Gough Whitlam: Messiah or Very Naughty Boy?

Messiah or Very Naughty Boy?

  • Messiah

    Votes: 37 72.5%

  • Very Naughty Boy

    Votes: 7 13.7%

  • What the?

    Votes: 7 13.7%
  • Total voters
    51

Remove this Banner Ad

clogged said:
Requiring a degree to get a reasonable paying job in a modern economy is a global phenomenon. That shift has nothing to do with whether university if free or paid for, let alone Gough Whitlam.
Click to expand...

It does have something to do with Gough. Free education means more people get degrees which lessens the worth of each degree. There are so many people with degrees now that as you point out many jobs require them. That by itself doesn't mean they have intrinsic worth, merely that the bar has been raised.

The below, went in to detail on this matter.

Does Education Matter?: Myths About Education and Economic Growth, Penguin (2002

One of Gough's policies that gets most lauded was one of his worst. IIRC a number in his own party realised this. There is a great quote by a minister (Beazeley? ) re this, cant find it with a quick google though)

By the way is anyone on here going to attempt to defend Gough increasing spending by 40% in one year?

Anyone??
 
pokerspiv said:
I don't have a problem with loans for degrees but the full cost should be paid. Subsidising degrees has just led to a form of inflation where something once valuable is now worthless. If you actually want to have a meaningful qualification now you need a masters, a bachelor degree is the equivalent of what high school graduation used to be.

It's not just the cost of subsidising the degree that hurts either. It's the lost productivity of having close to half of our young people sitting around in a classroom learning irrelevant bullshit when they could instead be working and contributing to GDP. Making university free was perhaps the biggest Gough stuffup of all.

Again, good intentions (to enable upward mobility in people who would previously have not been able to afford to go to university) but terrible outcomes (what actually happened is that the middle classes sent all their kids to university to qualify them for positions that they wouldn't have needed a degree for if university had not been free).

Additionally, we now have a massive shortage of tradespeople but 5 million qualified office assistants. And what's really ironic is that the tradies earn a lot more money than most of the masses with the worthless degrees.
Click to expand...
Germany have just made university study free.
 
Ice-Wolf said:
Germany have just made university study free.
Click to expand...

It was still heavily subsidised before that, like most countries. Now it's totally free.

E.G. when they did charge fees it was something like 500 euros per semester.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gus Poyet said:
Tax payers...

You don't think politicians use their own money for their stupid wasting of funds do you?
Click to expand...
Tax payers?

I'll give something to consider. "Your" money, isn't your money at all. Every single note, cent, any legal tender of any kind is not yours, but actually the government. You receive it under the premise of "work", and use it to go about your life.

And the notion of paying tax, as though you've been denied in some way, is complete bs. The tax you "pay" is insignificant and has no direct effect. So it's understandable you'd want to pay as little of it as possible. But don't think you've been denied, or that "your" money has been mismanaged in some way. As though your problems are a direct result of a social sympathetic government. The tax you pay is akin to taking a piss in a swash, and saying you've contributed to the ocean. This goes for those who agree with your views as well.
 
The Speaker said:
Barnett's comments were more or less spot on.

There is more to being a 'great' PM than what policies occur during your time, but that doesn't mean he wasn't significant as a reformer who genuinely changed the nation.
Click to expand...
Your two lines are contradicting. You might want to express what makes a "great" pm/leader.

But lets face it. Barnett, long with those who share his opinion, like Greg Sheridan and Glen Milne, wouldn't know a great pm/leader, even if they were smacked in the arse with a branding iron. Having been denied risking his life in Vietnam, you tell me how Barnett is anything other than an ungrateful bastard?
 
medusala said:
It does have something to do with Gough. Free education means more people get degrees which lessens the worth of each degree. There are so many people with degrees now that as you point out many jobs require them. That by itself doesn't mean they have intrinsic worth, merely that the bar has been raised.

The below, went in to detail on this matter.

Does Education Matter?: Myths About Education and Economic Growth, Penguin (2002

One of Gough's policies that gets most lauded was one of his worst. IIRC a number in his own party realised this. There is a great quote by a minister (Beazeley? ) re this, cant find it with a quick google though)

By the way is anyone on here going to attempt to defend Gough increasing spending by 40% in one year?

Anyone??
Click to expand...
You haven't argued my point, just more of your typical deflection.

