PDA

View Full Version : Johnny's Going Down



Pages : [1] 2 3

Basil
07-08-2007, 01:18 PM
While not a certainty, it appears more likely than not that Labor will win the next federal election.

This is not devastating news to me.
- it is important to have change (perhaps not for the sake, but I digress)
- no-one can govern forever
- there is much to be said (peace of mind for me, for one) for letting Labor have a go (that's how the Libs got in last time!

so I'm settling back and looking at the marketing that is winning and losing the hearts and minds of Australia

1. Industrial Relations
Despite what any of us say intellectually or factually, the deed is done. A massive whack of Australians absolutely believe that the governments IR laws are bad.

2. Tuned Out
I was listening to some commentary a couple of weeks ago where the talking head suggested that regardless of the merits or otherwise of what Keating was saying (prior to his dumping), the nation had tuned out to him. I feel that a significant chunk of voters (not particularly politically savvy, nor particularly ignorant) have tuned out to John Howard.

3. Campaign 'Asleep on Climate Change'
The current campaign with Johnny in bed for the last 11 years is winner IMO. Again, I give it no personal weight because among other things
- I want to know what the Labor government was so actively doing 11 years and one day ago :eek: :rolleyes:
- There are genuine reasons (albeit disputed) and ones I support for the Libs' position on climate change

4. There's also the 'Sneaky' imaging which Rudd and Gillard did so well a couple of months ago

and others.

Carry on!

Southpaw Jim
07-08-2007, 01:54 PM
I think it'll certainly go down to the wire. Labor's enjoying a massive lead in the polls, plus the betting agencies have the smart money on Labor (60% probability) - however, winning 16 seats is no mean feat.

I'm actually surprised Labor hasn't made more of Howard's prediliction for nuclear power yet, although this may be one of the planks of their official campaign when it happens. IR is certainly a 3 legged dog, and their ad campaigns to 'address the union misinformation' isn't helping IMO (especially with today's news about the actor who has allegedly ripped off employees).

Interesting factoid: the Government has apparently spent (since Budget) 3 times as much in pre-election promises as Labor. It seems that nothing is helping their polling, be it profligacy, propaganda, name-calling or dirty tricks. Poor Johnny can't even give Kevin a wedgie!

Labor also seems to have a high level source/leak/mole, a number of leaks over the last few months, including yesterday's Textor dossier.

The polling fallout from tomorrow's (almost certain) interest rate rise should be interesting to watch.

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2007, 02:17 PM
Back to the bad old days of union control once the über-leftists like Gillard and Tanner demand their pound of flesh. Rudd is doing the usual mendacious leftist "campaign to the middle, govern to the left" dance.

CameronD
07-08-2007, 02:20 PM
There both bad, need something more near the middle. I guess thats why I'm defined a swinging voter, I'm not committed to either philosopy.

Aaron Guthrie
07-08-2007, 02:29 PM
While not a certainty, it appears more likely than not that Labor will win the next federal election.I predict there will be a great fight for the title of "underdog of the election".

Axiom
07-08-2007, 02:36 PM
Enjoy the tag team,dog and pony ,punch and judy,tweedledum and tweedledumber*,puppet show !



*TM (Rincewind)

Rincewind
07-08-2007, 03:18 PM
...tweedledum and tweedledumber*,...

*TM (Rincewind)

Not me. Ani Difranco used it in the song 'Fuel' (which is where heard it). But not sure if that was original or had already been used to describe the American, two-party model.

pax
07-08-2007, 03:36 PM
Howard, you seem to have changed your tune since the Labor=doom and gloom attitude of a few months ago.

Looking at recent developments, it is hard to see whether there will be any significant difference in a Labor government. At the moment, Rudd is trying to project himself as close to Howard as possible, and Howard is trying to look like a lefty on some issues.

It's the old Hotelling's law problem: two ice-cream sellers on a beach will gravitate to the middle of the beach right next to each other by economic forces alone. So it is with two party politics (at least in an election year).

Basil
07-08-2007, 04:15 PM
Howard, you seem to have changed your tune since the Labor=doom and gloom attitude of a few months ago.
Film at 11. Just getting my answers to HK.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-08-2007, 04:25 PM
I predict there will be a great fight for the title of "underdog of the election".
That's a good one!

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2007, 07:24 PM
I was listening to some commentary a couple of weeks ago where the talking head suggested that regardless of the merits or otherwise of what Keating was saying (prior to his dumping), the nation had tuned out to him. I feel that a significant chunk of voters (not particularly politically savvy, nor particularly ignorant) have tuned out to John Howard.

Same sorts of opinion poll gaps but the dynamic is different. In 1996 voters thought Howard was mediocre but hated Keating. Now they still think Howard's mediocre but they reckon Rudd is great. It should be easier to get the voters to lose interest in Rudd than it would have been to get them to forgive Keating, but thus far almost everything the Libs have thrown at Rudd has flopped.


Back to the bad old days of union control once the über-leftists like Gillard and Tanner demand their pound of flesh.

Gillard appears to inspire some pretty strong emotions from her opponents. I can come here and see you calling her an uber-leftist and then I can go to Tasmanian Times where posters are calling her an avid anti-environmentalist. I reckon that compared to 30 or even 20 years ago there's barely a real hard-leftist left in the ALP frontbench.

Basil
07-08-2007, 07:33 PM
In 1996 voters thought Howard was mediocre but hated Keating. Now they still think Howard's mediocre but they reckon Rudd is great.
I'm not privy to your research. I assume you're talking about the swinging voters. I certainly don't hold the opinion you ascribe, and I'm fairly certain the lifer lefties don't believe Howard is mediocre - they loathe everything (they think) he stands for.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2007, 07:38 PM
I'm not privy to your research.

Actually not mine - Bryan Palmer's at Oz Politics (http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/2007/06/03/1996-v-2007-similarities-and-differences/)


[..] I'm fairly certain the lifer lefties don't believe Howard is mediocre - they loathe everything (they think) he stands for.

This is true but the lifer lefties are few and quite irrelevant, and would hate any Liberal administration whatsoever.

Basil
07-08-2007, 07:51 PM
Actually not mine - Bryan Palmer's at Oz Politics[/url]
I didn't mean to imply it was your personal research. I meant the research to which you were referring.


This is true but the lifer lefties are few and quite irrelevant
Please stop saying things like that. I've met 30 lifer lefties on this board. Another 30 work for me. And another 30 that I call friends.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2007, 09:11 PM
Please stop saying things like that. I've met 30 lifer lefties on this board.

Am I one of those? :lol:

Basil
07-08-2007, 09:15 PM
:lol: Yep! You and your stinkin' mates Baz and Den Den - and those names popped out prior to cognition. That's 10% of the 30 right there.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2007, 09:50 PM
Does "lifer leftie" require being a leftie for one's entire political life, or just that one will be one for the rest of it? :lol:

(As I have explained before, in the mid-90s I was definitely right-wing (libertarian/free marketeer tending) on economic issues, and no further left than centrist overall.)

Basil
07-08-2007, 09:54 PM
Does "lifer leftie" require being a leftie for one's entire political life, or just that one will be one for the rest of it? :lol:
No. A switch mid-season will exonerate you.


As I have explained before, in the mid-90s I was definitely right-wing (libertarian/free marketeer tending) on economic issues, and no further left than centrist overall.
I'm sure you have mentioned this before if you say so. As far as I know, I have never known this of you. So while despicable, you don't don't qualify! :doh: Just clarifying you ... eeer ... voted ... ahem ... you know ... eeerm right.

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2007, 10:53 PM
Same sorts of opinion poll gaps but the dynamic is different. In 1996 voters thought Howard was mediocre but hated Keating. Now they still think Howard's mediocre but they reckon Rudd is great. It should be easier to get the voters to lose interest in Rudd than it would have been to get them to forgive Keating, but thus far almost everything the Libs have thrown at Rudd has flopped.
Dunno why. Interesting analysis though. You're probably right that the Howard haters are a minority, because it's only with Rudd's election has leader that he has been seriously challenged by a Labor leader.


Gillard appears to inspire some pretty strong emotions from her opponents. I can come here and see you calling her an uber-leftist
Aye, because of her warning to Australian business to stay out of the political fray otherwise they might get injured (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21649839-662,00.html). OK for unions to be in the fray though.


and then I can go to Tasmanian Times where posters are calling her an avid anti-environmentalist. I reckon that compared to 30 or even 20 years ago there's barely a real hard-leftist left in the ALP frontbench.
Rudd claims to be "an old-fashioned Christian socialist", but elsewhere he claims that he has never "been a socialist and - never will be".

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2007, 11:10 PM
I'm sure you have mentioned this before if you say so. As far as I know, I have never known this of you.

On Parallel Universe thread at post 70 I wrote "in my early-mid 20s I was almost a US-style libertarian." US-style libertarians are typically laissez-faire on economics; capitalists or even anarcho-capitalists.


Just clarifying you ... eeer ... voted ... ahem ... you know ... eeerm right.

My voting history is all over the place. Usually I lavish far more thought on who I put last on my Senate paper than first.

In 1996 I voted Democrat with preferences to the Liberals in both houses. I actually liked Keating but I thought his party at that stage was stacked to the rafters with doctrinaire collectivist dingbats who could do with a spell in the wilderness. Only I figured that spell would be three years rather than eleven. :rolleyes:

If I've assisted the Libs with my vote since then it is only because I live in a ridiculously safe Labor seat and the local member is a smug euro-leftist who should really have the courage of his ideologies and go join the Greens; his margin needs cutting before his ego threatens to be larger than mine.

I have certainly voted for Liberals in student politics.

In a recent Legislative Council election, given the choice between a closet Liberal pseudo-independent and a Green, I voted for Fat Cat.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2007, 11:18 PM
Aye, because of her warning to Australian business to stay out of the political fray otherwise they might get injured (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21649839-662,00.html).

Do you read her warning as a threat or a suggestion? It can be seen as a threat but I'm not sure how intentional that is.


Rudd claims to be "an old-fashioned Christian socialist", but elsewhere he claims that he has never "been a socialist and - never will be".

I think Rudd is actually very cagey and constructed about his own political identity, and I'm not sure how well the Australian people will really know him even by election time - it's a personality thing and the politics side seems very calculated and careful. But I also don't think he's a creature of strong political passions in any particular extreme direction.

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2007, 11:23 PM
(As I have explained before, in the mid-90s I was definitely right-wing (libertarian/free marketeer tending) on economic issues, and no further left than centrist overall.)
What turned you into (then out of?) economic libertarianism?

Garvinator
07-08-2007, 11:27 PM
I think Rudd is actually very cagey and constructed about his own political identity, and I'm not sure how well the Australian people will really know him even by election time - it's a personality thing and the politics side seems very calculated and careful. But I also don't think he's a creature of strong political passions in any particular extreme direction.
In regards to listening to how politicians describe themselves, I dont think it is worth a grain of salt.

If you want to get an idea of what the politician in question is going to be like in the future, look at their past.

So for Rudd, that would be in Qld state politics.

Basil
07-08-2007, 11:28 PM
Howard, you seem to have changed your tune since the Labor=doom and gloom attitude of a few months ago.
Film at 11. Just getting my answers to HK.
Fair enough comment, but not accurate of my beliefs, due to my hazing in and out of balanced commentary, obtuse observations and a bender combination of the two. Here's an accurate response.

My general beliefs on the value of a left wing government haven't changed at all in the period cited.

Broadly, I believe a leftist set of policies will eventually strangle any western economy, and by extension, its people - the kicker always being the first 'victims' are the ones the leftist policies seek to 'protect'. Whether the strangulation results in blackout or asphyxiation depends on the time in government and the degree of leftness employed.

With moderate left policies (Blair, Beatty etc.) blackout will only ever occur. A few reasons:
1. 'Time attrition' will see the return of the 'balance' with an eventual right wing government (the same but in reverse of what will likely happen federally here) and moderate policies can't do the damage quickly enough.
2. The leftist race to hand over every last cent to minorities, popular causes and subsequent debt escalation is a much slower process.
3. Business is seldom ever killed off in these scenarios - as it still retains a pulse, although it takes a battering.

My belief (and history) will show that Australians will be worse off (generally) under a Labor government. There's no point me (or anyone) arguing either side of this because its impossible to prove. Much the same as the popularly held belief that the west is more in danger from terror because of Iraq. I think this is facile and shallow hodge podge of dribble, but nothing I can do (or the other side) can prove it or otherwise.

I don't believe Rudd's tenure will be marked by the more extreme leftish policies, but Gillard, unions and the Labor left factions will certainly bring pressure to bear.

This is one of two reasons why this thread's opening remarks contained greater equanimity than which I have previously displayed. The second reason is that this thread was intended to be a balanced commentary on the perception of the parties as opposed to each party's merits (the latter playing crazy with my synapses which results in my political dribble!).

Hope that sufficiently accounts for your accurate observation in the difference of my two approaches.

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2007, 12:04 AM
What turned you into (then out of?) economic libertarianism?

Studying political philosophy from age 20 onwards I became aware that the freedom I prized on moral/social/religious issues among others, had an apparent counterpoint in economics that I hadn't really considered before.

Gradually over several years I found that the following issues complicated the comparison between economic and personal freedoms and thus I realised that a person can consistently strongly support liberty on many issues while being more wary about it on economics:

* The initial distribution of property in a society is arbitrary and almost invariably influenced by violence, so the ethical chain of consensual transfer from deserving owner to deserving recipient that is the basis of an economic libertarian philosophy in the thought of Rand, Nozick and others never actually gets off the ground.

* Economic libertarianism as an ideology handles some environmental issues poorly, particularly those where one person's actions impact on environmental qualities available on another person's property. When these are considered carefully, arguments based on property rights do not necessarily lead to anything recognisable as capitalism but may actually lead to a society with very stringent environmental restrictions.

* Capitalism is supposed to reward the deserving by making it possible for their labour to be purchased. But in the critical area of employment, how good a job you get often depends not on how good you are at the task in question, but on how well you market yourself. The possibility that a person who was brilliant at their chosen task but awful at self-marketing would struggle badly in a laissez-faire society, and the likelihood that such a person would be me, was alone enough for me to support a very strong welfare net even had the issue of property arbitrariness not already done so.

* I was familiar with the argument for economic libertarianism as a moral one. But once I realised that moral arguments are subjective, what became more interesting to me is that a person can have a subjective interest in supporting constraints on economic liberty if these further their wellbeing (and yes, I know that often it's better not to redistribute), but interfering with someone else's personal freedoms typically brings the interferer no benefit whatsoever. Thus, I came to see personal illiberalism as irrational, but economic illiberalism as merely arational.

Basil
08-08-2007, 12:13 AM
Kevin

I find your response ... considered and learned. I appreciate the personal investigations you have made to weight the pros and cons.

I found it somewhat difficult to wade (perhaps my inability, perhaps yours, to communicate effectively) through 'the doctorate'. I'm not entirely certain what conclusions you drew although I understand your assessments of the relative merits.

At the end of the day, I can't help but feel you have substituted one ideology for another with a modeling process that at (nearly) all times neglects what actually occurs outside the test tube and the laboratory.

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2007, 12:32 AM
I'm not entirely certain what conclusions you drew although I understand your assessments of the relative merits.

In terms of economics, there are no conclusions drawn except that a certain specific conclusion (economic libertarianism) is not required of me.

My politics in the area of economics are therefore determined partly by my own preferences, and are hence not ideological at all. One of these preferences is not to ever need to look for work in order to survive, because I like working but despise having to actively seek employment. Howard has been actively hostile to this preference through his government's hoop-jumping Centrelink gibberish (which I have, often precariously, avoided throughout his reign) and therefore I detest his regime and want it gone, no matter what it may have done right. :P

(The religious "conservatism" of the Coalition is another reason I want them out of office. I place "conservative" in brackets because what is called a conservative position is often really a reactionary one. Real conservatives are rarely all that religious. :lol:)

Basil
08-08-2007, 12:51 AM
One of these preferences is not to ever need to look for work in order to survive, because I like working but despise having to actively seek employment.
Only if registered for benefits! Do you require benefits while not wishing to look for work? :eek:


Howard has been actively hostile to this preference
Yes he has, God bless him!


and therefore I detest his regime and want it gone, no matter what it may have done right. :P
Ahem! Truth will out! And credit to you for this much.


(The religious "conservatism" of the Coalition is another reason I want them out of office. I place "conservative" in brackets because what is called a conservative position is often really a reactionary one. Real conservatives are rarely all that religious. :lol:)
The religious aspect does nothing for me in politics, be it Rudd's, Howard's, every US leader since 17when? or Abbott's.

However, I'm not sure you made the link between your assertion that the Coalition practices religious conservatism and that the Coalition is reactionary. Rudd says so, but Rudd is a manipulative dribbler!

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2007, 01:03 AM
Only if registered for benefits! Do you require benefits while not wishing to look for work? :eek:

I'm not suggesting people should be allowed to bludge while they have other realistic means of support.

I am suggesting that if a person has no other way to keep themselves afloat then they should not be demeaned by being forced to ask for jobs that either don't exist or that they have no realistic hope of getting.


However, I'm not sure you made the link between your assertion that the Coalition is practices religious conservatism and that the Coalition is reactionary. Rudd says so, but Rudd is a manipulative dribbler!

I've actually never heard Rudd say that, and Rudd has some quite political-religious tendencies himself, though I think they're likely to turn into harmless but irritating piffle if he is elected.

I didn't assert that Howard practices religious conservatism, I asserted that he practices something that is called it but is actually even worse.

Basil
08-08-2007, 01:17 AM
I'm not suggesting people should be allowed to bludge while they have other realistic means of support.

I am suggesting that if a person has no other way to keep themselves afloat then they should not be demeaned by being forced to ask for jobs that either don't exist or that they have no realistic hope of getting.

