Senate results

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#51
evo said:
Meh.I'm not particualry a fan of Howard.I certainly don't approve of his foreign policies and treatment of refugees. I just want to live in a country as free as possible from government intervention.Australia's doing pretty well as far as i can tell.I've been to quite a few countries and i'd say our standard of living be it for, rich or poor, compares well to anywhere in the world.Do tell me which country you see as the "ideal" that we could emulate.

I certainly don't bitch about "welfare cheats or lazy workers". Seems to me the majority of the bitching around here is being done by the left.
I'm sorry, but WTF????

I mean Labor will manage economy just the same, I don't remember any massive impositions on my freedoms under Labor govts. Keating and Hawke set up tohe 90s booms. Just how in the hell dpoes what you say mean vote Libs?????

All you have stated is that you don't like howard, don't approve of his foreign policies, or treatment of refugees???? AND YOU VOTED FOR HIM AND THOSE POLICIES when other than unfair dismissal laws and Telstra, which are pretty much ideological issues that have nothing to do with what else you mentioned, they are both the bloody same?????

I mean just what freedoms were you expecting to lose under Labor????? Do you think they may just go and nationalise all the banks and make you work in a GULAG?????????

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS PLACE!!!!!! ARGHGHGHG.

I don't give a rats who you voted for, but don't try and justify it with crap like that, BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!! I'd respect you more if you had said you voted for Howard because you support the war, don;t want to protect the forests, and think unions can go jump into a deep hole full of landmines, and hope they melt down refugees for glue sticks!!!!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#52
Uhhh yeah, I feel better now:) Sorry Evo - I don't think that was just aimed at you;) I need a holiday. Where is a nice left leaning country with good wine and beer?
 

evo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Posts
27,407
Likes
16,973
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#53
Calm down there funky.You're making a hell of alot of assumptions out of 3 or 4 sentences I wrote.I wasn't trying to justify anything but now you've jumped on the front foot for some reason I'll expand.

funkyfreo said:
I'm sorry, but WTF????

I mean Labor will manage economy just the same, I don't remember any massive impositions on my freedoms under Labor govts. Keating and Hawke set up tohe 90s booms. Just how in the hell dpoes what you say mean vote Libs?????
Well I don't agree they would manage the economy as well as the Liberal party would.I have a good understanding of econmics.We can debate this if you like.I don't rememember any massive impostions either,I never claimed they did.It's just the lesser of 2 evils as far as I'm concerned.

All you have stated is that you don't like howard, don't approve of his foreign policies, or treatment of refugees????
Yeah so? Do you agreee with all ALP policies?I'm not a big Howard fan.Do you expect me to be?It sounds like you're not either. I'm not a big Latham fan either.Whats the problem?
AND YOU VOTED FOR HIM AND THOSE POLICIES when other than unfair dismissal laws and Telstra, which are pretty much ideological issues that have nothing to do with what else you mentioned, they are both the bloody same?????
Yes idealogically I think they should privatise Telstra.You got a problem with that? If you like you can ask me specific questions on each and every policy.Sounds a little boring though.

I mean just what freedoms were you expecting to lose under Labor????? Do you think they may just go and nationalise all the banks and make you work in a GULAG?????????
Now your just being a drama queen.You had too much coffee or something?

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS PLACE!!!!!! ARGHGHGHG.
I'm not sure but your getting a bit hot and bothered about a few innocuous sentences of mine.

I don't give a rats who you voted for, but don't try and justify it with crap like that, BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!
I wasn't trying to justifty any thing really other than to say that I've travelled to quite a few countries and we live in the best one.You disagree?

I'd respect you more if you had said you voted for Howard because you support the war, don;t want to protect the forests, and think unions can go jump into a deep hole full of landmines, and hope they melt down refugees for glue sticks!!!!
Well I wasn't really looking for your respect or lack there of.I'm against war .Does that mean I can't vote for the Libs? I reckon if Labor had have been in at the time they would've sent soldiers to Iraq too.Maybe you think they wouldn't have thats fine.No need to jump on your high horse. Are you suggesting all liberal voters are war mongering tree clearing refugee hating fascists?Sounds like you're the one losing a grip on reality not me.
 

Contra Mundum

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Posts
21,910
Likes
8,700
Location
North Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
NMFC
#55
evo said:
Meh.I'm not particualry a fan of Howard.I certainly don't approve of his foreign policies and treatment of refugees. I just want to live in a country as free as possible from government intervention.Australia's doing pretty well as far as i can tell.I've been to quite a few countries and i'd say our standard of living be it for, rich or poor, compares well to anywhere in the world.Do tell me which country you see as the "ideal" that we could emulate.