Degrees have become the minimum standard because employers have outsourced their training. No employer trains on the job - job candidates are expected to have sought some kind of training themselves at a minimum before seeking employment.

Ask yourself - how many PhDs worked in finance fifty years ago versus today? Is it because governments pay for people's PhDs that investment banks are one of the biggest employers of them?
 
A degree is,an essential requirement for eligibility to work in certain jobs, regardless of the level of work experience employers want on top of it. Long gone are the days where you could become an engineer or an investment banker from year 12.
 
pokerspiv said:
Only 2 out of the 4 things you named are funded by the federal government and even then only partly.
Most of your income tax money goes on welfare, medicare and paying public servants salaries. A person who does not receive welfare and has private health insurance receives approximately nothing for the income tax they pay.

All these wonderful things you pretend the federal government does for us are in fact done by state governments, which is funded through GST and things like stamp duty.

Federal budget pie chart:
38%20Appendix%20G%20Australian%20Government%20taxation%20and%20spending_2.jpg


Who's the moron now?

FYI the town I grew up in has no hospital, no school, no police or fire department, no sewerage. We own our own fire trucks and roadworks machinery to maintain our own property. Pretty much the entire extent of the government presence is the 1 single carriageway road and the scheme water system (both state funded). Thanks, federal government!

skywhale130510_630.jpg


^^^^ where your taxes actually go
Click to expand...


You're still the moron.

You made no delineation between state, federal or local government. Nor did you mention income tax….you just said "tax." You also said that the "government doesn't own me." I asked if you used certain publicly (ergo government for you, the stupid) funded amenities that I listed and you came back with pie charts demonstrating Godknowswhat. How the tax is generated is a completely moot point, it is still tax. And which government pie it comes from is again, a moot point.

So, nice attempted deflection but you just further amplified your moron status. Congratulations.
 
Todman said:
The fact is Fairfax is wrong. Murdoch did not have a daily or sunday paper in Melbourne therefore he had little influence on the Victorian vote.
Click to expand...

Yet, the claim was a nationwide influence and the vote was won and lost in the Western Suburbs of SYDNEY NSW.

Look, I know that leaving Victoria is scary for you...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

pokerspiv said:
Only because it's the cheaper option.

I'm guessing you'd rather raise taxes to 70% so we can buy our own aircraft carriers?

I have not been "previously caught out" at all. I am a libertarian. I would prefer there was no government at all. But given that we do have one I feel I am still entitled as anyone else here to have a say in how it operates.
Click to expand...
Are you a libertarian or an anarchist?
medusala said:
Mal, thanks for the post. Informative. One never ceases to be amazed at the utter stupidity of politicians and the bureaucracy.

The tenants should be turfed on to the street. A handful of coppers, one hour. Minimal cost. Its not rocket science.



You seem rather confused. I don't need government interference to get along with others. Society can cope just fine without Big Brother. In fact society is better off. Go out in to the bush and you see how it workers, neighbours help neighbours because of a lack of government help compared to the cities.

Government is the enemy of society, people look to the state rather than to each other.

Libertarians can grasp that. Its a pity others cant. Gough thought more government was the answer. It clearly wasn't. Hence his government being an unmitigated economic disaster.
Click to expand...
Trust me, this is a gross generalisation. As for everything else... let's not discuss it here.
imadodgyumpire said:
Your two lines are contradicting. You might want to express what makes a "great" pm/leader.

But lets face it. Barnett, long with those who share his opinion, like Greg Sheridan and Glen Milne, wouldn't know a great pm/leader, even if they were smacked in the arse with a branding iron. Having been denied risking his life in Vietnam, you tell me how Barnett is anything other than an ungrateful bastard?
Click to expand...
Greg Sheridan knows a great leader when he sees one- Bibi!
pokerspiv said:
Didn't realise you were a mod.

Oh wait, you aren't. GFY.
Click to expand...
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
 
Riseupaustralia said:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/murdoch-editors-told-to-kill-whitlam-in-1975-20140627-zson7.html



Again, stop making s**t up.
Click to expand...
Here is somthing that might help the paid Lib voter.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s57770.htm

JOHN MENADUE: Er, I saw him most actively involved in the '72 campaign. I was working for him at that stage and I had very close links with the Whitlam. He was involved in enormous detail, writing stories, writing editorials, providing free advertising, writing draft speeches for Whitlam. He was into it boots and all. Highly interventionist.
 
clogged said:
You haven't argued my point, just more of your typical deflection.

