The Result Stands

[timelord]

Green voters are stupid, thick and ignorant by nature. It's not an insult, just fact.

By nature? That's not fact at all! That's a narrow minded opinion!

Note: I am not going to touch the "stupid, thick and ignorant" comment because I'll look like a hypocrite after I called Coalition voters "greedy, gullible and intolerant". But by nature? I wouldn't even give that addition to what I said about coalition voters!

 

[mantis]

Green voters are stupid, thick and ignorant by nature. It's not an insult, just fact.

That is total crap, my son has an IQ that would get him into mensa, he is also a caring person & definitely not ignorant, I bet he would win a debate with most on BF.

He votes Greens, as much as I have told him he should vote labor, but he said he can't bring himself to vote either liberal or labor, as they are short sighted & only care about what's going to happen in the next year or two so they stay in power & putting wealth ahead of looking after social issues & the good of the planet for future generations.

PS: He doesn't get his brains from me, just his social conscience.

 

[DaveW]

Green voters are stupid, thick and ignorant by nature. It's not an insult, just fact.

So I take it you voted Green then?

 

[funkyfreo]

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.

Oh please let me 1st humbly apologise for not having been on the internet last night, and having been on the road all day for work. maybe I should have taken a sickie and stayed on all night just so I could answer your posts BB. This is in reference to your stupid post that accuses me of "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." So sorry you have no life and are on this thing all bloody night. No wonder you have no views you clearly do nothing but rant on BF.

1) I take it your question acknowledges that Free trade is the best scenario, but the problem is in getting there. I agree. Well I advocate Australia getting stuck in with the WTO, IMF, WB and all that jazz in a committed manner, given that they are the organisations that appear to be in control of the golbal free-trade mandate. This is however conditional to a complete overhaul of the WTO et al so that it actually becomes an organisation based on real free trade, not some mega-corporation focused free-trade.

The disadvantage is in the SHORT TERM, so the individual governments need to put in place transitional strategies to enable a shift in what that country focusses on. Just like the Labor Forest policy - only not put together in 20 minutes and released 1 week from an election so that no one gives it a chance and instead tells them to quite legitimately ******** off.

2) You can keep thinking that I said Free trade = world peace because I once suggested it was something the west could do that would make progress in terms of a peaceful and just planet. You are just going to have to face the facts that I am looking after the global population and you are looking after yourself. It is an ideological difference that is not going to be overcome in this post. The bottom line is that in all those other countries, wealth and industrialisation drives up wages and living conditions and narrows the gap in terms of ability to produce cheap goods. Look at the way that the Asian car market jumps from country to country every few years because another one becomes the cheaper place to produce. Yes they complain at the time, but when all the dust settles they realise they have moved on and actually there are new economies.

We have record employment (all the libs tell me so) and yet our manufacturing sector is at an all time low. Hang on that can;t be right, we have lost jobs to overseas and yet we have massive employment - something can't be right here.

Maybe we should ramp up import duties on clothes so that we can get the textile industry back so that all the people who now have better jobs can leave them and go and work in a sewing sweat shop for $5 an hour.

Just go back 50 years and see what everyone worked in then, compared to now, and have a look at all the industries that have changed?? It is astounding and yet we are booming not busting.

I don;t have all the answers, you will suggest I have none of them, but a long term strategy to free trade, over a period of time that allows us to adjust, is not ignorant, stupid or naive.

 

[funkyfreo]

Typical Burner - no guts for the battle can't even be bothered mustering up a comeback - gutless wonder.

 

[Mr Q]

So I take it you voted Green then?

DaveW 1, Frodo 0

We were planning on keeping score weren't we? I need to know who to award Miller's Cup to

 

[medusala]

You dont have to be a genuis to work out that the TCF industry in Australia is doomed. There is no economic benefit in having tarrifs in that area, quite the opposite in fact. Simply not possible to compete with the low wage economies of Asia. The Australian consumer is being fleeced to a massive extent to prop up a few jobs that are going to disappear anyway. Take the car industry for example. They and the unions whinged like there was no tomorrow over tarrif cuts. End result is cheaper and better made Aust cars and export numbers up. Australian and NZ farmers are the most efficient in the world because they have to be as they survive with virtually no subsidies. How did a little country like the UK become the most powerful in the world? On the back of free trade whilst France and large economies insisted on mercantalism.

