Science/Environment Could Australia become 3rd world?

[DaRick]

This is BigFooty. Careful you don't get reported for bringing up things like Gini Coefficients
But yeah, there does seem to be a narrow band that is the sweet-spot for the electorate, too high or too low and they'll vote the other mob in. There is always going to be some inequality in society, in fact you could argue that is a good thing. But it is finding that Goldilocks area where it is neither too high nor too low but just right. This tends to favour pragmatic politicians over ideologues.

On related topic now, the one major advantage we have in Australia, and I hope we never lose, is compulsory voting. It is our defence against tyranny, and our defence against extremism. We just won't let any one party get too carried away with a purely ideological agenda.

I would say the ideal GINI is 0.25-0.3, which is about where the Scandinavian social democracies are. The world average is closer to 0.35 (roughly where Australia is).

By contrast, the US was at best in the high 0.3 region during the late 2000's and is almost certainly above 0.4 by now (back in the early 1970's, when productivity started to outstrip wages there, its GINI was a fairly equitable 0.3).

The people who want compulsory voting abolished tend to be decidedly right-wing types or Amerophiles. The problem with non-compulsory voting is that it allows true believers to mobilise to get their man into office. For instance, I find it hard to believe that someone like Trump could have been elected into office in Australia - he simply unsettles too many people. In my lifetime, Mark Latham was the closest we had to a Trump-type leading the two major parties and he was repudiated pretty convincingly. (Abbott in contrast managed to mask some of his more polarising tendencies until he entered office, not least his obsession with the quaint 'knighthood' concept, but he would have been voted out with massive swings against his party had he stayed ala Campbell Newman.)

 

[ChampRevesby]

Is that because of capitalism or because it's becoming less regulated?

In my opinion, it won't matter what sort of governing system is in place unless there are controls implemented and adhered to, to ensure governments remain transparent and accountable, particularly with regard to policy being manipulated by corporations with big agendas and bigger cheque books.

Look no further than the completely absurd situation in the US with the NRA effectively buying the govt. Or, closer to home, the potentially catastrophic TPP.

And this is where I agree that unregulated capitalism does not a happy citizen make, but again, I would wager that any system of governance, left unchecked, is a recipe for disaster.

Thats not true. NRA contributions are very small to the point of insignificance in comparison to other donors. That being said I reckon all third party contributions to political parties should be illegal.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/5/16430684/nra-congress-money-no

 

[Total Power]

Every bad aspect of past socialist societies has been pinned on socialism, ergo, we have to blame every failing in capitalist societies on capitalism.

by whom? nobody i know says that and i live in an ex-socialist country.

 

[Ok Boomer]

I would say possible, but unlikely. More likely that America does instead of us, as a poster mentioned before. Some of their infrastructure is already 3rd world.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

by whom? nobody i know says that and i live in an ex-socialist country.

When I get home, I'll go through threads where people use socialism as a blanket reason for all of those nations' ailments.

I was referring to BF more than I was the vox populi.

When capitalism fails, it's always due to the government, corporations or other entities. Never because of capitalism. Whereas people just blame the socialist system as a whole.

 

[Total Power]

When I get home, I'll go through threads where people use socialism as a blanket reason for all of those nations' ailments.

I was referring to BF more than I was the vox populi.

When capitalism fails, it's always due to the government, corporations or other entities. Never because of capitalism. Whereas people just blame the socialist system as a whole.

Business Cycle theory mate, capitalism is prone to depression, its like flushing the shit out of your system. Pure capitalism, what example would that be? crony capitalism is everywhere. Take now for example, we are due a long time, yet government is refusing to move on interest rates, artificially low interest rates on the other hand talking about how low the unemployment is and how great the economy is. You can't have it both ways, if economy is that great, why are rates so low?? Hint: interest rates are a factor of supply and demand for money, watch your inflation rate, the rates should be equal or higher than the rate of inflation, yet govt doesn't let this happen and if there is an imbalance, but i can't blame the government.

