PDA

View Full Version : coalition macro economic mess



Davidflude
15-06-2006, 02:53 PM
Howard answer these please


The sneakiest thing done by the coalition government was to change the definition of employed from ten hours per week to one hour per week.

This means that all employment figures published by the government cannot be compared to any previous figures. Calculations that I have seen show that underlying employment has been between 8-9
per cent throughout the term of the coalition.

At the macro-economic level the government needs to

1) keep interest rates down
2) keep the economy growing
3) keep unemployment low
4) keep the country solvent

1)great performance
2)mining sector magic but nothing to do with the government industrial sector scheisenhausen
3)bullshit figures conceal that performance is worse than Geelong in a Grand Final
4)If you add in unfunded public service liabilities then Australia has a large deficit in the public sector. As for the private sector the debt is growing and growing and growing.

Arrogant-One
15-06-2006, 03:01 PM
Howard answer these please


The sneakiest thing done by the coalition government was to change the definition of employed from ten hours per week to one hour per week.

This means that all employment figures published by the government cannot be compared to any previous figures. Calculations that I have seen show that underlying employment has been between 8-9
per cent throughout the term of the coalition.

At the macro-economic level the government needs to

1) keep interest rates down
2) keep the economy growing
3) keep unemployment low
4) keep the country solvent

1)great performance
2)mining sector magic but nothing to do with the government industrial sector scheisenhausen
3)bullshit figures conceal that performance is worse than Geelong in a Grand Final
4)If you add in unfunded public service liabilities then Australia has a large deficit in the public sector. As for the private sector the debt is growing and growing and growing.

Oh, come on David. Australia's not such a bad place. You keep forgetting about the Kangaroos!

Question: Would anything be substantially different today if Labour and not the Coalition had been in power since 96?

Answer: Only two things.

(a) Beazley would be twice as fat; and
(b) Homosexuals would be getting married under newly introduced legislation consistent with Labour's new age beliefs.

So the answer to "Would anything be substantially different today if Labour and not the Coalition had been in power since 96?" is

'kind of, depending on one's perspective'. :P

Basil
15-06-2006, 04:26 PM
Howard answer these please ...
The sneakiest thing done by the coalition government was to change the definition of employed from ten hours per week to one hour per week.
David, that is not a question. But if it were, my answer is "no". That's not even close to the sneakiest thing the Howard government has done.

Further, if you were to ask me whether it was sneaky, I'd still say no.

The rest of your post doesn't even resemble a question[s], but bears similarities to the teacher score card I have referred to elsewhere.

If you wish to turn your score-card into questions, I'd galdly address them within in the bounds of my capabilities.

Garvinator
15-06-2006, 04:29 PM
David, that is not a question. But if it were, my answer is "no". That's not even close to the sneakiest thing the Howard government has done.
David, of course it isnt the sneakiest thing the Howard Government has ever done, because you are aware that they have done it :owned:

qpawn
15-06-2006, 07:52 PM
No, it isn't the sneakiest thing that the Howard government has done.

The current smoke and mirror job over the nuclear debate is far sneakier. Thw whole business of nuclear power is just a smokescreen to hide the sale of Uranium to India: a country that not only has failed to sign the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty but also is at constant war with another nuclear-armed power over Kashmir.

The above tactic is typical of the ten years of Howard administration : the politics of distraction. The whole republic business was just a circus to dull the public's senses to the smell of more important and sensitive political issues, such as the environment, water storage, and the superannuation entitlements of the future.

Davidflude
15-06-2006, 09:50 PM
The current smoke and mirror job over the nuclear debate is far sneakier. Thw whole business of nuclear power is just a smokescreen to hide the sale of Uranium to India: a country that not only has failed to sign the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty but also is at constant war with another nuclear-armed power over Kashmir.



This may sound curious but I am in favour of selling uranium to India. The Indians are using Candhu reactors designed by Canada. These use natural uranium not enriched uranium with a heavy water moderator. They are inherantly safer than the light water cooled reactors built by the USA and France.

