PDA

View Full Version : Wall To Wall Labor



Pages : 1 2 [3]

Spiny Norman
08-03-2009, 06:00 AM
Kevin Rudd is going to save the world. He's Superman!

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2009, 11:51 AM
More KRuddite hypocrisy:

Rudd Government denounced as "obscene" that Sue Morphett, the head of Pacific Brands, received a pay increase from $680,000 to more than $1.8 million last year (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/27/2503227.htm).

THERESE Rein, the wife of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, earned at least $1.4m last year (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25152431-5005941,00.html), almost $1m of which came from share bonuses from her company, Ingeus.

As Turnbull rightly points out (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25148674-5013480,00.html):


I congratulate the Rudds, especially Therese Rein, on their success. Their business grew into a very substantial one in Australia and as other countries followed the Australian approach, grew there as well exporting the expertise developed by them when they seized the opportunity created by Howard's decision in 1998.

But what are we to think of the wealthiest Prime Minister Australia has ever had, a man greatly enriched by the privatisation and outsourcing of government services, standing up again and again to denounce the very policies from which he and his family have profited so extensively.

It is more than a bit rich. It is as hypocritical, as chutzpadik, as his essay is absurd.

Basil
10-03-2009, 08:31 PM
16 months in, and having

• achieved absolutely nothing
• put himself all around the planet
• pretended to to something about indigenous issues
• pretended to do something about homelessness
• spent an amazing amount of money
• created the monumental disasters fuelwatch and grocerywatch

Kevin Rudd is topping the polls at even greater levels of satisfaction

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/pmsl.gifhttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/pmsl.gifhttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/pmsl.gifhttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/pmsl.gifhttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/pmsl.gif

Garvinator
10-03-2009, 09:13 PM
• created the monumental disasters fuelwatch and grocerywatch[/INDENT]
Umm, sir. Small technical point here. Foolwatch never even got off the ground, so it never really got the chance to be shown how much of a disaster it could have been.

Basil
10-03-2009, 09:45 PM
To qualify as a Laba boob, it needs to be conceived, proposed and defeated. Think of it as a model of how lefties would conduct themselves in commerce. Not a clue. What they're doing running an economy, Lord only knows (in fact I don't think He knows either). This is why lefties' chosen callings are


• the arts (musicians, writers, poets, actors, artists)
• academia
• long-term unemployed
• under 21s
• stacking bricks or pouring liquid
• the (lily white) professions
in fact anywhere where not having a commercial clue is either rewarded or not required.

OK I digress (a tad). Laba had the numbers, the mandate, the honeymoon period and still couldn't pull together a commercial idea.

Basil
10-03-2009, 10:06 PM
• the arts (musicians, writers, poets, actors, artists)
Go on. I dare someone, I double-dare someone to start me on Noelene Brown and Maxine McKew :wall: Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarn!

Garvinator
13-03-2009, 10:25 PM
At the 2007 Fed election, Krudd said he was going to end the blame game and buck passing between the states and fed government and this was a good reason to vote in a fed Labor government, so we had wall to wall Labor government. Which gave rise to the title of this thread.

If the LNP wins the election in Qld, will Krudd still be continuing to say no more blame game and buck passing, even in his own state. He has already been distancing himself from LNP state policies in the state government election up here. So if the LNP gets up, look forward to more buck passing and blame game politics and more all talk hollow promises from Kruddy.

Capablanca-Fan
08-04-2009, 08:52 AM
Bright ideas fade under controversy (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23584546-2702,00.html)
Imre Salusinszky
The Australian, 23 April 2008

[INDENT]THE unity and goodwill that radiated from Kevin Rudd's 2020 Summit last weekend have evaporated, with some participants saying they cannot recognise the "big ideas" attributed to them while others claim they were "systematically silenced".

Now here's Andrew Bolt a year later (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_2020_summit_couldnt_even_make_2009/), showing that this great Summit report is gathering dust. These best and brightest clearly had no clue about the coming recession, for example, and advocated none of KRudd's debt-creating big-spending ideas:




From the start I warned this was a colossal stunt. The only surprise is that 1000 people hand-picked by the Government for their smarts — or political usefulness — should have been so easily flattered into thinking they were summoned to Canberra for what they could do for Australia, rather than what they could do for Rudd.

Big mistake. What Rudd wanted was not ideas but an audience, to cheer him at an event to showcase him as a listener, thinker and uniter. What mattered was the process (the summit), not the outcome (the ideas).

That was why the vast majority of the 1000 chosen were of the Left, including 118 from just one activist group, GetUp, whose spokesman was once the Prime Minister’s press secretary.

That’s why almost every media boss in the country was asked along, to both promote the event and mute the media mocking. That’s why so many actors — including Blanchett, Hugh Jackman and Joel Edgerton — were invited, to give the event cool.

And that’s why more past and present ABC staff were invited than were serving Liberals, to make the few potential critics seem either pitifully insignificant — or cowed conscripts in Rudd’s populist crusade.

Not surprisingly, then, the summit degenerated into a circus of self-importance and high-minded blather.


Basil
08-04-2009, 11:42 AM
This also belongs in 'Queasy'. This is the sort of direct evidence that the climactic populace will ignore while they systematically mark "incredibly satisfied" in the survey box.

You people make me wanna puke!

TheJoker
08-04-2009, 11:57 AM
Now here's Andrew Bolt a year later (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_2020_summit_couldnt_even_make_2009/), showing that this great Summit report is gathering dust.

Nothing surprising here this sort of organisational theatre to keep the stakeholders happy by appearing to be innovative while actually doing very little in terms of real innovation is just as common a practice in private industry.

Google is a fantastic example, they invest so much in so called innovation strategies for new products (other than Search), however the vast majority of their major products innovations have come through acquisitions. Very few internal innovations have proved profitable.

So why would they invest so much in their outlandish innovation strategies simply it is theatre that builds brand equity. We all know about Googles innovative workplace and their investment innovation therefore we have the perception that the brand is cutting edge and improving the way we live.


The 2020 summit was simply theatre to re-inforce the Labour brand values. It is important to note that in marketing perception is equally if not more important than reality. It is interesting that the strongest free market advocates call rotten when public organisations adopt private business strategies

Capablanca-Fan
08-04-2009, 11:59 AM
The 2020 summit was simply theatre to re-inforce the Labour brand values.
Well of course. But KRudd pretended it was about unity and the country as a whole, not the Labor brand (and the far left branch, not say Bob Carr's cogently argued case against the Bill of Rights (http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/winter01/polwin01-4.htm)).

TheJoker
08-04-2009, 12:05 PM
Well of course. But KRudd pretended it was about unity and the country as a whole, not the Labor brand (and the far left branch, not say Bob Carr's cogently argued case against the Bill of Rights (http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/winter01/polwin01-4.htm)).

Of course you never openly admit a marketing strategy aimed at changing stakeholder perceptions has no real substance. It would be like telling people there $10,000 Rolex only cost $50 to make, it shatters the perception of value.

Basil
08-04-2009, 12:09 PM
Nothing surprising here this sort of organisational theatre to keep the stakeholders happy by appearing to be innovative while actually doing very little in terms of real innovation is just as common a practice in private industry.

Google is a fantastic example, they invest so much in so called innovation strategies for new products (other than Search), however the vast majority of their major products innovations have come through acquisitions. Very few internal innovations have proved profitable.

So why would they invest so much in their outlandish innovation strategies simply it is theatre that builds brand equity. We all know about Googles innovative workplace and their investment innovation therefore we have the perception that the brand is cutting edge and improving the way we live.


The 2020 summit was simply theatre to re-inforce the Labour brand values. It is important to note that in marketing perception is equally if not more important than reality. It is interesting that the strongest free market advocates call rotten when public organisations adopt private business strategies
A very good post.

However, your conclusion in copping to the inescapable Rudd duplicity is lame. There is of course a massive difference between Maccas embarking on a branding strategy and blowing it's own money (and being held accountable if it makes spurious claims!) as opposed to Laba doing the same thing

• under the guise of managing a country
•*using taxpayer's money
•*with more spin that a Westinghouse (what a disgrace)

Just cop to it politely (like you nearly did) :hand:

TheJoker
08-04-2009, 02:20 PM
A very good post.

However, your conclusion in copping to the inescapable Rudd duplicity is lame. There is of course a massive difference between Maccas embarking on a branding strategy and blowing it's own money (and being held accountable if it makes spurious claims!) as opposed to Laba doing the same thing

• under the guise of managing a country
•*using taxpayer's money
•*with more spin that a Westinghouse (what a disgrace)

Just cop to it politely (like you nearly did) :hand:


No difference for a publically listed company, with shareholders money. Wheere management teams often spew out garbadge to stakeholders to keep the share price a float and so they get there bonuses and new contracts approved. There is often little substance behind these so-called visionary strategies to take the company into the future.

I am not saying it's ethical but rather inevitable.

Basil
08-04-2009, 02:53 PM
No difference for a publically listed company, with shareholders money.
Puuuuulease :hand:

However, if that's what you have reduced the 2020 Summit to, I can barely complain. I want the focus back on Rudd's sham and not an idealogical squabble with you.

Garvinator
08-04-2009, 06:41 PM
Sky news is running a poll:

Do you think the government's $43b broadband plan will come within budget?

Yes
No

So far 84% have voted no :lol: :lol: :lol:

eclectic
08-04-2009, 08:33 PM
Sky news is running a poll:

Do you think the government's $43b broadband plan will come within budget?

Yes
No

So far 84% have voted no :lol: :lol: :lol:

sky news = statistically unreliable

or is it

fox news = statistically unreliable

?

:hmm:

Garvinator
08-04-2009, 08:55 PM
sky news = statistically unreliable

or is it

fox news = statistically unreliable

?

:hmm:
and/or both :P ;)

TheJoker
09-04-2009, 02:17 AM
Puuuuulease :hand:

However, if that's what you have reduced the 2020 Summit to, I can barely complain. I want the focus back on Rudd's sham and not an idealogical squabble with you.

That's fine as long as you understand such spin is a modern business paradigm. I respect your right to have an ideological position that holds politicians to a higher set of standards and accountability than private sector senior manangment.

As for being a meglomaniac, what politician isn't? I mean unless you crave power you wouldn't become a politician because you could certainly get far more other benefits (e.g. remuneration) in the private sector. Poor remuneration makes it difficult to recruit serious managment/leadership talent to the PM's job.

Spiny Norman
09-04-2009, 05:22 AM
... you could certainly get far more other benefits (e.g. remuneration) in the private sector.
Some could. Turnbull for example. Julie Bishop also. (both lawyer types).

Many others couldn't ...

Basil
09-04-2009, 08:04 AM
That's fine as long as you understand such spin is a modern business paradigm.
Nothing modern. You're just filling bandwidth with dribble, now. This discussion thread is all about Rudd's appalling and disgusting manipulation of the electorate and the invitees to his monument to himself.


I respect your right to have an ideological position that holds politicians to a higher set of standards and accountability than private sector senior manangment.
A different standard. Politicians can have a lower bar in some areas. Take GroceryWatch. Most white collars would have been marched out and shot - and then shot again for that. Rudd gets another couple of ratings points :wall:


As for being a meglomaniac, what politician isn't? I mean unless you crave power you wouldn't become a politician because you could certainly get far more other benefits (e.g. remuneration) in the private sector. Poor remuneration makes it difficult to recruit serious managment/leadership talent to the PM's job.
This is the same pathetic rubbish that pax used to trot out in defence of a party bankrupt of ideas and talent.
Rudd is the world's biggest ego head, so you try and negate it by saying "who isn't an egoist?" :hand:
Rudd pinched an entire platform, so pax said "nothing wrong with acknowledging good policy". :hand:

This sort of rot is awash on forums and newspapers everywhere while the surplus (for instance) was being created only to be massaged back in palatable commentary after-the-fact. Ditto for the NT intervention :hand:

These are the sorts of things that make it ultimately a complete waste of time discussing matters with you people :hand:

You people make me wanna puke!

TheJoker
09-04-2009, 12:16 PM
Nothing modern. You're just filling bandwidth with dribble, now. This discussion thread is all about Rudd's appalling and disgusting manipulation of the electorate and the invitees to his monument to himself.

Just trying point out your blantant over-reaction when Rudd does something, hardly out of the ordinary.



A different standard. Politicians can have a lower bar in some areas. Take GroceryWatch. Most white collars would have been marched out and shot - and then shot again for that.

You missed the bit about being handed nice bonus on the way.



party bankrupt of ideas and talent.
Rudd is the world's biggest ego head, so you try and negate it by saying "who isn't an egoist?" :hand:.

Exact same arguement is levelled at Turnbull on the other side. Grow up and face reality all politician have a big ego, its part of wanting to be a public figure.


This sort of rot is awash on forums and newspapers everywhere while the surplus (for instance) was being created only to be massaged back in palatable commentary after-the-fact. Ditto for the NT intervention :hand:

These are the sorts of things that make it ultimately a complete waste of time discussing matters with you people :hand:

You people make me wanna puke!

Well you've obviously got some serious issues you should get help for. The fact that you somehow think you so far above everyone else both intellectually and morally that their differing opinions makes you feel sick, says alot about your own ego.

If only were all as smart as Gunner he wouldn't have to put up with all these imbeciles making him feel sick.:rolleyes:

As for the summit yes it was organisational theatre, but it wasn't about honouring Rudd. In my opinion it was the government trying to indicate that it wasn't the arrogant Liberal Government who (much like Gunner) thought they knew what was best for this country (e.g. WorkChoices) with consulting the wider community on there ideas or simply dimissing alternative as rubbish

Basil
09-04-2009, 12:59 PM
Just trying point out your blantant over-reaction when Rudd does something, hardly out of the ordinary.
Huh? What? My over-reaction to which event? Are you talking about red writing? :lol: Are you talking about the Summit? The Summit is farce that will haunt Rudd. It was a manipulative stunt - the likes of which have never been seen.


You missed the bit about being handed nice bonus on the way.
What are you deflecting about now? I'm levelling at GroceryWatch. You're filling bandwidth and giving the impression you have a counter-point, which of course you don't.


Exact same arguement is levelled at Turnbull on the other side. Grow up and face reality all politician have a big ego, its part of wanting to be a public figure.
Turnbull hasn't orchestrated The Summit. Yes politicians of all shapes and sizes will have varying degrees of egos. This isn't the point. The Summit is the point. You've tried to drag in all politicians and even business to cover Rudd's shame. You're pathetic :hand:


Well you've obviously got some serious issues you should get help for. The fact that you somehow think you so far above everyone else both intellectually and morally that their differing opinions makes you feel sick, says alot about your own ego.
Ooops. I certainly don't think that. What makes me sick is the sort of hypocrisy and double standards that people like you systematically apply when you and your poster boy is caught in the highest duplicity. The list of what the electorate has ignored or forgiven in the short time Rudd has been here is stupefying. Interestingly, I note the media is starting pick and pick more heavily.


As for the summit yes it was organisational theatre, but it wasn't about honouring Rudd. In my opinion it was the government trying to indicate that it wasn't the arrogant Liberal Government who (much like Gunner) thought they knew what was best for this country (e.g. WorkChoices) with consulting the wider community on there ideas or simply dimissing alternative as rubbish
As before you should have stopped at the confession (bolded). What you follow with is such dribble that even most self-respecting lefties wouldn't have the hide to support.

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2009, 01:37 PM
As for the summit yes it was organisational theatre, but it wasn't about honouring Rudd.
It was a complete RuddFest.


In my opinion it was the government trying to indicate that it wasn't the arrogant Liberal Government who (much like Gunner) thought they knew what was best for this country
What crap. KRudd selected an overwhelming number of lefties. What consultation is that? And as for what's best for the country, a number of them are trying to sneak a judge-empowering Bill of Rights past us, even though Australians strongly rejected this the last time they were actually asked (via referendum).


