The Result Stands

Joined
Jan 13, 2001
Posts
1,940
Likes
176
Location
SportsTAB, Memory Lane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Woodville,Roys,NT Thunder
Thread starter #1
I do not get annoyed when someone says they voted for someone to the left of Marx, nor do I get upset when someone says they voted for someone to the right of Hitler, nor if someone votes Labor, Liberal, Green, Democrat, Pauline Hanson, Socialist, Family First or anything else. A vote belongs to that person voting & how they choose to use it is upto them.

They may choose to vote based on careful examination of all policies of all parties; vote the same way as their parents; donkey vote; or even 'cause they thought the person handing out how to vote cards was hot! It doesn't matter how they came up with their decision - their votes stands. And, in this democracy, all votes are equal. That's the best thing about our voting system - it's a democratic system. I'd rather live under the Devil himself who had been democratically elected, than have the so-called intelligensia decide for me who is right and proper.

So what really annoys me is this intelligensia who post-election argue about the result, inferring people are too stupid, apathetic, selfish etc etc to vote the "right" way. If it means so much, try and educate or convince people prior to the election, but please, give it a rest after the election. Like it or not & for whatever reasons - the people have spoken & the result stands.
 

(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
#2
Regardless of that sentimet, as a Greens voter I still get called stupid, thick, ignorant for being a greens voter from all the ultra libs on here. Don't make out it is all one way traffic.
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#3
funkyfreo said:
Regardless of that sentimet, as a Greens voter I still get called stupid, thick, ignorant for being a greens voter from all the ultra libs on here. Don't make out it is all one way traffic.
It's not necessarily who you vote for but more about your views having no sense of reality and your lack of ability to understand economic principles in any more depth than the basic yr 11 syllabus.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2001
Posts
1,940
Likes
176
Location
SportsTAB, Memory Lane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Woodville,Roys,NT Thunder
Thread starter #4
bunsen burner said:
It's not necessarily who you vote for but more about your views having no sense of reality and your lack of ability to understand economic principles in any more depth than the basic yr 11 syllabus.
Thankyou so much for perfectly illustrating my point :D

Fatty
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#5
bunsen burner said:
It's not necessarily who you vote for but more about your views having no sense of reality and your lack of ability to understand economic principles in any more depth than the basic yr 11 syllabus.
I was not ONLY referring to yourself BB.
 

Joffaboy

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 4, 2000
Posts
33,436
Likes
51,333
Location
The Bay
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
NO Saints
#6
bunsen burner said:
It's not necessarily who you vote for but more about your views having no sense of reality and your lack of ability to understand economic principles in any more depth than the basic yr 11 syllabus.
You are nothing but a desicatted adding machine.

More to a society than economics, but you are so stilted and narrow in your views that someone who votes Greens would be seen by you as a threat.

You are a disgusting human being who requires immediate therapy.
 

Mr Q

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 27, 2002
Posts
10,984
Likes
29
Location
Wombling Free
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Perth
#7
bunsen burner said:
It's not necessarily who you vote for but more about your views having no sense of reality and your lack of ability to understand economic principles in any more depth than the basic yr 11 syllabus.
I thought you were supposed to be a swinging voter, not an ultra-Lib?
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#8
Joffaboy said:
More to a society than economics, but you are so stilted and narrow in your views that someone who votes Greens would be seen by you as a threat.
You obviously missed my point by a considerable margin.

I've never said that economic policy is be-all end-all, but in the past have let it be known that I believe it is the #1 priority. Has nothing to do with my last post though.

It's funny how people like you call me narrow minded. I'm not one of the many on BF who lean very left or very right. If not being able to respect people who are either very left or very right makes me narrow minded then I'll take that as a complement.

And what made you think that I feel the Greens a threat is beyond me. Looks like you have read into my post what you wanted to. I stand by my comment - FF has very little knowledge about economics and should keep quiet until he does know. Nothing to do with views either - he actually doesn't understand many basic economic principles.

You are a disgusting human being who requires immediate therapy
Why? Because I point out to someone why others ridicule them? Better them to be aware and be able to fix the problem rather than be under the illusion it is just because they vote green. It's a akin to a complete tosser thinking people think he's a tosser because he's gay or diabled or in some other minority group rather than the actual fact that he's a tosser. Sometimes the truth stares people in their face and they can't see it.
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#9
Mr Q said:
I thought you were supposed to be a swinging voter, not an ultra-Lib?
How does this add up? What in my staement gives any slight indication that I'm right wing?

