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:
People who think Murdoch has some kind of favouritism to a side of politics misunderstand him.

He is nothing but self serving. He will pick a side that favours him. Once you understand that about Murdoch, he becomes less important, though no less evil.
Click to expand...

People seem to forgot he supported Kevin07.
 
medusala said:
FFS you have no idea. If the price of something due to govt intervention is lower than it would otherwise be then there is more demand for that product and a greater supply in to the market place . It is the govt that creates too many graduates and thus the govt that has dumbed it down via oversupply.

Such interference in price setting is completely against the notions of a free market
Click to expand...


Well that was an anti-climax. This a wonderful example of your tendency to cherry pick posts and make an argument by selective observation. And when you're not cherry picking and arguing in a partial manner, you're off appealing to 'common sense'. Aim higher.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Northalives said:
There was no forward thinking, planning: that was all done by Curtain/Chifley.
Click to expand...

Forward thinking and planning should be left to private enterprise. Governments should stick to upholding the rule of law and defending the country.

Their planning more often than not results in utter s**t. That's what happens when you make decisions about how to spend other people's money. There's very little thought put into it because the people making the decisions have no personal stake in the result.
 
Malifice said:
Lol.

Libertarians would never support the State having the legal power to detain people at gunpoint and imprison them indefinitately without charge, trial, natural justice or procedural fairness.

It appears as if you dont understand your own damn political paradigm.
Click to expand...

Good thing we don't do that in Australia then.

People are free to leave any time if they abandon their claim to asylum.
 
B4Bear said:
You are predicting the dumbing down with the quantity of degrees being supplied, and not with the quality of the degree.

If the standards of the degree are not lowered and more people pass, then you have INCREASED the education average of your population.

Going by your argument, when it became mandatory for all children to complete year ten, the quality of their education should have fallen, because there are more of them that now have a leaver's certificate.

Oh, and an unregulated free market sucks dogs ball.
Click to expand...

You are confusing quality with value. They are not the same thing.

Yes, the value of a year 10 certificate decreased when it became mandatory, because supply increased while demand did not. Literally the most basic concept in all of economics.
 
pokerspiv said:
Forward thinking and planning should be left to private enterprise. Governments should stick to upholding the rule of law and defending the country.
Click to expand...

This is impossible under a capitalist system and only works in communism (which is a theory yet to be implemented). The nature of capitalism is short term focus.

Their planning more often than not results in utter s**t. That's what happens when you make decisions about how to spend other people's money. There's very little thought put into it because the people making the decisions have no personal stake in the result.
Click to expand...

Like the IPA for example, they are trying to tell Victorians how to live but nobody has voted for any of them - and nor would they, they're a thoroughly unphotogenic group of people - yet they're gifted cushy public service jobs they're completely unqualified for.
 
pokerspiv said:
You are confusing quality with value. They are not the same thing.

Yes, the value of a year 10 certificate decreased when it became mandatory, because supply increased while demand did not. Literally the most basic concept in all of economics.
Click to expand...

This only works if the only reason to go to uni is to get a job.

That would be pretty ****ed up.
 
The Coup said:
This is impossible under a capitalist system and only works in communism (which is a theory yet to be implemented). The nature of capitalism is short term focus.



Like the IPA for example, they are trying to tell Victorians how to live but nobody has voted for any of them - and nor would they, they're a thoroughly unphotogenic group of people - yet they're gifted cushy public service jobs they're completely unqualified for.
Click to expand...

The problem with private enterprise being left to do all the forward thinking is that they only do something if there is a profit to be made out of it. The so called libertarians and right wingers like to try to commodify everything and only value something based on its ability to generate further profits.

Government's must step in and redirect capital to areas where it may not be financially beneficial for private enterprise but is socially beneficial for society as a whole.
 
Showbags said:
The problem with private enterprise being left to do all the forward thinking is that they only do something if there is a profit to be made out of it. The so called libertarians and right wingers like to try to commodify everything and only value something based on its ability to generate further profits.

Government's must step in and redirect capital to areas where it may not be financially beneficial for private enterprise but is socially beneficial for society as a whole.
Click to expand...
Like public transport :)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jiska said:
So says you. At least they tried to make fundamental long term change for the betterment of the country, even if I didn't agree with some of it, at least they had a vision. On the contrary, Howard sat around and did **** all for 12 years during a mining boom and did nothing but deliver tax cuts to middle and high income earners.