I am with FF, free trade is clearly a better system despite its imperfections.
BTW FF, I dont think your advocation of free trade sits easily with being a greens voter.

 

[bunsen burner]

Typical Burner - no guts for the battle can't even be bothered mustering up a comeback - gutless wonder.

Well you do have a track record of avoiding the hard questions.

 

[bunsen burner]

1) I take it your question acknowledges that Free trade is the best scenario,

In theory only. Communism and socialism good in theory too.

but the problem is in getting there. I agree. Well I advocate Australia getting stuck in with the WTO, IMF, WB and all that jazz in a committed manner, given that they are the organisations that appear to be in control of the golbal free-trade mandate. This is however conditional to a complete overhaul of the WTO et al so that it actually becomes an organisation based on real free trade, not some mega-corporation focused free-trade.

The disadvantage is in the SHORT TERM, so the individual governments need to put in place transitional strategies to enable a shift in what that country focusses on. Just like the Labor Forest policy - only not put together in 20 minutes and released 1 week from an election so that no one gives it a chance and instead tells them to quite legitimately ******** off.

You haven't answered the question. Now again, HOW WILL SOMEONE FORCE COUNTRIES TO AGREE TO FREE TRADE WHEN IT WILL CLEARLY BE A DISADVANTAGE TO THEMSELVES?

ps didn't think you'd be able to answer it.

2) You can keep thinking that I said Free trade = world peace because I once suggested it was something the west could do that would make progress in terms of a peaceful and just planet.

You did say it. Either way you are naive if you think free trade will make an iota of difference to world peace.

I don;t have all the answers, you will suggest I have none of them, but a long term strategy to free trade, over a period of time that allows us to adjust, is not ignorant, stupid or naive.

Once again you haven't answered the question. And I was correct in saying you had no answers because I asked you two questions and you answered neither of them. Now again: HOW IS EVERYONE IN AUSTRALIA GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE EMPLOYED IN A SELECT FEW INDUSTRIES SUCH AS WHEAT, SHEEP, AND TOURISM?


How about you just answer the questions and stop shirking the issue?

 

[skipper kelly]

Oh please let me 1st humbly apologise for not having been on the internet last night, and having been on the road all day for work.

Apology accepted but dont do it again.

 

[Dry Rot]

Even the term "free trade" is a curly one.

To someone from the early 1930s (especially after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in the USA and their aftermath) we have free trade today.

Freeing up trade was was a corner stone objective of the great post_WW2 economic conferences, and to a degree that has happened.

Fast forward to today, and what does "free trade" really mean?

 

[bunsen burner]

Fast forward to today, and what does "free trade" really mean?

In this context it means what the year 11 text book says it mean. FF wants countries to only produce goods and services that they can produce cheaper. i.e. Australia concentrates on wheat, sugar, beef etc while we import all cars, outsource all IT to overseas, import all clothing etc.

All well and good in the theory they show you in the text book but in reality many Australian industries and companies will close down, jobs will be lost, and theere will never be enough jobs to go around for the remaining industries (as our arable land is limited).

FF suggest that we reduce tariffs/embargos etc gradually to lessen the fall. it's still not going to work. You can't retrain almost an entire workforce, and you can't just give up all that infrastructure (even gradually) without mayhem, not to mention there nor being enough jbs to go around in the remainind industries.

Quite simply, FF is an idiot of the highest order. He knows he can't answer the hard questions, so he knows his ideas are unsustainable, but still goes on thinking them. Some people are just plain thick.

 

[Dry Rot]

In this context it means what the year 11 text book says it mean. FF wants countries to only produce goods and services that they can produce cheaper. i.e. Australia concentrates on wheat, sugar, beef etc while we import all cars, outsource all IT to overseas, import all clothing etc.

All well and good in the theory they show you in the text book but in reality many Australian industries and companies will close down, jobs will be lost, and theere will never be enough jobs to go around for the remaining industries (as our arable land is limited).