(e.g. WorkChoices) with consulting the wider community on there ideas or simply dimissing alternative as rubbish
Work Choices was a good idea that lowered unemployment. But too many fell for the Union demonization, and now the pendulum has swung back further than even the Keating reforms. These saps fail to realize that if the Government makes it harder for employers to fire, then these employers will likewise be more reluctant to hire.

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2009, 01:42 PM
Too mobile for Rudd’s lumbering plan (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/too_mobile_for_rudds_lumbering_plan/)
Andrew Bolt, 9 April 2009

Michael Stutchbury hears the gobbling of a $43 billion turkey (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25310839-5017885,00.html). The problem with Kevin Rudd’s new fibre-to-the-home broadband plan isn’t just that it costs so much, comes with no business plan to justify it, relies on bureaucrats picking winners and saddles taxpayers with all the risks:


KEVIN Rudd wants to look like he's leading the country boldly into the future with his $43 billion "super fast" national broadband network.
But he's really leading the nation back to the 1960s and 70s, when governments loaded taxpayers with the infrastructure risks and opportunities that are better borne by private businesses and their investors.
It took decades to get government out of owning and operating telco businesses. It has taken much less than that for Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy to conclude that the market has failed.

So, rather than privatisation, Labor is now reimposing government ownership. And bureaucrats are picking a fixed technology — fibre optics — in a market undergoing rapid changes in technology, customer preferences and types of services.



Optical fibre will likely retain a technical edge over other delivery modes in its ability to pump data from one fixed place to another. But wireless broadband has the advantage of being mobile. And latest figures show a “dramatic slowdown” in fixed line broadband demand and a “hastening” shift to wireless broadband, according to Goldman Sachs JBWere. Fixed broadband customers rose by 108,000 in the six months to December, compared with 650,000 extra mobile broadband customers.

“There is a real possibility of the NBN (national broadband network) failing to eventuate as a result of the poor returns,” suggests Goldman Sachs JBWere’s telco analyst, Christian Guerra. The shift to wireless means there won’t be enough demand to justify the $43 billion price tag.

UPDATE

Does this really ring no warning bells?


Mr Rudd conceded that his Government had no business study to back the venture’s viability. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/wireless/story/0,22282,2702-25311783,00.html)

Er, we’re talking about spending $43 billion — or $2150 from every man, woman and child — with not a single study to check if it makes financial sense? Is Rudd mad?

Basil
09-04-2009, 03:33 PM
Is Rudd mad?
Incompetent. And his supporters luv him for it. It's like a bizarre cult that's griped the western world that half of us can see and the other half can't.

Desmond
09-04-2009, 03:36 PM
You mean 47%, not half. ;)

Basil
09-04-2009, 03:38 PM
You mean 47%, not half. ;)
:cool: I appreciate the clarification, but even when my lot have the >50% advantage, I still refer broadly to 50-50 when speaking in generalities.

TheJoker
09-04-2009, 04:26 PM
Work Choices was a good idea that lowered unemployment.

Typically ignorant statement!

Firstly I think you are confusing WorkChoices 2006 with the Workplace Relations Act 1996.

Secondly to make such a statement you would need to demonstrate cause and effect. AFAIK nobody has made such a connection.

Also we are still under WorkChoices and unemployment is rising.

TheJoker
09-04-2009, 04:52 PM
Are you talking about the Summit? The Summit is farce that will haunt Rudd. It was a manipulative stunt - the likes of which have never been seen.

Talk about drivel, such stunts as you call them are commonplace, as for haunting Rudd I seriously doubt it. Most of us are used to politicians talking big a delivery very little. In fact real conservatives like myself prefer it that way.



What are you deflecting about now? I'm levelling at GroceryWatch. You're filling bandwidth and giving the impression you have a counter-point, which of course you don't.

I am not defending GroceryWatch, but if you try to be innovative you are bound to have failures. Would you like to me to make a list of some modern business failures. Grow up, only fools expect a every idea they have to be sucessful.


The Summit is the point. You've tried to drag in all politicians and even business to cover Rudd's shame. You're pathetic :hand:.

What shame I don't see any in using organisational theatre to convey a message.



Ooops. I certainly don't think that. What makes me sick is the sort of hypocrisy and double standards that people like you systematically apply when you and your poster boy is caught in the highest duplicity. The list of what the electorate has ignored or forgiven in the short time Rudd has been here is stupefying. Interestingly, I note the media is starting pick and pick more heavily.

If the government really does want to be innovative (personally i am not a fan of overly innovative governments) to find better ways of governing then it is going to have experiment and make mistakes. Grab a book on innovation management you'll see the importance of not punishing mistakes but rather trying to learn from them. If the people want tht e government to be innovative then they are also doing the right thing by not punishing the government for its mistakes. Simple as that.


As before you should have stopped at the confession (bolded). What you follow with is such dribble that even most self-respecting lefties wouldn't have the hide to support.

I now see why you cant reconcile the summit, because you missed the main point due to political bias. The main PR point was to symbolise the government reconnecting with the public on issues of governance. This was an attempt to differentiate Rudd from the public perception of Howard. You might remember at the time the main criticism of Rudd was that he was a Howard clone.

Basil
09-04-2009, 04:59 PM
I now see why you cant reconcile the summit, because you missed the main point due to political bias.
Dream on. And the lefties and or journos and or the indigenous can't reconcile the Summit because of ...? The same reason as me. It was a stunt. A time-wasting, money-guzzling, Rudd-posturing stunt. Give it up trying to get it back to anything other than that.


The main PR point was to symbolise the government reconnecting with the public on issues of governance. This was an attempt to differentiate Rudd from the public perception of Howard.
No argument. Full stop.

TheJoker
09-04-2009, 05:23 PM
Dream on. And the lefties and or journos and or the indigenous can't reconcile the Summit because of ...? The same reason as me. It was a stunt. A time-wasting, money-guzzling, Rudd-posturing stunt. Give it up trying to it back to anything other than that.


No argument. Full stop.

What's wrong with that, it certainly cheaper than other forms of media advertising. Otherwise we would be forced to endure "public information" campaigns also paid for by tax payers.

Not once have I sadi it was anything but a marketing, PR, theatrical "stunt". Just i am quite comfortable with that. Especially if it means our "experts" feel the government is more approachable in terms of policy ideas.

It very rare for a summit or smeinar to ever achieve anything other than PR and relationship building. More fool you if you expected anything else. I think the majoirty of the population were realistic about the chances of any actual ideas or policy decision coming out of the actual summit.

Anyway seems the only arguement revolves around whether such PR exercises are justified, I'd say based on there wide spread use in private business yes they are.

Spiny Norman
09-04-2009, 06:30 PM
... only fools expect a every idea they have to be sucessful.
... and only cynical politicians would do these ideas anyway even when the evidence they had shows them that these ideas are doomed to failure ... THAT'S why I'm angry about it. Its just cynical politics which is grandstanding for media attention at the expense of sound, practical policies.

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2009, 06:40 PM
And one reason FDR prolongued the Depression (http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=347) was his constant experimentation. Why should investors and businesses invest under such uncertainty, not knowing what the Government will do next? Maybe it will abrogate a contract via ex post facto bill of attainder like Joke's hero Obamov (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?fc_c=1387939x2936472x34164322&id=31178).

And why should people do the economically right thing (like make a profitable business or buy a house I can afford) if the government punishes success and rewards failure (propping up Detroit carmakers or people who bought a more expensive house than they could afford)? Lefties policies increase such moral hazard (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5345).

TheJoker
10-04-2009, 01:30 AM
And one reason FDR prolongued the Depression (http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=347) was his constant experimentation. Why should investors and businesses invest under such uncertainty, not knowing what the Government will do next?

Hate to point it out but even your hero Friedman said the Austrian school have no idea about the business cycle.

TheJoker
10-04-2009, 01:36 AM
... and only cynical politicians would do these ideas anyway even when the evidence they had shows them that these ideas are doomed to failure ... THAT'S why I'm angry about it. Its just cynical politics which is grandstanding for media attention at the expense of sound, practical policies.

Generally the areas they adopt such weird and wonderful schemes is because there aren't any policies to deliver what the people want, like cheaper groceries. But they need to be seen to be trying something.

Spiny Norman
10-04-2009, 07:43 AM
Generally the areas they adopt such weird and wonderful schemes is because there aren't any policies to deliver what the people want, like cheaper groceries. But they need to be seen to be trying something.
I agree! But we, the people, end up paying millions for their "being seen to be trying something". Its grossly inappropriate, no matter how I try to look at it. :evil:

vidzkYnaf6Y

Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2009, 09:25 AM
Hate to point it out but even your hero Friedman said the Austrian school have no idea about the business cycle.
Yet Friedman agreed with the Austrians that FDR's constant interference with the market, continuing and extending Hoover's interventionist and protectionist policies, prolonged the Depression. I'm not going to fall for your divide-and-conquer games as if this invalidates what they agreed upon: that economic freedom is better than government intervention in the economy.

TheJoker
10-04-2009, 11:37 PM
Yet Friedman agreed with the Austrians that FDR's constant interference with the market, continuing and extending Hoover's interventionist and protectionist policies, prolonged the Depression.

You seem to misrepresenting Friedman somewhat he agreed with the "emergrency measures" and the spending to create jobs in the short term.

Milton Friedman on the Great Depression:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78UdUrrLZyE

Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2009, 11:51 PM
You seem to misrepresenting Friedman somewhat he agreed with the "emergrency measures" and the spending to create jobs in the short term.
Not misrepresenting him at all. Note very carefully: he said that the emergency measures were justified only to fix what the government had caused in the first place. Then he adamantly differentiated the emergency measures with the later reforms, which among other things created a climate of uncertainty that hindered business expansion and investment, because of the constant experimenting. This is what I was talking about.


Milton Friedman on the Great Depression:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78UdUrrLZyE
Thanks for that link. You can also do it this way:

78UdUrrLZyE

TheJoker
11-04-2009, 12:19 AM
Not misrepresenting him at all. Note very carefully: he said that the emergency measures were justified only to fix what the government had caused in the first place.

More importantly that the Federal Reserve caused, due incorrect monetary policy. This is Friedman's main claim to fame, that he recognised the Great Depression as being largely a monetary phenomonem. He proposed a new policy rule targeting monetary aggregates, ths as since proved largely ineffectual. However his work did help people to understand the massive effect monetary policy can have on the economy. Since Friedman's work monetary policy has been mainstay of managing the economy.

However, ther have been a number of instances where expansionary monetary policy failed to stimulate the economy. This crisis is one of those occassions, mainly to due to increased risk aversiveness and lacking confidence.

Anyway people can judge for themselves Friedman's position on the Great Depression now that the video is up. He did seem to be in favour of emergency fiscal stimulus.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2009, 01:33 PM
More importantly that the Federal Reserve caused, due incorrect monetary policy. This is Friedman's main claim to fame, that he recognised the Great Depression as being largely a monetary phenomonem.
And of course, the Federal Reserve was a government creation, yet without it, the Depression wouldn't have been great.


Anyway people can judge for themselves Friedman's position on the Great Depression now that the video is up. He did seem to be in favour of emergency fiscal stimulus.
Yes, but again, only for emergency, and to counteract government bungling. I doubt that he would approve the huge indebtedness of Obamov or KRudd, which doesn't seem to be stimulating at all. Both promised jobs as a result, but now unemployment is increasing anyway in both countries. It's one thing to provide temporary support for people thrown out of jobs during a restructuring, quite another to expand governnment permanently.

Thanx again for providing the Friedman video; I was motivated to look through a lot of them last night and this morning :)

TheJoker
12-04-2009, 03:01 AM
I doubt that he would approve the huge indebtedness of Obamov or KRudd.

I dont think it is appropriate to speculate on what Friedman might have said. Lets just leave it at what he actually did say. That he supported the emergency fiscal stimulus during the Great Depression.

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2009, 09:39 AM
I dont think it is appropriate to speculate on what Friedman might have said.
If it is in line with what he has said before, it's reasonable. He believed in freedom.


Lets just leave it at what he actually did say.
Sure, and that means ALL of what he said, not just selected morsels.


That he supported the emergency fiscal stimulus during the Great Depression.
And he qualified that by pointing out that it was government fixing a problem caused by government in the first place. He also pointed out that emergency measures are different from the later changes.

TheJoker
12-04-2009, 03:13 PM
If it is in line with what he has said before, it's reasonable.

He believed in fiscal stimulus, so to say that he would have been a opposed to the current stimulus package is mere speculation.


Sure, and that means ALL of what he said, not just selected morsels.

The relevant things he said, he said he agreed with FDR's emergency fiscal stimulus and said he inspired business confidence with his famous speech "we have nothing to fear but fear itself"


And he qualified that by pointing out that it was government fixing a problem caused by government in the first place. He also pointed out that emergency measures are different from the later changes.

Agreed, but he is certainly not averse to fiscal stimulus in crisis. And he certainly doesn't see emergency fiscal stimulus as prolonging the depression. Considering all the current measures are emergency measures I don't see how anybody could jump to the conclusion that Friedman would have oppossed them.

Kevin Bonham
15-04-2009, 09:34 PM
Nation leans to the left (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25318028-28737,00.html)

George Megalogenis in the Australian pushing a similar line to a pre-election piece I wrote in May 2007 (http://walleahpress.com.au/FR35Bonham.html) - the Coalition is suffering because the majority of voters now have a default commitment to the ALP or Greens. Also, that the Liberals think being hardline-right works because Howard did it, but Howard won in spite of it not because of it and had a lot of luck along the way, leaving his party now paying the price. And there's this:


But state Labor has been a laughing stock for much of its winning streak during the past 11 years. It raises the question: Why does Labor keep winning when it does such a poor job? If a next-to-useless Labor government is worthy of a fourth term in NSW and a fifth in Queensland, then the conservatives must be too far to the right of the mainstream.

... which rather contradicts Jono's stance that Right parties should stay Right and not try to play Labor-Lite. (That said, I think that stance is still quite valid in discussing USA politics.)

I actually think the way back for the Liberal Party, if there is one other than waiting 10-15 years for Rudd/Gillard to fall over, is to vigorously recontest the centre, not as a Rudd-lite party but by making a completely different claim to centre ground. Brand Rudd Labor as illiberal bureaucratic puritans out of touch with the larrikin Labor values of the Hawke years and attack them for it - from a socially moderate, optimistically pro-fun, and softly pro-market position. But to do that they need to completely cull the religious right from the party (Abetz, Abbott, Andrews, Barnett et al) and I doubt that they have the guts to do it.

Capablanca-Fan
15-04-2009, 10:16 PM
Also, that the Liberals think being hardline-right works because Howard did it, but Howard won in spite of it not because of it and had a lot of luck along the way, leaving his party now paying the price.
Really? I think they are paying the price of being too disorganized, and looking like opportunists when they "me too" on global warm-mongering and socializing the workplace.


... which rather contradicts Jono's stance that Right parties should stay Right and not try to play Labor-Lite. (That said, I think that stance is still quite valid in discussing USA politics.)
Their opinion contradicts me, but the facts do not. NSW and Vic are notorious for Layba-Lite Liberal leaders. Turnbull would be quite at home in Layba. And remember that KRudd had to lie that he was an economic conservative, rather than admitting that he was a spendthrift socialist.


I actually think the way back for the Liberal Party, if there is one other than waiting 10-15 years for Rudd/Gillard to fall over, is to vigorously recontest the centre, not as a Rudd-lite party but by making a completely different claim to centre ground.
Abandoning principles would be suicide. Better to show the centrists how a smaller government would benefit them as well as society as a whole. That's how Reagan won big, after decades of Republicans losing by being Dem-Lite.


Brand Rudd Labor as illiberal bureaucratic puritans out of touch with the larrikin Labor values of the Hawke years and attack them for it - from a socially moderate, optimistically pro-fun, and softly pro-market position.
Might work if KRudd imposes internet censorship and his $43b internet plan proves an expensive fiasco.