I note your admission of Hawke and Keating - are you happy with their efforts?
Click to expand...
So do you believe it is wrong to cut tax rates at the high end from 48.5% to a lower level? Surely those who pay higher taxes deserve some of their money back. Btw, I am a low income worker and every taxpayer received tax cuts?
 
Showbags said:
The problem with private enterprise being left to do all the forward thinking is that they only do something if there is a profit to be made out of it. The so called libertarians and right wingers like to try to commodify everything and only value something based on its ability to generate further profits.

Government's must step in and redirect capital to areas where it may not be financially beneficial for private enterprise but is socially beneficial for society as a whole.
Click to expand...
They should only step in when it is an essential service. However, governments like to interfere and assist their interest groups. Entrepreneurs are more likely to provide a product or service that meets a specific demand.
 
The Coup said:
This only works if the only reason to go to uni is to get a job.

That would be pretty ****** up.
Click to expand...

It's pretty unaffordable (not just cost of courses, but cost of living while at uni) to study for self-interest rather than prospective future employment these days.

Would take a lot of pressure off students (and parents who may be financially supporting them) while studying if university education came at no cost. Would give people more of a financial head start once they get into their field as well (without a HECS or HELP debt).
 
Damon_3388 said:
Would take a lot of pressure off students (and parents who may be financially supporting them) while studying if university education came at no cost. Would give people more of a financial head start once they get into their field as well (without a HECS or HELP debt).
Click to expand...

It would be great for everyone if everything was free. But there's no such thing as free. Someone has to pay for it. There's a lot of merit behind the idea that the people who benefit should be the ones who pay.

A person with a degree makes something like $1 million more than a person without a degree over a lifetime of work. Asking them to pay back a degree worth around $100,000 isn't too big an imposition.

I don't disagree that loans should be made available to make it more accessible to people who can't afford to pay up front. So I am fine with HECS. But the repayments should be for the full value of the degree rather than have 75% or thereabouts which is currently subsidised by all taxpayers. This would remove most of the market distortions inherent in the current system.
 
Showbags said:
The problem with private enterprise being left to do all the forward thinking is that they only do something if there is a profit to be made out of it. The so called libertarians and right wingers like to try to commodify everything and only value something based on its ability to generate further profits.

Government's must step in and redirect capital to areas where it may not be financially beneficial for private enterprise but is socially beneficial for society as a whole.
Click to expand...

This, this and this.

Having been employed by the ADF for the past 32 years, it has been interesting watching private enterprise screw over the majority of my fellow citizens time and time again.

Anyone that doubts this have a look at your electricity and gas bills. Privatised = you will pay more every single time.
 
pokerspiv said:
Richard Branson now owns the UK's rail system, and it's far superior to what it was when it was owned by the state.
Click to expand...
The exception does not prove the rule.

Melbourne rail is screwed, and it is run by private enterprise.

Victorian electricity is expensive and it is done by private enterprise.
 
Showbags said:
The problem with private enterprise being left to do all the forward thinking is that they only do something if there is a profit to be made out of it. The so called libertarians and right wingers like to try to commodify everything and only value something based on its ability to generate further profits.

Government's must step in and redirect capital to areas where it may not be financially beneficial for private enterprise but is socially beneficial for society as a whole.
Click to expand...

Spot on. This speech sums it up best:

 
pokerspiv said:
It would be great for everyone if everything was free. But there's no such thing as free. Someone has to pay for it. There's a lot of merit behind the idea that the people who benefit should be the ones who pay.

A person with a degree makes something like $1 million more than a person without a degree over a lifetime of work. Asking them to pay back a degree worth around $100,000 isn't too big an imposition.

I don't disagree that loans should be made available to make it more accessible to people who can't afford to pay up front. So I am fine with HECS. But the repayments should be for the full value of the degree rather than have 75% or thereabouts which is currently subsidised by all taxpayers. This would remove most of the market distortions inherent in the current system.
Click to expand...

$1 million dollars is nothing when you start 100k+ in the hole and capital growth and interest rates outstrips wages.
 
B4Bear said:
The exception does not prove the rule.

Melbourne rail is screwed, and it is run by private enterprise.

Victorian electricity is expensive and it is done by private enterprise.
Click to expand...

Australian banking and telco's are the most expensive in the world due to privatisation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top