Economics texts pretty much say the same things and don't have political leanings. FF does not seem to be able to grasp these concepts properly. I pointed that out. Gives absolutely no clues to my political orientation.

Seems you have a bias problem and and you often let it get in the way when interpreting things.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#10
bunsen burner said:
You obviously missed my point by a considerable margin.

I've never said that economic policy is be-all end-all, but in the past have let it be known that I believe it is the #1 priority. Has nothing to do with my last post though.

It's funny how people like you call me narrow minded. I'm not one of the many on BF who lean very left or very right. If not being able to respect people who are either very left or very right makes me narrow minded then I'll take that as a complement.

And what made you think that I feel the Greens a threat is beyond me. Looks like you have read into my post what you wanted to. I stand by my comment - FF has very little knowledge about economics and should keep quiet until he does know. Nothing to do with views either - he actually doesn't understand many basic economic principles.

Why? Because I point out to someone why others ridicule them? Better them to be aware and be able to fix the problem rather than be under the illusion it is just because they vote green. It's a akin to a complete tosser thinking people think he's a tosser because he's gay or diabled or in some other minority group rather than the actual fact that he's a tosser. Sometimes the truth stares people in their face and they can't see it.
Interesting because I don't ever really recall making a big deal out of economics, and what I do quote is certainly not stuff I make up myself, but are things from well credentialled, although left leaning economists. I'll not hide form the fact that I am a fan of Triple-bottom line accounting and environmental economics (and the internalisation of external costs), but that is a developing field and sure some ideas that get bounced around may well be shown to be incorrect in the future. But I for one have no problem with having an open mind and being willing to change my economic views as evidence presents itself from economic minds greater than my own. I also make no secret of the fact that I am trained as a broad ranging "generalist" rather than a narrow-focussed "specialist". I assure you BB that when I am PM I will listen carefully to the team of generalists and specialists around me when formulating policy.

I am 100% certain that for ANY political economic statement you could say, BB, I could find a well-credentialled economist who disagrees. Does not make you wrong, but it does mean that when YOU find someone who disagrees with you it does not make them thick, ignorant or stupid.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#11
bunsen burner said:
How does this add up? What in my staement gives any slight indication that I'm right wing?

Economics texts pretty much say the same things and don't have political leanings. FF does not seem to be able to grasp these concepts properly. I pointed that out. Gives absolutely no clues to my political orientation.

Seems you have a bias problem and and you often let it get in the way when interpreting things.
I certainly do not recall disagreeing with much that I have read in an economics text-book?

My only run in with an Economics Professor was in his 1st lecture when he said that John Lennon's "Imagine" was a recipie for economic disaster. Because he could not see outside the sphere of economics, he thought Lennon was suggesting it would be great if everyhting was free but we were all still greedy bastards.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#13
funkyfreo said:
Interesting because I don't ever really recall making a big deal out of economics, and what I do quote is certainly not stuff I make up myself, but are things from well credentialled, although left leaning economists.
Why don't you tell everyone your free market theory?

In year 11 we were all shown a graph with Country A putting all resources into producing tadeable good 1 and country B putting all resources into tradeable good 2 and then trading. The graph showed that free trade was the optimal way off doing things rather than being self sufficient or semi-sufficient.

Seems you din't progress any further than this theory. As soon as you allow free trade idustries collapse and jobs are lost. You make me laugh how you claim to be well respected in your field. If you ran for parliament you'd be a laughing stock - particularly from ALP. They'd be damn right angry that you'd even suggest such things.


Now does anyone here think FF knows what he's talking about? Well, speak up.
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#14
funkyfreo said:
I certainly do not recall disagreeing with much that I have read in an economics text-book?

My only run in with an Economics Professor was in his 1st lecture when he said that John Lennon's "Imagine" was a recipie for economic disaster. Because he could not see outside the sphere of economics, he thought Lennon was suggesting it would be great if everyhting was free but we were all still greedy bastards.
John Lennon's Imagine could never happen because human nature across the globe can't be changed. Did you ever wonder why the 60s hippy movement died in the ass? because you can't force people to 'be cool' and think of the picture as a whole rather than putting themselves first. For some reason you believe in things that have already failed, dismally.
 