Degrees have become the minimum standard because employers have outsourced their training. No employer trains on the job - job candidates are expected to have sought some kind of training themselves at a minimum before seeking employment.

Ask yourself - how many PhDs worked in finance fifty years ago versus today? Is it because governments pay for people's PhDs that investment banks are one of the biggest employers of them?
Click to expand...

Most degrees don't actually teach any job skills though.

Degrees have become the minimum standard purely because employers prefer to hire those with one than those without. So if you don't have one, you are unlikely to be hired, all else being equal. It's effectively an arms race.

If you need proof of this just look at some government job ads. Many of them typically have as a prerequisite a 4-year degree in any subject. So it literally doesn't even matter what you studied. It could be 14th century French poetry, that still makes you more qualified than someone with no degree but 5 years practical experience.
 
medusala said:
The tenants should be turfed on to the street. A handful of coppers, one hour. Minimal cost. Its not rocket science.
Click to expand...

Putting aside the human cost of making preschool children homeless, how much is it going to cost the State to deal with this family if they become homeless? Crime etc.

Even assuming they wind up in prison (as is most likely) this is going to cost the State millions over the life of this family.

Surely, by investing a fraction of that money and fixing the problem, it's a win win for everyone?
 
Malifice said:
Surely, by investing a fraction of that money and fixing the problem, it's a win win for everyone?
Click to expand...

No. Your attitude merely encourages trouble and costs money, a vast amount of money. I find it rather incredible that anyone could even attempt to argue that state has a duty to provide housing to a family that has repeatedly been warned over its behaviour.

In any even the problem isn't fixed. You just push the problem on to others. Why should law abiding citizens have their lives ruined by living next door to such thugs?

Why don't you give a stuff about them?

Prison costs what? $40-$50 pa. Much cheaper than the costs you quote.

I am more than happy to pay taxes to incarcerate criminals. My insurance premiums would decrease and home value increase plus life would be more pleasant.
 
medusala said:
No. Your attitude merely encourages trouble and costs money, a vast amount of money.
Click to expand...

How so? Surely you can see the economic cost of a family of five people being forced into homelessness.

Not just the cost of police etc involement over the life of this family, but also the lost opportunity cost of them not working, paying taxes etc.

Programs designed to keep them housed, educate them, and get them into the workforce are (purely economically speaking) a solid investment. And by an exponential factor.

Why should law abiding citizens have their lives ruined by living next door to such thugs?
Click to expand...

If you evict them, where are they going to go?

Prison costs what? $40-$50 pa. Much cheaper than the costs you quote.
Click to expand...

Even at $50k p/a for a family of 5 people over the life of this family (plus policing costs, court costs etc) it quickly runs into the millions of dollars before the first year is up.

Surely, solving this families problems before it gets to this stage, and getting them into the workforce where they generate income is a preferrable option?

Purely economically speaking it saves the State tens of millions of dollars, just over the 20 years of this families life (before factoring in future costs over the generational gap via grandkids etc).

And thats all before we discuss the human cost of 5 year old kids on the streets.

We get stop the downward trend now, and we save millions (and save a lot of human suffering).

Surely thats prefereable?
 
Riseupaustralia said:
Is there the chance of rehabilitation here Meds, or do we just throw away the key for everyone who doesn't "conform"?

I'm also sensing a small human rights issue with long term/life imprisonment for being noisy neighbours.
Click to expand...

a) the stats aren't favourable
b) who talked of locking people up? Rather it was simply not taking cash from taxpayers to house them.

Malifice said:
If you evict them, where are they going to go?
Click to expand...

If I cant pay my rent/mortgage (as opposed to the govt housing me at stuff all cost) what am I going to do?

Hardly the concern of other taxpayers and nor should it be

Again - why have you so little sympathy for law abiding citizens whose lives are blighted by people such as these?

This was the problem with Gough and others in the 70s. The victimhood / life owes me a living agenda came to the fore.

Its produced a very ugly Australia where those who contribute little constantly demand more and more from those that do.

Hardly conducive to a cohesive society.
 
medusala said:
a) the stats aren't favourable
b) who talked of locking people up? Rather it was simply not taking cash from taxpayers to house them.
Click to expand...

So, no house, just * em?

This is kinda like the beginning of the zombie apocolypse, and I'm sure that nothing could possibly go wrong with treating people like total outcasts. Nothing at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top