I certainly don't bitch about "welfare cheats or lazy workers". Seems to me the majority of the bitching around here is being done by the left.
A world "free of government intervention" - like the socialistic social safety net; progressive taxation, enforceable minimum labor standards, have a look at the ACCI or the Business Council website - they are a clear indicator of where we are headed.

Also have a look at the American Free Enterprise Institute web site about our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme - apparently this socialistic system kills innovation - the equation here is market darwinism - you cant afford the drugs - you die! Yes preserve the market over human life anytime.

Don't give me the rhetoric of "free from government interference" - for example in a free market workers use their market power by taking industrial action - why is it the government will put a further impediment in front of it by the taking of secret ballots - it is noteworthy the Government does not intend for shareholders of employers to take a secret ballot before they lock workers out - and by the way Australia has the greatest number of lock outs in the Western World
 

evo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Posts
27,407
Likes
16,973
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#56
Yes thats all fine Mark Perica,quite a good post.I certainly have no objection to saftey nets etc.People deserve a minimum living standard.

I think where you and I differ is how to improve ALL peoples standard of living.
You're free to respond if you think I'm making incorrect assumptions about where you stand but I'd say generally you're concerned with redistributing the pie(gdp).Ie You feel that to improve peoples lives the goverment needs to manage the economy to ensure that everyone is getting their fair share.Whereas I feel you can benefit people more by increasing the size of the pie.

I'm the first to admit politics isn't me field of expertise.To tell the truth I see the majority of politics as the major impedient to sensible economic policy.There are so many interest groups tugging from so many different angles thet the "right thing" is very rarely done IMO.However I've studied macro economics and mathermatics fairly extensively and as a private currency and gold futures trader I keep abreast of the worlds economic machinations.I came to the conclusions quite a while ago thats free markets are a far superior way to fairly increase the well being of people.If I thought I could change your mind on this I could prove it to you on paper.Instead,mainly because it is less work I'll use an anecdotal example...

At the moment we are lucky enough to be witnessing a live experiment of the Socialism v. Captialism debate.For over 50 years the Chinese govermnet managed all forms of the economy.One of the problems with a managed economy that people on the left often gloss over is that one of the main inputs in production is labour (ie people) Therefore if a person lives in a region designated as ,say, the widget building region.All people in that region build widgets.There is no freedom of choice.People have to do what they're told or the system collapses.Now, I'm well aware China prior to the last decade is an extreme version of socialism but it illustrates one of the pifalls of it.

For over 50 years basically all Chinese people have suffered a very poor standard of living.Apart from the beaurocrats who administered this system, all people were basically pretty poor.For most of that time the Chinese economy hasn't expanded.People were equal,but equally poor.Some peolple in power started to wonder what ever happened to the "great leap forward".The West who embraced capitlism went from strength to strength.Meanwhile China stagnated.Once Chairman Mao died they wisely saw an opportunity to change things for the better.Over the last few years the Chinese goverment has introduced a more free enterprise sytem.Private enterprise now runs alot of the industry,inneficient producers no longer produce.China is beginning to embrace, in an initial small way but gradually increasing capitalism and global trade.

As a result, their economy is expanding at an astonishing rate.More recently at 9% per annum.This rapid expansion is almost unheard of in world history.Most peoples standard of living is rising at an astonishing rate.

Now, with this in mind ,how anyone can sensibly argue that the concept of socialism is superior to captitalism for all people is beyond me.
 

CharlieG

Go Bloods!
Joined
Jun 22, 2002
Posts
12,985
Likes
358
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
#57
Evo, are you also aware of the increases in unemployment, corruption and purchasing power in China as a result of Deng's policies?

If you have resources like China and a low starting base, you are going to see some rapid increases. But what's more important, the raw numbers, or the actual results in Chinese society?

China's state owned enterprises were not only corporations. The welfare system was integrated into the corporations. Now, that no longer happens. People have more money to spend, but now they have to spend it on things they never used to have to buy. For the vast majority of Chinese that aren't becoming rich, life is getting harder. The corporations were inefficient in the Western sense, but if profit was not the motive then the system wasn't necessarily bad.

By the way, what you say about no choice of profession isn't really that true. If you lived in the country, you were a peasant... but that'd be true whether China was socialist or capitalist. In the cities, there were, like Australia, areas where certain industries were critically important. But to suggest that everyone worked in those industries is ridiculous.

There's a lot more corruption and unexplained wealth amongst the bureaucracy now that such unexplained wealth is possible, than there was under Mao. Your suggestion that the bureaucrats were ripping off the system in the old days is flawed.

