decades, Economists Say (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/world/americas/venezuela-economy.html)
Butchers have stopped selling meat cuts in favor of offal, fat shavings and cow hooves, the only animal protein many of their customers can afford.

By Anatoly Kurmanaev
New York Times, 17 May 2019

MARACAIBO, Venezuela — Zimbabwe’s collapse under Robert Mugabe. The fall of the Soviet Union. Cuba’s disastrous unraveling in the 1990s.

The crumbling of Venezuela’s economy has now outpaced them all.

Venezuela’s fall is the single largest economic collapse outside of war in at least 45 years, economists say.

“It’s really hard to think of a human tragedy of this scale outside civil war,” said Kenneth Rogoff, an economics professor at Harvard University and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. “This will be a touchstone of disastrous policies for decades to come.”

To find similar levels of economic devastation, economists at the I.M.F. pointed to countries that were ripped apart by war, like Libya earlier this decade or Lebanon in the 1970s.

But Venezuela, at one point Latin America’s wealthiest country, has not been shattered by armed conflict. Instead, economists say, the poor governance, corruption and misguided policies of President Nicolás Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, have fueled runaway inflation, shuttered businesses and brought the country to its knees.


It is only countries like Russia that could keep a serious face while supporting Maduro.

littlesprout85
31-05-2020, 08:55 PM
Aw Crikey !!!! look at wat da Sprout Dug up in da political threads here at chess chats.....:0 its CapaBlanca Leftist Thread lolol... Wow Does meh Brotha Capa Go Off Da Rails on that wonderfully lenthy discription of a Leftist in da opening of this Thread ......Sprouty really Enjoyed reading it Capa n Sprout for once didnt fit into da profile on any 1 point u make in da description ...WHEW !!!! Sproutys Thump Luvin Daddys thinks ems a Leftiest but meh just an Arizona Independant.......Joy !!!

-Sprout85

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2020, 08:05 AM
Aw Crikey !!!! look at wat da Sprout Dug up in da political threads here at chess chats.....:0 its CapaBlanca Leftist Thread lolol... Wow Does meh Brotha Capa Go Off Da Rails on that wonderfully lenthy discription of a Leftist in da opening of this Thread ......Sprouty really Enjoyed reading it Capa n Sprout for once didnt fit into da profile on any 1 point u make in da description ...WHEW !!!! Sproutys Thump Luvin Daddys thinks ems a Leftiest but meh just an Arizona Independant.......Joy !!!

-Sprout85

Some old memories there! Arizona Independents are cool.

ER
27-06-2020, 02:49 PM
You know you are a Leftie if you fall for that :D :P

4241

antichrist
27-06-2020, 03:24 PM
You know you are a lefty if you can speak native languages

Patrick Byrom
27-06-2020, 03:49 PM
You know you are a Leftie if you fall for that :D :P According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statues_of_Karl_Marx), there are no statues of Marx in the US, so it would have to be a very stupid Leftie (I realise the article is satire) :)

antichrist
27-06-2020, 04:37 PM
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statues_of_Karl_Marx), there are no statues of Marx in the US, so it would have to be a very stupid Leftie (I realise the article is satire) :)

But wouldn't his statue be pulled down on account of wife beating?

ER
27-06-2020, 05:59 PM
You know you are a lefty if you can speak native languages

In sociolinguistic variable applications you will find that native tongue imitates the environment.
Thus, inhabitants of the Hawkesbury (Derrubbin) River for example spoke with a nasal accent following the water sounds!
In dryer lands their accents are clearer with distinct vowel and softer consonent phonetics!

antichrist
27-06-2020, 06:19 PM
In sociolinguistic variable applications you will find that native tongue imitates the environment.
Thus, inhabitants of the Hawkesbury (Derrubbin) River for example spoke with a nasal accent following the water sounds!
In dryer lands their accents are clearer with distinct vowel and softer consonent phonetics!

Bit like the Arabs' singing going along with the sway of the camel ride.

MichaelBaron
27-06-2020, 09:22 PM
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statues_of_Karl_Marx), it would have to be a very stupid Leftie (I realise the article is satire) :)

Meeting a stupid Leftie is not that hard...all it takes is to go to a place with plenty of Lefties in it....and start spotting :).

ER
28-06-2020, 02:42 AM
Bit like the Arabs' singing going along with the sway of the camel ride.

since the Bedouin is excluded from any lefty leaning suspicion I presume you're accusing the camel for being a Marxist - Leninist!

antichrist
28-06-2020, 08:40 AM
since the Bedouin is excluded from any lefty leaning suspicion I presume you're accusing the camel for being a Marxist - Leninist!

We know that you are not an true anarchist because who could headbutt the Skull outside Anarchist Bookshop and not hang around for cops to get a pic on front page of Daily Telegraph. That was akin to the shooting of Archduke Ferdinand. Sarah Hason-Young would have asked you to marry her.