But to do that they need to completely cull the religious right from the party (Abetz, Abbott, Andrews, Barnett et al) and I doubt that they have the guts to do it.
Because they would be toast if they did. Similar calls bellow from US RINOs. But the three most socially liberal ones are the ones who voted for Obamov's porkulus. Where are these mythical socially liberal free marketeers? Well, Arnold was one; an outspoken admirer and personal friend of Friedman who even did the intro to his revised Free to Choose series. But not long after becoming governor, he basically became another Dem. In Australia, Abbott is one of the best debaters; his refutation of KRudd's crass socialist essay was very powerful.

Basil
15-04-2009, 10:42 PM
Nation leans to the left (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25318028-28737,00.html)
I don't think the nation has moved towards the left at all. I think the nation has emotionally moved away from the foreign policies of the previous right governments. Ditto for the US. In Australia's case, there was also Work Choices.

All other leftist election policy offerings and subsequent delivery was proven to be nothing but ploy upon joke upon ploy. From issues green to social to economics, the left fudged, squashed or copied depending on what was expedient. The electorate certainly can't differentiate to any satisfactory depth the policies offered by the left over the previous government. The electorate isn't a leftist one at all.

The electorate is simply recovering from the shame that it thinks it should be feeling and is quite happy to have its head down (between legs and in the sand) - almost at any local cost as long as there aren't any wars or lefties yelling that single mothers are being murdered on the streets.

It's quite pathetic to watch - and a wonderful breeding ground for the purveyors of modest communist tendencies to sow their ideas in an all but unfettered environment for quite some time. The price of being spineless IMO.

As I have said in a previous post, there's naught, or all but nought to be done about it from a conservative POV at the moment.

That said, what KB proposed as a positioning proposition for the Libs is probably better than no plan at all.

Capablanca-Fan
15-04-2009, 11:48 PM
Agreed, but he is certainly not averse to fiscal stimulus in crisis. And he certainly doesn't see emergency fiscal stimulus as prolonging the depression. Considering all the current measures are emergency measures I don't see how anybody could jump to the conclusion that Friedman would have oppossed them.
See what he did say about the Depression. Even 30 years ago, he noted that governments were trying to err in the opposite direction from the initial monetary contraction with wild spending.

O7pnjzCuSv8

Kevin Bonham
16-04-2009, 12:20 AM
Really? I think they are paying the price of being too disorganized, and looking like opportunists when they "me too" on global warm-mongering and socializing the workplace.

Those are two things they are not paying the price for. Polling shows overwhelming (even if glib and feelgood level) support for action on climate change and any mainstream politician who allows themselves to be portrayed as a denialist is taking a huge risk, unless perhaps they are a Senator. And Workchoices is still much detested hence the constant (and when they succeed, damaging) attempts to portray the Libs as still "the party of Workchoices".

Gunner's right that there's a tendency by voters to automatically dismiss anything that reeks of the previous government. (He's also right about "the left" - one thing Megalogenis doesn't note is that Labor under Rudd is nowhere near as left as Labor under Hawke. But it remains the case that "that side" of politics is doing very nicely in most elections recently while the Coalition side is generally not.)


Their opinion contradicts me, but the facts do not. NSW and Vic are notorious for Layba-Lite Liberal leaders.

...one of whom (Nick Greiner) won and with better judgement would have done so repeatedly. But in both states the attempts of moderate Liberal leaders to win from Opposition have often been frustrated by leadership infighting as well as deficiencies of the leaders in self-presentation and judgement (the circumstances leading to the demise of Brogden, probably the most left-leaning of the lot, being a case in point).


Turnbull would be quite at home in Layba. And remember that KRudd had to lie that he was an economic conservative, rather than admitting that he was a spendthrift socialist.

I don't think he's either. He's a chameleon bereft of core economic principles. I see both as a case of his self-marketing to blend in with the environment of the day.


Abandoning principles would be suicide.

I'm not suggesting the Liberal Party abandon its principles; I'm suggesting it return to them!


Better to show the centrists how a smaller government would benefit them as well as society as a whole.

That can be in the mix as well. But if you want to sell smaller government to the centrists (an idea they are open to) you have to not scare them away with hardline rightwing social policy.


Because they would be toast if they did.

And they're not toast now?


Where are these mythical socially liberal free marketeers?

A real free market position renders the party holding it unelectable in Australia in the current environment. However, a party can lean in that direction if it is not seen as fundamentalist or ideological about it.

(Hewson did show that a more radical position could be competitive but that was against an unpopular government, and only until his deficiencies as a campaigner did him in.)


In Australia, Abbott is one of the best debaters; his refutation of KRudd's crass socialist essay was very powerful.

Abbott can make all the powerful critiques he likes but very few voters will give him the time of day for doing so, because of the various ways in which he is ridiculous.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2009, 12:25 PM
Those are two things they are not paying the price for. Polling shows overwhelming (even if glib and feelgood level) support for action on climate change and any mainstream politician who allows themselves to be portrayed as a denialist is taking a huge risk, unless perhaps they are a Senator.
That might change as warm-mongering taxes actually hit people in their hip pockets or cost them their jobs (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25340162-5006009,00.html), and the arguments of people like Plimer become better (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sceptic_spared_a_sliming_is_the_climate_changing/)known.


And Workchoices is still much detested hence the constant (and when they succeed, damaging) attempts to portray the Libs as still "the party of Workchoices".
Maybe that will change, as unemployment starts to bite, and people realise the common sense principle: making it harder for an an employer to fire will also make him more reluctant to hire.


I'm not suggesting the Liberal Party abandon its principles; I'm suggesting it return to them!
Which means free market. And it would be worth demonstrating empirically that we really were never better off than under Howard (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/howard_was_right_we_were_never_better_off/), since:


Federal Treasury calculations released to economic modellers yesterday suggest that the average Australian lost an inflation-adjusted $26,400 in 2008 (http://business.theage.com.au/business/alarm-as-wealth-goes-into-freefall-20090415-a7hi.html) — 11.8 per cent of their real wealth.


And they're not toast now?
Of course, precisely because they don't stand for anything.


A real free market position renders the party holding it unelectable in Australia in the current environment.
They thought that about Reagan too. But he could communicate to ordinary people how government was the problem not the solution.

x59wNGHe6iI


Abbott can make all the powerful critiques he likes but very few voters will give him the time of day for doing so, because of the various ways in which he is ridiculous.
He's just a normal conservative who made some mistakes in his youth and has learned from them. Reagan was the same:

QgNthZf6g7A

Kevin Bonham
16-04-2009, 01:03 PM
That might change as warm-mongering taxes actually hit people in their hip pockets

It might (and I actually hope it does because some "solutions" to the problem are so expensive that they are just not worth it). But the current climate is such that it is not viable for a major party leader to allow themself to be painted as a denialist and this will probably remain the case for some time.


Maybe that will change, as unemployment starts to bite, and people realise the common sense principle: making it harder for an an employer to fire will also make him more reluctant to hire.

That works at cross purposes, because while there will be people wanting looser employment laws so that they can get jobs (or hire and fire more easily) there will also be people scared of being laid off and seeking whatever government protection from such a fate they can find.


Which means free market.

The Liberals' commitment to free market was never all that absolute to begin with. Menzies, for instance, while pro-market-freedom in some areas was also an ardant protectionist and nothing like a libertarian as noted by the LDP's John Humphreys (http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/12/11/the-menzies-legacy/). The closest figure to a real free marketeer to lead the Liberals was John Hewson, and he lost the unloseable election. I do think there is room for the Liberals to market themselves as significantly less interventionist than Labor but an outright pro-market approach would just make them a laughingstock at the moment.



Federal Treasury calculations released to economic modellers yesterday suggest that the average Australian lost an inflation-adjusted $26,400 in 2008 (http://business.theage.com.au/business/alarm-as-wealth-goes-into-freefall-20090415-a7hi.html) — 11.8 per cent of their real wealth.

I'd love to know what the measure of "average" is here - mean? median? Anyway if the cause is mainly house price and market speculation bubbles going pop, it's more a case of people losing what they only thought they had.


Of course, precisely because they don't stand for anything.

Agreed. But standing for anything just to stand for something isn't the solution either.


He's just a normal conservative who made some mistakes in his youth and has learned from them.

I'd say learning is exactly what he hasn't done. He is in an ideal position based on his teenage experiences to see why Catholic moralist doctrines on sex and abortion do not work and yet he continues to adhere to them.

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2009, 02:01 AM
This (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/04/16/rudd-vs-howard-at-17-months/) shows just what an awful mess the Coalition is now in. It compares opinion poll data for the Howard and Rudd governments over the same periods of time. New governments usually start sky-high in the polls but by this point in the cycle Howard's 2PP lead had virtually gone and his satisfaction rating had crashed from >60 to <40. Rudd's 2PP lead is scarcely dented (and possibly on the way up again) and his satisfaction rating if anything is higher!

These things tend to close up once an election is called and the GFC may well have a lot to do with it but if this pattern continues then the Coalition will have their work cut out holding their existing seat numbers in the parliament at the next election. Perhaps their best hope is that Rudd forces an unnecessary double-diss over something trivial like alcopops and that that allows them to make some kind of contest of it.

TheJoker
17-04-2009, 10:29 AM
Which means free market.

I think a big problem for the Liberal's is that people associate them with free market doctrine. Yet the idea that free markets produce most efficient economic and social outcomes is practically dead in the water (at least between now and the next election).

In my opinion they need to distance themselves as much as possible from free market doctrine and find another way to differentiate themselves from Labour. Personally I public sector reform is probably a good platform, not in terms of reducing the size of the public sector, but rather increasing efficiencies.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2009, 12:26 PM
I think a big problem for the Liberal's is that people associate them with free market doctrine. Yet the idea that free markets produce most efficient economic and social outcomes is practically dead in the water (at least between now and the next election).
Of course. So many lies have been told that the current crisis and the Depression were the fault of the free market. and many Australians and Americans know no better, because they were taught by leftist teachers in the government schools.


In my opinion they need to distance themselves as much as possible from free market doctrine and find another way to differentiate themselves from Labour.
Or else do what Reagan did: explain why free markets are superior. All Coalition branches should watch Friedman's Free to Choose series and hand out Sowell's Basil Economics to all paid members, and see Reagan's best speeches to learn how to communicate effectively.


Personally I public sector reform is probably a good platform, not in terms of reducing the size of the public sector, but rather increasing efficiencies.
Since efficience is output/input, a great way to increase efficiency is by reducing size (the denominator of that expression).

The Leftmedia claimed that Reagan's clear free market stand would cost him, and advocated that the GOP continue its Dem Lite stand, the one that had left them in a congressional minority for decades.

TheJoker
17-04-2009, 02:12 PM
Of course. So many lies have been told that the current crisis and the Depression were the fault of the free market.

Or rather theories have been put forward as to why free markets (in the real world) fail to deliver efficient economic and social outcomes. And that these theories have been largley supported by econometric data.


Or else do what Reagan did: explain why free markets are superior. All Coalition branches should watch Friedman's Free to Choose series and hand out Sowell's Basil Economics to all paid members, and see Reagan's best speeches to learn how to communicate effectively.

Except that economic theory has progressed well beyond Friedman.



Since efficience is output/input, a great way to increase efficiency is by reducing size (the denominator of that expression).

Not at all, without changing the output produced by each unit of input, reducing size simply reduces output and leaves efficiency unchanged.

Increasing effeciency requires producing more output from each unit of input.



The Leftmedia claimed that Reagan's clear free market stand would cost him, and advocated that the GOP continue its Dem Lite stand, the one that had left them in a congressional minority for decades.

Different era economic theories, link to laissez-faire such Friedman's monetarism were the prevailling theories at the time of Reagan. Since that time their implmentation has shown them to create some unexpected and undesirable outcomes, hence prevailling economic theory suggests that balanced market regulation can increase both economic and social outcomes.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2009, 02:56 PM
Except that economic theory has progressed well beyond Friedman.
Regressed, more likely. Demagogues like Obamov and KRudd have deceitfully blamed the market for what was largely a government failure.


Not at all, without changing the output produced by each unit of input, reducing size simply reduces output and leaves efficiency unchanged.

Increasing effeciency requires producing more output from each unit of input.
That's the whole point! A lot of bureaucratic jobs add nothing to the output.


Different era economic theories, link to laissez-faire such Friedman's monetarism were the prevailling theories at the time of Reagan.
They were quite revolutionary. The Presidents recently before Reagan were Keynesians. The economy was far worse under Carter than now.


Since that time their implmentation has shown them to create some unexpected and undesirable outcomes, hence prevailling economic theory suggests that balanced market regulation can increase both economic and social outcomes.
What implementation? The undesirable outcomes arise from a failure to implement them. See The Myth that Laissez Faire is Responsible for our Present Crisis (http://mises.org/story/3165) by George Reisman, 23 October 2008. Yet when economies move towards a freer market, they prosper.

TheJoker
17-04-2009, 10:37 PM
Regressed, more likely. Demagogues like Obamov and KRudd have deceitfully blamed the market for what was largely a government failure.

Largley a government failure, yes failure to prudently regulate.



That's the whole point! A lot of bureaucratic jobs add nothing to the output.

That won't change simply by reducing staff, if the same procedures and strategies remain, anyway this is not a topic worth discussing with you since you knowledge of the working of the public service consists of having watched a few episodes of Yes Minister.


They were quite revolutionary. The Presidents recently before Reagan were Keynesians. The economy was far worse under Carter than now.

The use of monetary policy to stabilise the economy has been useful. However it has not been effective in all situations hence the re-emergence of active fiscal policy.



What implementation?

I was talking about monetarism and the washington concensus, which the IMF tried to implement in a number of countries that caused severe economic instability and an increase in poverty. Of course their has be no implementation of a totally free market and for good reason, it couldn't work.


Yet when economies move towards a freer market, they prosper.

Actually that is not always true there are a number examples of the opposite. The IMF imposed radical freer market measure on a nmber of countries to like Argentina and caused the economies to regress.

Capablanca-Fan
18-04-2009, 01:50 AM
Largley a government failure, yes failure to prudently regulate.
Crap, they pressured bankers to lend to people who couldn't pay it back. It's also no accident that Britain's economy is more shot than America's or Australia's, although they had a Labour government, so should been doing better according to KRudd's essay. NZ also went into a recession earlier, and they were under Labour. So more regulation is hardly the answer.


That won't change simply by reducing staff, if the same procedures and strategies remain, anyway this is not a topic worth discussing with you since you knowledge of the working of the public service consists of having watched a few episodes of Yes Minister.
What would you know? Yes Minister happens to be an excellent and entertaining exposé of public choice theory, often based on real-life examples. Thomas Sowell's Knowledge and Decisions is a more serious and detailed work.


I was talking about monetarism and the washington concensus, which the IMF tried to implement in a number of countries that caused severe economic instability and an increase in poverty. Of course their has be no implementation of a totally free market and for good reason, it couldn't work.
Rubbish: once again you confuse free market and anarchy.


Actually that is not always true there are a number examples of the opposite. The IMF imposed radical freer market measure on a nmber of countries to like Argentina and caused the economies to regress.
Yet just about every country that freed its economy did better. So much so that even socialist countries like India and China reduced government controls.

TheJoker
20-04-2009, 01:10 AM
Crap, they pressured bankers to lend to people who couldn't pay it back.

Rubbish, I've covere this so many times but you continue to be ignorant to the fact that the majority of sub-prime loans had nothing to do with the CRA. I wont boher covering it again it obviously beyond your comprehension.


What would you know? Yes Minister happens to be an excellent and entertaining exposé of public choice theory, often based on real-life examples.

Ok if you say so:rolleyes:



Rubbish: once again you confuse free market and anarchy.

Not at all a free market doesn't work because of asymmetries of information and externalties such as spillover costs etc. Nothing to do with anarchy.



Yet just about every country that freed its economy did better. So much so that even socialist countries like India and China reduced government controls.