Ok, you'll understand why I misunderstood. You did originally say that you despised having to actively seek employment. But I'm not fussed about Bonham's personal experiences and I think you've done well to go this far.

I'm more interested in the principal and its application to the community. It's very hard to create a catch-all policy regarding unemployment. All persuasions in many countries consider the issue. You say Howard is too tough. I say Labor is too soft.

I defend Howard's approach, and would implement it myself (although I'm not completely familiar, not having experienced it - although I think I experienced similar under Labor in 198something).

I don't see where the demeaning is compared to Labor's policy. It seems a straight case of Howard bashing. Under Labor, there were books to fill in, call sheets to make. What about an out of work 40 year old publisher who can't get a job publishing. He states his only skill is selling. He's decided he doesn't want to sell any more. Should he be forced to learn a trade or drive cabs or wait tables or work in a call centre or ... Of course he should!

But I think you say no. I'd be interested in your side. Once that's done, I'd suggest the we're talking about a very small percentile of people and ask again whether this is a basis on which you wish to turf a government?

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2007, 11:45 AM
Studying political philosophy from age 20 onwards I became aware that the freedom I prized on moral/social/religious issues among others, had an apparent counterpoint in economics that I hadn't really considered before.
Gradually over several years I found that the following issues complicated the comparison between economic and personal freedoms and thus I realised that a person can consistently strongly support liberty on many issues while being more wary about it on economics:


* The initial distribution of property in a society is arbitrary and almost invariably influenced by violence, so the ethical chain of consensual transfer from deserving owner to deserving recipient that is the basis of an economic libertarian philosophy in the thought of Rand, Nozick and others never actually gets off the ground.
Not sure what that means. It seems that the libertarian economy is the best way for someone with a poor background to become rich. A lot of the wealthiest people started with almost nothing, e.g. were poor immigrants or children of them. To become wealthy in a free market system, one must normally supply what lots of people want, e.g. cars (Ford), computers (Gates), cheap goods (Woolworth, Sam Walton).


* Economic libertarianism as an ideology handles some environmental issues poorly, particularly those where one person's actions impact on environmental qualities available on another person's property. When these are considered carefully, arguments based on property rights do not necessarily lead to anything recognisable as capitalism but may actually lead to a society with very stringent environmental restrictions.
You've given some good examples to support this. But didn't you also point out one case where there was no endangerment? The EPA in America has also come under fire for over zealousness that in effect meant depriving people of their own property.

Also, the countries with leftist governments and planned economies have usually turned out far worse for the environment.


* Capitalism is supposed to reward the deserving by making it possible for their labour to be purchased. But in the critical area of employment, how good a job you get often depends not on how good you are at the task in question, but on how well you market yourself. The possibility that a person who was brilliant at their chosen task but awful at self-marketing would struggle badly in a laissez-faire society, and the likelihood that such a person would be me, was alone enough for me to support a very strong welfare net even had the issue of property arbitrariness not already done so.
I can relate to this, actually. All the same, in a planned economy, advancement often involves pleasing the bureaucrats rather than pleasing lots of ordinary people.


* I was familiar with the argument for economic libertarianism as a moral one.
What about the practical one, where bureaucratic interference in the price that a free seller may charge a free buyer will often cause shortages or surpluses, thus reduce overall wealth to the country?

And a theoretical one, where both buyer and seller win, because both are obtaining something they value more than they are giving up. The mercantilist economics before Adam Smith, and Marxist theory, regard trade as a zero-sum game. Hence leftists often talk about "fairer share of the pie", whereas capitalists point out that their policies result in a larger pie to share.

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2007, 12:03 PM
One of these preferences is not to ever need to look for work in order to survive, because I like working but despise having to actively seek employment.
You've explained this well to Gunner, and I think you're right. People should not be allowed to refuse reasonable job offers, but they shouldn't have to go through bureaucratic hoops looking for work that isn't there. Similarly, when Roger Douglas freed up the NZ economy, lots of people in former government corporations were put out of work, and there was not much work at that time for them, esp. for people over 50, so there needed to be a safety net.


Howard has been actively hostile to this preference through his government's hoop-jumping Centrelink gibberish (which I have, often precariously, avoided throughout his reign) and therefore I detest his regime and want it gone, no matter what it may have done right. :P
That seems a drastic single-issue vote. And will Labor change anything?


(The religious "conservatism" of the Coalition is another reason I want them out of office.
Of course, in my view, that is one of their good points :lol: But then why is Rudd flaunting his Christian credentials ;)


I place "conservative" in brackets because what is called a conservative position is often really a reactionary one. Real conservatives are rarely all that religious. :lol:)
Hard to define. When Roger Douglas freed up the NZ economy, the "conservatives", in the sense of preserving the status quo, would have been those who wanted to preserve Muldoon's price and wage freeze, farm subsidies, regulations. Hayek wrote "Why I Am Not a Conservative". Friedman advocated policies like school vouchers, which had not been in place before, so that is also not really "conservative", or "reactionary" in the sense of restoring a past condition, real or imagined.

Davidflude
08-08-2007, 12:12 PM
Have a look at the possum polytics website.

The swing against the government is lowest in safe Labour seats higher in marginals and highest in safe coalition seats.

I am reminded of the famous poem "underwear'

"I saw Richard Nixon on television. He must have had tight underwear, he squirmed a lot" The same appears to be the case with john Howard.

In my opinion the coalition needs to do more rebuiloding than the Essendon or Carlton football clubs.

At least the election is not going to be as bad for the coalition as this season is for Melbourne.

Basil
08-08-2007, 12:14 PM
One of these preferences is not to ever need to look for work in order to survive, because I like working but despise having to actively seek employment.
You've explained this well to Gunner, and I think you're right. People should not be allowed to refuse reasonable job offers, but they shouldn't have to go through bureaucratic hoops looking for work that isn't there.
Kevin has explained a personal belief, and Jono has ratified his agreement of same.

What is missing prior to arriving at the stated conclusion is the existence of these premises:
a) That the Howard government is enforcing this policy
b) That the Labor government wasn't
c) The very idea that jobs don't exist
d) The onus on the employment seeker to re-skill

With respect to a) this begs the question in respect to c). I say that jobs do exist. I can prove it.

With respect to b) I would suggest that at very worst, we are talking degree between the two parties as I have cited experience of my own some 20 years ago when forced to make a quota of applications.

With respect to d) Neither of you have commented on this and I'd be staggered if either of you (not necessarily others :rolleyes: ) deny the onus.

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2007, 03:55 PM
Not sure what that means. It seems that the libertarian economy is the best way for someone with a poor background to become rich. A lot of the wealthiest people started with almost nothing, e.g. were poor immigrants or children of them.

Nothing much like the pure libertarian economy has existed for many decades. But even if some of the wealthiest people started with nothing and got rich (as some did) that's not the issue. The issue, for me, is guaranteed financial survival at a reasonable level, at least for those who are not either comprehensively useless or else completely hell-bent on self-destruction. A pure libertarian system is too risky in this sense if you start at a low level and can't sell yourself effectively, or perhaps even if you just don't get the right breaks. You mentioned that Hayek supported a welfare net; in my view this moves him a little outside the pure libertarian/capitalist school of thought. Indeed my own system is largely libertarian apart from taxation to maintain income support for the unemployed (and underemployed poor), but to many capitalists this would be seen as a major concession and a halfway house to socialism.


You've given some good examples to support this. But didn't you also point out one case where there was no endangerment?

Oh, there are many such cases; a lot of environmental claims are trumped-up or entirely fallacious, but that doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist. The particular issue that makes it difficult for libertarian theory is pollution - the rights or otherwise of a property owner to put stuff into the air that will then go into the atmosphere and potentially affect the wellbeing of not just immediately adjacent property-owners, but in some cases property-owners well away from there and even perhaps globally.

My point in this case is not that I personally support extreme restraints on industry in the interests of fiddling decimal points of pollution. I personally suspect that people generally are better off if some small degree of pollution is permitted so that the economy grows, there is more disposable income and people can spend more on health care - it will quite likely more than cancel out. But such a view is in a sense a technical deviation from the non-infringement principles underlying capitalism. Either that or one has to argue that a person owns land but has no control over air quality on that land, and I don't like where that leads.


Also, the countries with leftist governments and planned economies have usually turned out far worse for the environment.

Certainly the case in much of the old Eastern Bloc, but how well it applies as a causative principle is another question.


I can relate to this, actually. All the same, in a planned economy, advancement often involves pleasing the bureaucrats rather than pleasing lots of ordinary people.

Yes, which is one of many reasons why I don't support a planned economy. What I do support is a strong basic welfare net for all so that one doesn't have to necessarily impress anyone to survive.


What about the practical one, where bureaucratic interference in the price that a free seller may charge a free buyer will often cause shortages or surpluses, thus reduce overall wealth to the country?

And a theoretical one, where both buyer and seller win, because both are obtaining something they value more than they are giving up. The mercantilist economics before Adam Smith, and Marxist theory, regard trade as a zero-sum game. Hence leftists often talk about "fairer share of the pie", whereas capitalists point out that their policies result in a larger pie to share.

I actually agree with both of these things in general, but expanding the pie doesn't appeal to me too much if the result is a risk for some of those on low incomes of missing out entirely. Most likely I take this stance because I am not especially rich at the moment and if I was financially secure for life I would have a different preference.

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2007, 04:07 PM
What is missing prior to arriving at the stated conclusion is the existence of these premises:
a) That the Howard government is enforcing this policy

Have you been on Centrelink unemployment assistance since 1996? Do you know (closely) anyone who has? Those with direct or even close indirect experience of the system generally don't see the need to debate (a). Of course it is still possible to dodge the enforcement attempts and bludge, but we've reached a state where long-term bludging itself is almost as demanding in time terms as having a job.


b) That the Labor government wasn't

It certainly was, to its detriment, but to a much lesser degree. In the early 90s under Keating it was two jobs per fortnight. There was very little checking and most people just took numbers out of the phonebook.


c) The very idea that jobs don't exist

I'm not saying jobs don't exist at all; I'm saying that jobs for a given person in a particular area may not exist, yet they are still legally required to contact a given (and quite large) number of employers in a given time asking for work. Some of them receive literally hundreds of knockbacks in the process. Many more would be in a similar situation if they actually went through the whole demeaning process of applying and getting rejections rather than lying on the form (which many people still do despite the risk of being caught and having their benefits cut).


d) The onus on the employment seeker to re-skill

It is not at all easy to re-skill effectively if you are unemployed and have virtually no money to re-skill with. Especially not if you are having your time used up doing Work For The Dole projects which are, according to at least one study, more of a hindrance in terms of time burnt up than a help in terms of skills gained, on average.

Spiny Norman
08-08-2007, 04:22 PM
Have you been on Centrelink unemployment assistance since 1996? Do you know (closely) anyone who has?
I was, for about 6 months during 2003. Gunner 'n me are mates. Now, did someone have a question they wanted to ask?

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2007, 04:33 PM
but we've reached a state where long-term bludging itself is almost as demanding in time terms as having a job.
Maybe that was the point? The only problem is punishing those willing to work but don't have employment.


I'm not saying jobs don't exist at all; I'm saying that jobs for a given person in a particular area may not exist, yet they are still legally required to contact a given (and quite large) number of employers in a given time asking for work.
Similarly, just after Rogernomics, there was a genuine shortage of jobs. However, the problem could equally have been the huge expansion of government that resulted in gross inefficiency that created the problems of useless jobs in the first place. But this wasn't the fault of the employees.

Nowadays, it seems that employers can't fill positions.


Some of them receive literally hundreds of knockbacks in the process.
And that is pointless.


It is not at all easy to re-skill effectively if you are unemployed and have virtually no money to re-skill with. Especially not if you are having your time used up doing Work For The Dole projects which are, according to at least one study, more of a hindrance in terms of time burnt up than a help in terms of skills gained, on average.
That's a worry. Probably would be good training for school leavers who lack other qualifications and can't easily gain them, but less point for those with qualifications, and if it costs the country money as well, it's crass.

All the same, since reality involves trade-offs rather than solutions, I wonder if "solving" some of the problems with economic libertarianism results in more problems than it solves.

pax
08-08-2007, 05:10 PM
I had an unusual situation where I was "unemployed" for a number of months (in 98) in between my undergrad degree in Australia and postgrad in the UK (due to the different academic year). Centrelink was quite hard to deal with - there was no concession due to my circumstances, and I was forced to apply for the usual 8 jobs a week (or whatever it was - it was a lot).

Needless to say, employers were not really interested in someone who was going to be gone in a few months so the job search was entirely fruitless. There were a few realistic propositions to pursue (internship type positions etc), but they dried up very quickly - and it degenerated into the pointless cold calls - "do you have any jobs/contracts for 3 months? no? thanks, bye".

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2007, 05:14 PM
From Sub-Prime Politicians (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/08/08/sub-prime_politicians?page=full&comments=true)
By Thomas Sowell


But why were housing prices going up so fast, in the first place? A number of studies of communities across the United States and in countries overseas turned up the same conclusion: Government restrictions on building.

While many other factors can be involved — rising incomes, population growth, construction costs — a scrutiny of the times and places where housing prices doubled, tripled, or quadrupled within a decade shows that restrictions on building have been the key.

Attractive and heady phrases like "open space," "smart growth" and the like have accompanied land use restrictions that made the cost of land rise in many places to the point where it greatly exceeded the cost of the homes built on the land.

In places that resisted this political rhetoric, home prices remained reasonable, despite rising incomes and population growth.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2007, 05:16 PM
Have you been on Centrelink unemployment assistance since 1996? No

Do you know (closely) anyone who has? Yes

Those with direct or even close indirect experience of the system generally don't see the need to debate (a). Of course it is still possible to dodge the enforcement attempts and bludge, but we've reached a state where long-term bludging itself is almost as demanding in time terms as having a job. It is still very far by a huge margin

It certainly was, to its detriment, but to a much lesser degree. In the early 90s under Keating it was two jobs per fortnight. There was very little checking and most people just took numbers out of the phonebook. True. But having it tougher is that little extra incentive to look for job more actively. It could be a coincidence, but I got my first job after the rules were tightened a bit (still under Keating)


I'm not saying jobs don't exist at all; I'm saying that jobs for a given person in a particular area may not exist, yet they are still legally required to contact a given (and quite large) number of employers in a given time asking for work. Some of them receive literally hundreds of knockbacks in the process. Many more would be in a similar situation if they actually went through the whole demeaning process of applying and getting rejections rather than lying on the form (which many people still do despite the risk of being caught and having their benefits cut).
I agree that in general welfare system has to be streamlined, and stupid requirements dropped. But people on the dole should remember that unemployment benefit is not to be taken for a granted and they should find a job. There are heaps of jobs that do not pay as much, but they can support someone who is looking for a better job.


It is not at all easy to re-skill effectively if you are unemployed and have virtually no money to re-skill with. Especially not if you are having your time used up doing Work For The Dole projects which are, according to at least one study, more of a hindrance in terms of time burnt up than a help in terms of skills gained, on average.
Work for the Dole is one of the stupidest thing Howard did. Is it still there?

Axiom
08-08-2007, 05:27 PM
what do you do with those that are conscientious objectors to work?
throw them on the streets doleless?

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2007, 05:28 PM
Maybe that was the point? The only problem is punishing those willing to work but don't have employment.

Quite possibly it was indeed the point (and it may well be quite effective in this regard) but chasing down the relatively small number of out-and-out bludgers for the sake of appeasing the right-wing talkback radio doesn't seem worth the risks and harassement of others to me.


Nowadays, it seems that employers can't fill positions.

I find that whole skills shortage thing intriguing. We've had a decade of a government approach that tries to force unemployed people to constantly look for work whether they have a hope of getting it at that time or not, but now we have a situation in which employers have work they want done and they can't find anyone to do it.

Either the government strategy of forcing people to look for work isn't actually working (they don't look), or else the problem is that those it forces to look for work lack the relevant skills. I'm guessing it's the latter and wondering if the government would be better off encouraging dole recipients to train for the dole, rather than jumping through Centrelink hoops.

Or, in other words, expand study assistance, but perhaps make it more vocationally focussed.

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2007, 05:31 PM
what do you do with those that are conscientious objectors to work?
throw them on the streets doleless?

I'm not too concerned with what happens to them. They can take their chances with charity as far as I'm concerned.

But conscientious objection to applying for a job you can't get is quite a different thing.

Axiom
08-08-2007, 05:41 PM
I'm not too concerned with what happens to them. They can take their chances with charity as far as I'm concerned.

where is this universal law that states - if you are born a human, you must work?


is it not just a giant slave plantation, only with better conditions?
ie. slaves are provided food/shelter etc in exchange for their labour.
its the same now, with the nice disguise that people are conditioned to believe that they are in control !

centrelink is where the potential slaves have yet to be allocated an owner.

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2007, 05:46 PM
where is this universal law that states - if you are born a human, you must work?

There isn't one. But there is also no universal law that states that if you absolutely refuse to work at all, other people have to feed you.


is it not just a giant slave plantation, only with better conditions?
ie. slaves are provided food/shelter etc in exchange for their labour.

Exactly. Exchange. Commercial transaction between willing parties is not slavery.

Axiom
08-08-2007, 06:12 PM
There isn't one. But there is also no universal law that states that if you absolutely refuse to work at all, other people have to feed you. CORRECT, i should have said i am not anti-enterprise,just anti-slavery(ie forced to work)
by work i am referring to your typical f/t positions , 30-60k/yr approx.
but its not wage specific.