China needed to open up and trade, but they didn't have to become fascist (compare contemporary China with Mussolini's Italy, and see what you think) to do it.
 

Contra Mundum

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Posts
21,910
Likes
8,700
Location
North Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
NMFC
#58
evo said:
Yes thats all fine Mark Perica,quite a good post.I certainly have no objection to saftey nets etc.People deserve a minimum living standard.

I think where you and I differ is how to improve ALL peoples standard of living.
You're free to respond if you think I'm making incorrect assumptions about where you stand but I'd say generally you're concerned with redistributing the pie(gdp).Ie You feel that to improve peoples lives the goverment needs to manage the economy to ensure that everyone is getting their fair share.Whereas I feel you can benefit people more by increasing the size of the pie.

I'm the first to admit politics isn't me field of expertise.To tell the truth I see the majority of politics as the major impedient to sensible economic policy.There are so many interest groups tugging from so many different angles thet the "right thing" is very rarely done IMO.However I've studied macro economics and mathermatics fairly extensively and as a private currency and gold futures trader I keep abreast of the worlds economic machinations.I came to the conclusions quite a while ago thats free markets are a far superior way to fairly increase the well being of people.If I thought I could change your mind on this I could prove it to you on paper.Instead,mainly because it is less work I'll use an anecdotal example...

At the moment we are lucky enough to be witnessing a live experiment of the Socialism v. Captialism debate.For over 50 years the Chinese govermnet managed all forms of the economy.One of the problems with a managed economy that people on the left often gloss over is that one of the main inputs in production is labour (ie people) Therefore if a person lives in a region designated as ,say, the widget building region.All people in that region build widgets.There is no freedom of choice.People have to do what they're told or the system collapses.Now, I'm well aware China prior to the last decade is an extreme version of socialism but it illustrates one of the pifalls of it.

For over 50 years basically all Chinese people have suffered a very poor standard of living.Apart from the beaurocrats who administered this system, all people were basically pretty poor.For most of that time the Chinese economy hasn't expanded.People were equal,but equally poor.Some peolple in power started to wonder what ever happened to the "great leap forward".The West who embraced capitlism went from strength to strength.Meanwhile China stagnated.Once Chairman Mao died they wisely saw an opportunity to change things for the better.Over the last few years the Chinese goverment has introduced a more free enterprise sytem.Private enterprise now runs alot of the industry,inneficient producers no longer produce.China is beginning to embrace, in an initial small way but gradually increasing capitalism and global trade.

As a result, their economy is expanding at an astonishing rate.More recently at 9% per annum.This rapid expansion is almost unheard of in world history.Most peoples standard of living is rising at an astonishing rate.

Now, with this in mind ,how anyone can sensibly argue that the concept of socialism is superior to captitalism for all people is beyond me.
Evo I am not having a go at you mate! I think China is a mixed economy now: State Capitalism whereby the political elites take the cream off through corruption; and flat out laissez faire capitalism equivalent to the robber baron period in America - I am a member of the Australia - China Labour Rights Association - you should see the number of deaths per week it is incredible!!

The other thing about the "growing the pie" argument is that the lie of that metaphor was given by Thatcherism and Reaganomics - remember the infamous "trickle down "effect. All that happened is the gap between the rich few and the working poor grew exponentially. I think my line is that the "fair go" mentality will be foregone in the next three years and what will happen then is the inevitable social cost of a powerless underclass - a fire next time baby!!!!! Peace Perica

PS : I apologise about the Audi comment it was a cheap shot
 

evo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Posts
27,407
Likes
16,973
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#59
thanks for the considered reply Charlie.

CharlieG said:
Evo, are you also aware of the increases in unemployment,
Yes,I beleive that to be a transistional problem however.It really is a true revolution happening in China.An undoing of 50 plus years of goverment policy wont happen overnight.When innefficient industries are closed down people have to re-train,perhaps even move.When an economy is growing at 9%/year believe me ,many jobs are being created.I bet they have shortages in many fields of expertise.
corruption
Yes corruption is a real problem whenever governments get involved,some people are favoured over others.Very regrettable and contrary to true free market economics.The same problem is occuring for Russia's transistion.The sooner it is stamped out the better.
and purchasing power in China as a result of Deng's policies?
Yes the people have increased purchasing power.Surely thats a good thing.

If you have resources like China and a low starting base, you are going to see some rapid increases. But what's more important, the raw numbers, or the actual results in Chinese society?
Well you've hit the nail on the head.My point exactly.Of course it's a low starting base.They've been mismanaging their resources ever since they embraced communism.The actual results are higher standard of living and a freer society.The government doesn't have to lie to the people that China was better off than Western countries.They are now free to use the internet or watch western T.V shows. Do you see this as Chinese society going backwards?