Actually those that maintained strong regulation and government controls such as China and India did far better than those economies that tried radical free market reforms like those countries in Latin America and Iceland. Actually highlighting the point that there needs to be a balance between market freedom and regulation.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2009, 09:53 AM
Rubbish, I've covere this so many times but you continue to be ignorant to the fact that the majority of sub-prime loans had nothing to do with the CRA. I wont boher covering it again it obviously beyond your comprehension.
You may have given typical leftist excuses with a typical air of leftist affected superiority, but the fact remains that this crisis was triggered by leftist governments forcing Fannie and Freddie to make loans to those who could not pay it back, partly based on faulty stats asserting racial discrimination (http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/04/16/magic_numbers_in_politics). The Dems are on record defending them, while of course taking huge campaign contributions from them.

_MGT_cSi7Rs


Ok if you say so:rolleyes:
I do say so, precisely because it was true. Those close to the British political system often enjoyed the series precisely because it was true to reality.


Not at all a free market doesn't work because of asymmetries of information and externalties such as spillover costs etc. Nothing to do with anarchy.
Au contraire: there has been nothing to produce prosperity as much as a free market. If you want real asymmetry, try the government controlled economy, where politicians and bureaucrats control what is made and who makes it. And look at the lower standard of living that results.


Actually those that maintained strong regulation and government controls such as China and India did far better than those economies that tried radical free market reforms like those countries in Latin America and Iceland. [/QUOTE
Oh come on. China and India were growing only because they removed the stifling controls and embraced a freer economy. And in the major countries, Britain has done worst although it was under Labour for the last decade--i.e. just the sort of social democracy that you and KRudd love.

[QUOTE=TheJoker]Actually highlighting the point that there needs to be a balance between market freedom and regulation.
You mean between freedom and government restriction.

TheJoker
20-04-2009, 04:13 PM
You may have given typical leftist excuses .

You means excuses like empirical evidence:rolleyes:



Those close to the British political system often enjoyed the series precisely because it was true to reality.

Unnamed sources have a habit of agreeing with you.



Au contraire: there has been nothing to produce prosperity as much as a free market.

One minute you say there has never been a free market (i.e. when discussing the current economic crisis), next minute you want to say free markets are responsible for prosperity in developed countries.

What I am saying is that there needs to be a balance between regulation and freedom, as evidenced by the faultering of economies that privatised and deregulated rapidily under the direction of the IMF.


China and India were growing only because they removed the stifling controls and embraced a freer economy.

No because they adopted a balanced approach removing only certain regulations and maintianing others (aiming for a mixed-economy) not broad scale deregulation and privatisation as adopted by some Latin Americian countries which failed to achieve the desired results.



You mean between freedom and government restriction.

Use whatever semantics you like. The fact of the matter is both theory and empirical evidence suggests that free markets are unlikley to deliver efficient economic or social outcomes. And that certain contstraints can increase their efficiency.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2009, 04:47 PM
You means excuses like empirical evidence:rolleyes:
The empirical evidence is that Fannie and Freddie, who bribed Dems with hefty campaign contributions to protect them, were the start of this mess, and they were government created.


Unnamed sources have a habit of agreeing with you.
First, I also referred to Sowell's thoroughly documented source Knowledge and Decisions. Second, why spoonfeed upstarts like you with what is easily accessible; the companion book to the series explains some of the real-life inspirations.


One minute you say there has never been a free market (i.e. when discussing the current economic crisis), next minute you want to say free markets are responsible for prosperity in developed countries.
It should be simple even for a lefty like you: the more the free market is allowed to operate, the greater a country's prosperity generally is. But to claim that America's highly regulated economy is free is crass, as is blaming the freedom rather than the government controls for the crisis.


What I am saying is that there needs to be a balance between regulation and freedom,
The only regulation necessary is protection of life and property, preventing fraud and coercion, and enforcing contracts.


as evidenced by the faultering of economies that privatised and deregulated rapidily under the direction of the IMF.
Yet the countries that grew, like India and China, embraced economic freedom to some extent. Britain, under the very sort of socialist democracy KRudd loves, is in the biggest mess of any large economy.


No because they adopted a balanced approach removing only certain regulations and maintianing others (aiming for a mixed-economy) not broad scale deregulation and privatisation as adopted by some Latin Americian countries which failed to achieve the desired results.
Which do you have in mind? Most of Latin America is ruled by corrupt despots who mock the rule of law, and where there is enormous red tape to acquire private property, a prerequisite for free markets.


Use whatever semantics you like. The fact of the matter is both theory and empirical evidence suggests that free markets are unlikley to deliver efficient economic or social outcomes. And that certain contstraints can increase their efficiency.
Yet FDR prolongued the Great Depression with his interference, and the huge spending created no jobs but just landed the country in debt, as his Treasury Secretary Morgenthau admitted (much like KRudd promising 75,000 new jobs with his "stimulus" spending). But as documented in The Politically Correct Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal by economist Robert Murphy (http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=197236620296&h=gt1H5&u=RQ4kq&ref=mf), there was a “forgotten Depression” of 1921–1922 that started off worse than the more famous one, but it was basically over within 18 months, because government under the Harding–Coolidge administration did not intervene. Similarly, Reagan did not intervene in the 1987 crash, and the economy prospered for many years afterwards.

TheJoker
20-04-2009, 06:24 PM
It should be simple even for a lefty like you: the more the free market is allowed to operate, the greater a country's prosperity generally is.

The problem is that statement doesn't hold water, as evidenced by the failure of IMF direct economy that took such an approach, compared to a more coservativev approach adopted by other nations.


But to claim that America's highly regulated economy is free is crass

So hang on a minute world's largest economy the USA is not free and two of the world's fastest growing economies don't rate high on economic freedom (i.e. China and India). Hmmm... there seems to be some holes in your theory.


, as is blaming the freedom rather than the government controls for the crisis..

So crass that it is an opinion held by many prominent businessmen and economists:rolleyes:

Anyway Jono I don't expect you to comprehend I make these points for the benefits of others who might not recognise that your statements are largley a reflection of your blind in faith in certain ideologies and not any objective attempt to make sense of the facts.



The only regulation necessary is protection of life and property, preventing fraud and coercion, and enforcing contracts.

What about spillover costs? What a requirements to fully disclose information?



Yet the countries that grew, like India and China, embraced economic freedom to some extent.

And that's the whole point, they adopted a balanced approach.



Which do you have in mind?.

Argentina is a good example, of the washington concensus creating economic instability.

But i know you will keep up your blind faith in totally free markets, just as you hold so many other tenuous positions with such zeal. Luckily we don't have to worry as you are not in position cause any real harm to others.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2009, 06:43 PM
So hang on a minute world's largest economy the USA is not free
It is not a free market economy by any means, just freer than some others. It performed especially badly under the controlling regimes of FDR and Jimmy Carter, and prospered under the Harding–Coolidge and Reagan presidencies who let the market work and regarded government as the problem not the solution.


and two of the world's fastest growing economies don't rate high on economic freedom (i.e. China and India). Hmmm... there seems to be some holes in your theory.
No, because China and India started from such a low position, there was more room to improve.


So crass that it is an opinion held by many prominent businessmen and economists:rolleyes:
Many businessmen hate the free market, preferring government favours (e.g. tariffs, regulations that harm competitors more than themselves, picking winners).


Anyway Jono I don't expect you to comprehend I make these points for the benefits of others who might not recognise that your statements are largley a reflection of your blind in faith in certain ideologies and not any objective attempt to make sense of the facts.
Lefties like you are the ones with blind faith: that politicians and bureaucrats can spend money better than the people who earned it, and the "fatal conceit" (Hayek) that anyone has enough knowledge to plan an economy.


What about spillover costs? What a requirements to fully disclose information?
What about unsupported elephant hurling?


And that's the whole point, they adopted a balanced approach.
No, they improved precisely because they removed some of the stifling government controls. It's hard to move all the way against entrenched vested interests.


Argentina is a good example, of the washington concensus creating economic instability.
A country ruled for so long by military juntas? The free market requires the rule of law.


But i know you will keep up your blind faith in totally free markets,
It's well supported by the evidence, e.g. as documented by Milton Friedman in Free to Choose. Rather, it's the Left that has faith that huge government spending will work this time although it didn't during the Depression or Japan's lost decade.


just as you hold so many other tenuous positions with such zeal. Luckily we don't have to worry as you are not in position cause any real harm to others.
That's the point: there is no harm to others precisely because their freedom is not infringed by politicians or bureaucrats.

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2009, 09:05 PM
Nelson lasted nine months and thirteen days (just beating Downer's record of eight months seven days). To outlast Nelson, Turnbull has to make it until 29 June 2009. The apparent lack of anyone else really wanting it might keep him in the job for a while. Check this one out (source: Pollytics again (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics))

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2009/04/turnbullsat.png

This shows the Opposition Leader's net approval rating, which is the number of people who approve of the leader minus the number who disapprove. The big rise in the middle of the graph is where Turnbull replaced Nelson. It can be seen that:

* Turnbull is in freefall. In five months about one-fifth of Australians have switched from approving of Turnbull's performance to disapproving.

* Turnbull's net approval position is now worse than most of those recorded by Nelson.

Capablanca-Fan
21-04-2009, 09:43 PM
It might (and I actually hope it does because some "solutions" to the problem are so expensive that they are just not worth it). But the current climate is such that it is not viable for a major party leader to allow themself to be painted as a denialist and this will probably remain the case for some time.
Yet Australians in general want to do something about climate change, as long as it's free!


I do think there is room for the Liberals to market themselves as significantly less interventionist than Labor but an outright pro-market approach would just make them a laughingstock at the moment.
Not if there were a communicator like Reagan to explain its merits. We see even the OECD now recognizing that repealing Howard's work choices could increase unemployment.


I'd say learning is exactly what he hasn't done. He is in an ideal position based on his teenage experiences to see why Catholic moralist doctrines on sex and abortion do not work and yet he continues to adhere to them.
More likely, he sees the mistakes me made were due to turning his back on these.


Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practise; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.--Samuel Johnson, Rambler No. 14.

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2009, 10:33 PM
Yet Australians in general want to do something about climate change, as long as it's free!

Yep, it's a classic perception issue as are a lot of enviroscares. The trick for a leader is to sound like they're aware of the problem and vitally concerned about it then change as little as possible. Howard refused to play ball. I believe that he knew it would hurt him at the ballot box.


Not if there were a communicator like Reagan to explain its merits.

I'm not sure. I think free-market ideology is less marketable now than in Reagan's time - in part because there is so much from the Thatcher era especially that gets used as ammunition against it.

[Abbott]

More likely, he sees the mistakes me made were due to turning his back on these.


Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practise; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.--Samuel Johnson, Rambler No. 14.

Expressing zeal for, and recommending to others a moral code which you've failed to abide by yourself is one thing. Supporting its imposition on others who are not convinced of your view is another matter entirely.

Basil
22-04-2009, 09:44 AM
^ Clap

Caveat: I haven't read it in context, but as standalone.

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2009, 07:50 PM
Gunner, I'd like to whack a poll on this thread:

How many federal elections will Labor win before it is defeated?

Would that be OK with you? If not I'll start a new one for it; I'm fine either way.

eclectic
28-04-2009, 07:56 PM
how about a poll on how many opposition leaders there will be before the coalition wins a federal election :whistle:

Basil
28-04-2009, 07:58 PM
Gunner, I'd like to whack a poll on this thread:

How many federal elections will Labor win before it is defeated?

Would that be OK with you? If not I'll start a new one for it; I'm fine either way.
It would be OK with me, but I'd prefer a separate thread :lol: I don't think we have quite sufficient political threads! Actually I think we are doing a half, OK a quarter, reasonable job of keeping on the various topics.

I think KRudd and Co will win one more.

Kevin Bonham
28-04-2009, 08:16 PM
The more polls the merrier! I will initiate both of these very soon!

Capablanca-Fan
08-05-2009, 09:48 AM
Wayne Swan slashes private health rebate as promised tax cuts eroded (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25446087-601,00.html)
Matthew Franklin
The Australian, 8 May 2009

arosar
08-05-2009, 04:31 PM
The effing NSW ALP are absolutely bloody useless. They're stuffing on transport, health, education, etc. There's an effing scandal nearly every bloody week!

Plus, NSW is increasingly becoming an effing police state, with the police acquiring ever more powers, also nearly every week.

So with all these minuses you'd think that the effing Libs would be gaining the upper hand. Ohhhh nooo...those a--holes, with an ugly bastard for a leader, are even more effing useless. I don't even know he's friggin' name!

AR

Capablanca-Fan
08-05-2009, 06:00 PM
Even worse in Vic. It has a chronic water shortage because the Greenstapo-infested Layba won't build dams on often-flooding rivers, instead preferring costly and energy-guzzling desalination plants. And their anti-vilification bill makes it even more of a police state; their Gedankenpolizei have already hauled two pastors through the coals. And the Vic Coalition leader is a limousine lefty Layba-Lite, Red Ted Baillieu.

Kevin Bonham
08-05-2009, 11:47 PM
By the way, NZ is currently seeing the Rudd thing with colours reversed.

In the latest Morgan poll, National and its allies had 59% support in NZ and Labor and its allies 41%. National itself has 55% and Labor itself only 30.5%. Two-thirds of New Zealanders think their country is heading in the right direction.

These are challenging times for Oppositions of any colour - people are willing to cut governments a lot of slack and a government that seems to be making a honest and not completely incompetent effort to minimise the damage tends to get rewarded for its troubles.

As Amiel notes, even in NSW the Libs are struggling to land the killer blow on a government that by rights should be dead in the water. Labor under Rees has now recorded one (1) competitive opinion poll result!

Having said the above, the gulfs seen in both Australia and NZ are likely to indicate that the respective oppositions are both still suffering fallout from their respective election defeats.

arosar
09-05-2009, 12:05 AM
But that other Labour is in deep shite. This is pure entertainment!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s3J9qbBS3fE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s3J9qbBS3fE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

AR

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2009, 12:14 AM
By the way, NZ is currently seeing the Rudd thing with colours reversed.

In the latest Morgan poll, National and its allies had 59% support in NZ and Labor and its allies 41%. National itself has 55% and Labor itself only 30.5%. Two-thirds of New Zealanders think their country is heading in the right direction.
They entered recession a while back under Helen Clark's nanny statism, but now have a leader who's resisting the impulse to spend big and grow the state.

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2009, 12:24 AM
Bring Back the Thatcher Revolution
Small governments and free markets remain sound economic policies. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124173036742997785.html)
By TOM SWITZER From today's Wall Street Journal Asia.

Thirty years ago this week, Margaret Thatcher led her Conservative Party to victory and set the scene for a wave of privatization and deregulation across the Anglosphere. From the Keynesian mindset that delivered economic stagflation and turmoil in the 1970s, the U.K. as well as the U.S. and the Antipodes moved to an era of sounder policy and more durable prosperity. Today, as the cause for small government and free markets appears quixotic, it is easy to forget how depressing things looked three decades ago and how the economic reforms unleashed by the Thatcher Revolution led to a golden age.

In 1979, inflation, unemployment and recession were endemic. The Soviets had invaded Afghanistan, Islamist fundamentalists had overthrown the Shah in Iran, oil prices had more than doubled, and the West appeared in retreat almost everywhere. Britain was regarded as the sick man of Europe (think Arthur Scargill's union militancy), the U.S. was suffering a crisis of confidence (think Jimmy Carter's "national malaise" sermon), and Australia and New Zealand were overregulated and overprotected nations, weighed down by chronic inflation (think banana republic). [Died-in-the-wool old lefties like Dennis Jessop are nostalgic for those days :P]

But things started to change — even before the Iron Lady's historic election. In 1976, she met a former California governor for what was scheduled as a routine 20-minute session between two right-of-center politicians from opposite sides of the Atlantic. The conversation between Lady Thatcher and Reagan instead lasted more than two hours and, as the Gipper later put it, they immediately identified each other as "soul mates" in promoting the cause of small government and economic freedom.