 

[Frank Bunn]

When I get home, I'll go through threads where people use socialism as a blanket reason for all of those nations' ailments.

I was referring to BF more than I was the vox populi.

When capitalism fails, it's always due to the government, corporations or other entities. Never because of capitalism. Whereas people just blame the socialist system as a whole.

That's because with capitalism (including the crony version) the rich get richer but so do everyone else (generally). With socialism the rich get richer, everyone else gets poorer (generally).

 

[twotooto]

Thats not true. NRA contributions are very small to the point of insignificance in comparison to other donors. That being said I reckon all third party contributions to political parties should be illegal.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/5/16430684/nra-congress-money-no

Do you honestly think it's as cut and dried as that?

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Nah. Those resources we're digging up and selling will last forever.

I actually chatted to geologists about this and mining changes due to phasing out of coal and gas are very unlikely to sink us any time soon. We actually rely on mining far less than the government wants us to think we do.

 

[Malifice]

Whereas people just blame the socialist system as a whole.

Thats because socialism doesn't work.

If you can name one socialist or communist nation that didnt descend into a totalitarian shithole I'm interested to hear about it.

Socialism is literally defined as 'the control of the means of production by the State' (as opposed to by private enterprise). When the State control everything bad shit happens; a tyranny is created.

The other problem with socialism is you'll never find a place where people are happy having it. People want to do thier own thing. Invariably not only do the State control the means of production, but you (the individual) don't get much of a say. The State is forced to enforce the system on people. Historically socialism (and communism) have invariably occurred only via violent revolutions or military annexures, that imposed the system on people, via force, and then quickly descended into a stagnant tyranny.

Cambodia. Russia. China. Cuba. North Korea. Vietnam. All of Eastern Europe.

Of those nations, they only started to develop again and become more free (and living conditions improved) once the State gave up the means of production or moved to mixed economics (Perstroika, China's reforms etc).

I mean shit; you can even do direct comparisons between [North vs South Korea] or [China vs Taiwan/ Hong Kong] or [East Germany/ Eastern Europe vs West Germany/ Western Europe] if you want to see the benefits to the middle class, improved HDI, greater freedoms and improved standards of living among comparable nations (the capitalist ones are always in front), with the only difference being they lived under different economic models [single party socialism/ communism vs democratic liberal capitalism].

I'm not saying capitalism is perfect. But its by far and away better than the alternative. Just like democracy isnt perfect, but its the best of a bad choice.

Like I always said to my European Lefties; 'If given a choice, which side of the wall would you prefer to be born on?'

It only works if you're being honest.

 

[Malifice]

Go to Thailand if you want to see capitalism and globalism at work (both good and bad).

Drunken pisshead western tourists have wrecked the joint with pollution and sleaze. But they've also directly contributed to a tourist economy that is responsible for a massive boost to the economy, with hotels hostels, pubs, bars and associated industries getting a hit in the arm, providing economic opportunities and improving a lot of Thai peoples living conditions.

A youth hostel in Thailand 25 years ago was a dingy affair. Today many of them are quite swank. 25 years ago shit was dirt cheap. Now its much more expensive. Whole areas of cities have been transformed to cater to tourists, and people are making the kinds of money that their parents who worked in the rice paddies couldnt dream of making.

Flip side of the coin, the whole place is overrun with idiotic Westerners trashing once idyllic beaches.

Same deal with manufacturing being send there. Its shit and they are effectively slave labor compared to what we get paid, but it creates jobs. From those employed comes an increase in living standards, people with disposable income, itself spawning new jobs, and boosting the economy. From there comes trade unionism, an increase in working standards and wages. This then leads to more disposable income, and new industries spring up. People generate even more personal wealth. More industries are formed. Innovation is encouraged. The invisible hand provides a benefit for all. And so forth.

Same thing happened in London, only 200 years ago.

There is a booming middle class, not just in Thailand, but all of Asia due to this economic flow on effect effect, and a move away from socialist economics to to more open free markets, investment and greater freedoms.