China's state owned enterprises were not only corporations. The welfare system was integrated into the corporations. Now, that no longer happens.
Yes,good point,this will have to be adressed.Even so,life is improving for the majority of people.Time to tax them and provide a safety net for the people going through transistional unemployment.
People have more money to spend, but now they have to spend it on things they never used to have to buy.
So what are you saying here?Before they couldn't afford a fridge but it didn't matter because they're was no fridge for sale at their local store.But now there are fridges available for purchase they are somehow worse off?
For the vast majority of Chinese that aren't becoming rich, life is getting harder.
Why,because they've discovered consumerism? Thats freedom of choice.If they want to save up for that fridge or do overtime to get that fridge they can.It isn't mandatory.
The corporations were inefficient in the Western sense, but if profit was not the motive then the system wasn't necessarily bad.
Yes you're right,the purpose of alot of industry was to create jobs.Fairly inane and illogical I would've thought.They could've achieved the same result following Keynes fine suggestion.I'm parraphrasing here."to create full employment,during a recession,the government should pay half the people dig holes and pay the other half fill them in"

By the way, what you say about no choice of profession isn't really that true. If you lived in the country, you were a peasant... but that'd be true whether China was socialist or capitalist. In the cities, there were, like Australia, areas where certain industries were critically important. But to suggest that everyone worked in those industries is ridiculous.
Peasants now are free to grow what they like..Reward for ingenuity and effort.Freedom of choice.If someone now wants to become a doctor even though they live near a steel mill they can.The peasant can now move wherever he seems fit.Many are moving to cities now for a better life.Seems desirable to me.

There's a lot more corruption and unexplained wealth amongst the bureaucracy now that such unexplained wealth is possible, than there was under Mao. Your suggestion that the bureaucrats were ripping off the system in the old days is flawed.
oK if thats the case it should be stamped out.It's not an argument against free market economics though its an argument against goverment led corruption.I with you,most undesirable.

China needed to open up and trade, but they didn't have to become fascist (compare contemporary China with Mussolini's Italy, and see what you think) to do it.
Agreed.What gave you the impression I was a supporter of fascism? Was it all my use of the word free or was it my condemnation of government intervention.
 

evo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Posts
27,407
Likes
16,973
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#60
Mark Perica said:
Evo I am not having a go at you mate! I think China is a mixed economy now: State Capitalism whereby the political elites take the cream off through corruption; and flat out laissez faire capitalism equivalent to the robber baron period in America - I am a member of the Australia - China Labour Rights Association - you should see the number of deaths per week it is incredible!!
Yeah thats fine.I had 15 minutes to kill so just jumped up on my soapbox.
The other thing about the "growing the pie" argument is that the lie of that metaphor was given by Thatcherism and Reaganomics - remember the infamous "trickle down "effect. All that happened is the gap between the rich few and the working poor grew exponentially. I think my line is that the "fair go" mentality will be foregone in the next three years and what will happen then is the inevitable social cost of a powerless underclass - a fire next time baby!!!!! Peace Perica
Well again we are at odds.I beleive when an economy increases in size all benefit.This constantly draggging out" gap between the rich few and the working poor grew exponentially" argument just doesn't wash with me.If you're suggesting the average person is now worse off econimcally than they were when Howard came in 8 years ago I suggest you recheck the figures.And who is this powerless underclass?

PS : I apologise about the Audi comment it was a cheap shot
lol no worries.I drive a Toyota Camry but if you drop off a new audi around tommorrow I'll be happy to take it for a spin.I'll even take a trip to South Yarra.Haven't been there in a while but it's not a bad perve from memory ;)
 

CharlieG

Go Bloods!
Joined
Jun 22, 2002
Posts
12,985
Likes
358
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
#61
evo said:
thanks for the considered reply Charlie.

Yes,I beleive that to be a transistional problem however.It really is a true revolution happening in China.An undoing of 50 plus years of goverment policy wont happen overnight.When innefficient industries are closed down people have to re-train,perhaps even move. When an economy is growing at 9%/year believe me ,many jobs are being created. I bet they have shortages in many fields of expertise.
Well, to be precise, they are overturning about 30 years of policies, and they've been doing it for 25 years. We aren't talking slight structural problems here - there are millions and millions of rural unemployed. The education and training systems can't cope with those numbers. They are a long-term problem, not an incidental one.