Exactly. Exchange. Commercial transaction between willing parties is not slavery.
this is the crunch!
is the worker really free to transact an equitable exchange?
does the force not come from the need for food/shelter etc?

on the old cotton fields of Alabama, slaves fled the plantations for freedom
only for an oft harsher and more dangerous life in the hills......but what price freedom? ....... a hot shower,do i hear you say?:)

my belief is that the country can easily afford to house and feed the very few that for whatever reason refuse to work. the argument that this will start a snowball effect i believe to be false. the overwhelming majority of people buy the system and will always strive to achieve greater material wealth within it.
its like the argument,that if you legalise drugs the use goes up significantly(see here for decrease in cannabis use in uk post decriminalisation)
if you sanction conscientious work objectors, by not forcing them to jump through hoops,i believe there will likewise not be a clamour to join the simple life

Capablanca-Fan
09-08-2007, 01:09 AM
does the force not come from the need for food/shelter etc?
The employer did not cause this need!


if you sanction conscientious work objectors, by not forcing them to jump through hoops,
What about conscientious refuse-to-feed-outright-bludgers objectors?

DanielBell
09-08-2007, 08:31 AM
Lazy people don't deserve the charity that is stolen from me every Wednesday. I work bloody hard for it.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-08-2007, 09:27 AM
Lazy people don't deserve the charity that is stolen from me every Wednesday. I work bloody hard for it.

They wouldn't deserve it even if you did not work bloody hard.

Axiom
09-08-2007, 01:56 PM
The employer did not cause this need!


no,they are just higher order slaves trying to employ lower order ones.
part of the same system,which fosters and nurtures this need,in order to maintain control over it's human resources.

What about conscientious refuse-to-feed-outright-bludgers objectors?
fine , as long as you are just as likely to tilt your head upwards towards high level corruption and non-payment of taxes as you are to look downwards to kick the unwilling slave.

this is the same dynamic as the cotton fields...... fellow slaves are stricter controllers of other slaves than the owners.
deep down in most people there is the uncomfortable feeling that they have been co-opted into a role that uses them,and to think that others have the temerity to opt out of the chains,causes the reaction- "look if im going to be a slave, you sure as hell have to be too." and " oh nooo, my attention is not on the slave-owners and what they do, oh noooo, im just right on the case of the unwilling slave" !

Axiom
09-08-2007, 02:01 PM
Lazy people don't deserve the charity that is stolen from me every Wednesday. I work bloody hard for it.
whats worse, being a slave , or knowing that slaves are opting out of the plantation?
and do you know where all your taxes go? and you trust your govt to use your taxes responsibly? or is it just easier to attack the bottom rung on the heirarchy?

Axiom
09-08-2007, 02:04 PM
They wouldn't deserve it even if you did not work bloody hard.
yes so its better to have these unwilling slaves on the streets commiting crimes, creating ghettos? or just sweep them all up into forced labour camps?(where the veneer of non-slavery is stripped away!)

Axiom
09-08-2007, 03:51 PM
For those interested in this perspective:

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/new_slavery.htm

Kevin Bales, Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy, 1999

http://www.whywork.org/about/faq/wageslave.html




"The debt and work cycle is an ingenious tool of subjugation. Make people think they need all these things, then they must have a job, and they give up control of their lives. It's as simple as that. We live in one of the most free countries in the world, but we fix it so we are not free at all. "
- Larry Roth

"Capitalism only supports certain kinds of groups, the nuclear family for example, or 'the people I know at my job', because such groups are already self-alienated & hooked into the Work/Consume/Die structure."
- Hakim Bey

"Supposing we suddenly imagine a world in which nearly everybody is doing what they want. Then we don't need to be paid in order to work and the whole issue of how money circulates, how we get things done, suddenly alters."
- Robert Theobald

"When survival or mere subsistence is at stake, a society can focus only on the overwhelming needs of the moment, and questions of meaningful work and leisure are considered purely academic. But we believe that the world has enough wealth to move all of humanity above survival and subsistence."
- Alfonso Montuori & Isabella Conti, From Power to Partnership: Creating the Future of Love, Work, and Community

Ged
09-08-2007, 05:45 PM
when did people forget that life is a violent struggle? (rhetorical)

Capablanca-Fan
09-08-2007, 05:54 PM
no,they are just higher order slaves trying to employ lower order ones.
Not at all. Employers and employees do not have to work at these particular job.


fine , as long as you are just as likely to tilt your head upwards towards high level corruption and non-payment of taxes
There is more incentive for that if taxes are too high.


as you are to look downwards to kick the unwilling slave.
No one is forced to work for a particular employer. But if I have to feed bludgers, then I am the one enslaved to them!

Axiom
09-08-2007, 06:11 PM
Not at all. Employers and employees do not have to work at these particular job. open to debate, this degree of "have to"



There is more incentive for that if taxes are too high.
irrelevant! i spoke of corruption and tax evasion.


No one is forced to work for a particular employer. But if I have to feed bludgers, then I am the one enslaved to them!
employers ,again, are just higher order slaves, the choices are trivial.
again you prefer the easy option of tilting your head downwards to condemn those below you on the prescribed work/slave heirarchy, rather than those above you.....many redirect their own frustration at being enslaved by attacking those that blow the whistle.
i refer to this as "collective cowardess" in the face of mass indoctrination.

Axiom
09-08-2007, 06:17 PM
when did people forget that life is a violent struggle? (rhetorical)who told you that?(that life is a violent struggle)
nature? if so, then a faulty analogy,based on our ability for self-reflection.
the controlling elite? if so, you are a brainwashed slave!
when did people forget that humanity strives for freedom and justice !!

Desmond
09-08-2007, 09:20 PM
I've met 30 lifer lefties on this board. Do you count me in that?

EGOR
09-08-2007, 10:28 PM
Axiom, who are the slave owners?

DanielBell
10-08-2007, 07:25 AM
who told you that?(that life is a violent struggle)
nature? if so, then a faulty analogy,based on our ability for self-reflection.
the controlling elite? if so, you are a brainwashed slave!
when did people forget that humanity strives for freedom and justice !!

Wait, so you support freedom yet you think people should be FORCED to pay charity to lazy people?

And about the questions you asked me about tax, if we were to remove all government services that could be handled privately, abolish welfare and make people responsible for their own health care and education, and hand the job of helping hand to charities (who do this more efficiently anyway), apart from defense and justice, what does the government need to tax people for?

Capablanca-Fan
10-08-2007, 12:49 PM
Wait, so you support freedom yet you think people should be FORCED to pay charity to lazy people?
The Left often have a blind spot in that area. Their alleged 'rights' often enslave others to satisfy these rights.


And about the questions you asked me about tax, if we were to remove all government services that could be handled privately, abolish welfare and make people responsible for their own health care and education, and hand the job of helping hand to charities (who do this more efficiently anyway), apart from defense and justice, what does the government need to tax people for?
Good point. Those in need are far better served by charities close to them than by expensive, bloated government bureaucracies.

Capablanca-Fan
10-08-2007, 12:54 PM
"The debt and work cycle is an ingenious tool of subjugation. Make people think they need all these things, then they must have a job, and they give up control of their lives. It's as simple as that. We live in one of the most free countries in the world, but we fix it so we are not free at all. "
- Larry Roth
Murray Gleason, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, has pointed out:


“[a] person is not in a position of relevant disadvantage, constitutional, situational, or otherwise simply because of inequality of bargaining power. Many, perhaps even most, contracts are made between parties of unequal bargaining power, and good conscience does not require parties to contractual negotiations to forfeit their advantages, or neglect their own interests.” [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holding Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 18 at 11.]

George Reisman stated in Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (1998), p. 344 (emphasis in original):


“Economic competition is not a process by which the success of the biologically fit bring about the extermination of the biologically weak. On the contrary, it is the process by which the success of better products and more efficient methods of production promotes the survival and well-being of all. It is a process in which the success of the more able raises the productivity and improves the standard of living of the less able.”

Ged
10-08-2007, 01:50 PM
humanity does not strive for freedom and whatever other garbage you proclaim ax. :P
oh yeah and justice... what a joke!

Axiom
10-08-2007, 02:00 PM
humanity does not strive for freedom !
?????:hmm:

Davidflude
10-08-2007, 02:01 PM
Some years ago I was retrenched. Even though i was very well qualified it took three months to get a new job. I estimate that it took 30-40 hours per week concentrated effort. I had massive support during this process.

It is very easy to become disallusioned and to give up. A further point is that
it is treated as a game by the government, the civil servants and the job seekers. My advice to persons seeking work is to join a job club (if they still exist). The biggest problem is the feeling that you are worthless and isolated.

Probably the nastiest thing the government has done is use a bodgie measure of unemployment that is not the accepted international measure and which grossly understates underlying unemploment.

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2007, 02:51 PM
Good point. Those in need are far better served by charities close to them than by expensive, bloated government bureaucracies.

I'm still sceptical that charities will provide the same level of assistance as a decent welfare net under any economic system.

Capablanca-Fan
10-08-2007, 04:09 PM
I'm still sceptical that charities will provide the same level of assistance as a decent welfare net under any economic system.
But it's hard to be skeptical that charities will have less bureaucracy and stupid hoops than our current system.

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2007, 04:14 PM
But it's hard to be skeptical that charities will have less bureaucracy and stupid hoops than our current system.

True, but unless they are able to provide sufficient assistance, irrelevant.

pax
10-08-2007, 04:16 PM
If you rely on charity, there are no guarantees, only hope..

Capablanca-Fan
10-08-2007, 04:20 PM
If you rely on charity, there are no guarantees, only hope..
If you rely on government, you have to hope that you can satisfy the bureaucratic requirements. People who give their own money have an incentive to see that it is used wisely to help those in need, not pay fat cat officials.

There is also no guarantee that the government will be able to provide. That is a concern with America's pyramid scheme they call 'social security'—it is unlikely to remain solvent as the ratio of workers to beneficiaries decreases.

The rise of bloated welfare bureaucracies has actually harmed charities, and it's questionable whether the recipients of aid are better off.

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2007, 04:23 PM
People who give their own money have an incentive to see that it is used wisely to help those in need, not pay fat cat officials.

Some people who give their own money can have all kinds of curious agendas.

Davidflude
10-08-2007, 04:42 PM
There is also no guarantee that the government will be able to provide. That is a concern with America's pyramid scheme they call 'social security'—it is unlikely to remain solvent as the ratio of workers to beneficiaries decreases.



You are right on the money Jono.

The problem with the US system is that it is unfunded. The idea is that the money coming in pays the pensions of those that are retired. This is very dangerous in the face of demographic change. Many unfunded US pension schemes are deep under water. at least in Australia the superannuation reforms started by Paul Keating and deepened and widened by the Howard government will to a large extent avoid this problem.

I am a self funded retiree and get no goverernment pension so i have no axe to grind.

Capablanca-Fan
10-08-2007, 04:54 PM
You are right on the money Jono.

The problem with the US system is that it is unfunded. The idea is that the money coming in pays the pensions of those that are retired. This is very dangerous in the face of demographic change. Many unfunded US pension schemes are deep under water. at least in Australia the superannuation reforms started by Paul Keating and deepened and widened by the Howard government will to a large extent avoid this problem.
Thanx David. Keating and Howard/Costello deserve much credit for a much superior system. But when Bush tried to implement a similar system, where people would have their own retirement accounts, choose how to invest and allow their dependents to inherit the money, the demagogues went into full battle mode about "saving social security".


I am a self funded retiree and get no goverernment pension so i have no axe to grind.
Sounds much safer. I seriously doubt that there will be much of a pension left by the time I retire.

Capablanca-Fan
10-08-2007, 06:06 PM
irrelevant! i spoke of corruption and tax evasion.
As the Estonian esperience (http://www.heritage.org/Research/WorldwideFreedom/bg2060.cfm) showed, these are highly eliminated by a free markey and low flat tax, respectively. When government bureaucrats control large portions of the economy, then there is wide scope for bribery. Where people are free to control their own economic transactions, as opposed to benefiting from bureaucratic favour or harmed by bureaucratic disfavour, there is nothing much left to bribe for. And if the tax system is low and simple, once again the incentive for evasion or avoidance schemes is less.


employers ,again, are just higher order slaves, the choices are trivial.
Nonsense. As Reisman pointed out (Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, p. 331, 1998):


“The difference between freedom and slavery is as sharp as day and night, even when a worker must work to avoid the pain of hunger. For even in this case it is not the capitalist employer who causes the worker’s hunger. On the contrary, he provides the means of satisfying the worker’s hunger.”

A slave is one forced to work for a particular master by that master's use of force. The slave's hunger or lack thereof doesn't come into it.

Axiom
10-08-2007, 06:36 PM
As the Estonian esperience (http://www.heritage.org/Research/WorldwideFreedom/bg2060.cfm) showed, these are highly eliminated by a free markey and low flat tax, respectively. When government bureaucrats control large portions of the economy, then there is wide scope for bribery. Where people are free to control their own economic transactions, as opposed to benefiting from bureaucratic favour or harmed by bureaucratic disfavour, there is nothing much left to bribe for. And if the tax system is low and simple, once again the incentive for evasion or avoidance schemes is less.
i dont believe a humanitarian safety net is incompatible with a small govt low flat tax free enterprise system.



Nonsense. As Reisman pointed out (Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, p. 331, 1998):


“The difference between freedom and slavery is as sharp as day and night, even when a worker must work to avoid the pain of hunger. For even in this case it is not the capitalist employer who causes the worker’s hunger. On the contrary, he provides the means of satisfying the worker’s hunger.”

A slave is one forced to work for a particular master by that master's use of force. The slave's hunger or lack thereof doesn't come into it.
you concentrate on the small picture only........i maintain that a big picture view reveals the systemic mechanism that in effect renders people prostrate to the dictates of the designed pseudo plantation.

Capablanca-Fan
10-08-2007, 06:39 PM
Real jobs have increased: from May 2005 to May 2007, over 500,000 jobs have been created, and over 400,000 of these are full-time jobs [Seasonally adjusted figures from “Labour Force Australia” Australian Bureau of Statistics 6202.0 (May 2007)].

Real wages have also increased: from March quarter 1996 to March quarter 2007, they increased by 20.8%, whereas under the previous Labor government (March quarter 1983 to March quarter 1996) real wages actually fell by 1.8% [As measured by average non-farm compensation per employee deflated by the implicit price deflator for final consumption expenditure — households from the ABS Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product publication (Cat. No. 5206.0) — AusStats spreadsheets 2, 3 and 20; seasonally adjusted].

Axiom
10-08-2007, 06:44 PM
Real jobs have increased: from May 2005 to May 2007, over 500,000 jobs have been created, and over 400,000 of these are full-time jobs [Seasonally adjusted figures from “Labour Force Australia” Australian Bureau of Statistics 6202.0 (May 2007)].
lets hope they're real !


Real wages have also increased: from March quarter 1996 to March quarter 2007, they increased by 20.8%, whereas under the previous Labor government (March quarter 1983 to March quarter 1996) real wages actually fell by 1.8% [As measured by average non-farm compensation per employee deflated by the implicit price deflator for final consumption expenditure — households from the ABS Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product publication (Cat. No. 5206.0) — AusStats spreadsheets 2, 3 and 20; seasonally adjusted].
how real are the wages ,when indexed against housing(shelter) costs?

Basil
10-08-2007, 07:19 PM
anyway ... back to the topic as originally intended please (includes me)

Carry on!

Axiom
10-08-2007, 07:26 PM
thread split request

DanielBell
10-08-2007, 08:19 PM
I'm still sceptical that charities will provide the same level of assistance as a decent welfare net under any economic system.

The advantages to charity are this:

Firstly, I am 22 years old, pretty fit & strong, tall... Overall, no reason I can't work. However (if I was a citizen here), If I was to make up some story that I couldn't find work, I'd be eligible for welfare. A charity organization would require more than a cute story, they're more likely to give the money to those who actually NEED it.

Secondly they have less overhead, I read some article from the U.S. that claimed 2 3rds of the dollar collected in tax goes into actually collecting the tax!* If people were to donate only 10% of what they are forced to pay in tax to a charity organization, the poor are still better off! The poor were once people that nobody wanted to associate with or help, but in today's society people ARE more charitable.

http://www.ruwart.com/poverty.lpn.wpd.html

*I dunno the figures for Australia, but I will still guarantee that more of charitable donations gets to the cause than tax does.

Basil
10-08-2007, 08:25 PM
Real jobs have increased:

Real wages have also increased:

Jono, you are entirely wasting your breath.
If ppl can still read their books, have their little meetings, pop their little indignant blood vessels and decide that communism is a goer in the face of ...

The USSR 100 experiment! :wall:

... you have no hope in presenting these figures. For every stat we wheel out, we will receive a very well prepared bucket of tosh ... I mean counter-intelligence. There is nothing for it, but to let the silly sods have three terms at it - and even then 1/2 of the poor sods won't understand how it all went wobbly.

pax
10-08-2007, 10:08 PM
Real jobs have increased: from May 2005 to May 2007, over 500,000 jobs have been created, and over 400,000 of these are full-time jobs [Seasonally adjusted figures from “Labour Force Australia” Australian Bureau of Statistics 6202.0 (May 2007)].

Real wages have also increased: from March quarter 1996 to March quarter 2007, they increased by 20.8%, whereas under the previous Labor government (March quarter 1983 to March quarter 1996) real wages actually fell by 1.8% [As measured by average non-farm compensation per employee deflated by the implicit price deflator for final consumption expenditure — households from the ABS Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product publication (Cat. No. 5206.0) — AusStats spreadsheets 2, 3 and 20; seasonally adjusted].

Believe it or not, the election will be fought on more than two issues!

Comparisons with the previous Labor government are entirely meaningless unless you do considerable analysis. Any economist will tell you that the Australian economy is far more dependent on overseas conditions than it is on government policy (at least in the short to medium term). Howard has a global boom and stupendous demand for resources, whereas Keating had a global recession to contend with - it's hardly a level playing field.