Contra Mundum

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Posts
21,909
Likes
8,700
Location
North Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
NMFC
#15
bunsen burner said:
It's not necessarily who you vote for but more about your views having no sense of reality and your lack of ability to understand economic principles in any more depth than the basic yr 11 syllabus.
"There is no such thing as society only individuals, families and the economy"
Margaret Thatcher - faithfully channelling her once again.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#16
bunsen burner said:
Why don't you tell everyone your free market theory?

In year 11 we were all shown a graph with Country A putting all resources into producing tadeable good 1 and country B putting all resources into tradeable good 2 and then trading. The graph showed that free trade was the optimal way off doing things rather than being self sufficient or semi-sufficient.

Seems you din't progress any further than this theory. As soon as you allow free trade idustries collapse and jobs are lost. You make me laugh how you claim to be well respected in your field. If you ran for parliament you'd be a laughing stock - particularly from ALP. They'd be damn right angry that you'd even suggest such things.

Now does anyone here think FF knows what he's talking about? Well, speak up.
So if I support "free trade" you are suggesting that the majority of the world's economists would disagree with me?? The difference is simply that I approach it from "greatest net benefit to the gobal economy", and you seem to approach from 'greatest net benefit to the Oz economy". Plus I never even argued that under such an arrangement there would not be some industries that do in fact fall by the wayside (hopefully like woodchipping). I also would support a staged progression to lower tarrifs and trade barriers to enable domestic governments to re-train their workforce to the industries that they CAN compete on, as opposed to the industries that are only competitive because of subsidies.

Then you wold also internalise costs associate with land clearing, deforestation, CO2 emissions and the like - ie the larger externalities, within an internationally agreed system (such as Kyoto Protocol but with all nations), which would remove many of the incentives to go offshore - ie the ability to manufacture while polluting massively.

Now I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but I am certainly not in some obscure minority of economists IMO.

As for the ALP - well I'm not an ALP man so no worries. I preference ALP because I'd rather take a hit in the hip pocket and follow a party more in line with my social agenda, rather than be a bit richer but have to support a party that IMO is a disgrace to itself in terms of its social agenda. Before you point it out yes I'm very aware I'm in a minority and I'm quite happy to live with the democratic outcome and not be a sooky la la as you like to put it.

I'd also be a laughing stock in the ALP because I'd sever their ties to the Unions rather than be at their beck and call.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#18
bunsen burner said:
John Lennon's Imagine could never happen because human nature across the globe can't be changed. Did you ever wonder why the 60s hippy movement died in the ass? because you can't force people to 'be cool' and think of the picture as a whole rather than putting themselves first. For some reason you believe in things that have already failed, dismally.
I don't disagree with your assesment above - but his point was that it failed from an economic viewpoint, rather than a human nature viewpoint.

You could level the IDENTICAL criticism at Farnsy's "The Voice" and he is a bloody national Icon.

"All someone's daughter, all someone's son, why do we look at eachother down the barrel of the gun?" Because of human nature and no one dares put down the guns 1st because of we all put them down, some asshole would find one a come along and shoot us.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#19
Mark Perica said:
The thing I love about undergraduate micro economics is that the environment is treated as an "externality" - There is a lot of reality in that!
It always annoyed me too.

I hate that an "organic" tomato costs more in the shops than a "normal" tomato - but if you factored in all the costs associated with fertilizer and pesticide use they would be much closer. But no we pay for that through taxes.

A low phosphorous detergent costs more than a bottom shelf detergent - but if you factored in all the costs ie Swan River Algal blooms, reff destruction, fish kills etc, the costs would be closer. But no we pay for that through taxes.

I'm sick of subsidising other people's "don't give a ********" attitute with my taxes.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#20
bunsen burner said:
because you can't force people to 'be cool' and think of the picture as a whole rather than putting themselves first.
Just on this point, that is EXACTLY the point and aim of incorporating the environment in economics.

When you rely on people putting the greater good over themselves, then you end up with the same old same old. If you incorporate environmental costs into goods then you just let people look out for themselves, but you know that when they pay for it you can cover the full costs.