Although John Howard, Australia's conservative treasurer from 1977 to 1983 and later prime minister from 1996 to 2007, never met Reagan, he has confided with Mrs. Thatcher on numerous occasions since 1976. A leading proponent of free market reforms down under, Mr. Howard played a key role in transforming Australia from a heavily protected closed shop three decades ago into the envy of the industrialized world that could very well be immune to the global recession (as yesterday's new low jobless rate of 5% shows). Through a combination of circumstance, conviction and competence, these three patron saints of the conservative cause put into practice the classical liberal ideals of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Keith Joseph that defined an epoch.

Whereas in the 1970s excessive government regulation and bloated bureaucracies created a crisis of stagflation, the next 30 years witnessed, save a few quarters of negative growth in the early 1990s, uninterrupted economic expansion …

Kevin Bonham
09-05-2009, 03:25 AM
A leading proponent of free market reforms down under, Mr. Howard played a key role in transforming Australia from a heavily protected closed shop three decades ago into the envy of the industrialized world that could very well be immune to the global recession (as yesterday's new low jobless rate of 5% shows).

*cough cough cough cough cough*

In another post you correctly quoted concerns about the unemployment rate's accuracy and here you are quoting an article that uses it as evidence (not very well either - "new low"? Only relative to the last one.)

Howard may have been a leading proponent of free market reforms in, oh, 1978. Towards the end his was just another bloated corporatist big-tax big-spend government that employed free-market ideology in a piecemeal fashion.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2009, 10:00 AM
Now Layba wants to get rid of the certainty of contracts (http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/nightmare_for_business/). Way to go: kill internal and international investment in Australia, if parties can't be sure that a "maverick" judge will declare a contract "unfair":


The new national unfair contract terms legislation will, at a stroke of the legislative pen, render the vast majority of Australian contracts uncertain… Overnight no business or consumer will know whether the contracts they have entered, or seek to enter, will be enforceable. Any term — apart from the price and main subject matter of the contract - in a standard contract may be declared void by a judge who thinks it unfair.

The certainty of contract so fundamental to Western commerce — and prosperity — will no longer apply in Australia. We will substitute rule by judges for the rule of law, at least in contracts. No standard contract, though freely entered into by willing parties, is final. If one party decides the contract no longer suits him, he can take it to a court and roll the dice to see if a judge will back him out of that contract…

(A)pplying the new laws to all standard-form contracts between businesses is radical lunacy of a kind that even Gough would worry about.

We've seen the same in Obamaland lately: Congress explicitly agrees to pay AIG bonuses, then slaps on an anti-consitutional ex post facto bill of attainder (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/03/crs-biggest-constitutional-.html) to take 90% of it back. Then Commissar Obamov bullies hedge fund managers because they assert their legal rights over money owed to them. Hedge fund manager Cliff Asness defended his industry from the Obamessiah's "backwards and libelous" charges (http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/05/cliff-asness-i-am-ready-for-my.html):


Managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients' money as best they can, not to support the president, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their political views.

The president's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes.

Just like in the Depression, businessmen and investors become reluctant to invest when the Government can change the rules mid-stream.

Capablanca-Fan
23-05-2009, 03:04 PM
*cough cough cough cough cough*
I can recommend dextromethorphan as a strong antitussive ;)


Howard may have been a leading proponent of free market reforms in, oh, 1978. Towards the end his was just another bloated corporatist big-tax big-spend government that employed free-market ideology in a piecemeal fashion.
But then so much for KRudd's verbose tirade blaming said free-market ideology for all our problems.

Kevin Bonham
23-05-2009, 05:08 PM
But then so much for KRudd's verbose tirade blaming said free-market ideology for all our problems.

Indeed, but I have already said so. Rudd is wrong about Howard's true nature and Switzer is wrong about it too.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2009, 12:14 AM
In another post you correctly quoted concerns about the unemployment rate's accuracy and here you are quoting an article that uses it as evidence (not very well either - "new low"? Only relative to the last one.)

Is your job safer now Workchoices is gone? (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/is_your_job_safer_now_workchoices_is_gone/)
Andrew Bolt, 24 May 09

.... [Links to the Australian Bureau of Statistics]


About 546,400 Australians were out of work (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/41703847D79B26F4CA25716A00751846?opendocument) when Workchoices was brought in in March 2006.

Under Howard and his new Workchoices laws, many more Australians were hired, not fired - and the number out of work fell by more than 157,000 (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/3A445B7358A9D45ACA25753E0018E140?opendocument).

But since Rudd took over, many more Australians have been fired, not hired - and the number of those sacked or otherwise left without work rose by more than 142,000 (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0).

Yes, the financial crisis is responsible for the vast majority of those lost jobs. But the moral is that your job is safest not when bosses are controlled, but when bosses make money. And reregulating the workplace, of course, makes it harder for bosses to stay profitable - and thus to hire.


Indeed, but I have already said so.
This is true.

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2009, 01:16 PM
Don't wreck super: Keating (http://www.theage.com.au/national/dont-wreck-super-keating-20090525-bkt6.html)
Michelle Grattan
The Age, 26 May 2009

PAUL Keating and Bill Kelty, joint architects of Australia’s compulsory superannuation system, have strongly warned against any move to raise to 67 the age at which people can take their benefits…

The minimum age at which people can draw on their super now is between 55 and 60, depending on their year of birth. The Henry tax inquiry has recommended gradually aligning the access age with the Government’s proposed new pension eligibility age, which will be 67 by 2023…

Mr Keating said longevity in developed countries had risen markedly so it followed that the age of retirement would also rise. It was not unreasonable for the access age to the public pension to also rise.

“But privately paid-for superannuation is altogether a different thing… Were superannuation to be seen simply as some kind of substitute for the public pension, then the essence of it, the salary sacrifice in it, would be pointless,” he said. “This is why the superannuation access age is already lower than the pension age of 65… It should stay as it is. It provides people with flexibility...”

Garvinator
27-06-2009, 09:20 AM
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/article.aspx?id=346344

Labor Fed Gov dumps Grocerychoice website.

Spiny Norman
27-06-2009, 09:28 AM
Choice says the decision to pull the website suggests supermarkets were worried they'd lose their market power.
The Snail King says the decision to pull the website suggests consumers were avoiding it in droves and it was a complete and utter waste of time and public resources in the first place.

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2009, 09:37 AM
The Snail King says the decision to pull the website suggests consumers were avoiding it in droves and it was a complete and utter waste of time and public resources in the first place.
Yes, far more likely. It was just as much an expensive farce as FoolWatch.

Basil
27-06-2009, 10:03 AM
The Snail King says the decision to pull the website suggests consumers were avoiding it in droves and it was a complete and utter waste of time and public resources in the first place.

Launched by Krudd (glory to the Krudd)
Paid for by us (four mill)
Killed (quietly) by one of da Henchmen

Mr Teflon rolls on. Makes me wanna puke.

Lefties are all talk. All hype. All promise. All hope. All indignant.
Entirely clueless. Wasteful. Dangerous. Damaging.

Always have been. Always will be. No idea what a cash register is or how to work it.
No idea about the real worth of money or where it actually comes from.

Puke city.

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2009, 01:36 PM
The Snail King says the decision to pull the website suggests consumers were avoiding it in droves and it was a complete and utter waste of time and public resources in the first place.

KB agrees and notes that the website was probably deliberately axed at a politically expedient time while no-one was paying much attention to the issue.

Meanwhile this is interesting in the link Garvin posted:


The decision came after Senator Nick Xenophon and Nationals Senate Leader Barnaby Joyce introduced a private member's bill to end geographic price discrimination.

That bill would forces supermarket chains to charge the same price for their goods in shops within a 35-kilometre radius preventing unrealistic price drops targeted at competitors in one locality.

I trust the free-marketeers on here are suitably aghast at this nonsense.

Jim_Flood
27-06-2009, 03:51 PM
Choice says the decision to pull the website suggests supermarkets were worried they'd lose their market power.

The Snail King says the decision to pull the website suggests consumers were avoiding it in droves and it was a complete and utter waste of time and public resources in the first place.

Choice are peeved because the website was to be handed to them. Now they have lost a degree of relevance and possible influence together with the "feel good" importance that goes with it.

Anyway, GroceryWatch was, in my view, a silly idea. Could only really work if the website had live data and competing stores were within a few minutes walk of each other. Simply because, say, the price of potatoes may be $0.08 per kg cheaper at one store, doesn't mean a person would travel an extra 4 or 5 kilometers burning up fuel and time just to buy 6 spuds. Be different if you were going to buy 100kg.

As for the good Senator's you could almost (just) agree with their logic if each store were of exactly the same size and had the same property operating/lease costs. Sadly, it doesn't work that way.

Garvinator
27-06-2009, 04:20 PM
Anyway, GroceryWatch was, in my view, a silly idea. Could only really work if the website had live data and competing stores were within a few minutes walk of each other. Simply because, say, the price of potatoes may be $0.08 per kg cheaper at one store, doesn't mean a person would travel an extra 4 or 5 kilometers burning up fuel and time just to buy 6 spuds. Be different if you were going to buy 100kg.
And this is what most of us on here and a lot of other journos and experienced people in the field of supermarkets had been pointing out since GroceryChoice was first proposed. But no, Krudd was so determined to be seen!! to be doing something about grocery prices, that this is the best he could come up.

2 million dollars wasted on a website that was being pointed out as being fundamentally flawed from the initial concept :hand:

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2009, 04:37 PM
KB agrees and notes that the website was probably deliberately axed at a politically expedient time while no-one was paying much attention to the issue.
Let's hope they learned their lesson. But it's most unlikely, since as GG pointed out in the post just above, everything now known to be wrong, even to Blind Freddie's deaf guide dog, was easily foreseen too.


I trust the free-marketeers on here are suitably aghast at this nonsense.
I am, anyway. But I've long said that the Nats are basically agrarian socialists. I don't think Xenophon has much of a political philosophy except being against pokies.

Basil
30-06-2009, 10:47 PM
Case #1
Wollongong council corruption (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23256359-2,00.html)

Case #2
James Reyne says Garrett has "sold Melbourne out" over green dredging issue (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/05/1202090421845.html). Objection Upheld.

Case #3
Not sure if building a monument to self (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23303906-421,00.html) :rolleyes: counts. No doubt what the reaction would have been if another party did same while in government? :doh: [/rhetorical]

Case #4
The Carers' payment Ruddflip (http://au.news.yahoo.com/080307/2/162wx.html). The belt-tightening, not belt-tightening, helping the less well-off, not helping the less well-off bungled leadership while overseas thingo which just ended up being Howard government policy.

Case #5
Defence Backflip (http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/news/article.php?cat=intNews&categoryid=5&articleid=1038). Laba belted the Libs in the election campaign over this purchase and then, you'd never believe ... Laba adopted the Libs' policy. FFS - the people are morons of Latham proportions. I did warn you. Incompetent boobs. Big on talk. Suck the low-brows (and of course the newly-hatched) right in. You'll be murdered in your beds. Just wait until they start playing with the money :wall:

Case #6
Labor's tax cuts (http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23447218-462,00.html) This is Howard government policy. $100 HCDs to the first person to find a quote where Labor made pre-election mileage out of belittling this policy. $50 HCDs to anyone who find a Lefty on this board saying it wasn't the answer.

Case #7
The Botched National Savings Scheme.
The savings plan
a) is too complicated
b) can favour rich savers
c) doesn't work
pork barreling (http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080207-Political-considerations-take-the-edge-off-Rudds-savings-plan.html)
useless (http://www.crikey.com.au/Election-2007/20071105-Rudds-first-home-owner-saver-account.html)
unfair (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/17/1208025380919.html)

Case #8
Asylum Seekers. We'll save ya! *cough*
The great lie that Labor perpetrates about having a bigger heart - example #396 (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23659947-953,00.html)

Case #9
The miserable alcopops stunt. (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/04/27/1209234617917.html) Addressing binge drinking my foot. More spin. More dribble. More hype. Christ, they painted themselves yet again as the new fresh think when in reality, they were addressing a minor tax inequity. :rolleyes:

History's in. Rudd and his team of starry-eyed juniors cocked it up. Two more terms ... two more terms ... :wall:

Case #10
"I'm a millionaire and pensioners can't live on the present allowance (http://news.theage.com.au/national/pm-rules-out-pension-boost-this-year-20080909-4ch6.html) ugly charade.

Rudd is about to get a hammering on the
a) The "we're the party that saves the battlas" perpetuated propaganda front, and
b) We're urgently looking into it - we'll let you know around February 2009 (while the information's been sitting on his desk for months - AND was rejected for the last budget)

Case #11
Grocery Watch (http://www.theage.com.au/national/government-scraps-grocery-pricewatch-scheme-20090626-czxa.html)
• A debacle
• Another (Rudd incepted but don't expect anyone to blame him) Labor party failure
• More votes sold for scrap by Mr *puking* Teflon
• Lord knows how many taxpaya dollars flushed that would have otherwise found the the arts, the disabled, the military, education, health

Rudd makes me wanna puke!

Desmond
30-06-2009, 11:06 PM
What ever happened to that whole alchopops thing anyway? I thought I heard that it was being rolled back a while ago, but the bottle-o near me still has the drinks at the high prices.

Garvinator
30-06-2009, 11:10 PM
This is what happened.

What ever happened to that whole alchopops thing anyway? I thought I heard that it was being rolled back a while ago, but the bottle-o near me still has the drinks at the high prices.


Libs to support alcopop tax increase http://www.smh.com.au/national/libs-to-support-alcopop-tax-increase-20090622-cu10.html
Mark Metherell
June 23, 2009

FEARFUL of providing a trigger for an early election, the Coalition has ditched its opposition to the 70 per cent increase in tax on alcopops.

The Opposition health spokesman, Peter Dutton, yesterday blamed the "dire budgetary context" for the Coalition's decision to abandon its resistance to the tax - a position it had held for the past year of economic decline.

Mr Dutton, who previously has criticised the impost as a "tax grab", yesterday lost out at shadow cabinet on the issue.

The Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, has in recent weeks adopted a softer stance on the issue because of a reluctance to vote against the tax a second time, giving the Government a trigger for an early, double-dissolution election.

The Government imposed the tax last year as a measure to combat high consumption of the sugary spirit beverages by young drinkers.

The tax increase raised $340 million in its first year and the Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, said it had reduced alcohol intake by 720,000 standard drinks a week.

Medical and community health groups have supported the tax increase as a means of countering unhealthy alcohol abuse.

Yesterday Mr Dutton said Australia now faced unprecedented levels of debt.

"Kevin Rudd made this mess with the nation's finances, and the Coalition will act responsibly and not make an already bad situation worse," he said.

Ms Roxon said Mr Dutton had performed a "triple pike" in his backflip on the issue, which he chose to announce at the same time as Mr Turnbull was defending himself against a censure motion in the Parliament.

The announcement also came just before a group of 30 employers of the Independent Distillers company arrived from Melbourne to make their appeal to parliamentarians to drop the tax and protect their jobs.

A spokesman for the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia, Stephen Riden, said that in difficult economic times "it is appalling that hundreds of thousands of Australians who responsibly enjoy the convenience of a rum and coke or gin and tonic in a can will continue to be slugged by a massive tax increase that has completely failed to address binge-drinking and underage drinking in our communities".

Basil
30-06-2009, 11:12 PM
What ever happened to that whole alchopops thing anyway? I thought I heard that it was being rolled back a while ago, but the bottle-o near me still has the drinks at the high prices.
Bad Laba policy, universally ridiculed gets through (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25670353-421,00.html). Unbelievable.

Desmond
30-06-2009, 11:17 PM
OK thanks. Guess I'll just keep buying something cheaper then.