Basil
10-08-2007, 10:21 PM
Any economist will tell you that the Australian economy is far more dependent on overseas conditions than it is on government policy (at least in the short to medium term). Howard has a global boom and stupendous demand for resources, whereas Keating had a global recession to contend with - it's hardly a level playing field.

Jon, you are correct regarding external forces and their relative importance. It is possible for an Australian government to cock-up a great (globally provided local) environment, and requires some talent to surf it.

The Labor government's stated plans on IR, (previous plans on roll-back), the hopeless ripping of the Future Fund for Broadband and a maniacal obsession with skills training are 4 areas where the well-intentioned lefties can cock-up the un-cock-up-able.

With respect to your statements on Keating's global environment, they are over-stated. Keating got the gold medal for plunging an economy into crisis. While most western economies struggled, none plunged the depths as quickly or as deeply or as prolonged as my Bankstown mate with his hapless, hopeless and repeatedly disproven ramshackle ideologue.

Capablanca-Fan
10-08-2007, 11:49 PM
how real are the wages ,when indexed against housing(shelter) costs?
Very real when indexed against the CPI. The housing costs are most likely due to State Government interference, e.g. keeping land locked up.

pax
11-08-2007, 12:08 AM
The Labor government's stated plans on IR, (previous plans on roll-back), the hopeless ripping of the Future Fund for Broadband and a maniacal obsession with skills training are 4 areas where the well-intentioned lefties can cock-up the un-cock-up-able.
1. What's wrong with skills training?
2. If the government hadn't screwed up the sale of Telstra quite so badly, there likely would not be the need to spend so much money (public or private) fixing broadband.

Capablanca-Fan
11-08-2007, 12:13 AM
A charity organization would require more than a cute story,
True. While it is un-PC to talk about "deserving poor" v "undeserving poor", there is such a thing, and charities canh differentiate them far more efficiently than the impersonal welfare bureaucracy.


they're more likely to give the money to those who actually NEED it.
Also, they encourage people to become self-sufficient, which is better for all concerned. Conversely, the history of government welfare bureaucracy is perpetuating dependency. Noel Pearson said it has killed his Aboriginal people. But the bureaucrats have an incentive to keep the bureaucracy big (see Yes Minister).

Secondly they have less overhead, I read some article from the U.S. that claimed 2 3rds of the dollar collected in tax goes into actually collecting the tax!*
Good point. Thomas Sowell points out in The Poverty Pimp's Poem (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=923):


MY FELLOW-ECONOMIST WALTER WILLIAMS has for years kept track of how much money it would take to lift every American man, woman and child in poverty above the official poverty level. That sum has consistently been some fraction of the money actually spent in "anti-poverty" programs. In other words, if you gave every poor person enough money to stop being poor, that would cost a fraction of what our welfare state programs and bureaucracies cost.


If people were to donate only 10% of what they are forced to pay in tax to a charity organization, the poor are still better off! The poor were once people that nobody wanted to associate with or help, but in today's society people ARE more charitable.
True. While my friends who have lived in Sweden, with a massive welfare bureaucracy, noted how uncharitable that society is.

pax
11-08-2007, 07:33 AM
True. While it is un-PC to talk about "deserving poor" v "undeserving poor", there is such a thing, and charities canh differentiate them far more efficiently than the impersonal welfare bureaucracy.

Yeah, and the deserving poor can just starve. Cos they deserve it.



Good point. Thomas Sowell points out in The Poverty Pimp's Poem (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=923):


Can we quit it with all the Thomas Sowell quotes? I think by now we get that he is the poster boy for your ultra right-wing economic views.

Capablanca-Fan
11-08-2007, 09:46 AM
Yeah, and the deserving poor can just starve. Cos they deserve it.
No, "deserving poor" mean those who deserve charity, i.e. those people who want to work but are unable to find suitable employment. The "undeserving poor" are those like the ones Axiom defends, who refuse to work.


Can we quit it with all the Thomas Sowell quotes? I think by now we get that he is the poster boy for your ultra right-wing economic views.
Or rather, a scholar and author who thinks that government does more harm than good by interfering with transactions between a free buyer and free seller. And I fail to see the problem with his pointing out that tax dollars earmarked for "welfare" go more to prop up the welfare bureaucracy than to help the poor themselves.

pax
11-08-2007, 11:06 AM
Or rather, a scholar and author who thinks that government does more harm than good by interfering with transactions between a free buyer and free seller. And I fail to see the problem with his pointing out that tax dollars earmarked for "welfare" go more to prop up the welfare bureaucracy than to help the poor themselves.

Well that particular quote was completely meaningless, because on the one hand he is criticising the cost of welfare bureaucracy and on the other hand he says you could give everyone enough money to stop being poor for the same amount of money (conveniently forgetting that giving out money actually does cost money).

Can we agree that welfare systems should be run as efficiently as possible? Sure.

Does the fact that welfare systems cost money in addition the amount actually given out to people mean that they are suddenly worthless? Not at all.

Kevin Bonham
11-08-2007, 02:53 PM
Good point. Thomas Sowell points out in The Poverty Pimp's Poem (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=923):


MY FELLOW-ECONOMIST WALTER WILLIAMS has for years kept track of how much money it would take to lift every American man, woman and child in poverty above the official poverty level. That sum has consistently been some fraction of the money actually spent in "anti-poverty" programs. In other words, if you gave every poor person enough money to stop being poor, that would cost a fraction of what our welfare state programs and bureaucracies cost.

This does not surprise me and it would also not surprise me if it was true in Australia as well.

However I suspect that cost doesn't include the cost of correctly identifying who is poor and who isn't, or the cost of paying all the other claimants if you just give money to everyone who applies.


True. While my friends who have lived in Sweden, with a massive welfare bureaucracy, noted how uncharitable that society is.

But to what extent is that welfare bureaucracy effective in removing the need for charity?

Basil
11-08-2007, 07:34 PM
1. What's wrong with skills training?
2. If the government hadn't screwed up the sale of Telstra quite so badly, there likely would not be the need to spend so much money (public or private) fixing broadband.
Haven't forgotten. Want to respond. Because it goes to the heart of the differences between us, I needed a while to collect myself. Similar reaction I had when Kevin started with his beliefs on the welfare system!

It's not at all that I wish to denigrate anyone, its just ... never mind ...

Will post later tonight all being well.

Capablanca-Fan
11-08-2007, 08:36 PM
However I suspect that cost doesn't include the cost of correctly identifying who is poor and who isn't, or the cost of paying all the other claimants if you just give money to everyone who applies.
Even if that were taken into account, it would be unlikely to match the cost of bureaucracy. Overseas welfare aka "foreign aid (http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=560)" is even worse.


But to what extent is that welfare bureaucracy effective in removing the need for charity?
More like removing people's charitable inclinations, because the Guvmint can take care of them. But charity didn't produce second and third generation welfare claimants as the "War on Poverty" did. But as explained in DanielBell's link The Poor Would Have More in a Libertarian Society (http://www.ruwart.com/poverty.lpn.wpd.html), the welfare system encouraged dependency because people would often earn more on some benefits than they could (in the short term) by working.

Capablanca-Fan
11-08-2007, 08:41 PM
If the government hadn't screwed up the sale of Telstra quite so badly, there likely would not be the need to spend so much money (public or private) fixing broadband.
They shouldn't need to spend any money. If people want it, then they can pay for it. Then there will be companies competing for their business.

The Government screwed up by owning telecommunications in the first place. Now they are screwing up by paying for telecommunications in the bush, which means political favoritism counts more than efficiency.

Basil
11-08-2007, 09:05 PM
With no particular segue in mind, I recall my taxi driving days. Circa '88.

I picked up a woman from her residence in Inala and took her to Indooroopilly Shoppingtown (20 minutes - 10 klms) and back (40 mins - 20 klms). Where was she going? KFC dive through. How much did she spend? About $30 to feed a family of who knows how many.

Taxi fare - a snappy $50 - back then. Best part of $100 on lunch. Wonder what she did for breakky and dinner.

Without going into unnecessary detail - the whole lot was was paid for by the government. I think she's what we call a battla!

Kevin Bonham
11-08-2007, 10:14 PM
Even if that were taken into account, it would be unlikely to match the cost of bureaucracy.

It would further strengthen my case if it didn't, although it's not at all necessary to it.


But as explained in DanielBell's link The Poor Would Have More in a Libertarian Society (http://www.ruwart.com/poverty.lpn.wpd.html), the welfare system encouraged dependency because people would often earn more on some benefits than they could (in the short term) by working.

Sure it did - in the USA. But this is no surprise given that the USA's lowest wage levels are little better than real slavery (as distinct from the sort Axiom makes up).

Axiom
11-08-2007, 10:21 PM
Sure it did - in the USA. But this is no surprise given that the USA's lowest wage levels are little better than real slavery (as distinct from the sort Axiom makes up).
so at which wage level would you say this* real slavery ceases to exist?

*edit: sorry, "this 'little better than real slavery' "

Axiom
11-08-2007, 10:28 PM
Instead of the term 'slaves', would 'serfs' be more accurate?

Axiom
11-08-2007, 10:32 PM
With no particular segue in mind, I recall my taxi driving days. Circa '88.

I picked up a woman from her residence in Inala and took her to Indooroopilly Shoppingtown (20 minutes - 10 klms) and back (40 mins - 20 klms). Where was she going? KFC dive through. How much did she spend? About $30 to feed a family of who knows how many.

Taxi fare - a snappy $50 - back then. Best part of $100 on lunch. Wonder what she did for breakky and dinner.

Without going into unnecessary detail - the whole lot was was paid for by the government. I think she's what we call a battla!
maybe it was a treat!? ;)

Basil
11-08-2007, 10:35 PM
It certainly was - a lifetime one to be cashed in everyday! Guess who's still paying 20 years later :doh:

pax
11-08-2007, 10:42 PM
Without going into unnecessary detail - the whole lot was was paid for by the government. I think she's what we call a battla!

So some people are idiots. What's your point?

pax
11-08-2007, 10:44 PM
It certainly was - a lifetime one to be cashed in everyday! Guess who's still paying 20 years later :doh:
Maybe you should try living on the dole and paying $100 for lunch every day? There's a pig in the sky over there..

Basil
11-08-2007, 10:55 PM
Without going into unnecessary detail - the whole lot was was paid for by the government. I think she's what we call a battla!
So some people are idiots. What's your point?
That being an idiot is one's own business, unless I'm (the state) paying for it. I was driving a taxi pretty at well base wages - didn't the irony occur to you?

Basil
11-08-2007, 10:59 PM
It certainly was - a lifetime one to be cashed in everyday! Guess who's still paying 20 years later.

Maybe you should try living on the dole and paying $100 for lunch every day? There's a pig in the sky over there.
You've mentioned the dole. Why is that?

Why am I being insulted? I have lived on the dole.

How about we scrub your answer and write it off as a warm up. Have another go (if you wish). Not really sure why you've come out swinging all over the place.

Desmond
11-08-2007, 11:01 PM
So c'mon now Gunner, tell the truth. Did the taxi-driver get "lost" and apply a rather loose application to the passenger's request of "take me to the closest KFC"?

PS. Not defending the outing in anyway. Just trolling. Thanks.

Basil
11-08-2007, 11:07 PM
So c'mon now Gunner, tell the truth. Did the taxi-driver get "lost" and apply a rather loose application to the passenger's request of "take me to the closest KFC"?
Don't start me on cabbies ripping off passengers :lol: In fact you can have a coupla HCDs coz I have some stories to tell which will make ***'s hair turn. In fact I'm going to start a thread ... http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/escape.gif


PS. Not defending the outing in anyway. Just trolling. Thanks.
:P :cool:

Kevin Bonham
11-08-2007, 11:07 PM
so at which wage level would you say this* real slavery ceases to exist?

*edit: sorry, "this 'little better than real slavery' "

Well, I guess "real slavery" is free lodging plus basic meals and a wage of zero dollars. You do the math.

Australia's current minimum wage is about twice the USA's.

Axiom
11-08-2007, 11:18 PM
Well, I guess "real slavery" is free lodging plus basic meals and a wage of zero dollars. You do the math.

yes conditions have improved,no doubt,but still many exist as you describe ,working simply to acquire shelter and food,and little else.hence close to this real slavery you describe

Axiom
11-08-2007, 11:22 PM
I have some stories to tell which will make ***'s hair turn.
i have to admit, i find this extraordinarily difficult to believe.

Kevin Bonham
11-08-2007, 11:27 PM
yes conditions have improved,no doubt,but still many exist as you describe ,working simply to acquire shelter and food,and little else.

Some do. However most people who have full-time work earn far more than they need to meet such basic goals.

Desmond
11-08-2007, 11:32 PM
i have to admit, i find this extraordinarily difficult to believe.And that really is saying something.

Axiom
11-08-2007, 11:38 PM
Some do. However most people who have full-time work earn far more than they need to meet such basic goals.
we can argue where better conditions end and where the absence of real slavery begins. However it is clear that this conceptual perspective of the working human reality is not one to dismiss as readily as many do.

Kevin Bonham
11-08-2007, 11:48 PM
we can argue where better conditions end and where the absence of real slavery begins. However it is clear that this conceptual perspective of the working human reality is not one to dismiss as readily as many do.

Whose "working human reality"? "It is clear" without evidence sounds like treading water.

Axiom
12-08-2007, 12:11 AM
Whose "working human reality"?
the vast majority of the salaried work force


"It is clear" without evidence sounds like treading water.
my evidence was the fact we were even discussing a line to be drawn on this !

Kevin Bonham
12-08-2007, 12:26 AM
the vast majority of the salaried work force

I don't believe a word of this.

Basically I'm proposing a little deal between the well-off and the rest of society here. The deal is that if the well-off, through the taxation system, guarantee a reasonable financial position for the rest with very few conditions attached, then in return most of the other restrictions they face on their wealth and business can be abolished; pretty much everybody wins. But here you come along with unfounded suggestions that virtually no-one is in a reasonable financial position anyway, which doesn't exactly help.


my evidence was the fact we were even discussing a line to be drawn on this !

Um, no, you discussing something and me disagreeing with it is not any evidence of anything.

DanielBell
12-08-2007, 12:59 AM
Sure it did - in the USA. But this is no surprise given that the USA's lowest wage levels are little better than real slavery (as distinct from the sort Axiom makes up).

The wages there are lower but our welfare is "better". A mother with a few kids and a husband too lazy to work only have to claim they're separated to receive a lot of money from the government, about what i'd earn working full time on day shift at my work (I get a bit extra working nights).

Basil
12-08-2007, 01:06 AM
1. What's wrong with skills training?
Coz it's a fluffy duck.

PART 1
This country has more than enough TAFEs, colleges, courses and who knows what, both free and paid to service 100 countries.

You want to learn to type, plumb, add up, public speak, dress well, lay bricks, drive professionally, write reports, wire a house, get fit, teach, nurse, look after people with a disability, make papier maché ashtrays - its out there. Squillions of government funded, semi funded and non funded private and public courses. All of the these institutions advertise heavily to get people to attend these 1/2 empty courses and diplomas.

We don't need any more bloody institutions and skill trainers!

PART II
Don Chipp (Mr Centre of Democrats fame (prior to being hijacked by the lefties) for those that don't know) espoused a couple of concepts that IMO should be tackled by anyone who is remotely serious about having an opinion on politics that they intend on foisting upon others. Of concern here is Don's question as to whether the individual believes that business or government should drive an economy (including fund it and shape it). The inescapable answer every time is 'business'.

Centrally run and driven economies don't work. They can't. Bureaucrats and government (all flavours) don't have the skills, the dynamism, or the ability to economically sustain the projects to do so. This is what Don and the conservatives generally understand and have understood for years.

To deny this or fly in its face is folly that results in bloated, moribund, obsolete and bankrupt systems. However well-intentioned the ideal, the result is painful failure that everyone pays for - especially (as I am now well-known for saying) the very people originally intended to receive the benefit.

PART III
The mantra of government funded infrastructure (there are degrees). While it is the duty of governments to maintain and provide infrastructure such as roads etc., (and not particularly cost-efficient in a country and population this size) there is all the difference in the world between performing that function within the means of the people, and performing it mindlessly with no end in sight, chasing every blind alley and bleeding heart that pops up.

Show me a left government and I'll show you a group of politicians who will spend spend spend. All they bloody do is spend. They do it because a) they have no bleeding idea on fiscal policy and b) they are convinced they have dibs on looking after the disenfranchised.

What bloody arrogance to believe they have dibs (or a unique predilection) on looking after the needy. The difference between left and right in this respect is the difference between grand parents and parents. The grand parents hand out the goodies and give the good time, while the parents have to pay the rent and teach the manners. No wonder the battlas stare at the left wing with starry eyes and (sometimes) hate the right.

Ahem. Infrastructure. Spending. There is (should be) actually very little for a government to do (refer Jono's postings elsewhere). The difficulty is that Labor can't bring itself to do nothing. It is inconceivable for it do nothing except provide an economic infrastructure for business to thrive. Business thrives, taxes get collected, public money is generated, and to the degree that it is generated, it is allocated. But the idea of making business thrive as the primary edict, while being the only tonic for progress, is the very thing that stabs in the heart of every hardened leftie. It perpetrates and begs the mantra that 'all conservative governments are interested in, is looking after the rich and neglecting the poor'. Seriously it's like talking to cement mixers.

I think deep down, Keating and Rudd and Bracks and Beatty et al have a suspicion that this is true - well most of them. However it doesn't play well to the faithful. So what to do? They can promise cash goodies to a degree. But that doesn't wash with an ever increasingly astute middle ground electorate.

Aha! Let's build a vision. Broadband! Roads! Universities! The smartest bestest country in the world! No child will live in poverty (Hawke). Let's go! And that gets the clueless, the wishful and the startled going every time.