Doomsayers suggest that is inflationary as everything costs more, but then others I would classify as more visionary would suggest that having the "good" goods mass produced in greater numbers would lower costs, and also would reduce govt expenditure hence able to reduce taxes - but that last point would certainly rely on an honest and transparent govt.

Feel free to interchange my use of Doomsayers with pragmatists, and Visionaries with loonies, if that is your inclination.
 

Mr Q

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 27, 2002
Posts
10,984
Likes
29
Location
Wombling Free
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Perth
#21
bunsen burner said:
How does this add up? What in my staement gives any slight indication that I'm right wing?
Oh, I dunno, perhaps that FF got stuck into the Ultra Libs and you were the first one to get all defensive. Oh, well, guess you didn't get it.

Nothing to see here...... Move along now.....
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#22
Mark Perica said:
"There is no such thing as society only individuals, families and the economy"
Margaret Thatcher - faithfully channelling her once again.
What relevance does this have? My statement wasn't general, rather specific towards FF.
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#23
funkyfreo said:
So if I support "free trade" you are suggesting that the majority of the world's economists would disagree with me?? The difference is simply that I approach it from "greatest net benefit to the gobal economy", and you seem to approach from 'greatest net benefit to the Oz economy". Plus I never even argued that under such an arrangement there would not be some industries that do in fact fall by the wayside (hopefully like woodchipping). I also would support a staged progression to lower tarrifs and trade barriers to enable domestic governments to re-train their workforce to the industries that they CAN compete on, as opposed to the industries that are only competitive because of subsidies.

Then you wold also internalise costs associate with land clearing, deforestation, CO2 emissions and the like - ie the larger externalities, within an internationally agreed system (such as Kyoto Protocol but with all nations), which would remove many of the incentives to go offshore - ie the ability to manufacture while polluting massively.

Now I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but I am certainly not in some obscure minority of economists IMO.

As for the ALP - well I'm not an ALP man so no worries. I preference ALP because I'd rather take a hit in the hip pocket and follow a party more in line with my social agenda, rather than be a bit richer but have to support a party that IMO is a disgrace to itself in terms of its social agenda. Before you point it out yes I'm very aware I'm in a minority and I'm quite happy to live with the democratic outcome and not be a sooky la la as you like to put it.

I'd also be a laughing stock in the ALP because I'd sever their ties to the Unions rather than be at their beck and call.
Please answer these two questions:

1) Why are countries going to agree to free trade when it is at a disadvantage to them? (And please don't tell me it is an advantage to everyone because your year 11 economics text book said so.)

2) So Australia go free trade for the benefit of the world as a solution to achieve world peace (your words). We produce what we are good at and we do away with industries that we can import cheaper from other countries. How do we get 93% employment in a select few industries such as wheat, sheep, and tourism? Last time I checked we only had a certain amount of arable land of which nearly all is currently used.
 

Frodo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 17, 2000
Posts
12,595
Likes
22
Location
Perth, Western Australia.
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Post Count: 125,527
#24
funkyfreo said:
Regardless of that sentimet, as a Greens voter I still get called stupid, thick, ignorant for being a greens voter from all the ultra libs on here. Don't make out it is all one way traffic.
Green voters are stupid, thick and ignorant by nature. It's not an insult, just fact.
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#25
Mr Q said:
Oh, I dunno, perhaps that FF got stuck into the Ultra Libs and you were the first one to get all defensive. Oh, well, guess you didn't get it.

Nothing to see here...... Move along now.....
just because I spend 95% of my time knocking down delusion lefties on BF does not mean I am the opposite. It merely means that people are often being ridiculous and will go unchecked unless there is someone like me pointing out to them how stupid they are being and pointing out the flaws in their arguments.

Of course I won't change anyone's opinion, but it does make me laugh that many of you have these views, I show flaws in them and ask question that expose these flaws, they avoid answering them and still go on thinking the same crap. Surely they must know deep down if they can't defend their viewpoint then it must be flawed.

Just look at ff right now. Wants to have internation free trade but will fail to answer my question where enough jobs will come from for Australians in a select few industries.

Some might say he's entitled to his point of view, and he is. That doesn't make him any less wrong though.
 
Top Bottom