The disadvantage is that they have a much higher initial cost than light water
which is more than offset by lower running costs. China and canada use this
type of reactor. You could even sell these to Iran as they are useless for making bomb grade uranium or plutonium.

In the long term pebble bed reactors are the way to go but there is work to be done. australia should get into this area now as we have heaps of thoreum and uranium.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-06-2006, 09:28 AM
The whole republic business was just a circus to dull the public's senses to the smell of more important and sensitive political issues, such as the environment, water storage, and the superannuation entitlements of the future.

Thank for enlightening me. I did not know the republic business was Howard's creation.

qpawn
16-06-2006, 10:27 AM
You have not grasped my argument.
Of course I am not saying that John Howard created the issue of the republic or the desires of certain Australians to change our constitution.

I am saying that the incumbent government chooses the political agenda and focus of any point in time. So, instead of a referendum on something politically sensitive and more important, such as euthanasia, nuclear power etc, we had the relative sideshow of the republic. Such a distraction is very convenient for the government. More sensitive and icky issues such as the rising of temperatures sinking our pacific neighbours...let's just con the public about their existence.

MichaelBaron
16-06-2006, 11:02 AM
Howard answer these please


The sneakiest thing done by the coalition government was to change the definition of employed from ten hours per week to one hour per week.

This means that all employment figures published by the government cannot be compared to any previous figures. Calculations that I have seen show that underlying employment has been between 8-9
per cent throughout the term of the coalition.

At the macro-economic level the government needs to

1) keep interest rates down
2) keep the economy growing
3) keep unemployment low
4) keep the country solvent

1)great performance
2)mining sector magic but nothing to do with the government industrial sector scheisenhausen
3)bullshit figures conceal that performance is worse than Geelong in a Grand Final
4)If you add in unfunded public service liabilities then Australia has a large deficit in the public sector. As for the private sector the debt is growing and growing and growing.


It is actually the Coalition that has reduced the unemployment. Coalition also keeps the country solvent by reducing our international debts.

If you look at the socio-economic reforms i can also spot a number of achievements.

a) Taking power away from the unions
b) Reducing the Tax Rate
c)Significant growth in a number of industries not just Mining but also Education and Financial Services.

qpawn
16-06-2006, 11:07 AM
Michael, you do realise that for your argument to have any validity you just justify the causation? Namely, you must show how the coalition caused the fall in unemployment ? Which policy, specifically, are you pointing at that has made unemployment, in your opinion, be reduced?

I am not trying to machine gun your argument. I am actually trying to prod you along towards something reasonably cogent.

PHAT
16-06-2006, 11:25 AM
Thank for enlightening me. I did not know the republic business was Howard's creation.
Not Howard's creation - it was his political tool.

PHAT
16-06-2006, 11:41 AM
It is actually the Coalition that has reduced the unemployment. Coalition also keeps the country solvent by reducing our international debts.

If you look at the socio-economic reforms i can also spot a number of achievements.

a) Taking power away from the unions
b) Reducing the Tax Rate
c)Significant growth in a number of industries not just Mining but also Education and Financial Services.

*Reduced unemployement? No just recatergorised it.
*Keeps the country solvent? Hardly. There has been a nearly dollar for dollar transfer of international debt from public to private. When/if china calls in its debts world wide, we will be bunkrupted.
*Loss of union power is loss of humanity and an increase in inhumanity.
*The tax rate is the same as it has always been.- not high enough.
*Growth in fincancial services is as fruitful as increasing the percentage of GDP spent on advertising. ie of no truly productive worth.
*Education is growing in the area of remedial classes at TAFE and Uni because, for ten years the schools have been bled to death.

Michael, the last decade was a sham and the next will be a slam.

MichaelBaron
16-06-2006, 12:02 PM
[Reduced unemployement? No just recatergorised it.
*Keeps the country solvent? Hardly. There has been a nearly dollar for dollar transfer of international debt from public to private. When/if china calls in its debts world wide, we will be bunkrupted.

Matt, what is your source of information about the debt transfer? Its news to me. It is also news to an economics professor whom i have spoken to about it right now. :)

*Loss of union power is loss of humanity and an increase in inhumanity.