Under left governments, the size of the public workforce goes through the roof. And when the money is spent, we have to lay them of off or pay the staff until we're drowned in public debt. It's not that the conservatives don't build roads - its just that they don't build them until we're broke. It's not that the conservatives don't want universities, it's just that they want them to be sustainable. Its not that the conservatives don't want anything - it just has to be sustainable. However, like the parent, grand parent thing, it's just too easy to paint conservatives as mealy-mouthed pork barreling richies - which is naive in the extreme and not at all what drives us or our ideals.

What's wrong with Skills Training?
We don't need more skills training. It's a mantra. I believe it is one of your (the left's) straw men.

Basil
12-08-2007, 01:26 AM
Back on track to the idea behind this thread, it's interesting (for me) to note the catch-up cricket that the coalition is now playing with the mantra of skills training.

I don't believe the coalition perceives the need at all. But Labor has put it on the agenda, and the coalition has the choice of either pushing its line (which I coarsely stated above) which certainly wouldn't work in a headline conducive environment and an audience that has tuned out, or playing follow the leader :wall:

The country will get the government and the policies it deserves :eek:

pax
12-08-2007, 07:56 AM
You've mentioned the dole. Why is that?

Why am I being insulted? I have lived on the dole.

How about we scrub your answer and write it off as a warm up. Have another go (if you wish). Not really sure why you've come out swinging all over the place.
I'm not insulting anyone. I have lived on the dole too.

I'm just pointing out that anyone who has lived on any kind of welfare would be well aware that there isn't enough of it to squander it in the way you describe any more than once a blue moon - not if you have any kind of bills to pay. You are trying to paint this "Current Affair" stereotype of welfare recipients living in the lap of luxury at our expense, and it just isn't reality unless they are committing fraud.

pax
12-08-2007, 08:32 AM
What's wrong with Skills Training?
We don't need more skills training. It's a mantra. I believe it is one of your straw men.

Mine? You brought it up. So if we don't need skills training, why is it that business is complaining about a shortage of skilled labour?

I read an article about how the mining industry is sick to death of the media talking about all these great jobs earning six figures. There are plenty of jobs for skilled and experienced workers. There is no shortage of unskilled people interested in working, but there aren't any jobs for them.

Basil
12-08-2007, 09:48 AM
I'm not insulting anyone. I have lived on the dole too.

I'm just pointing out that anyone who has lived on any kind of welfare would be well aware that there isn't enough of it to squander it in the way you describe any more than once a blue moon - not if you have any kind of bills to pay. You are trying to paint this "Current Affair" stereotype of welfare recipients living in the lap of luxury at our expense, and it just isn't reality unless they are committing fraud.

You've made a mistake and confused welfare with a subset of it, viz the dole. It's a leap you made. The woman was not on the dole. She was on multiple benefits totaling around $1,000 per week (we chatted, she told me - I recall staring maniacally ahead - I guess she felt comfortable talking to the 'leftie' cabbie or simply just didn't mind advertising).

If she were on the dole, you would be correct. If she were on the dole, I wouldn't have been making the point I was making.

Incidentally, a distant relative (one removed kind of thing) of mine is currently paid $1,200 per week to stay at home and raise 3 kids! (There is a small story attached to it - one of them is not his - but still). Not blaming Labor for this.

Basil
12-08-2007, 09:51 AM
Mine? You brought it up.
No, Kevin did (both of them! :lol:). But that's fine. It's on the agenda for this thread. By 'yours', I meant leftie agenda (I've edited my original to better reflect this point).


So if we don't need skills training, why is it that business is complaining about a shortage of skilled labour?
Shortage of labour prepared to do the jobs. Over there, we have 1,000 people complaining they can't find work. And over 'here' we have business calling for miners and electricians and nurses, but no-one wants to do it. That's what I mean. Government is already prepared to subsidise, already geared to fund. But nope - not interested. My accountant has been looking for a receptionist / admin person for 12 months. He has an inner suburban and an established business.

KB asked me a coupla days ago on here if I knew anyone closely who fit into this category (dole, filling out forms, not prepared to reskill etc.). I do. I'm just having problems working out how much I wish to divulge. I'll end up posting (I know I will) and its damning in the extreme and illustrates my point perfectly.

Incidentally, this topic should not be confused with an allied discussion of skills exodus from the country. While an allied topic, the parameters and mechanisms at play are entirely different.

Double incidentally :eek:, this is different again from the shortage of doctors and surgeons.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2007, 11:31 AM
But the idea of making business thrive as the primary edict, while being the only tonic for progress, is the very thing that stabs in the heart of every hardened leftie. It perpetrates and begs the mantra that 'all conservative governments are interested in, is looking after the rich and neglecting the poor'. Seriously it's like talking to cement mixers.
Good stuff, Gunner. Many of the lefties here have mistakenly claimed that the free market means government support for big business. They are ignorant of the actual teachings of free market advocates from Adam Smith on, who hardly had a good word to say about big businessmen. A number of them hate the free market, because they don't want the competition, and support government regulations that erect barriers for competitors.

The Lefties also point to problems in America as "proof" of the dangers of free market. Actually, America is not a free market, because there is heavy regulation in many areas, and many of its problems are due to this government interference in the market.

A good example is their crappy school system, due to the powerful NEA, a powerful bloc in the Dems, opposing school vouchers and choice, thus preventing competition between schools for pupils. The NEA has also made it almost impossible to fire dud teachers. See also Stupid in America: Why your kids are probably dumber than Belgians (http://www.reason.com/news/show/33014.html) by John Stossel.

Another example is their moribund social security system, where people are forced to pay into it, and this goes to subsidized current retirees. Once again, despite GWB's proposal to allow people to invest some of this money as they choose to support their own retirement (as per our Keating/Costello system), there were too many demagogues that blocked this.

Even the the problems with their health system are due to government interference, since their complicated insurance regs separate people from the real cost of their health care, and thus the incentive to minimize them. See Insuring problems (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell042800.asp) by Thomas Sowell (because Pax hates him :evil: :P).


I think deep down, Keating and Rudd and Bracks and Beatty et al have a suspicion that this is true - well most of them. However it doesn't play well to the faithful. So what to do? They can promise cash goodies to a degree. But that doesn't wash with an ever increasingly astute middle ground electorate.
But the unions will want their pound of flesh from Rudd.

Kevin Bonham
12-08-2007, 01:24 PM
You've made a mistake and confused welfare with a subset of it, viz the dole.

I should point out again that most of my concerns with the welfare system are with the way the dole is administered. There may for all I know be all kinds of other ridiculous rorts in the remainder of income support.


Shortage of labour prepared to do the jobs. Over there, we have 1,000 people complaining they can't find work. And over 'here' we have business calling for miners and electricians and nurses, but no-one wants to do it. That's what I mean.

"Prepared" in the sense of wanting to, or prepared in the sense of being adequately skilled? Your average unemployed person doesn't just wake up one day and decide, "Oh, there's a shortage of nurses. I want work, so I might start being a nurse tomorrow".

I suspect what's happened is that the harsh Centrelink regime has driven most people who are capable of working and looking for work directly into whatever dead-end job they can get, leaving a residual long-term dole pool of no-hopers, bludgers, and people using the dole as an alternative form of study allowance (I totally endorse this latter practice since the government not funding postgrad study except for those who have scholarships is probably a part of the skills problem). Whereas had the government not been so keen on cutting the dole stats by any means available, it could have found ways to keep more semi-skilled people in the labour force and gaining skills for the time when they were needed. So basically the issue may be self-inflicted.

(This is just a hypothesis of course! :lol: )

Axiom
12-08-2007, 02:06 PM
and people using the dole as an alternative form of study allowance (I totally endorse this latter practice since the government not funding postgrad study ..
likwise the defacto funding of artists !

Basil
12-08-2007, 05:54 PM
"Prepared" in the sense of wanting to, or prepared in the sense of being adequately skilled? Your average unemployed person doesn't just wake up one day and decide, "Oh, there's a shortage of nurses. I want work, so I might start being a nurse tomorrow".
It's called reskilling Kevin.

The comes a point when one realises that there's not sufficient call for anthropological, ghost writing, three legged, taxi driving jugglers. Darn. What a shock. When that point dawns (on the hippie :uhoh:), one must consider an alternative career.

The situation is older than chess, not an invention of John Howard's. Two differences in the last decade are that the jobs DO actually exist and now professional BLUDGING is harder. Holding out for the opening that was never going to come in the above mentioned anthropological field at the expense of the tax payer is simply not an option!

Axiom
12-08-2007, 06:06 PM
humans make their wealth largely on the backs of other humans,so shouldnt whinge about contributing to subsistence funding for the base rank of the pyramid

Basil
12-08-2007, 07:26 PM
humans make their wealth largely on the backs of other humans,so shouldnt whinge about contributing to subsistence funding for the base rank of the pyramid
What a load of clap trap. For one so Axio-bloody-matic I'm surprised you're stuck on ... never mind. This thread is like extracting teeth ... slowly ... my own.

Axiom
12-08-2007, 07:44 PM
What a load of clap trap. For one so Axio-bloody-matic I'm surprised you're stuck on ... never mind. This thread is like extracting teeth ... slowly ... my own.
The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off ! ;)

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2007, 08:10 PM
humans make their wealth largely on the backs of other humans,
Typical Marxo-Leftist class struggle crap. In reality, wherever there is a free transaction between buyer and seller, both become wealthier. This is because both acquire something they value more than they gave up. This applies both to freely trading individuals and to freely trading nations.

And in a more-or-less free market society, the wealthiest have become that way because they have supplied millions with what they want at an affordable price. Think of Henry Ford's cars; Woolworth and Sam Walton's cheap supermarket goods, Bill Gates' PCs and programs.

How simple do I have to make it? :wall: :wall: :wall:

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2007, 08:26 PM
likwise the defacto funding of artists !
Another bad idea, where so-called "artists" are subsidised to produce garbage, because they don't have to impress the public; instead they just have to impress a trendy bureaucrat.

Leftist ideas are elitist, through and through.

Basil
12-08-2007, 08:29 PM
Can we throw in the wages that people earned on the backs of small business before 90% of them (business) go broke?

Of course not. Stop babbling the crap you pick up elsewhere and think for yourself. Please don't tell me you had that thought by yourself!

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2007, 08:37 PM
Can we throw in the wages that people earned on the backs of small business before 90% of them (business) go broke?
Good point. This shows that the "trickle-down" theory is nothing but a leftist straw man. In reality, it is the business founder who is paid last. His employees, suppliers and creditors must be paid first, often for years before the business founder makes a profit, if he ever does. So the order of payments is completely the opposite of that supposed by "trickle down" scaremongers. See also The "Trickle Down" Economics Straw Man (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1115)by Thomas Sowell.

pax
12-08-2007, 09:19 PM
You've made a mistake and confused welfare with a subset of it, viz the dole. It's a leap you made. The woman was not on the dole. She was on multiple benefits totaling around $1,000 per week (we chatted, she told me - I recall staring maniacally ahead - I guess she felt comfortable talking to the 'leftie' cabbie or simply just didn't mind advertising).

You know what, I reckon she picked you as a loony righty straight away and was yanking your chain. Unless she had 10 kids, there is no way she would be raking in $1000 a week (like I say unless she was committing fraud). A couple on newstart, FTB and rent assistance with 4 kids might get $38000

Basil
12-08-2007, 09:38 PM
You know what, I reckon she picked you as a loony righty ...
:lol: Fair enough.

... and was yanking your chain
eeer nope.


Unless she had 10 kids...
Getting warmer ... but I wouldn't think that many


... there is no way she would be raking in $1000 a week
I didn't mention race at all :eek: :uhoh:


A couple on newstart, FTB and rent assistance with 4 kids might get $38000
Is 'newstart' the dole? It's time to forget the dole in this conversation, if so.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2007, 10:16 PM
You know what, I reckon she picked you as a loony righty straight away
Paxspeak for those who don't share his lefty faith, "In big government we trust." :P

Basil
12-08-2007, 10:27 PM
I took the approach that if I can swan around here calling the lefties , I can take a few myself.

More interesting (for me) is that I understand the rationale and the supporting evidence for labeling lefties as soft, wet and naive. Not sure what (half decent rationale) exists for labeling me loony. If anything, loony would would be a misnomer by all rational accounts. But I digress. See next post for back on track.

Basil
12-08-2007, 10:34 PM
Just had my fill of CSI (first in about a year). Watched ads for ADF recruitment (similar carried in my own publication) and federal government incentives for employing tradespeople under apprenticeships.

Also caught the first (that I've seen anyway) salvo in (what may well be mutual) negative advertising from Labor. John Howard in monochrome with the blood red interest rates rises noted on the screen. 5 of them. The thrust is that Howard is a liar. This on top of Rudd's repetitive (kicked off in Parliament last week) "Which do you regret more on interest rates? Making the promise, or failing to keep it?" Of course, the only promise that Howard made was that the country would be better off under the Libs. The Labor argument would be destroyed by manga or any 3 years old, but that's politics and I know it goes both ways.

I think it will play well. Certainly a proportion of voters (rightly or wrongly) believe Labor are more likely to be the cause of higher interest rates than under a coalition. But this campaign, I believe, will assuage quite a number into diluting that opinion. Coupled with the housing crisis, I think its feasible that Labor can all but negate this fear among swinging voters.

Southpaw Jim
12-08-2007, 10:56 PM
Of course, the only promise that Howard made was that the country would be better off under the Libs.

C'mon Howie, don't you get as facetious as the PM on this one, it doesn't become you! Sure, Howard never said it himself, but Liberal Party advertising sure as hell did. You're telling me that the Party ran those ads against JWH's wishes?? :hand: more fool the Liberals for making such a claim, it was only ever going to come back to haunt them.

The implication was clearly there, for those in the electorate that were dumb enough (and obviously there were a few), or economically illiterate enough (again, obviously a few) to believe that the Government had any kind of real control over interest rates.

Whilst making the caveat that 16 seats is a big ask for the ALP, and therefore the outcome is probably 50-50, the actions of the government in the last 2 months are those of a dying government. Especially (speaking as a Tasmanian public servant with some vague inside knowledge) the whole Mersey hospital thing. That's just downright ludicrous.

Whatever the outcome, it'll be an interesting race. As an ALP voter, whilst it'd be nice to see them win, it'd certainly be sweet to see, as an alternative, the Coalition win but the PM lose his seat... :clap:

Basil
12-08-2007, 11:02 PM
Huh? Can we just back up a bit? I understand the salivation ... I suffer from quite a bit of it myself! ;)

What did the libs say, which you now say is accurately interpreted in the ads?
(... and welcome to the thread, James.)

Southpaw Jim
12-08-2007, 11:07 PM
Certainly a proportion of voters (rightly or wrongly) believe Labor are more likely to be the cause of higher interest rates than under a coalition.

I think now the idea that the Liberals can control interest rates with any degree of real influence has been dispelled for the general electorate, the only people who truly hold this particular belief are the 'rusted on' Liberal voters, who believe Keating was the Antichrist, who believe the Liberal-perpetuated mythologies/bogey-man stories about the economy in the 80s and early 90s, and whose vote will never make a difference because they're not swingers (:P).

In otherwords, this proportion of voters are irrelevant to the outcome.

Southpaw Jim
12-08-2007, 11:08 PM
Huh? Can we just back up a bit? I understand the salivation ... I suffer from quite a bit of it myself! ;)

What did the libs say, which you now say is accurately interpreted in the ads?
(... and welcome to the thread, James.)

Thanks, nice to be here :)

Did you not see the printout of the tv ad that Kev07 held up in parliament? The one that said "Keeping interest rates at record lows"? I ask you, what is that meant to mean?

Southpaw Jim
12-08-2007, 11:10 PM
This one!

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/2004libad.JPG

Basil
12-08-2007, 11:12 PM
Did you not see the printout of the tv ad that Kev07 held up in parliament? The one that said "Keeping interest rates at record lows"? I ask you, what is that meant to mean?
Yes. Ummm ... James. You've only just got here and it's already a '... never mind' moment ... I need to go and collect myself. I'll be back to address this tosh and I reckon I can be civil at the same time ;)

Basil
12-08-2007, 11:23 PM
I think now the idea that the Liberals can control interest rates with any degree of real influence has been dispelled for the general electorate
This is what I was saying in my original post. It is clear that we are otherwise at odds in assessing its veracity as well as the history supporting it our respective claims.


the only people who truly hold this particular belief are the 'rusted on' Liberal voters
True. No argument.


... who believe Keating was the Antichrist
No he wasn't. He was a silly sod. Too much Bankstown ethos. Not enough of what his brain knew.


who believe the Liberal-perpetuated mythologies/ bogey-man stories about the economy in the 80s and early 90s...
James, respectfully, you're not an economic historian are you? Its more than (y)our lifetime and its more than this country. I appreciate and understand the stereotypes you have attached to me. I don't think you are aware of the ones that apply to you. Of all the posters on this topic here, I don't think you have the remotest clue what's going on.

Your philosophy and supporting text, at first blush, appears very similar to another bloke on here for whom I have much personal respect - but seriously, we ain't going to make any progress in this discussion at all. Can we leave it there?

Basil
12-08-2007, 11:33 PM
Clarification: Sorry, we can discuss interest rates of course and the campaign - its only the broader aspects of the ideology as described by you that we won't make headway on.

Southpaw Jim
12-08-2007, 11:38 PM
James, respectfully, you're not an economic historian are you? Its more than (y)our lifetime and its more than this country. I appreciate and understand the stereotypes you have attached to me. I don't think you are aware of the ones that apply to you. Of all the posters on this topic here, I don't think you have the remotest clue what's going on.

Your philosophy and supporting text, at first blush, appears very similar to another bloke on here for whom I have much personal respect - but seriously, we ain't going to make any progress in this discussion at all. Can we leave it there?