Basil
30-06-2009, 11:22 PM
OK thanks. Guess I'll just keep buying something cheaper then.
:lol: :wall:

Spiny Norman
01-07-2009, 05:56 AM
I trust the free-marketeers on here are suitably aghast at this nonsense.
Can't speak for the others, but I am. Its a ridiculous proposition. It will make prices higher overall for those who can least afford it.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-07-2009, 09:44 AM
I trust the free-marketeers on here are suitably aghast at this nonsense.

Yes, if there are any in the parliament/senate.

Garvinator
01-07-2009, 09:24 PM
Competition is dying and the government has blood on its hands
30/06/2009 1:34:00 PM, Stuart Fagg Next

By Stuart Fagg, ninemsn


In 2007, the then opposition Labor party sought to paint itself as the consumer’s white knight – the public’s hero riding to the aid of downtrodden supermarket shoppers and browbeaten motorists countrywide.

Its targets were the twin issues of petrol prices and groceries, two markets dominated and influenced heavily by the big two supermarkets, Coles and Woolworths.

The wannabe government promised to help make the cost of everyday goods lower and keep the big supermarkets honest. “When families fill up their baskets and trolleys at the local supermarket, they should not have to worry if they are getting a raw deal by inflated grocery prices,” then opposition leader Kevin Rudd said.

However, since then Rudd and co have earned a big fat fail on saving consumers from getting a "raw deal", a situation that is being exacerbated by the Federal Government’s apparent inability to stand up to the big end of town

Australia punches above its weight in many areas, but sadly it is currently excelling at having some of the least competitive markets in the world for groceries, petrol and home loans. They’re hardly discretionary items – essentially we’re talking about food, mobility and shelter.

The latest confirmation of this was last week’s announcement that the much-vaunted Grocery Choice price comparison website had been canned.

Grocery Choice was promised in the run up to the 2007 Federal Election as a way of allowing consumers to compare supermarket prices and get the best deal on their groceries. How would this increase competition? By allowing consumers to make informed decisions about the best value place to buy their groceries.

The website was due to be launched this week but after a meeting with the large supermarkets last Friday morning, the Minister for Consumer Affairs Craig Emerson issued a short statement announcing that Grocery Choice would not go ahead. The statement was quietly issued as the world, and much of the Australian media, was occupied with the death of Michael Jackson.

Coles and Woolworths control close to 80 percent of the grocery market in Australia, according to a 2007 study, so any move designed to increase choice for supermarket customers is essentially pointless without their involvement.

Various excuses for the project's collapse have been wheeled out since. The technology required to compare the thousands of goods doesn’t exist, the proposed system would lead to inaccurate pricing, the information would be out of date, and so on. The fact remains though that the smaller supermarket players Aldi and Foodworks had committed to trying to make the scheme work.

It’s not too hard to read between the lines here and the head of Choice, the consumer watchdog that the government had engaged to build the price comparison site, certainly didn’t mince his words on the weekend.

“This was the site the big supermarkets didn't want you to see,” Choice CEO Nick Stace was quoted as saying. “I cannot believe that the first act by the new consumer affairs minister is to side with the big supermarkets.”

Dr Emerson’s suggestion that supermarkets could provide their own price comparison website was met with well-placed concern by Choice, which likened the idea to “putting dracula in charge of the bloodbank”.

You may also remember another 2007 election promise that was designed to help consumers make informed choices in a market rife with concerns over pricing: Fuelwatch. What happened to that? It was also canned.

If this were a football match the scoreboard would read like this. Big end of town 2 (Rudd, Swan own goals) – Consumer 0.

Which brings me to the home loan market. The big four banks now control 72 percent of the mortgage market in Australia, according to stats from finance industry analyst Brandmanagement. That has increased by some 15 percent since the financial crisis began last year. What does that mean? It means competition in the home loan market is not exactly intense. In the words of the head of the ACCC this “is not good for consumers”.

Earlier this month Commonwealth Bank raised the ire of customers and politicians by raising interest rates on its variable rate mortgages. While CBA and others had neglected to pass on some Reserve Bank rate cuts prior to this, this was the first time a bank had actually raised rates.

Kevin Rudd angrily accused the bank of undermining Australia’s economic recovery, while Treasurer Wayne Swan called the bank “selfish”. And then what happened? Nothing.

It's also fair to say the government's guarantee on offshore bank borrowing has also stymied increased the power of the big banks.

No one is pretending that bringing competition to these markets is easy, but that’s no reason not to try.

In the current economic downturn there should be more competition, not less. But this government’s repeated own goals are making that less and less likely.

Basil
01-07-2009, 10:25 PM
^^^

I don't know how many times I can say it (but I won't die wondering ;)); the Labor Party is a commercial-clue free zone.

Never had a clue.
Never will have a clue.
Vigourously voted in by people who have no idea that they have no idea and no idea that the elected have no clue!

Carry on!

antichrist
01-07-2009, 10:32 PM
^^^

I don't know how many times I can say it (but I won't die wondering ;)); the Labor Party is a commercial-clue free zone.

Never had a clue.
Never will have a clue.
Vigourously voted in by people who have no idea that they have no idea and no idea that the elected have no clue!

Carry on!

But if they pull (or appear to) Australia out of recession they will be heroes. It seems to be happening. But they die if fail. But the way the Opposition are committing hari kari who knows.

that para re no idea sounds a bit like some chess games I have been involved in.

Basil
01-07-2009, 10:43 PM
But if they pull (or appear to) Australia out of recession they will be heroes. It seems to be happening. But they die if fail. But the way the Opposition are committing hari kari who knows.

that para re no idea sounds a bit like some chess games I have been involved in.
Laba pulling Australia out of recession. Don't make me laugh. I've bolded the "appear to".

Australia was very well placed before the GFC. Australia was astonishingly well placed before the GFC.
Australia was always going to be far less affected than US and Euro centric economies.
Notwithstanding both of these things, that doesn't stop Krudd and Ko. making numerous references to Australia's position compared to these countries now.
The hand-outs may have assisted retail revenues (for the month(s) that they were handed out) - but they have more likely delayed any eventuality rather than addressed it in any meaningful way.
The extraordinary and unnecessary debt will be a mill-stone for a decade.

Smoke an' fricking mirrors. Developed by clod-hopping no-hopers, rejoiced in by myopic wallies. Did some one say summit? Did someone say boat-people? Did someone say fuel-watch? Did someone say Zimbabwe? Did someone say alcopops? Did someone say ... ah forget it. Wake me up when everyone's woken up ;)

Carry on!

antichrist
01-07-2009, 10:50 PM
But Howard, the psychology is the important part. If the Aussies keep spending (locally) coz Rudd jump-stratered them into it and keeping mates in jobs well good on us.

I know chippies are begging at builders doors for jobs - we just cant let the economy spiral downwards like did in depression when nothing was done. At least they are trying. WE can go on a diet later to pay it off. I would have preferred a much more tailored approach, pumping money into green energy etc than ruddy polluting cars. The workers pay most tax anyway and it was them who got the tax rebate, they will just pay more tax later to pay off the govt's debt.

Basil
01-07-2009, 11:02 PM
But Howard, the psychology is the important part.
I disagree with many on this; viz the line that 'we're talking ourselves into recession'. We're not. Equally, if we were starting from a neutral position, I don't think we could talk ourselves into record activity/ profits.

I reject the 'psychology' angle as presented as a core obstacle to overcoming the GFC and its fallout. That's radio and water-cooler babble. Surely there is a part for psychology to play - consumer and business sentiment is always interesting - but not to the degree that is stated by
a) Rudd
b) You
c) Commentators
d) Many of my colleagues


If the Aussies keep spending (locally)
Keep spending what? We have received two handouts. They've come and gone. Much was saved. Much was thrown on debt. We bought a stack of white goods. The downward cycle is upon us (yes downward cycles must exist else there wouldn't be upward cycles). Employment will ease. Real profits will ease. Then bung in
a) forked-up credit market stateside, and
b) consumers and business over-cooked on debt

and lo and behold the answer IS NOT think positive chaps, cross yer legs and think of England. Much better to accept the lot, understand it and brace for it then manage it through the mid term with other strategies (as discussed copiously). More stiff upper lip and less trying to cheat the system is in order.


At least they are trying.
Go and talk to Mike Baron and see what he thinks of chess players 'at least trying' when they are trying with useless measures. Not worth a damn.

Wake me up when everyone has woken up.

Thanks and carry on!

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2009, 01:13 AM
Smoke an' fricking mirrors. Developed by clod-hopping no-hopers, rejoiced in by myopic wallies. Did some one say summit? Did someone say boat-people? Did someone say fuel-watch? Did someone say Zimbabwe? Did someone say ... ah forget it. Wake me up when everyone's woken up ;)
Your new avatar is right! Federal Laba is a mass of failed policies and debt. If it were not for the sound economic management of Hoard/Costello, we'd be in even worse crap.

QLD Laba is even worse—despite the boom, they still mananged to stuff up water, power, hospitals and our credit rating.

None of these Layba leaders could run even a sausage sizzle.

antichrist
02-07-2009, 07:20 AM
Your new avatar is right! Federal Laba is a mass of failed policies and debt. If it were not for the sound economic management of Hoard/Costello, we'd be in even worse crap.

QLD Laba is even worse—despite the boom, they still mananged to stuff up water, power, hospitals and our credit rating.

None of these Layba leaders could run even a sausage sizzle.

I still prefer them then a bunch of Christians running the joint. They would never have us out of church on our knees.

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2009, 01:37 PM
Rudd is a "Christian", AC.

Jim_Flood
02-07-2009, 02:01 PM
The downward cycle is upon us

Probably so.

SFY (an Exchange Traded Fund which tracks the top 50 shares in the ASX) has reported that the expected distribution for the half ending 30/6/2009 will be $0.64. Previous corresponding period was $1.84. STW (ASX 200 ETF) distribution expected to be $0.75, pcp $2.58. And ETFs and managed funds are a 'flow through' trust structure and must pass all dividends and capital gains for the year. Unlike companies they cannot retain reserves.

And we have yet to come to the August company reporting period.

Credit has eased ever so slightly. 2 June 12mth Bank Bill Swap Rate is now 3.47% down from 3.49% on 22 June. However on 20 March it was 2.82%.

Could be an idea to put your tin hats on.

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2009, 04:35 PM
Rudd is a "Christian", AC.
But AC rightly sees through that, unlike the soi-disant Australian Christian Lobby.

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2009, 04:39 PM
Not sure if AC sees through it or was just looking for an opportunity to threadjack his trolling about religion onto this thread again.

TheJoker
03-07-2009, 01:07 PM
I reject the 'psychology' angle as presented as a core obstacle to overcoming the GFC and its fallout. That's radio and water-cooler babble. Surely there is a part for psychology to play - consumer and business sentiment is always interesting - but not to the degree that is stated by
a) Rudd
b) You
c) Commentators
d) Many of my colleagues


I wouldn't be so sure of that. In my opinion over exuburance got us into this mess in the first place and overly negative sentiment has the ability to cause equally bad outcomes. We have a tendency to overreact and therefore amplfy short-term outcomes. That said it's not possible the think away the underlying problems of the financial system and the US economy.


We have received two handouts. They've come and gone. Much was saved. Much was thrown on debt. We bought a stack of white goods.

The savings will create reduced pressure of the cost of finance since banks will have access to greater funding pool.

The money thrown at debt, will do the same and additionally will deliver long-term cost savings in terms of reduced interest payments. These cost savings will be spent elsewhere in the economy

Whilst the increase in retail sales has very little long-term impact, it certainly kept alot of people in work during a period of extremely low business sentiment where otherwise reduction of working hours or lay-offs was highly likley.

So all the things you point out are actually beneficial to the economy. Whether the benefits justify the cost is another matter all together.



The downward cycle is upon us (yes downward cycles must exist else there wouldn't be upward cycles). Employment will ease. Real profits will ease. Then bung in
a) forked-up credit market stateside, and
b) consumers and business over-cooked on debt

and lo and behold the answer IS NOT think positive chaps, cross yer legs and think of England. Much better to accept the lot, understand it and brace for it then manage it through the mid term with other strategies (as discussed copiously). More stiff upper lip and less trying to cheat the system is in order.

This is a good point, and its what a lot of businesses are doing just this by reparing balance sheets, getting rid of some of the less productive staff that cannot be maintained in times of lower activity. Trying to increase efficiency. Also many are opting to use this "down-time" to increase the skill level of their staff so that they are better positioned to make a full recovery / capture additional market share when the market returns to trend.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-07-2009, 02:08 PM
So all the things you point out are actually beneficial to the economy. Whether the benefits justify the cost is another matter all together.


Interesting justification. Let's throw around 40 billions dollars. They might benefit an economy to the tune of 2 billions dollars. It is a definite benefit.
Whether it justifies the cost is another matter all together.

TheJoker
03-07-2009, 02:30 PM
Interesting justification. Let's throw around 40 billions dollars. They might benefit an economy to the tune of 2 billions dollars. It is a definite benefit.

Talk about misrepresent my comments:rolleyes: I simply pointed out that what Gunner mentioned where likley to be economically beneficial. I specifically pointed that this does not necessarly justify the cost of the stimulus package.

Where did you get the 2 billion dollar value from? As I have mentioned numerous times if you have serious cost-benefit analysis of the stimulus pacakge please present it. Otherwise its just as pointless for you pluck numbers out of thin air as it is for Rudd / Swan to do the same.

Personally I have very little idea as to the actual value of the economic benefits provided by the stimulus package (if any). The cost (or at least part of it) is well known. But until there is some serious analysis of the benefits realised, passing judgement only shows a penchant for the ideological bias rather than the objective analysis.

antichrist
07-07-2009, 07:25 PM
Rudd is a "Christian", AC.

that is the Ruddy trouble too, but he is not acting too much like a Christian because he could not get away with it. But it may have helped give him a social justice conscious.

Because of his lack of background, as far as I am concerned, I have never had much hope for him.

Basil
07-07-2009, 07:38 PM
It is patently obvious to all but the one-eyed and the serially non-commercial that Kevin Rudd & Ko have all but zero idea commercially - (that is the well established profile of the lefty drone). But stick the man on a plane (actually he puts himself on a plane) and I do wonder whether people think that he suddenly develops a clue when he touches down. I'm sure they do. It's called referent power. And it's great for hood-winking people.

Just to clarify... he doesn't develop a clue when touches down on foreign soil. He is the very same plank who brought you alcopops, grocery watch, fuel watch, and a raft of other flops.

Garvinator
07-07-2009, 07:53 PM
Just to clarify... he doesn't develop a clue when touches down on foreign soil. He is the very same plank that bought you alcopops, grocery watch, fuel watch, and a raft of other flops.
And they are only getting him in very short bursts including his spin on events :whistle:

TheJoker
08-07-2009, 12:07 AM
It is patently obvious to all but the one-eyed and the serially non-commercial that Kevin Rudd & Ko have all but zero idea commercially - (that is the well established profile of the lefty drone). But stick the man on a plane (actually he puts himself on a plane) and I do wonder whether people think that he suddenly develops a clue when he touches down. I'm sure they do. It's called referent power. And it's great for hood-winking people.

Just to clarify... he doesn't develop a clue when touches down on foreign soil. He is the very same plank who bought you alcopops, grocery watch, fuel watch, and a raft of other flops.

Being able to develop referent power, that is power based on being liked or respected (akin to brand power) and being able to sell your products (policies) to the public as being more valuable than they actually are (perceived quality > actual quality), as well as the obvious targeting of certain sympathetic segments of the population and creating products (policies) that will resonate with them, show a strong understanding of at least commercial marketing principles.

You might even say that certain commericial strategies have become too prevalent in politics which leads to demogogic policies and practices.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-07-2009, 09:46 AM
I simply pointed out that what Gunner mentioned where likley to be economically beneficial.
And I showed that it makes no sense at all to discuss economical benefit without addressing the cost.


Where did you get the 2 billion dollar value from?
2 and 40 billions were just an example, a made up numbers. I don't know whether they resemble the real life or not. If they do, it's not my fault.:D

TheJoker
08-07-2009, 07:07 PM
And I showed that it makes no sense at all to discuss economical benefit without addressing the cost.