What do you define as humanity? Are you saying that market economy in inhumane? Why not let market forces to self-regulate?

*The tax rate is the same as it has always been.- not high enough.

Lower tax rate is instrumental in improvement of living conditions and saving levels of the population
*Growth in fincancial services is as fruitful as increasing the percentage of GDP spent on advertising. ie of no truly productive worth.

Again, where did you get your information from? You can find complete information per industry sector from the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) Website

*Education is growing in the area of remedial classes at TAFE and Uni because, for ten years the schools have been bled to death.

Remedial? Nearly 50% of young Australians are going to complete a University degree by the age of 26!

Michael, the last decade was a sham and the next will be a slam.

Last decade was not a sham. In fact Australia has moved closer to becoming a sustainable market economy. We do have a lot of economic problems, but the coalition is the last one to blame.

PHAT
16-06-2006, 12:59 PM
Matt, what is your source of information about the debt transfer? Its news to me. It is also news to an economics professor whom i have spoken to about it right now.

Some other professor on Radio National a few weeks ago.

Ask YOUR prof. If the government has cheerfully reported that the it is now debt free, and the country owes $300bil (and growing), is that debt private or public.



What do you define as humanity? Are you saying that market economy in inhumane? Why not let market forces to self-regulate?
1. Humanity = a civil society of H. sapiens.
2. Yes
3. Because it does not/cannot self regulate with boom and bust.



Lower tax rate is instrumental in improvement of living conditions and saving levels of the population
There are as many examples contrary to this as supporting it. The only thing we DO KNOW is that both extremely high or low taxation is dysfunctional. At the moment not half way between the extremes, but a bit on the low side.



Again, where did you get your information from? You can find complete information per industry sector from the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) Website
Have you ever hear the expression, “We can all make a living by bring in each others’ dry washing.”
“Financial Services” do not produce any tangible goods, or make other industries more efficient. They are a waste of time money and effort.



Remedial? Nearly 50% of young Australians are going to complete a University degree by the age of 26!
That is a worry! Most of those students are not degree material. The drop in standards means that the Bachelor degrees are no more significant than (former) certificate level competence. We do not need any more incompetent degree holders, we need competent trades people.


In fact Australia has moved closer to becoming a sustainable market economy.
Not likely in the long term, when the way we feed ourselves is not sustainable in the medium term.

Basil
17-06-2006, 12:16 AM
You have not grasped my argument.
Of course I am not saying that John Howard created the issue of the republic or the desires of certain Australians to change our constitution.

This is the second post in two days where you spew forth, only to be pulled up, and then you revert by saying your argument hasn't been grasped. May I suggest you tighten up your opening play.


I am saying that the incumbent government chooses the political agenda and focus of any point in time.

When Paul Keating introduced the same debate some 12 years ago, did you have the same opinion that it was a furfy?

If so [and you must]
1. Who are you to say it's irrelevant? I understand this is important to many people.
2. Why didn't you phrase your original post to include all flavours of government?


So, instead of a referendum on something politically sensitive and more important, such as euthanasia, nuclear power etc, we had the relative sideshow of the republic.

Any government does its best to determine the skill level of the voters. We simply can't have a referendum where we ignorants are forming direct policy on nuclear energy. The check and balance remains at the polls.

A republic, for instance, is nice and simple for us to digest and yes, as it directly relates to our preferred regime of governance, we could have a referendum.

Caveat: Of course an arument can be formed along the lines of nuclear power affects us all and therefore we should have a referendum, but at that point, we should do away with government policy on anything and just hold a referendum on all issues.

Qpawn
Your entire position on the Howard Government's furfy regarding the republic is now in shreds. By all means serve up another misinformed lefty mantra - it'll most likely get the same treatment [unless you stumble onto one of the few [and they do exist] which are worthy. I believe Bonham has managed it and someone else, except my CL reference is gone! :)

qpawn
17-06-2006, 10:08 AM
There is an enormous difference between Howard's handling of the replublic debate, which involved a referendum, and the politics of Keating or others in which a referendum did not occur.

The rest of your above post has lapsed into such silliness that it's not worthy of a response.