Yes corruption is a real problem whenever governments get involved,some people are favoured over others.Very regrettable and contrary to true free market economics.The same problem is occuring for Russia's transistion.The sooner it is stamped out the better.
I don't think you get it. During the true socialist period, the sort of corruption of which you speak was very limited because people couldn't get away with it. In an economic system where excessive wealth is almost certainly unexplainable, and a political system where the leaders are ideologues, corruption won't get you very far.

Yes the people have increased purchasing power.Surely thats a good thing.
My bad. I meant to say that purchasing power is falling. Simply because while incomes rise, what people need to buy with those incomes also rise. In the 1970s, it wasn't uncommon for your employer to provide you with a flat as part of your wage. Now, you get more money, but you have to pay rent for a flat. It costs more, purchasing power falls.

Well you've hit the nail on the head.My point exactly.Of course it's a low starting base.They've been mismanaging their resources ever since they embraced communism.The actual results are higher standard of living and a freer society.The government doesn't have to lie to the people that China was better off than Western countries.They are no free to use the internet or watch western T.V shows. Do you see this as Chinese society going backwards?
Wait. You think the Chinese economy was all fine and dandy before the Revolution? They didn't mismanage resources under socialism any more than they mismanaged it for the centuries before that of feudalism. In fact, under socialism they used their most abundant resource - land - quite effectively. Collectives and communes were considerably more economical than the private small-plot farming is today.

Yes,good point,this will have to be adressed.Even so,life is improving for the majority of people.Time to tax them and provide a safety net for the people going through transistional unemployment.
Elaborate on the statement that 'life is improving for the majority of people', and then tell me why having a tax system and providing transfer payments for people who do not have work is better than having a firm-based welfare system where people are paid for working?

So what are you saying here?Before they couldn't afford a fridge but it didn't matter because they're was no fridge for sale at their local store.But now there are fridges available for purchase they are somehow worse off?
You're partly right. Yes, there is moer of the 'eight bigs' available for purchase, and I won't deny that a lot of Chinese people are quite happy as they take their fridge or washing machine home. I'm talking about things such as housing and child care and the like, things that were once distributed using the state owned enterprises, but now cost people more because they are supplied only if there is a profit. How is paying the cost of the service, PLUS profit, better for the consumer than paying for the cost of the service?

Why,because they've discovered consumerism? Thats freedom of choice.If they want to save up for that fridge or do overtime to get that fridge they can.It isn't mandatory. Yes you're right,the purpose of alot of industry was to create jobs.Fairly inane and illogical I would've thought.They could've achieved the same result following Keynes fine suggestion.I'm parraphrasing here."to create full employment,during a recession,the government should pay half the people dig holes and pay the other half fill them in"
But that needn't have been the case. If they integrated with the world economy, but retained the systems of agriculture and manufacturing they had, they could have met WORLD demand while keeping the jobs, thus ensuring that equity and social cohesion was retained. But they didn't do that, and now some Chinese are very rich and more Chinese are very poor.

Peasants now are free to grow what they like..Reward for ingenuity and effort.Freedom of choice.If someone now wants to become a doctor even though they live near a steel mill they can.The peasant can now move wherever he seems fit.Many are moving to cities now for a better life.Seems desirable to me.
That's a social policy you're talking about, not an economic one. The key reform in the countryside has been to replace the communes with small plots. Now, people who exercise the choice you speak of to leave the land (which must happen if manufacturing, which has fueled China's boom, is to develop) retain those small plots, even though they don't use them. Is that efficient? I don't think so.

oK if thats the case it should be stamped out.It's not an argument against free market economics though its an argument against goverment led corruption.I with you,most undesirable.
It WAS stamped out. It's the economic reforms that you're supporting that caused it in the first place.

Agreed.What gave you the impression I was a supporter of fascism? Was it all my use of the word free or was it my condemnation of government intervention.
Basically, China now subordinates labour interests to capital interests, and uses coercion to control it. Wasn't suggesting YOU were supporting fascism. I was suggesting that modern China is a fascist state.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

teams

Cancelled
Joined
Apr 9, 2004
Posts
3,992
Likes
5
Location
victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
#62
CharlieG Basically said:
What would yours or anyones impression of the affect of the one nation two systems arrangement be on big fellow China. Hong Kong seems to be a muted version of its former self bu now. It would be presumed zero but has it caused any considerations of democratic values to be entertained in Beijing. Was dissappointed the Queen of England didn't attend the handover.
 

Contra Mundum

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Posts
21,910
Likes
8,700
Location
North Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
NMFC
#63
Maybe we should get the moderator to change the name of this topic - we are way of target . I can't even remember how we got talking about the circle of totalatarianism
 
Top Bottom