A point my original post already made.

"Whether the benefits justify the cost is another matter all together"

You don't seem to be so concerned about discussing the economic costs without addressing the benefits:D


2 and 40 billions were just an example, a made up numbers. I don't know whether they resemble the real life or not. If they do, it's not my fault.:D

I thought as much. Seems we are on the same page no real judgement can be made on the stimulus package without a proper cost-benefit analysis. Such analysis probably that wont be available until sometime in the future.

Any judgement of the stimulus package without such an analysis is likely to be a reflection of political / ideological bias.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-07-2009, 08:47 PM
I thought as much. Seems we are on the same page no real judgement can be made on the stimulus package without a proper cost-benefit analysis. Such analysis probably that wont be available until sometime in the future.


Personally I have little doubts that the benefit of the stimulus is way below the cost. With the price tag of 40something billions I don't care much whether the benefit 2 or 3 (or maybe even 3.1) billions.

The onus is on the government to provide detailed cost/benefit analysis and show that benefit is higher then the cost.

Basil
08-07-2009, 09:05 PM
Personally I have little doubts that the benefit of the stimulus is way below the cost.
Of course. Anyone with a remote vibe knows that. Equally anyone without a remote vibe will want to analyse meaningless statistics, write books and papers and generally muse rubbish that won't be provable anyway.

These people make me wanna puke (and pay the debt).

TheJoker
08-07-2009, 09:35 PM
Personally I have little doubts that the benefit of the stimulus is way below the cost.

Thanks for making my point about reflections of ideological bias.


With the price tag of 40something billions I don't care much whether the benefit 2 or 3 (or maybe even 3.1) billions..

More figures pulled from where the sun don't shine.


The onus is on the government to provide detailed cost/benefit analysis and show that benefit is higher then the cost.

On this point I totally agree. I think it is terrrible that they could commit to such a level of spending without providing an extremely detailed cost-benefit analysis and a description of the various assumptions used to forecast benefits.

TheJoker
08-07-2009, 10:09 PM
Of course. Anyone with a remote vibe knows that..

Said with the same air of superiority and blind faith the the infalliblity of your own ideas as Rudd.

I might add that numerous business leader have actually supported the stimulus package or certain elements of it.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (http://www.acci.asn.au/text_files/speeches_transcripts/2009_Transcripts/GEvans_ABCRadioNews_StimulusPackage_3Feb09.pdf)

Of course they all obviously without a remote vibe:rolleyes:


Equally anyone without a remote vibe will want to analyse... These people make me wanna puke...

Yes those stupid idiots that want to analyse the situation:rolleyes:

The irony is you chastise:
Lefties for blindly following their ideals
and Analysts/experts for wanting to use a rational approach

I suspect it is probably because you don't have the ability to actually back up your arguments with a shred of evidence.

Personally I am extermely skeptical of whether the stimulus package is good or bad policy decision. Just I am not so presumptous to think that I somehow know more than the experts.

Basil
08-07-2009, 10:30 PM
I'll pass thanks, as I've been passing on your commentary for some time now.

TheJoker
08-07-2009, 11:01 PM
I'll pass thanks, as I've been passing on your commentary for some time now.

Appreciate that

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2009, 03:02 AM
Said with the same air of superiority and blind faith the the infalliblity of your own ideas as Rudd.
In Gunner's case, it's based on evidence, while Rudd's historical revisionism is a joke. Economic historian Burt Folsom points out:


The Track Record of Stimulus Packages (http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=346)
07 Jul 2009

“Calls for More Stimulus Grow” is the headline blaring across the WALL STREET JOURNAL (July 6, 2009). Why? Because, as Vice-President Biden insists, the current administration “misread how bad the economy was” and didn’t anticipate unemployment moving toward double-digits. The assumption, of course, is that government spending is automatically good for the economy, and if the current spending is producing higher unemployment, the solution is a larger influx of federal cash into the economy. Of course, one logical argument against this is that all federal spending comes from private funds, and that increased government spending means less cash for consumers. If consumers have less cash, then they can’t spend as much to create new jobs, or even to sustain those jobs that already exist.
When we reach a logical impasse–federal officials saying one thing and common sense saying the opposite–it’s good to turn to history to help us. What has been the economic impact of past stimulus packages? In 1921, we had mushrooming unemployment (almost 12 percent), but Presidents Harding and Coolidge nixed plans for a stimulus. They tried tax rate cuts and federal spending cuts instead. What was the result? Unemployment plummeted to 3.3 percent under Coolidge, and we had budget surpluses every year of the 1920s. The U. S. became a magnet for investment around the world.
After that experience, we gave stimulus packages a chance. During the Great Depression, we tried a stimulus under President Hoover for the farm industry and for banks and railroads (through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation). Unemployment, however, soared to 25 percent. Under President Roosevelt, federal spending intensified–the AAA, the WPA, and the TVA were among the big receivers of federal cash. Yet unemployment was still 21 percent in April, 1939. Forty years later, President Carter tried a stimulus package and unemployment rose to 8 percent and inflation to 14 percent (the Fed had also inflated the currency during the Carter years). In 2008, President Bush tried a $150 billion stimulus package and unemployment increased. The next year President Obama declared a stimulus package emergency and Congress awarded him a $787 billion in stimulus spending. He started with 8 percent unemployment, and that figure is now 9.5 percent.
Of course, correlation does not prove causation, but these historical experiences are suggestive. We should not automatically assume that stimulus spending will actually spur economic growth and reduce unemployment. History seems to teach a different lesson.


I might add that numerous business leader have actually supported the stimulus package or certain elements of it.
So what? Big business has long been in bed with big government (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzE5MjUxODhkOTQ2MGYyOTdjMDA2MDU0ZmRhOTIwZTI=).

Basil
09-07-2009, 09:32 AM
In Gunner's case, it's based on evidence, ...
And The Joker's inferences and conclusions have more holes than swiss cheese. The Chamber of Commerce piece is an inconclusive one that notes some stimulus (and let's not talk about how temporary it may be - or how permanent the debt) and and a better position for Australia than elsewhere on the planet. Well hot diggetty. That proves nothing for reasons previously stated.

I have formed the considered opinion over time that a discussion with The Joker is more often than not a technical waste of time ;)

TheJoker
09-07-2009, 06:03 PM
And The Joker's inferences and conclusions have more holes than swiss cheese. The Chamber of Commerce piece is an inconclusive one that notes some stimulus (and let's not talk about how temporary it may be - or how permanent the debt) and and a better position for Australia than elsewhere on the planet. Well hot diggetty. That proves nothing for reasons previously stated.

That's what I've been saying all along there is no conclusive arguement that the stimulus package is good or bad policy. In fact its probably not even that simple. Some elements probably are good (from cost-benefit point of veiw) others are probably rubbish and/or some form of pork barrelling.

Its the position adopted by some that "the stimulus package is a complete waste of time and anyone who say other wise is a complete idiot" that I object to. Especially when it is said with out any expert opinion/stats to support the arguement.

I am all for hearing arguements against the stimulus backed up by something like that provided by Jono.

Capablanca-Fan
26-07-2009, 03:59 AM
That's what I've been saying all along there is no conclusive arguement that the stimulus package is good or bad policy.
Surely even in that case, we should give the benefit of the doubt to avoiding massive debt. One should go into debt only if there is very strong evidence that a good return on the investment is likely.

Capablanca-Fan
26-07-2009, 04:02 AM
Sinclair Davidson refutes KRudd's latest revisionist essay with facts and graphs (http://www.catallaxyfiles.com/blog/?p=5759).

Capablanca-Fan
21-04-2010, 01:59 PM
THE federal government has bowed to a revolt inside the Labor Party and rejected the push for a national charter of rights that would have handed new powers to the judiciary (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/a-g-pulls-plug-on-charter-of-rights/story-e6frg6n6-1225856143528)…

The government’s plan rejects two of the most contentious recommendations drawn up by the national human-rights consultation committee chaired by Jesuit lawyer Frank Brennan.

Today Attorney-General Robert McClelland will announce that the government will not introduce a national charter of rights.

Nor will it introduce rules for judges that would have required them to interpret legislation in a way they believe is in accordance with human rights. This would have gone beyond the current rule governing the way judges interpret statutes.

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2010, 07:42 PM
Pleased to hear it. Those things are more trouble than they are worth.

Basil
22-04-2010, 06:22 PM
Case #1
Wollongong council corruption (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23256359-2,00.html)

Case #2
James Reyne says Garrett has "sold Melbourne out" over green dredging issue (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/05/1202090421845.html). Objection Upheld.

Case #3
Not sure if building a monument to self (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23303906-421,00.html) :rolleyes: counts. No doubt what the reaction would have been if another party did same while in government? :doh: [/rhetorical]

Case #4
The Carers' payment Ruddflip (http://au.news.yahoo.com/080307/2/162wx.html). The belt-tightening, not belt-tightening, helping the less well-off, not helping the less well-off bungled leadership while overseas thingo which just ended up being Howard government policy.

Case #5
Defence Backflip (http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/news/article.php?cat=intNews&categoryid=5&articleid=1038). Laba belted the Libs in the election campaign over this purchase and then, you'd never believe ... Laba adopted the Libs' policy. FFS - the people are morons of Latham proportions. I did warn you. Incompetent boobs. Big on talk. Suck the low-brows (and of course the newly-hatched) right in. You'll be murdered in your beds. Just wait until they start playing with the money :wall:

Case #6
Labor's tax cuts (http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23447218-462,00.html) This is Howard government policy. $100 HCDs to the first person to find a quote where Labor made pre-election mileage out of belittling this policy. $50 HCDs to anyone who find a Lefty on this board saying it wasn't the answer.

Case #7
The Botched National Savings Scheme.
The savings plan
a) is too complicated
b) can favour rich savers
c) doesn't work
pork barreling (http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080207-Political-considerations-take-the-edge-off-Rudds-savings-plan.html)
useless (http://www.crikey.com.au/Election-2007/20071105-Rudds-first-home-owner-saver-account.html)
unfair (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/17/1208025380919.html)

Case #8
Asylum Seekers. We'll save ya! *cough*
The great lie that Labor perpetrates about having a bigger heart - example #396 (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23659947-953,00.html)

Case #9
The miserable alcopops stunt. (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/04/27/1209234617917.html) Addressing binge drinking my foot. More spin. More dribble. More hype. Christ, they painted themselves yet again as the new fresh think when in reality, they were addressing a minor tax inequity. :rolleyes:

History's in. Rudd and his team of starry-eyed juniors cocked it up. Two more terms ... two more terms ... :wall:

Case #10
"I'm a millionaire and pensioners can't live on the present allowance (http://news.theage.com.au/national/pm-rules-out-pension-boost-this-year-20080909-4ch6.html) ugly charade.

Rudd is about to get a hammering on the
a) The "we're the party that saves the battlas" perpetuated propaganda front, and
b) We're urgently looking into it - we'll let you know around February 2009 (while the information's been sitting on his desk for months - AND was rejected for the last budget)

Case #11
Grocery Watch (http://www.theage.com.au/national/government-scraps-grocery-pricewatch-scheme-20090626-czxa.html)
• A debacle
• Another (Rudd incepted but don't expect anyone to blame him) Labor party failure
• More votes sold for scrap by Mr *puking* Teflon
• Lord knows how many taxpaya dollars flushed that would have otherwise found the the arts, the disabled, the military, education, health.

Added Today
--------------------------------------------------------
Case #12
Childcare Centre Broken Promise (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/rudd-breaks-pledge-to-build-260-childcare-centres-on-school-grounds/story-e6frgczf-1225856997148)

Batts Scheme To Come

Hospitals To Come (Most Likely)

Basil
09-07-2010, 08:53 AM
]Case #1
Wollongong council corruption (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23256359-2,00.html)

Case #2
James Reyne says Garrett has "sold Melbourne out" over green dredging issue (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/05/1202090421845.html). Objection Upheld.

Case #3
Not sure if building a monument to self (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23303906-421,00.html) :rolleyes: counts. No doubt what the reaction would have been if another party did same while in government? :doh: [/rhetorical]

Case #4
The Carers' payment Ruddflip (http://au.news.yahoo.com/080307/2/162wx.html). The belt-tightening, not belt-tightening, helping the less well-off, not helping the less well-off bungled leadership while overseas thingo which just ended up being Howard government policy.

Case #5
Defence Backflip (http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/news/article.php?cat=intNews&categoryid=5&articleid=1038). Laba belted the Libs in the election campaign over this purchase and then, you'd never believe ... Laba adopted the Libs' policy. FFS - the people are morons of Latham proportions. I did warn you. Incompetent boobs. Big on talk. Suck the low-brows (and of course the newly-hatched) right in. You'll be murdered in your beds. Just wait until they start playing with the money :wall:

Case #6
Labor's tax cuts (http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23447218-462,00.html) This is Howard government policy. $100 HCDs to the first person to find a quote where Labor made pre-election mileage out of belittling this policy. $50 HCDs to anyone who find a Lefty on this board saying it wasn't the answer.

Case #7
The Botched National Savings Scheme.
The savings plan
a) is too complicated
b) can favour rich savers
c) doesn't work
pork barreling (http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080207-Political-considerations-take-the-edge-off-Rudds-savings-plan.html)
useless (http://www.crikey.com.au/Election-2007/20071105-Rudds-first-home-owner-saver-account.html)
unfair (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/17/1208025380919.html)

Case #8
Asylum Seekers. We'll save ya! *cough*
The great lie that Labor perpetrates about having a bigger heart - example #396 (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23659947-953,00.html)

Case #9
The miserable alcopops stunt. (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/04/27/1209234617917.html) Addressing binge drinking my foot. More spin. More dribble. More hype. Christ, they painted themselves yet again as the new fresh think when in reality, they were addressing a minor tax inequity. :rolleyes:

History's in. Rudd and his team of starry-eyed juniors cocked it up. Two more terms ... two more terms ... :wall:

Case #10
"I'm a millionaire and pensioners can't live on the present allowance (http://news.theage.com.au/national/pm-rules-out-pension-boost-this-year-20080909-4ch6.html) ugly charade.

Rudd is about to get a hammering on the
a) The "we're the party that saves the battlas" perpetuated propaganda front, and
b) We're urgently looking into it - we'll let you know around February 2009 (while the information's been sitting on his desk for months - AND was rejected for the last budget)

Case #11
Grocery Watch (http://www.theage.com.au/national/government-scraps-grocery-pricewatch-scheme-20090626-czxa.html)
• A debacle
• Another (Rudd incepted but don't expect anyone to blame him) Labor party failure
• More votes sold for scrap by Mr *puking* Teflon
• Lord knows how many taxpaya dollars flushed that would have otherwise found the the arts, the disabled, the military, education, health.

Case #12
Childcare Centre Broken Promise (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/rudd-breaks-pledge-to-build-260-childcare-centres-on-school-grounds/story-e6frgczf-1225856997148)

Case #12
Batts Scheme

Case #13
Hospitals Whitewash

Case #13
Green Loans (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/green-loans-latest-example-of-climate-waste/story-e6frgczf-1225889581536)

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2010, 11:44 AM
Hey, big spenders, hands off our money (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/hey-big-spenders-hands-off-our-money/story-e6frg6zo-1225891374336)
Janet Albrechtsen
The Australian, 14 July 2010

JULIA Gillard can learn much from the principles of Hayek and Friedman.

Even a cursory look at the Green Loans scheme, just the latest Labor debacle, suggests a consistent message. Labor in the 21st century is committed to a deluded philosophy where a big spending government believes it can spend our money better than we can



The Green Loans program, with an initial budget of $300 million, later cut to $175m, promised government-funded energy assessments in 300,000 homes and up to 75,000 interest-free loans of up to $10,000 so households could reduce the environmental impact of their homes. Sounds too good to be true. And it was.