They will catch up to us in HDI, wages, standard of living etc sooner rather than later, and thats as a result of capitalist and freedom, and not due to socialist tyranny.

 

[Brick Loosener]

 

[bombersfan4000]

Well of course capitalism causes inequality. Communism would ensure were all equally in the shit, like in Venezuela.

Some aspects of capitalism have gotten a bit out of hand. Regulated, democratic capitalism FTW.


To answer OP: my god we have a long way to go to be third world.

If the left have their way! Australia, Europe and the rest of the world will be 3rd world crap holes

 

[Moshie The Mook]

In fairness, that movie was filmed out the back of Derrimut which could never decide if it wanted to be rural or industrial.

Things have improved since then, and I believe they now have their own Prison, a McDonalds, and an Aldi.

 

[Malifice]

If the left have their way! Australia, Europe and the rest of the world will be 3rd world crap holes

Why am I sensing that this is some kind of reference to 'leftists letting in brown people and wrecking the country'?

 

[bombersfan4000]

Why am I sensing that this is some kind of reference to 'leftists letting in brown people and wrecking the country'?

If that’s your understanding of it all! Then your an idiot

 

[Malifice]

your an idiot

Irony not lost on me.

 

[HairyO]

There are more children living in poverty in the US than there are in Russia.

Using the same definition of poverty for each country?

 

[Admiral Byng]

Go to Thailand if you want to see capitalism and globalism at work (both good and bad).

Drunken pisshead western tourists have wrecked the joint with pollution and sleaze. But they've also directly contributed to a tourist economy that is responsible for a massive boost to the economy, with hotels hostels, pubs, bars and associated industries getting a hit in the arm, providing economic opportunities and improving a lot of Thai peoples living conditions.

A youth hostel in Thailand 25 years ago was a dingy affair. Today many of them are quite swank. 25 years ago shit was dirt cheap. Now its much more expensive. Whole areas of cities have been transformed to cater to tourists, and people are making the kinds of money that their parents who worked in the rice paddies couldnt dream of making.

Flip side of the coin, the whole place is overrun with idiotic Westerners trashing once idyllic beaches.

Same deal with manufacturing being send there. Its shit and they are effectively slave labor compared to what we get paid, but it creates jobs. From those employed comes an increase in living standards, people with disposable income, itself spawning new jobs, and boosting the economy. From there comes trade unionism, an increase in working standards and wages. This then leads to more disposable income, and new industries spring up. People generate even more personal wealth. More industries are formed. Innovation is encouraged. The invisible hand provides a benefit for all. And so forth.

Same thing happened in London, only 200 years ago.

There is a booming middle class, not just in Thailand, but all of Asia due to this economic flow on effect effect, and a move away from socialist economics to to more open free markets, investment and greater freedoms.

They will catch up to us in HDI, wages, standard of living etc sooner rather than later, and thats as a result of capitalist and freedom, and not due to socialist tyranny.

One reservation about all of this, is it the sort of thing that the average Thai can participate in as a consumer? Can the worker in the car assembly plant afford to buy one of the products they are making, or 7 nights in a nice resort - or is it all for the benefit of foreign consumers?

 

[Malifice]

One reservation about all of this, is it the sort of thing that the average Thai can participate in as a consumer? Can the worker in the car assembly plant afford to buy one of the products they are making, or 7 nights in a nice resort - or is it all for the benefit of foreign consumers?

The number of middle class people that can afford those products are increasing every year, like it is elsewehere in Asia:

Thats around 15 million people entering the middle class in Thailand over 10 years. Indonesia had 100 million over the same time span!

$3000+ USD disposable income might not sound like much, but thats a lot of spare money in Thailand terms.

This is what the World Bank has to say:

Over the last four decades, Thailand has made remarkable progress in social and economic development, moving from a low-income country to an upper-income country in less than a generation. As such, Thailand has been one of the widely cited development success stories, with sustained strong growth and impressive poverty reduction, particularly in the 1980s.