Hah. No, just an economist, no historian. Plus, I don't believe I've attached any stereotypes to you, I've merely questioned you on the seriousness of your belief that the PM isn't lying, in the context of Liberal Party advertising in the 2004 campaign. I'm fully aware of stereotypes that may be sought to be applied to me, but their veracity is quite probably another matter.

As for what's 'going on', feel free to edumicate me ;)

Back to my original question though, and forgetting for the mo' whether we can make progress, what do you believe the ad to mean? Or is it a non-core promise?

Was rather amusing to watch Costello squirm under fire from Kerry O'Brien about the same issue - what does the ad say, are rates at 'record lows', and what part of the Liberal Party's advertising can we trust into the future? All I saw was Costello trying to obfuscate and turn the issue back to the hoary ol' chestnut of rates under Labor 13+ years ago.

BTW, it's nice to see this thread get back on topic, after pages of BS about slavery etc.

Southpaw Jim
12-08-2007, 11:39 PM
Clarification: Sorry, we can discuss interest rates of course and the campaign - its only the broader aspects of the ideology as described by you that we won't make headway on.

That was just window-dressing anyway ;)

EDIT: I'm going to bed now anyway, got to engage in more BS... I mean economics... come 8.45am tomorrow. I'll return to this thread in the morning...

Basil
12-08-2007, 11:47 PM
Hah. No, just an economist, no historian.
Shame. History has much to teach. Even to economists.


Plus, I don't believe I've attached any stereotypes to you
By inference. 'Rusted on'. 'Keating - Antichrist' 'Bogeymen' etc. None taken personally, as I certainly dish it out. Happy to move past this one.


I've merely questioned you on the seriousness of your belief that the PM isn't lying, in the context of Liberal Party advertising in the 2004 campaign.
Lying is the key word. Making a claim with genuine political licence (which I allow both sides) is the key. I will discuss the specific claim and your probing/ defence etc in a later post.


Back to my original question though, and forgetting for the mo' whether we can make progress, what do you believe the ad to mean? Or is it a non-core promise?
Re: meaning - refer later post. Re: Core promise - yes.


As for what's 'going on', feel free to edumicate me ;)
I can only lead a horse to water ...

pax
13-08-2007, 10:00 AM
Is 'newstart' the dole? It's time to forget the dole in this conversation, if so.

You gotta be more specific..

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2007, 06:58 PM
It's called reskilling Kevin.

Yeah, and it's much more difficult to do if you spend too much of your time on Donkey Work For The Dole, chasing up employers to meet your quota of futile contacts (or else trying to make ends meet because you got your allowance cut for "breaching" on a form) and wading through other mountains of bureaucratic nonsense to get paid (such as standing in a massive line because they will not let you post your form in). The net effect of all this is temptation to take any dead-end job one can get whether it reskills one or doesn't.

If reskilling is the aim then the hoop-jumping, time-wasting BS should be dispensed with and the government should look at ways to either maintain proper postgrad study support, or if that is insufficiently vocational then come up with some other way to encourage people to genuinely reskill while on the dole.


Two differences in the last decade are that the jobs DO actually exist and now professional BLUDGING is harder. Holding out for the opening that was never going to come in the above mentioned anthropological field at the expense of the tax payer is simply not an option!

Actually openings for specialised people who stick at what they are good at will virtually always come up eventually, so long as the specialty isn't way beyond completely ridiculous.

Desmond
13-08-2007, 07:03 PM
Do people think that JH will win his own seat?

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2007, 07:05 PM
Whilst making the caveat that 16 seats is a big ask for the ALP,

A big ask but not as big as some make out.

In terms of a percentage of available seats gained, the Opposition has picked up that proportion of the seats or more in eleven of the last 40 elections.

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2007, 07:15 PM
Do people think that JH will win his own seat?

At the moment I think he'll probably just hang on, by 1% or so. Three point gap in the polls for a single high profile seat is meaningless and most of the most interesting outcomes threatened in seat polls don't actually happen.

But ask again a few weeks out from the election.

Garvinator
13-08-2007, 07:50 PM
One situation that I would find rather amusing is if the Coalition is re-elected, but John Howard loses Bennelong.

So all those who voted for John Howard as PM wont get the leader they voted for :owned::whistle:

Basil
13-08-2007, 08:05 PM
One situation that I would find rather amusing is if the Coalition is re-elected, but John Howard loses Bennelong.

So all those who voted for John Howard as PM wont get the leader they voted for :owned::whistle:
I think (only think, don't know for sure, no-one get excited) that the preponderance of voting for a 'personality is more the purview of the left. I have an equal suspicion that a greater proportion of righties will vote for the policies and not the man.

Basil
13-08-2007, 08:09 PM
Yeah, and it's much more difficult to do ...

From anecdotal evidence, I suspect you might be right.

I think its important to also restate that under the previous Labor government, there was also hoop jumping. We are only discussing the degree of change - not the fact that one side has the hoops and the other doesn't.

I would like to know that if one advises Centrelink that one wishes to re-skill, and the intention is genuine, will they cut some slack?

Basil
13-08-2007, 08:10 PM
Do people think that JH will win his own seat?
Not sure. He's certainly come the closest in a long while to being ejected AFAIK. I think KB's the man with the best reading of the tea-leaves on here. So I reckon 'what Kev says'. Never let it be said ... :lol:

pax
13-08-2007, 10:13 PM
Not sure. He's certainly come the closest in a long while to being ejected AFAIK. I think KB's the man with the best reading of the tea-leaves on here. So I reckon 'what Kev says'. Never let it be said ... :lol:

My prediction: JH will win, but by the skin of his teeth and after considerable campaigning in Bennelong. The ALP will win the election, JH will resign and Maxine will win the by-election in a landslide. I reckon this has been the master plan all along, and it's a brilliant piece of politics to distract JH from the national scene by forcing him to campaign locally..

Southpaw Jim
13-08-2007, 10:43 PM
These polls will have me on tenterhooks for the next 3 months :(

Some of the analysis I've been reading is interesting: the contention is that much of the swing vote has already gone from Lib to Lab via the minor parties. This has happened over the last 3 years, and will be nigh impossible for the Coalition to reverse in 3 months... thus, Labor's vote is not as 'soft' as some pundits would have you believe.

I think it will be a near run thing and, given my previously stated proclivities, I hope pax is right.

I reckon the polls in the next week (Morgan on Friday IIRC) will be interesting, will certainly lay bare whether today's AC Nielsen is a turnaround or a bump in the road.

pax
13-08-2007, 11:25 PM
I reckon the polls in the next week (Morgan on Friday IIRC) will be interesting, will certainly lay bare whether today's AC Nielsen is a turnaround or a bump in the road.

Well AC Nielsen has been a bit more extreme than the other polls for months. Don't know why. This result just brings them back to the poll average. It won't be any comfort to the Libs until they can see a trend in multiple polls (remember that Newspoll stretched the lead only last week and that was a seriously bad week for the government)

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2007, 11:28 PM
I think its important to also restate that under the previous Labor government, there was also hoop jumping.

The one and only time I was (a) on the dole and (b) unable to escape the activity test was for about two months in 1992. At that time the only requirement unless you'd been on for a looooong time was ringing up two employers per fortnight. I think it got harsher later in Keating's reign, but it has been several times harsher under Howard.


I would like to know that if one advises Centrelink that one wishes to re-skill, and the intention is genuine, will they cut some slack?

They're a bureaucracy, they're not allowed to "cut slack", because they don't know how to codify it. In some small country towns you might get lucky but in most cases, the best you could hope for is eventually getting it classed as your "mutual obligation" activity after you'd already been on for several months - and even that doesn't exempt you from all of the other hoopjumping.

Basil
13-08-2007, 11:33 PM
They're a bureaucracy, they're not allowed to "cut slack", because they don't know how to codify it.
That, I can believe.


In some small country towns you might get lucky but in most cases, the best you could hope for is eventually getting it classed as your "mutual obligation" activity after you'd already been on for several months - and even that doesn't exempt you from all of the other hoopjumping.
This may be true. Do you know, or are you guessing? Happy with either. Will ask my previously professionally unemployed eeeer ... beneficiary.

Kevin Bonham
14-08-2007, 12:46 AM
This may be true. Do you know, or are yoou guessing?

I knew of one case of a person who got lucky with a small-town set-up. I'm remembering the rest from the experiences of various people I know who have been on it (in some cases for a while) although I may be a year or so out of date.

Capablanca-Fan
14-08-2007, 05:18 PM
While Rudd bleats about Howard's workplace laws, you can be sure that he won't be too hard on his rich wife who has done very well out of them (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/is_kevins_direction_right_for_workers/), thanx. It's typical of limousine leftists, who have no intention of following the rules they impose on the rest of us. For American examples, see Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer (2005), and of course these global warming alarmists who live in energy-guzzling mansions and fly private jets.

Basil
14-08-2007, 07:12 PM
I would like to know that if one advises Centrelink that one wishes to re-skill, and the intention is genuine, will they cut some slack?
I asked {I'm going to call him} Fred. There may be more on Fred later regarding other issues. Fred is a fully paid-up, marching, angry ant, leftie. He just happens to shoot straight and true. He's also a damn fine fellow and I call him a friend. I've known him for over a decade.

Fred tells me that if one were to present to Centrelink with a reskilling plan, they would be very helpful. Bend over backwards on relaxation of hoop jumping. The government would make cash incentives to employers, fund training programmes, and generally be ace about the whole thing.

I iterate that Fred makes you lot look like right wing poster boys ;)

ER
14-08-2007, 07:17 PM
Johny 's goin' down?
I want to see it to believe it!
Till then, cheers and good luck!!

Kevin Bonham
14-08-2007, 07:40 PM
Bend over backwards on relaxation of hoop jumping.

I do believe they sometimes relax that aspect for people who have been there a long time and are trying to do something productive, but I've never heard of a case where they removed that side of things entirely, or even close.

ElevatorEscapee
14-08-2007, 09:32 PM
Sexy!!!

Southpaw Jim
14-08-2007, 11:11 PM
Well, tonight's 'Costello revelations' certainly aren't going to do Johnny any favours! Coalition seems to definitely be in self-destruct mode...

Southpaw Jim
10-09-2007, 11:16 PM
So... where do people think we're headed now? JWH et al appear confident that they can make history and turn around a 14-20% polling deficit.. after all, the electorate is just having a joke with them.

Right?

Davidflude
10-09-2007, 11:43 PM
In the last few days Crikey printed a leaked coalition document on research. they have removed it from their web site after legal threats. However the research has been interpreted. Read it at http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/

If you are a right wing crazy it is time to hide under the bed.

eclectic
10-09-2007, 11:58 PM
In the last few days Crikey printed a leaked coalition document on research. they have removed it from their web site after legal threats. However the research has been interpreted. Read it at http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/

If you are a right wing crazy it is time to hide under the bed.

:clap: :owned: :clap: :owned: :clap: :owned: :clap:

my wild prediction:

howard will declare a state of emergency in reaction to some imagined threat and prorogue the two houses for a joint sitting at which he will be declared dictator for life after which he will declare australia a republic well part of the republic of the usa then bestow peter costello with the title of queen emeritus of australia

(i've only had one red wine tonight):P

Kevin Bonham
11-09-2007, 12:03 AM
So... where do people think we're headed now? JWH et al appear confident that they can make history and turn around a 14-20% polling deficit.. after all, the electorate is just having a joke with them.

Right?

I don't think they will recover to anything better than 47-53 now, and they may not even recover at all, indeed from here on it may even get still worse.

An incumbent government that's won so many elections in a row can't be conclusively written off more than, say, a few weeks from the election, but I now give them very little chance of retaining majority government.

My first attempt to mix up the secret psephelogical herbs and spices a few days ago predicted Labor winning by twenty but there's scarcely any limit to the size of the smash that could develop if the Liberals play their few remaining cards badly from here.

Basil
11-09-2007, 12:10 AM
It's all over (when the fat lady sings) ... oh I hear her warming up now :P

Aaron Guthrie
11-09-2007, 12:13 AM
I'm standing by my prediction (that the battle will rage on for title of underdog of the election).

Kevin Bonham
11-09-2007, 12:19 AM
I just don't think Labor will be able to claim they are the underdogs without being laughed at. Saying that it will still be a very close election (although it may well be a lie) is probably their best bet to not get too cocky.

Cockiness is a big risk for Labor as it may lead to ill-disciplined policy.

Garvinator
11-09-2007, 12:21 AM
I think the only way John Howard has any chance of re-election is a major terrorist attack.

Kevin Bonham
11-09-2007, 12:29 AM
I think the only way John Howard has any chance of re-election is a major terrorist attack.

... and that could also work against him, especially if Australian lives were lost.

eclectic
11-09-2007, 12:30 AM
i see that last night howard thought of quitting the leadership but discussed it with his family who persuaded him to stay on

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22391925-2,00.html

was his family elected?

shouldn't he be discussing the matter with members of the parliamentary liberal party?

Axiom
11-09-2007, 12:34 AM
Operation : Puppet Changeover is in full swing.

Murdoch Media Launch 'Coup' To Take Down Australian Prime Minister
http://yournewreality.blogspot.com/2007/09/murdoch-media-launch-coup-to-take-down.html

Kevin Bonham
11-09-2007, 01:26 AM
He's waiting another two weeks before calling?

Sheesh, imagine what the media circus will try doing to him by then. Though I doubt it's a conspiracy of bias; more likely it's just that old media game of generating change so you can report on it and sell more papers.

Southpaw Jim
11-09-2007, 02:03 PM
Appears to be going ballistic today, with SkyNews running the story - that has since been picked up by the likes of Bolt and Price (not to mention all the pseph sites) - that both Downer and Turnbull have told the PM to go.

Everyone's denying it, of course, but the outcome of tonight's party meeting could be rather interesting. We may be looking at PM Costello or Turnbull by dinnertime tomorrow.

For anyone who's missed it, jump onto any news website.

So much for a week being a long time in politics... :owned:

Kevin Bonham
11-09-2007, 10:11 PM
My theory: Howard doesn't want to be remembered as the guy who lost the election, nor as the wimp who ran for cover. So he is now doing his best to provoke his own party into rolling him; that way he can then blame everybody but himself for the party's defeat and say that had he been leader the damage would have been far less.

Costello would be wise to duck the poisoned chalice, but Turnbull has nothing to lose from accepting it.

Garvinator
11-09-2007, 10:14 PM
He's waiting another two weeks before calling?
I would be surprised by this. I think the election will be called straight after the Liberal meeting. Tomorrow?

Howard will then call the election for the latest legal time available, in the hope of 'catching out' some of the Labor shadow ministers in the middle of the election campaign.

It is the Liberal party only and best hope.

eclectic
11-09-2007, 10:15 PM
Costello would be wise to duck the poisoned chalice, but Turnbull has nothing to lose from accepting it.

any chance iron bar can be provoked into sinking his teeth into the said chalice? :P

Desmond
11-09-2007, 10:18 PM
I just don't think Labor will be able to claim they are the underdogs without being laughed at. Saying that it will still be a very close election (although it may well be a lie) is probably their best bet to not get too cocky.

Cockiness is a big risk for Labor as it may lead to ill-disciplined policy.
Howard can only hope it will be close. He will lose, but better that it were close.

Southpaw Jim
11-09-2007, 10:52 PM
I would be surprised by this. I think the election will be called straight after the Liberal meeting. Tomorrow?

Wouldn't surprise me, although Howard did commit last night to Parliament completing its current 2 week sitting. My understanding is that, once the writs are issued, Parliament is prorogued. Thus, if Howard calls it before next weekend, he'd be breaking his promise (obviously non-core).

Apparently 'explosive' details in The Australian tomorrow according to Matt Price, plus the party meeting is tomorrow morning. Price and Bolt on Lateline are suggesting that it's not over, and particularly Price is suggesting that Howard could still be rolled at tomorrow's meeting.

Surely today is the last nail in this Government's coffin... :eek:

Axiom
11-09-2007, 11:07 PM
guys! you're discussing the plot of a puppet circus!

just ask yourself this, how can a churchill , a hawke or a howard, go from the hero,the darling, the maestro of the political world to loser in a political world heartbeat?

ans: theyve outlived their puppet usefullness.

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2007, 12:02 AM
Possibly more truth in the above than in most of Ax's attempts to divert politics threads to his own concerns, but which puppet is (allowed to be) in charge does have effects on our everyday lives and therefore we are right to have some interest in it.

Goughfather
12-09-2007, 05:17 PM
Costello would be wise to duck the poisoned chalice, but Turnbull has nothing to lose from accepting it.

My money is on Turnbull after the election, with Brendan Nelson to be his right-hand man.

I think it's true that Costello shouldn't accept the poisoned chalice, but what is he to do? Personally, I think he missed the boat 12 months ago and he's not going to get another chance.

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2007, 08:28 PM
I think it's true that Costello shouldn't accept the poisoned chalice, but what is he to do? Personally, I think he missed the boat 12 months ago and he's not going to get another chance.

I strongly suspect this is the case. He's going to make a really sooky Opposition Leader if he can get the job too.

eclectic
12-09-2007, 08:31 PM
I strongly suspect this is the case. He's going to make a really sooky Opposition Leader if he can get the job too.

once the coalition succeeds in losing the election a wave of coalition resignations and subsequent by elections are sure to follow

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2007, 08:35 PM
once the coalition succeeds in losing the election a wave of coalition resignations and subsequent by elections are sure to follow

Indeed. Should be some juicy infighting for the first few years as well.

Garvinator
12-09-2007, 08:37 PM
I think a key phrase should also come back to haunt the Coalition just as much as some of their well known promises, it being-

If you cant run your own party, how can you run the country? Famously repeated many times during the Crean/Latham eras by the Howard Government.