In short, no one cared too much about how money was spent, how much money was spent and what quality of services it was spent on…

Gillard, who has the historical hallmarks of being another grand designer yet wants to be known as the great pragmatist, ought to check whether the myriad failings of the Green Loans scheme are explained by first principles.

Friedman, who wrote the introduction to Hayek’s book, best described the four ways we spend money: “You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government.”

And that’s the Green Loans scheme. And the insulation program. And the national roll-out of new school halls.

Basil
27-03-2011, 07:12 PM
At the time of opening this thread 3 short years ago, the landscape was, IIRC was:

NSW : LAB
VIC : LAB
QLD : LAB
WA : LAB
SA : LAB
TAS : LAB
FEDERAL : LAB
UK : LAB

Wall to wall Labor. The science that is definitely in (again :wall: ) is that despite all the textbooks, intellectual justifications, yada yada yada yada, Labor is universally crap. Crap crap crap. Crap for the economy. Crap for those it seeks to help, and crap for those who are in a position to help those that need help.

Since then, all LAB has been turfed, save for:
FEDERAL
QLD
TAS
SA

who have all been re-elected by a gnat's dick, with two in particular who should have bought lottery tickets. This board has looong since lost those starry-eyed lefties defending the line. A peek at the early posts in this thread will remind.

Anyway, brick at a time ... that is until things are good again, and then the yearning for the madness of left will beckon a new, virgin electorate ready to be unexpectedly arts-fudged all over again. Who can recall the chant of Rudd and his starry-eyed buffoons with all that was promised?

Bwa ha ah ha ha ha ah ha ha ah ha ha ha ah ha ha ha ah ha ha ... euuugghh. OK not funny. Not funny at all.

Basil
27-03-2011, 07:39 PM
I have not followed this debate but I much prefer to have a Labour party in to protect the lower classes in times of economic strife
This is what I call (today anyway!) the primary fallacy of the leftist voter ideology (well at least a close relative of the primary fallacy, which is that "Labor cares - conservatives don't"). And as far as NSW lefties go, your opinion is that of the minority.

antichrist
27-03-2011, 07:46 PM
This is what I call (today anyway!) the primary fallacy of the leftist voter ideology (well at least a close relative). And as far as NSW lefties go, you opinion is that of the minority.

The NSW Labor party was taken over by business people of dubious character, it has been slowly going off the rails since about 1975 at least, in spite of Nifty Neville Wran and big victories on the environmental front.

When the right wing of the party finally realised that its corrupted ideals had wrecked their vote they in vain turned to the traditional Labor party voter but was way too late, about 15 years.

But BOF does support gay issues and another radical one that I heard earlier but forgot.

Oepty
27-03-2011, 08:00 PM
At the time of opening this thread 3 short years ago, the landscape was, IIRC was:

NSW : LAB
VIC : LAB
QLD : LAB
WA : LAB
SA : LAB
TAS : LAB
FEDERAL : LAB
UK : LAB

Wall to wall Labor. The science that is definitely in (again :wall: ) is that despite all the textbooks, intellectual justifications, yada yada yada yada, Labor is universally crap. Crap crap crap. Crap for the economy. Crap for those it seeks to help, and crap for those who are in a position to help those that need help.

Since then, all LAB has been turfed, save for:
FEDERAL
QLD
TAS
SA

who have all been re-elected by a gnat's dick, with two in particular who should have bought lottery tickets. This board has looong since lost those starry-eyed lefties defending the line. A peek at the early posts in this thread will remind.

Anyway, brick at a time ... that is until things are good again, and then the yearning for the madness of left will beckon a new, virgin electorate ready to be unexpectedly arts-fudged all over again. Who recall the chant of Rudd and al that he promised and those that followed him intio the wilderness?

Bwa ha ah ha ha ha ah ha ha ah ha ha ha ah ha ha ha ah ha ha ... not funny. Not funny at all.

SA is going to go the same way at the next election or at least it should. The main trouble is a government that is limping along and lost any direction, is facing off against a Liberal opposition that has little more political talent in it than a dead dog has chess talent. Both stink, both lack leadership and I don't think either is really behind its leader completely. There is no obvious replacement to the past it Mike Rann and Isobel Reymond is nothing special but the Liberals have nowhere else to turn.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2011, 08:47 PM
Since then, all LAB has been turfed, save for:
FEDERAL
QLD
TAS
SA

who have all been re-elected by a gnat's dick, with two in particular who should have bought lottery tickets.

I'd say that Rann and Gillard are the two. Bligh actually won reasonably comfortably thanks largely to the LNP being a tad hopeless (a 51-34-4 seat result is not that close) and Bartlett only made life hard for himself by saying stupid stuff in the leadup, without which a Labor-Green arrangement would have arrived readily without need for constitutional shenanigans.

I expect Labor to be turfed in both SA and Tas next time around.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-03-2011, 09:58 AM
I expect Labor to be turfed in both SA and Tas next time around.Right about SA, but what about TAS? Don't Labor-Green still poll above 50%?

antichrist
28-03-2011, 05:52 PM
Now Igor, about the Greens, it does not supprise me that they did not win lower house seats in NSW, they are only a minority party.

Whereas in Germany Merkal has just lost her majority due to the nuke meltdown in Japan, the Greens got an amazing 24/% and are in co-oalition.

wait another few decades when climate change is much more noticeable to the general public and the Greens will approp become more powerful.

Kevin Bonham
28-03-2011, 09:03 PM
Don't Labor-Green still poll above 50%?

It's debatable because our polls are not very accurate. At present it's Labor+Green 44, Lib 39, Ind 2, 15 undecided. But undecided voters here will often go for whichever party they think can win outright to avoid the Greens, so if an election was held with the polls looking like that the undecideds could very well swing heavily Liberal and bring the Libs up to 50%.

Also, if one major party is close to 50 it can win outright even if the other two parties exceed 50 between them. This is the case because of (i) uneven results between electorates - you only need to crack 50 in three and then you can get away with 40 in the other two (ii) excess Greens preferences not splitting that strongly Labor over Liberal (iii) lots of Greens preferences exhaust once there are no Greens in the count.

Something like 47% could be enough for the Liberals.

Kevin Bonham
28-03-2011, 09:15 PM
Now Igor, about the Greens, it does not supprise me that they did not win lower house seats in NSW, they are only a minority party.

They are also one with a spectacular record of appearing to be on track to win lower house seats in various elections and then almost always screwing it up, whether through bad candidate selection, poor preference negotiation or simply sloppy campaigning. Bandt was a very rare exception and only because the Libs preferenced him.


Whereas in Germany Merkal has just lost her majority due to the nuke meltdown in Japan, the Greens got an amazing 24/% and are in co-oalition.

Actually Merkel has never had a majority and hasn't lost anything. What's happened is that her party has lost a state election for Baden-Wuerttemberg to a Green/Social Democrat coalition. A superb result for the German Greens there who have more than doubled their vote.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-03-2011, 08:42 AM
Actually Merkel has never had a majority and hasn't lost anything. What's happened is that her party has lost a state election for Baden-Wuerttemberg to a Green/Social Democrat coalition. A superb result for the German Greens there who have more than doubled their vote.
A ghost wanders about Europe....
In other words, the malignant tumour is spreading.

antichrist
29-03-2011, 11:50 AM
A ghost wanders about Europe....
In other words, the malignant tumour is spreading.

What is causing it - is it Chernoble nuke disaster 25 years ago? I dont think the Japanese radiation has spread that direction yet in any quanity.

I can remember about 30+ years ago Petre Kelly, maybe the first greens MP in the world, visiting Australia, I attended just like I used to attend church.

Capablanca-Fan
22-06-2011, 02:43 PM
Wall to wall, Labor is getting canned. Andrew Bolt writes:

Labor must pick another class war to survive (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_labor_must_pick_another_class_war_to_surviv e/)

LABOR’S problem isn’t just Julia Gillard. Labor’s problem is now Labor.

This proud party is dying in almost every corner of the land.

Everywhere, its sense of purpose seems gone, with its supporters fatally split between urban elites and the strugglers of the outer suburbs.

Yesterday’s Newspoll from South Australia just confirms the astonishing self-destruction of Labor only three years after it held every state, federal and territory government.



Environmentalism once just meant more forests. With global warming it’s morphed into another collectivist crusade to change the way people live.

But now it’s brought Labor’s old working-class base into direct conflict with the middle-class romantics who now hold so much party power.

Consider what’s killing Labor now. The absurdly generous solar power subsidies that so please a Cate Blanchett have meant soaring power bills for the furious poor.

The grotesquely expensive desal plants that so placate the inner-urban no-dams extremists mean soaring water bills for suburban folk who love their humble gardens and mums with several children to bathe.

And now the carbon dioxide tax that’s demanded by journalists, artists, internet activists, salvation seekers and doctors’ wives directly threatens the jobs of coalminers, steelworkers and cement factory labourers.

Here is a new class war, this time raging within Labor itself.

This war is not so much between the rich and the poor, but between the connected and the disconnected. Between those close to microphones and those with no voice. Between the powerful and the powerless.


Rincewind
22-06-2011, 02:49 PM
Wall to wall, Labor is getting canned. Andrew Bolt writes:

Labor must pick another class war to survive (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_labor_must_pick_another_class_war_to_surviv e/)

LABOR’S problem isn’t just Julia Gillard. Labor’s problem is now Labor.

This proud party is dying in almost every corner of the land.

Andrew Bolt writes a Labor diatribe. Now there *is* news.

antichrist
22-06-2011, 03:39 PM
But everybody almost regardless of class suffers if the environment is stuffed up, only to what degree. If any taxes are progressive it does not hurt the working class too much and we all have to burden our share anyway.

I know from being in a Country Party mentality electorate that they are almost as dumb as their cows when it comes to looking beyond their noses.

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2011, 02:42 AM
I think Malaysia solution and feeble attempts to defend same in court are a valid inclusion in CU's stuffups list.

Basil
18-12-2011, 09:19 AM
About another 12 - 16 weeks before Laba (and its incompetence) is summarily axed in Queensland. Buy tickets to this one folks, it's going to be exceedingly graphic (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/bligh-to-rely-on-rudds-return/story-e6freon6-1226224813477)

Desmond
18-12-2011, 03:47 PM
About another 12 - 16 weeks before Laba (and its incompetence) is summarily axed in Queensland. Buy tickets to this one folks, it's going to be exceedingly graphic (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/bligh-to-rely-on-rudds-return/story-e6freon6-1226224813477)
I think Can-do will have a resounding victory, regardless of what Rudd is up to.

antichrist
21-12-2011, 06:27 PM
I think Malaysia solution and feeble attempts to defend same in court are a valid inclusion in CU's stuffups list.

But doesn't the same ruling also rule invalid the off shore solutions used by Howard?

Kevin Bonham
21-12-2011, 08:24 PM
But doesn't the same ruling also rule invalid the off shore solutions used by Howard?

If so then too late. Howard's solutions succeeded for him politically by the standards of his time.

antichrist
21-12-2011, 11:42 PM
If so then too late. Howard's solutions succeeded for him politically by the standards of his time.

that just shows the conservatives total hypocrisy and uselessness. They spent a fortune building those concentration camps and enforcing draconian rules that could not hold up and they were warned such by civil libertarians etc. They spent something like a $1M per boat person, 93% of which turned out to be accepted as refugees. Such a massive waste of public money.

Kevin Bonham
22-12-2011, 12:04 AM
that just shows the conservatives total hypocrisy and uselessness.

I agree with you about the hypocrisy. It is particularly obvious in the demand for the destination to be a signatory, which didn't really bother them much in power but is now seen to be a big deal so they can try to humiliate the government into opting for Nauru.

Garvinator
01-01-2012, 03:58 AM
The miserable alcopops stunt. (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/04/27/1209234617917.html) Addressing binge drinking my foot. More spin. More dribble. More hype. Christ, they painted themselves yet again as the new fresh think when in reality, they were addressing a minor tax inequity. :rolleyes:
The alcopop tax is back in the news again. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/minimum-price-call-to-curb-binge-drinking/story-e6freon6-1226234033762



YOUNG binge drinkers have simply switched to cheaper booze to beat the Federal Government's controversial "alcopop" tax.
New research shows 15 to 29-year-olds have dodged the 70 per cent tax on popular pre-mixed drinks by changing their drink of choice.
The University of Queensland study found no significant reduction in binge drinking-related hospital admissions since the tax was introduced in 2008.Who would have thunk it hey, young binge drinkers changing their habits to the newest set of cheapest drinks when their main goal is to binge drink and get hammered.

Also from the article is the claim that the most effective measure to curb young binge drinking is a minimum price or a new tax.

Garbage and rubbish. What has occurred with the price rise of alcopops is that the binge drinkers have chosen to cut back on other items and have not really cut back on their drinking. So a new tax will just cause further cut backs in other areas of spending.

No surprise though that a Government think tank or political party thinks a new tax is the best answer.

The best answer is to make binge drinking socially unpopular. Remember the times when smoking a cigarette was seen as the cool thing to do. Now look at how socially popular smoking is. In my opinion, it is the same with alcohol.

Basil
01-01-2012, 06:31 AM
Lefties make me wanna puke.

antichrist
01-01-2012, 08:15 AM
Lefties make me wanna puke.

Right-wingers make me to forget the cannoli and grab the gun

Basil
20-02-2012, 05:36 AM
1910

Capablanca-Fan
20-02-2012, 04:09 PM
The best answer is to make binge drinking socially unpopular. Remember the times when smoking a cigarette was seen as the cool thing to do. Now look at how socially popular smoking is. In my opinion, it is the same with alcohol.
Indeed, it has largely worked with drunk driving and racism, and would probably work for drugs better than the "war on drugs".

Capablanca-Fan
20-02-2012, 04:10 PM
Right-wingers make me to forget the cannoli and grab the gun
Not likely—a leftard like you would rather have the government grab the gun, since the whole point of leftardism is "in government we trust".

antichrist
22-02-2012, 08:35 AM
Not likely—a leftard like you would rather have the government grab the gun, since the whole point of leftardism is "in government we trust".

not when it comes to army conscription I dont trust them, nor uranium mining and all nuke matters, and military/industry complex, and crawling to America and Israel I dont trust and despise, and that is only for beginning.

I must go to work, big day today.

Basil
18-03-2012, 10:50 AM
Queenslanders champing at the bit to remove another brick. Just under a week.

Kevin Bonham
18-03-2012, 11:50 AM
Yep. It's going to be thoroughly splatty too. The Labor campaign has been desperate and dirty and it's not doing them the slightest bit of good. The best they can hope for is Newman doesn't win Ashgrove but even if he doesn't there will be plenty of seats he can be parachuted into (despite his claim he won't take that route.) And seriously, if Ashgrove voters have the choice between electing a backbencher in a rump Opposition and electing a Premier with a thin margin, it's not a difficult strategic choice.

Desmond
18-03-2012, 12:02 PM
Queenslanders champing at the bit to remove another brick. Just under a week.My sister is running a cake stall at one of the booths. Everyone hates Labor, and everyone loves cake. I reckon she's gonna make a mint.

jhughes
18-03-2012, 07:18 PM
Indeed, it has largely worked with drunk driving and racism, and would probably work for drugs better than the "war on drugs".
Wait a minute here... Jono, are you expressing opposition to the war on drugs? A belief typical of the left!

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2012, 12:03 AM
Wait a minute here... Jono, are you expressing opposition to the war on drugs? A belief typical of the left!
More a libertarian pragmatist view, like that of Milton Friedman (http://www.fff.org/freedom/0490e.asp).
nLsCC0LZxkY

Igor_Goldenberg
20-03-2012, 08:26 PM
Wait a minute here... Jono, are you expressing opposition to the war on drugs? A belief typical of the left!
Actually, I oppose not only war on drugs, but drugs prohibition as well ( I can tolerate little regulation a la alcohol). Doubt anybody brands me as a lefty.