Thailand’s economy grew at an average annual rate of 7.5% in the boom years of 1960 to 1996 and 5% following the Asian financial crisis during 1999-2005, creating millions of jobs that helped pull millions of people out of poverty.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/thailand/overview

Here is another discussion. You can also google 'booming middle class Asia (or Thailand) and read up on plenty of other articles on the topic.

They're following in the footsteps of the British and Europeans (arguably the first developed nations). Mass urbanisation and industrialisation away from a rural and agrarian based population, a rising midle class stemming from exploitation of cheap labor at first, free market mercantile activity and trade liberalisation (and burgeoning trade unionism) later on.

Dont get me wrong; it's not all peaches and cream. Just like when the Brits mae the transition there are plenty of problems. Worker exploitation, terrible working conditions, child labor, sweat shops, slumlords exploiting the workers, pollution etc.

But to say capitalism and the free market is creating inequality in Thailand is not quite the whole story. In one way it is (there is now a growing middle, and upper middle class, while many remain in poverty). But its also lifting millions out of poverty each year, while it also creates far better living conditions, average (median) wages, and standards of living for the majority.

 

[Total Power]

Thats because socialism doesn't work.
.

This is the point, everytime i asked a socialist this question about socialist uptopia they point towards Scandinavia. Anyone with half a brain knows that Nordic Model is not Socialist neither its exactly Social democracy as Sanders would like to claim, at the very core lies market economy, low regulation, low corporate taxes, no minimum wage etc. Out of all countries in Scandinvia only Sweden experimented with Socialism some 5 decades ago, resulted in a dramatic fall in standard of living and hyperinflation. People confuse social security system with socialism. Its interesting to remember that the U.S. got the idea of a social security system from 19th century Germany. That very capitalist monarchy launched an old-age social insurance program in 1889 at the behest of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, partly to stave off radical socialist ideas being floated at the time. So the original social security was an anti-socialist maneuver by a conservative government.

 

[strung_out7]

Irony not lost on me.

Does increased immigration, particularly from poorer countries, also increase the number of cases that your particular division of profession can feed off, hence keeping your pockets lined? I see why you act in this manner.

 

[Total Power]

Does increased immigration, particularly from poorer countries, also increase the number of cases that your particular division of profession can feed off, hence keeping your pockets lined? I see why you act in this manner.

This would depend on what immigration means. Australian type system is good, but illegal migration is bad specially for a welfare state like Sweden. The cost of integration is massive, and most take decades to be integrated if at all. They non-cash expenses are also massive in addition to cash expenses, when i visit Sweden these days, i often hear things like 'public services are no longer efficient' , some 10 years ago i never thought i would hear that. You cannot let just about 'anyone' come to your country without screening as most asylum seekers getting to sweden don't even have a TAFE level education let alone a university degree.

 

[strung_out7]

This would depend on what immigration means. Australian type system is good, but illegal migration is bad specially for a welfare state like Sweden. The cost of integration is massive, and most take decades to be integrated if at all. They non-cash expenses are also massive in addition to cash expenses, when i visit Sweden these days, i often hear things like 'public services are no longer efficient' , some 10 years ago i never thought i would hear that. You cannot let just about 'anyone' come to your country without screening as most asylum seekers getting to sweden don't even have a TAFE level education let alone a university degree.

I would say that most that have entered Sweden in the last 5 years have no education at all.

 

[Total Power]

I would say that most that have entered Sweden in the last 5 years have no education at all.

I know many of the refugees personally, when i lived in Malmo, many have the will to learn as they had no access to education back in their country. But IMO 30% of them (i have no evidence to back it up, that's just from my observation) have no desire to integrate or learn the language despite been provided access to education and housing by the government and why not? government housing is tremendous in Sweden, you get a fully furnished apartment with utilities paid for, supermarket concession cards and 10 euros per day per adult and 6 euros per day per child. Not bad at all. This is why i said the cash and non-cash expense to the government is tremendous.

This is not just the case of "muslims" here, many people from south america or CIS countries who are asylum seekers in sweden are the same too.