I would love to see some journalists throw that question to Howard and his ministers.

Garvinator
12-09-2007, 08:38 PM
Indeed. Should be some juicy infighting for the first few years as well.
Which will 'guarantee' Rudd at least two terms.

eclectic
12-09-2007, 08:39 PM
I think a key phrase should also come back to haunt the Coalition just as much as some of their well known promises, it being-

If you cant run your own party, how can you run the country? Famously repeated many times during the Crean/Latham eras by the Howard Government.

I would love to see some journalists throw that question to Howard and his ministers.

but garvin the coalition are not a party anymore they're a hangover! :owned:

Garvinator
12-09-2007, 08:40 PM
but garvin the coalition are not a party anymore they're a hangover! :owned:
:lol:

more like they are the drunks wandering the streets at 6am :whistle: after way too much partying.

Axiom
12-09-2007, 09:16 PM
Possibly more truth in the above than in most of Ax's attempts to divert politics threads to his own concerns,
concentrate please on the truth of my statement rather than be diverted by simply translating it as an attempt by me to divert to my own concerns




but which puppet is (allowed to be) in charge does have effects on our everyday lives and therefore we are right to have some interest in it.
ask yourself. very honestly, Kevin, ...exactly ....how much effect ?

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2007, 09:54 PM
concentrate please on the truth of my statement rather than be diverted by simply translating it as an attempt by me to divert to my own concerns

Well, your statement's not entirely true to begin with. Howard hasn't just been flicked off like a lightbulb but has been on the slide since even before Rudd took over, not to mention in the leadup to the 2001 election, and had the public decided to flick him in any of those cases then big business and other unelected power groups may have resisted to some degree, but ultimately would have let him go.


ask yourself. very honestly, Kevin, ...exactly ....how much effect ?

I'm not going to attempt to say exactly how much, but to give one example to show there is a difference, Rudd intends extending Medicare to cover dentistry. Even that overdue change to a bizarre discrepancy alone will be a massive difference in some people's lives.

Basil
12-09-2007, 09:56 PM
This thread has deterioted into a something SAO ... I forget the exact phrase. But why not? I was salivating when my lot were looking at getting into power after Hawke/ Keating.

Just one thing before I leave you lot to get raw again ... someone point me to the thread(s) where the chess chatters were talking about the left side of politics eating themselves up in leadership spills and challenges (and in all fairness, the left and their factions eat each other a hell of a lot better :eek: than the relative civility of this current episode - not that all the posters here are remotely aware of life prior Howard.

PS I got the threads from chess chatters where they called the last election incorrectly.

OK, thanks lads. Everyone back in a circle ;)

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2007, 10:10 PM
PS I got the threads from chess chatters where they called the last election incorrectly.

Actually this forum correctly predicted Howard would be returned, by a margin of 12-7 with two votes for the comedy option "Al Qaeda". However most of those predicting a Howard return (including me) underestimated the margin. (My final prediction for 2004 was out by seven seats, which I was not happy about after being only two out in 2001. Fortunately I have had a number of bullseyes or nearly so in predicting elections since then.)

Basil
12-09-2007, 11:04 PM
You can discount yourself from my comments, Kev. You are one of the most astute political analysers I've heard from (and I listen to a few).

It's just a shame you get to vote and cock up your good work ;)

Axiom
13-09-2007, 12:00 AM
Well, your statement's not entirely true to begin with. Howard hasn't just been flicked off like a lightbulb but has been on the slide since even before Rudd took over, not to mention in the leadup to the 2001 election, and had the public decided to flick him in any of those cases then big business and other unelected power groups may have resisted to some degree, but ultimately would have let him go.
so its simply a matter of the electrorate tiring of the same old leader,rather than as a response to material differences?




I'm not going to attempt to say exactly how much, but to give one example to show there is a difference, Rudd intends extending Medicare to cover dentistry. Even that overdue change to a bizarre discrepancy alone will be a massive difference in some people's lives.and you're certain that decision arose from a distinctly different political platform/agenda?

The dual party system as seen in the west and elsewhere is simply a reduction to the apparatus of the globalist corporate agenda.
The left and right both take different steps , yes, but both , in lock step with the corporate globalist agenda.
I dont buy that the little material difference between the 2 major parties is due to both being centrist !

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2007, 01:42 PM
It's just a shame you get to vote and cock up your good work ;)

What of it? I'm in Denison (ALP, 13.3%) - not a lot of difference I can make to the House of Reps there.

The Senate is a slightly different matter; the last Senate seat in Tassie often comes down to a few thousand votes, and I have nearly always organised my vote to ensure it is on the table at full value at that point.

Garvinator
13-09-2007, 03:25 PM
Lets say that the Coalition does win government again, I tip that John Howard will resign as PM as soon as George Bush finishes his second term as President. This would mean that JH does not have to deal with a different president.

eclectic
13-09-2007, 11:03 PM
i've created a thread with a poll to guess the election date; excess political drivel most welcome there!! :P

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6892

Garrett
14-09-2007, 10:35 AM
Lets say that the Coalition does win government again, I tip that John Howard will resign as PM as soon as George Bush finishes his second term as President. This would mean that JH does not have to deal with a different president.

I think Johnny should have taken a leaf out of Peter Beatie's book and retired while he was still in front.

Aaron Guthrie
25-09-2007, 12:31 PM
The battle for under-dog status is on

Rudd- ""What I know is that winning this election, when you've got to win 16 seats, it's like climbing Mount Everest."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Rudd-renews-call-for-election/2007/09/18/1189881480582.html

Southpaw Jim
24-10-2007, 01:15 PM
Well, it looks like there's another nail in Johnny's political coffin.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics released the September quarter inflation data today, and on the basis of this data it's almost dead certain that the Reserve Bank will raise interest rates at its November 6 meeting.

:lol:

Capablanca-Fan
24-10-2007, 03:17 PM
Well, it looks like there's another nail in Johnny's political coffin.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics released the September quarter inflation data today, and on the basis of this data it's almost dead certain that the Reserve Bank will raise interest rates at its November 6 meeting.

:lol:
Then KRudd and his 70%-union-dominated front bench can take Australia backwards to days of strikes, high unemployment as employers become too afraid to take on staff they won't be able to get rid of if they turn out to be unsuitable, and higher taxes to fund the 60+ new bureaucracies KRudd wants.

It's no accident that KRudd doesn't want any of his team to debate their opposite number in the Coalition, and instead wants to make it a presidential campaign. And he hardly has any new policies; just "me too". Well, if the Coalition's policies are good enough fror KRudd to copy, then why change the government at all?

And why is KRudd so keen to protray himself as an economic conservative? So he can campaign to the right then govern to the left, just like most dishonest lefties. Professor Sinclair Davidson and Alex Robson are about the likely impact of Ruddonomics (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ruddonomics_is_going_to_hurt/):


(A) closer look at Mr. Rudd’s record reveals that he’s not a reformer, but rather an unreconstructed interventionist masquerading as a free market conservative…

In practice, a Labor government under Mr. Rudd would re-regulate economic life. Over the past year he has promised to set up no fewer than 68 new bureaucracies and establish 96 reviews if elected. He promises to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and commit Australia to a costly program of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 60% of 2000 levels by 2050. His proposed industry policy—constructed by Kim Carr, a declared socialist—would create an uberbureaucracy of 12 Industry Innovation Councils. The goal, it seems, is to promote manufacturing by “picking winners"—a policy with an appalling track record of failure both in Australia and elsewhere. To round things off, Mr. Rudd’s labor-market policy promises to abolish individual workplace agreements and to restore union power over policy making to its former glory.

Kevin Bonham
24-10-2007, 09:33 PM
Then KRudd and his 70%-union-dominated front bench

But is it? Have you been following the debate about whether the stat is really quite that high?


can take Australia backwards to days of strikes, high unemployment as employers

replace all the locals with imported cheap labour as flagged by Gerry Harvey?

Seriously, if union-phobia is a valid scare campaign, then so is that.


It's no accident that KRudd doesn't want any of his team to debate their opposite number in the Coalition, and instead wants to make it a presidential campaign.

Gillard and Hockey have been debating on Lateline on a regular basis for yonks. Also Garrett and Turnbull on the 7:30 Report a few months back, and plenty of other examples.


And why is KRudd so keen to protray himself as an economic conservative? So he can campaign to the right then govern to the left, just like most dishonest lefties.

A similar case could be made regarding Howard again (and was during the leaders' debate, repeatedly). Howard's response was along the lines that he was happy to be judged on his record, and I'm sure that Rudd is much the same.

pax
25-10-2007, 12:51 AM
There was an interesting article by Ross Gittins today, pointing out that while conservatives fear that Rudd may be just pretending to be Howard-like in policy, (small l) liberals fear the exact opposite - i.e maybe he is as conservative as he appears. Either way, by leaping on the Howard bandwagon with such speed and vigour he is committing the Labor party to spending most of it's first term (if it wins) implementing John Howard's agenda. Not exactly a revolution..

pax
25-10-2007, 12:56 AM
But is it? Have you been following the debate about whether the stat is really quite that high?
The coalition advertising on this point is utterly laughable. The crimes of potential frontbenchers are listed on the flyer - and they include the heinous crime that some ALP candidates have worked as *officials* for the ALP!

There was an amusing parody of the anti-union ad on The Chaser tonight, with the warning:
"Under a Rudd Labor government, 100% of ACTU officials will be trade-unionists"

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2007, 01:03 AM
There was an interesting article by Ross Gittins today, pointing out that while conservatives fear that Rudd may be just pretending to be Howard-like in policy, (small l) liberals fear the exact opposite — i.e maybe he is as conservative as he appears. Either way, by leaping on the Howard bandwagon with such speed and vigour he is committing the Labor party to spending most of it's first term (if it wins) implementing John Howard's agenda. Not exactly a revolution..
If so, what's the point of voting for this self-professed Christian Socialist and his trade unionists? An increase in government bureaucracy?

Basil
25-10-2007, 10:25 AM
... replace all the locals with imported cheap labour as flagged by Gerry Harvey?

Seriously, if union-phobia is a valid scare campaign, then so is that.
Kev, tell me that was written in a moment of delirium during Self-Destructo Man's hopeless foray back onto this board, because as John McEnroe would say ...

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2007, 06:42 PM
Rogue unionist still at it with Labor (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22642788-5001021,00.html)


RENEGADE union boss Joe McDonald remains a paid-up member of the ALP — four months after Labor leader Kevin Rudd promised to expel him.

Now on the eve of a presumed Labor victory, Thug proclaims, "I'll be back (http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/ALP-expels-rogue-union-boss-McDonald/2007/10/26/1192941312317.html)".

Kevin Bonham
26-10-2007, 06:59 PM
RENEGADE union boss Joe McDonald remains a paid-up member of the ALP — four months after Labor leader Kevin Rudd promised to expel him.

According to the TV news tonight your link is no longer current.

(Beats me why he wasn't turfed out months ago though. Not a good look.)

Spiny Norman
27-10-2007, 09:46 AM
K.Rudd has subsequently said something along the lines of "We were waiting for the court action to be over". Problem for him now is that the court case is over with charges dismissed. But since Macdonald opened his big mouth again with the "John's on the way out, I'm still here" sentiment, K.Rudd has again said "He's to be sacked now, because of his latest comments". For goodness sake. One wonders whether K.Rudd will actually be able to get anyone to do anything if elected. Gillard will make mincemeat of him.

Capablanca-Fan
27-10-2007, 10:16 AM
One wonders whether K.Rudd will actually be able to get anyone to do anything if elected. Gillard will make mincemeat of him.
Definitely, with the majority Union backing in the Labor front bench. And we will see KRudd's long-professed socialist side rather than his recently declared "economic conservative" claim.

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 12:29 PM
In the Sunday Mail today, there is an article "Pen-pushers grow fastest in public hospitals". 2/3 of new appointments in QLD public hospitals are non-medical. The AMA says that patients ops have been cancelled but there were no cuts to the number of bureaucrats. Reminds me of an episode of Yes Minister, where there was a thriving hospital full of administrative staff, but no patients.

And Australians want this sort of Labor incompetence at federal level too? The State Labor governments were elected only because the State Liberals and Nationals were even more grossly incompetent. But what is the excuse for the Federal election, with still low interest rates and the lowest unemployment in 30 years. And the PM is trying to do better for the hospitals.

Basil
28-10-2007, 01:43 PM
And Australians want this sort of Labor incompetence at federal level too?
No they don't. But they are beside themselves with hate, idealism and hope. That cocktail is far too powerful a drug to see the forest for the trees.

Labor will need a few terms in government before half of these same people chuck them out having learned their lesson, and grown more politically aware.

These people will then be in their 30's 40's and 50's, to be replaced by the next wave of drippy young adults. And so the cycle turns. Woo hoo :wall:

Question:
If (very broadly) Australians are 50 - 50 left, right at any given point in time over the past 100 years,
and, the left traditionally attracts in droves
1) The Battlas! (Yes, I know them personally)
2) The long term unemployed (:doh:)
3) The public service (*ahem*)
4) People aged 18-24 (naive kiddies)
5) Unionists (read militant thugs)
6) Artists, musicians (read clueless)
7) All my friends, the academics (the lily whites)
then, how many regular bog standard folks actually vote left?

Answer: 100

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 02:27 PM
Must be tough for you guys to watch the peasants revolting, knowing you can do nothing :lol:

Especially when you're looking down the barrel of 2-3 terms of a Labor government... :owned: that'd make it about 2013 before the Libs navigate their way out of the wilderness..

BTW, anyone noticed Johnny's twitches? There was that massive one during the debate, then there's been one or two in the week since during doorstops. Parkinsons? :hmm:

eclectic
28-10-2007, 02:34 PM
BTW, anyone noticed Johnny's twitches? There was that massive one during the debate, then there's been one or two in the week since during doorstops. Parkinsons? :hmm:

i'm quite sure peter costello has :rolleyes:

Basil
28-10-2007, 02:54 PM
Must be tough for you guys to watch the peasants revolting, knowing you can do nothing :lol:
It's not pleasant, but I've been there before. However it's not as heart wrenching as watching the left watching the left being turfed (which will inevitably happen) - you wouldn't believe the tears.

At the end of the day, I'm interested in what's best for the country (all this mutual jibing aside), and at this rate we're going to have a Liberal government under the Labor banner (plus a couple of token plans to keep the simpletons happy and convinced they're actually doing something different).


BTW, anyone noticed Johnny's twitches? There was that massive one during the debate, then there's been one or two in the week since during doorstops. Parkinsons? :hmm:
Could be. But he would have little control over that. Unlike the nose pick, which was entirely voluntary. Ladies and gentlemen, the next Prime Minister of Australia (up to the second knuckle).

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 03:15 PM
Must be tough for you guys to watch the peasants revolting, knowing you can do nothing :lol:

Especially when you're looking down the barrel of 2-3 terms of a Labor government... :owned: that'd make it about 2013 before the Libs navigate their way out of the wilderness..
Fine, another "recession we had to have", and more unemployment as Chairman KRudd had to pay back the unionist majority of his party. The grass is always greener, but Aussies whinging about five or a likely six 1/4% (wow!) interest rate rises from historic lows evidently have forgotten that the rates are still several % lower than Howard inherited from Keating in 1996. The lower income people who vote for Labor will be worse off!

eclectic
28-10-2007, 03:21 PM
Definitely, with the majority Union backing in the Labor front bench.

so why is this not ok while having ultra right wing employer groups putting their stamp on the work choices regime ( so in effect running the coalition agenda) is?

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 03:32 PM
Funny how we've got unlimited economic sunshine (thanks to the neverending mining boom) one day, and an impending financial tsunami/recession the next. BTW Jono, as of 7 November (assuming 83% of pundits are correct), the cash rate will only be 1% lower than Howard inherited in 1996.

BTW, what was the highest interest rate Australia endured under Howard as Treasurer?

Oh, and on the subject of competence - pop quiz - who was the last Treasurer to preside over stagflation? Hmm, name is on the tip of my tongue, hmm... :whistle:

Go on Jono, you can say it if you try:

P r i m e

M i n i s t e r

R u d d

:lol:

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 03:38 PM
You wouldn't believe the tears.
What goes around comes around :owned:


At the end of the day, I'm interested in what's best for the country (all this mutual jibing aside), and at this rate we're going to have a Liberal government under the Labor banner (plus a couple of token plans to keep the simpletons happy and convinced they're actually doing something different).

So you'll be voting ALP then? :lol:


Could be. But he would have little control over that.
Depends on how advanced it is and on his medication.


Unlike the nose pick, which was entirely voluntary. Ladies and gentlemen, the next Prime Minister of Australia (up to the second knuckle).
OMG!

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 04:01 PM
Funny how we've got unlimited economic sunshine (thanks to the neverending mining boom) one day, and an impending financial tsunami/recession the next.
Yet the interest rates reached their trough near the start of the mining boom, so you can't write off Howard–Costello quite so easily.


BTW, what was the highest interest rate Australia endured under Howard as Treasurer?
Howard was under the bumbling Whitlam-lite Fraser, who hates Howard for his great success once he wasn't under Fraser's thumb. And now Fraser is the darling of the media despite his economic incompetence. And even then, the highest cash rate under Howard was 21.39% in April 1982, compared to 21.75% in May 1974 under Labor icon Whitlam. And the actual highest mortgage rate under Howard in the same month of April 1982 was 13.5%, compared to 17% between June 1989 and Feb 1990 under Hawke–Keating. And remember the 1 million unemployed in March 1993?

Note also, Fraser's bad points were Whitlam-lite. The good things that Hawke–Keating achieved were supported by the Opposition once Fraser was out to pasture (where he should have stayed).


Oh, and on the subject of competence — pop quiz — who was the last Treasurer to preside over stagflation? Hmm, name is on the tip of my tongue, hmm... :whistle:
Jimmy Carter, another icon of the Left? Who kept price controls on gas, which Reagan lifted in his first act on assuming the presidency, thus ending long gasoline lines with a stroke of a pen.


Go on Jono, you can say it if you try:
I prefer Chairman KRudd. Not sure for how long once the Union majority on his front bench decide they want their payback—esp. if he doesn't morph back to his true socialist state quickly enough from the "economic conservative" label he campaigned on to fool Australians into voting for him. And when this self-confessed socialist gets in, expect more of the same policies that cause water shortages. He was the one who canned the Wolfdene Dam project in QLD (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21002760-7583,00.html), against expert advice that we would need the extra storage, so now Brisbane thirsts. And even a public sector lefty like you had to admit that water price caps are a hopeless idea, given that price controls always lead to shortages. But this is right out of the Left's playbook.

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 04:02 PM
So you'll be voting ALP then? :lol:
Give me some actual reasons that the country would be better off under Labor, not just visceral Howard hatred. I suppose you voted Latham as well? :lol:

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 04:13 PM
the actual highest mortgage rate under Howard in the same month of April 1982 was 13.5%, compared to 17% between June 1989 and Feb 1990 under Hawke–Keating.
Ah, but don't forget that the mortgage rate was capped by government regulation. Were it not for this interference, the true mortgage rate would've been much higher..


Jimmy Carter, another icon of the Left? Who kept price controls on gas, which Reagan lifted in his first act on assuming the presidency, thus ending long gasoline lines with a stroke of a pen.

Jono, shame on you, you know this is a discussion about Australian political history :hand: We left the US behind on that other thread ;)

So, to make it painfully clear, who was the last Australian Federal Treasurer to preside over stagflation? :hmm:

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 04:27 PM
Give me some actual reasons that the country would be better off under Labor, not just visceral Howard hatred. I suppose you voted Latham as well? :lol:
Hmm, counts on fingers...

I have my personal reasons, but I suspect you're fishing for some straw men to knock down. But there's a few reasons I find not to vote for Coward:
- playing race politics, following the rise of Hanson;
- lying to the country about children overboard/Tampa;
- subsidising Hussein's regime to the tune of $300m, then using WMD as a lie excuse to go to war with Hussein and help the US secure its oil supply in the middle-East;
- treatment of refugees;
- deportment of genuine Australian citizens;
- lying misleading the Australian public re the government's ability to 'keep interest rates at record lows';
- treatment of Dr Haneef and the gross bungling of the investigation and following events;
- inability to accept responsibility for cockups;
- poisoning the republic referendum;
- inability to bowl a cricket ball;
- inability to say 'sorry'.

And - yes - I voted for Duncan Kerr in 2004, so by extension I did vote for Latham. Duncan is immensely popular here, and has been for many years.

Did you vote for Fraser over Hawke in 83? :lol:

eclectic
28-10-2007, 04:46 PM
Hmm, counts on fingers...

[snip]

- poisoning the republic referendum;

...[snip]


as an aside response here i'm more inclined to blame phil cleary.

the republican side should have had the sense to know that they needed to see the monarchy off and thus be united in having only one option namely the "selection" of a president. if a few years down the track there was another referendum to change to the "election" of a president then that would be ok.

unfortunately the republicans fought among themselves and put up two options within their own camp which played into howard's divide and conquer strategy.

were republicanism to be put to another referendum (very likely given a preamble referendum is on the table) will we see the "yes" contingent shoot themselves in the foot once more?

i sincerely hope not

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 04:52 PM
I have my personal reasons, but I suspect you're fishing for some straw men to knock down.
No, trying to remind people that the election is a choice between two actual alternatives, not between the incumbent and a non-existent ideal. So it makes sense to vote against Howard (indirectly) only if you think that the Opposition would do a better job.


But there's a few reasons I find not to vote for Coward:
- playing race politics, following the rise of Hanson;
You mean, wanting to treat all races equally? And Howard had no time for her more stupid protectionist and socialist ideas.


- lying to the country about children overboard/Tampa;
This old furphy again? Just because a disgruntled former Reith staffer claims something, it doesn't mean that Howard was not telling the truth about what intelligence told him at the time.


- subsidising Hussein's regime to the tune of $300m,
The wheat? Yeah, all his fault. But then, you evidently would prefer that he was still in power and shredding his opponents or having them sent to his sons' rape rooms.


then using WMD as a lie excuse to go to war with Hussein and help the US secure its oil supply in the middle-East;
Chairman KRudd supported this!!! E.g. on Lateline, 24 August 2002:


There is no debate or dispute as to whether Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. He does.

There’s no dispute as whether he’s in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. He is.

And he wrote a letter to Howard in support of the invasion (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22228212-5013650,00.html).

Just like the current crop of American Defeatocrats (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp), the hypocrites. Both Chairman KRudd and they had exactly the same intelligence information as Howard and Bush. But when public opinion, largely formed by the traitorous MMM, turns against the war, then suddenly KRudd and the Deafatocrats were against it all along. But what happens when Petraeus' surge continues to win against the terrorists for so long that even the MMM can no longer ignore it?


- treatment of refugees;
No, stopping the horrendous people smuggling that was costing many lives.


- deportment of genuine Australian citizens;
Not his fault. But I agree that the Imminazi bureaucracy needs streamlining. But will Labor be any better?


- lying misleading the Australian public re the government's ability to 'keep interest rates at record lows';
Yet he has proven it by his historic lows, which even now are lower than Hawke–Keating. And he did it with budget surpluses instead of deficits, and the lowest unemployment in 30 years instead of the 1 million under his predecessor.


- poisoning the republic referendum;
You mean you poor little republicans couldnt get people to vote your way (in fact, you guys couldn't even decide what republic you wanted), despite the constant propaganda from the MMM?


- inability to bowl a cricket ball;
A good thing! :P Cricket's a stupid and utterly boring game. So many people stand or sit around doing nothing, just like Labor-appointed civil servants.


- inability to say 'sorry'.
No, refusal to make false apologies for things he didn't actually do, preferring instead to make a real difference to the Aboriginal people instead of futile symbolic gestures.


Did you vote for Fraser over Hawke in 83? :lol:
I was in NZ then.

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 04:57 PM
unfortunately the republicans fought among themselves and put up two options within their own camp which played into howard's divide and conquer strategy.
Well, if you want to change the system we have, which works very well in practice, we want to know what you want to change it to. After all, there are many different republics around, from the US to Burma.

Many republicans of one persuasion would not vote for a republic of the other persuasion. Remember the ads against the "politician's republic" from supporters of a popularly elected president? Yet people like then NSW Premier Carr said that he would not vote for the latter. It's that which is really the "politician's republic", because by its nature, a politician would have to run for president.

Really, the Republicans, led by limousine leftist Malcolm Turnbull, should get over it. There just isn't much interest among Australians for change.

eclectic
28-10-2007, 05:12 PM
Well, if you want to change the system we have, which works very well in practice, we want to know what you want to change it to

WRONG!!!!!!!

i want to vote republic, any republic, because as a monarchist i'm not happy with the monarchy we have

the system does not work well enough because our monarch is not part of a dynasty of full blooded aboriginals to whom our politicians judges etc would be bound to swear an oath of loyalty etc in reparation for past injustices (i think really that ought to be one of the conditions of that referendum preamble and any apology).

instead our monarch is someone who lives over the other side of the world who has little or no relevance to here at all

tell me jono if the system now is so good would you be happy with seeing my scenario as stated above?

it would only be a minor change now wouldn't it?

like what essential difference would having the face of a full blooded aboriginal (a monarch who ACTUALLY lives here) on this "realm"'s coins really make to the day to day running of this country?

:rolleyes:

Basil
28-10-2007, 05:41 PM
The lower income people who vote for Labor will be worse off!
The phrase I use is "Murdered In Their Beds".
The short story is that public servants will be safe (as long as they don't mind paying rent and board for their non public service relatives :wall:)

Anyhow it's all good.

Basil
28-10-2007, 06:09 PM
I have my personal reasons, but I suspect you're fishing for some straw men to knock down. But there's a few reasons I find not to vote for Coward:
- playing race politics, following the rise of Hanson;
- lying to the country about children overboard/Tampa;
- subsidising Hussein's regime to the tune of $300m, then using WMD as a lie excuse to go to war with Hussein and help the US secure its oil supply in the middle-East;
- treatment of refugees;
- deportment of genuine Australian citizens;
- lying misleading the Australian public re the government's ability to 'keep interest rates at record lows';
- treatment of Dr Haneef and the gross bungling of the investigation and following events;
- inability to accept responsibility for cockups;
- poisoning the republic referendum;
- inability to bowl a cricket ball;
- inability to say 'sorry'.
Worst fears come true. While they may be valid for you, I find them hopeless and entirely missing the point. These sorts of reasons (even the bogus ones) will be definable under the Rudd era or any other era.

Facile counter-examples that come to the top include "No Child Will Live IN Poverty etc..." How does that rate for a lie? This is what gets me with you lot.

Or "the recession we had to have." What bollocks! And yet your head remains firmly under the pillow while you castigate Howard for little better.

How about firmly grasping what's important?

The issue of 'sorry' (and others) are genuine and you have my support, but not for turfing a government. But that's us.

Basil
28-10-2007, 06:16 PM
BTW, what was the highest interest rate Australia endured under Howard as Treasurer?

Oh, and on the subject of competence - pop quiz - who was the last Treasurer to preside over stagflation? Hmm, name is on the tip of my tongue, hmm... :whistle:

I'll have to look into this further. Now that the hapless and clueless Wayne Swann is Treasurer- elect (may your God have mercy on our souls) is trotting this gem out, it's going to gain traction with your lot mouthing the mantra (water-cooler style from a position of total ignorance).

I have suspicions that it is a singular stat (while not good) that falls into the category of one economic indicator reading wrong while the others were either acceptable or even good - the traditional balancing act. If I am right (and it's only a guess at this stage), it pales against Labor's low/ wrong everything.

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 06:30 PM
the system does not work well enough because our monarch is not part of a dynasty of full blooded aboriginals
From which tribe?


to whom our politicians judges etc would be bound to swear an oath of loyalty etc in reparation for past injustices (i think really that ought to be one of the conditions of that referendum preamble and any apology).
Why should I apologize for something I haven't done? Howard's determination to protect aboriginal children from abuse does far more good to the aboriginal people. So does his idea of encouraging private ownership of property. But the Left would rather make vacuous apologies that serve mainly to make leftists good about themselves.

And reparations are just the same sort of nonsense, punishing people who are not guilty of the past wrongs and rewarding people who didn't suffer those past wrongs. And should they pay reparations to the Europeans for the clean water, vaccination, universities, roads ...?


instead our monarch is someone who lives over the other side of the world who has little or no relevance to here at all
Our current head of state is the Governor General. And thank goodness we had one, to get rid of Whitlam before he trashed our country even more.

Kevin Bonham
28-10-2007, 06:32 PM
Many republicans of one persuasion would not vote for a republic of the other persuasion.

They might well do so if they knew it was a permanent choice between that republic and no republic ever. But many direct electionists thought that if they said no to an indirect republic in 1998, they would get a direct republic opportunity within a decade or so. They may turn out to be somewhere near right.


Remember the ads against the "politician's republic" from supporters of a popularly elected president? Yet people like then NSW Premier Carr said that he would not vote for the latter. It's that which is really the "politician's republic", because by its nature, a politician would have to run for president.

I tend to agree with Carr on that. I am not too keen on an American style system with a politicised presidency.

Basil
28-10-2007, 06:32 PM
James, interestingly (for me), apart from your little list of nothings for which you hang Howard (and not cited 'personal reasons'), you haven't listed any reason for voting Labor as taken from their manifesto :wall:

You're not alone though. Half the country has the same idea as you (albeit largely made up of freshmen straight out of school) :wall:

And you wonder why Howard, Jon and the rest of us just shake our heads.

Go on, give me a giggle. What is your favourite Rudd policy?

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 06:36 PM
The phrase I use is "Murdered In Their Beds".
The short story is that public servants will be safe (as long as they don't mind paying rent and board for their non public service relatives :wall:)
Of course, "public servants" would love Labor, with its promise to form over 60 more bureaucracies. Rudd is on record saying that only government can be big enough for welfare, for example. No wonder Eurotrash is such a devoted Labor fan that he was prepared to see the hateful moron Latham elected.

"Public servant" is a well known oxymoron. It is those of us with real jobs in the private sector who actually have to serve the public to earn money. Watch Yes (Prime) Minister again to see the very different incentives for bureaucrats.

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 06:39 PM
They might well do so if they knew it was a permanent choice between that republic and no republic ever. But many direct electionists thought that if they said no to an indirect republic in 1998, they would get a direct republic opportunity within a decade or so. They may turn out to be somewhere near right.

I tend to agree with Carr on that. I am not too keen on an American style system with a politicised presidency.
Me neither. That is the worst option. Interesting that one of my colleagues voted for the "politicians' republic" which was not actually that, because he was worried that otherwise the direct electionists would win in the future with all that entails for a Yankee-style presidency.

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 06:41 PM
You mean, wanting to treat all races equally?
No, I mean playing up to the redneck vote.


This old furphy again? Just because a disgruntled former Reith staffer claims something, it doesn't mean that Howard was not telling the truth about what intelligence told him at the time.

Just because you engage in character assassination, doesn't mean Coward didn't know the truth of the matter. IIRC, the evidence of the military personnel contradicts Coward's version.


The wheat? Yeah, all his fault. But then, you evidently would prefer that he was still in power and shredding his opponents or having them sent to his sons' rape rooms.

It's all his fault that his Ministers (Downer and Vaile) are incompetent bumbling fools, who wouldn't know "Ministerial responsibility" if it chewed on their corpulent posteriors for a while. Oh, and note: straw man #1.


No, stopping the horrendous people smuggling that was costing many lives.

So that justifies keeping those poor people in detention for years?


Not his fault. But I agree that the Imminazi bureaucracy needs streamlining.
Again, 2 words: Ministerial responsibility. Something that has apparently died during the Coward Era.


Yet he has proven it by his historic lows, which even now are lower than Hawke–Keating. And he did it with budget surpluses instead of deficits, and the lowest unemployment in 30 years instead of the 1 million under his predecessor.
The issue is that the Liberal party advertising claimed that the Howard Plan was to 'keep interest rates at record lows', which is blatantly misleading. The simple fact is, is that the Reserve Bank nearly opted to run their own ads during the 2004 campaign to counter this misinformation. Methinks that if the Liberals had continued running that particular ad, then the Reserve Bank would've acted.

The issue with interest rates is not that they are not low, it's that the Libs represented they could keep them low, and they've risen six five times since. It's a breach of trust, not to mention the exposition of a lie mistruth.


Cricket's a stupid and utterly boring game.
Here we agree :lol:


No, refusal to make false apologies for things he didn't actually do, preferring instead to make a real difference to the Aboriginal people instead of futile symbolic gestures.

The Aboriginal people happen to be desirous of this particular 'futile symbolic gesture'. I'd say they'd prefer it to other futile symbolic gestures, such as mentioning them in the preamble to the Constitution.


I was in NZ then.
Commiserations :P Had you been here, would you have voted for the Fraser you so obviously revile?

Kevin Bonham
28-10-2007, 06:46 PM
The amazing thing in hindsight is the shortsightedness of the Liberal campaign in 2004, making these unacheivable promises that have now come back to bite them. There was no need for it, especially not two days out from the election with Latham looking very beaten by that stage.

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 06:51 PM
No, I mean playing up to the redneck vote. By "redneck", do you mean those who believe in genuine racial equality, i.e. treating all races equally?


Just because you engage in character assassination, doesn't mean Coward
I'll let readers note the irony and hypocrisy above :hand: :wall:


didn't know the truth of the matter. IIRC, the evidence of the military personnel contradicts Coward's version.
Which ones? Seem like disgruntled employees years after the events.


So that justifies keeping those poor people in detention for years?
Nope, but Labor didn't seem to mind the slogan, "We decide who comes into this country, not the people smugglers".


Again, 2 words: Ministerial responsibility. Something that has apparently died during the Coward Era.
Oh, that suits a "public servant" like you. Again, as per Yes Minister, the bureaucrat stuffs up, yet it's the minister who gets the chop.


The issue with interest rates is not that they are not low, it's that the Libs represented they could keep them low, and they've risen six five times since. It's a breach of trust, not to mention the exposition of a lie mistruth.
By only 0.25% each time, unlike the huge rises under Hawke–Keating. Financial advisers for years have advised borrowers not to borrow unless they could cope with a rate 2% more than the current rate. Yet these rate rises you bleat about have totalled less than that.


Here we agree :lol:
That's something then ;)


The Aboriginal people happen to be desirous of this particular 'futile symbolic gesture'. I'd say they'd prefer it to other futile symbolic gestures, such as mentioning them in the preamble to the Constitution.
No, only the loudmouth "leaders" who just ride the gravy train at the expense of their people (see Noel Pearson, a real leader who actually cares about their welfare).


Commiserations :P Had you been here, would you have voted for the Fraser you so obviously revile?
How would I know how I would have voted as a teenager? About as silly as whinging about what Howard did 30 years ago rather than what he has done over the last 12 years.

Kevin Bonham
28-10-2007, 06:53 PM
I'll let readers note the irony and hypocrisy above :hand: :wall:

I'm not sure shooting a corpse qualifies as assassination. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 06:53 PM
The amazing thing in hindsight is the shortsightedness of the Liberal campaign in 2004, making these unacheivable promises that have now come back to bite them. There was no need for it, especially not two days out from the election with Latham looking very beaten by that stage.
You're not wrong, but as Gunner pointed out, Labor have made even sillier promises like "No Child Will Live In Poverty".