FF suggest that we reduce tariffs/embargos etc gradually to lessen the fall. it's still not going to work. You can't retrain almost an entire workforce, and you can't just give up all that infrastructure (even gradually) without mayhem, not to mention there nor being enough jbs to go around in the remainind industries.

Quite simply, FF is an idiot of the highest order. He knows he can't answer the hard questions, so he knows his ideas are unsustainable, but still goes on thinking them. Some people are just plain thick.

Anybody got any recent stats on our exports? Thought we were doing a bit better than this in manufactured goods and services.

We certainly don't have any trouble inventing things here. It's such a pity neither major party announced any measures to support a change in the risk averse banking and finance sectors, R&D, etc

All we got was a ****load of middle class welfare from both of them.

 

[medusala]

In this context it means what the year 11 text book says it mean. FF wants countries to only produce goods and services that they can produce cheaper. i.e. Australia concentrates on wheat, sugar, beef etc while we import all cars, outsource all IT to overseas, import all clothing etc.

All well and good in the theory they show you in the text book but in reality many Australian industries and companies will close down, jobs will be lost, and theere will never be enough jobs to go around for the remaining industries (as our arable land is limited).

FF suggest that we reduce tariffs/embargos etc gradually to lessen the fall. it's still not going to work. You can't retrain almost an entire workforce, and you can't just give up all that infrastructure (even gradually) without mayhem, not to mention there nor being enough jbs to go around in the remainind industries.

Quite simply, FF is an idiot of the highest order. He knows he can't answer the hard questions, so he knows his ideas are unsustainable, but still goes on thinking them. Some people are just plain thick.

Despite voting green FF is not an idiot and is correct on this matter. Australia wont survive on producing cheaper goods than everyone else, its not possible with so much cheap labour in our neighbourhoods. We will prosper by providing services that the rest of Asia is crap at. Education is a good example, banking and funds management, construction and mining technology are others. There has been a shift from manufacturing to service industries and that will continue. Thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost yet unemployment is still low. This is despite agricultural exports not growing in real terms. HTF do you think places like Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Andorra etc survive? They have bugger all manufacturing industry (ok watches) but are very rich.

Tarriffs have been cut dramatically for the car industry yet the car industry has not only survived but prospered. If we lose the TCF industry then so what. Consumers will get cheaper clothes and the govt and private investment into that industry will get redirected elsewhere.

The UK used to be the biggest shipbuilder in the world by a mile, now they build basically none other than a couple for the navy. They also used to have a massive car industry, now it has dramatically shrunk and is all foreign owned. Ditto coal mining, was a massive employer now almost totally disappeared. Yet the UK economy has done better than France, Italy and Germany over the last decade and the UK unemployment rate is far lower than in those countries. So much having to build stuff to be a successfull economy.

FF is talking sense even if it is totally contradictory to the Greens "stick your head in the sand, we'll weave some baskets and life will be great" economic policy.

BTW BB, Communism sucks even in theory, we have been over this. Have you not defended people who voted in the best interests of themselves and their families on another thread? Is this not incompatible with the concept of communism?

 

[agitator]

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 arseh*le would find one a come along and shoot us.

we had great thinkers like socrates, plato, etc now we got johnnie 'sadie the cleaning lady' farnham giving us great philosopical insights.

 

[bunsen burner]

Despite voting green FF is not an idiot and is correct on this matter.

bollocks.

Care to answer my two questions? FF sure as hell won't.

Australia wont survive on producing cheaper goods than everyone else, its not possible with so much cheap labour in our neighbourhoods. We will prosper by providing services that the rest of Asia is crap at. Education is a good example, banking and funds management, construction and mining technology are others. There has been a shift from manufacturing to service industries and that will continue. Thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost yet unemployment is still low.

This is not what FF is talking about. This is a natural and gradual change of workforce trends.

This is despite agricultural exports not growing in real terms. HTF do you think places like Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Andorra etc survive? They have bugger all manufacturing industry (ok watches) but are very rich.

They don't need to provide jobs for a population of 20m people. Take the textile industry. Plenty of people live for fashion and to obliterate the textile industry would mean these people would have to go overseas to realise their dreams. I'd like to think Australia can cater for everyone.

If we lose the TCF industry then so what. Consumers will get cheaper clothes and the govt and private investment into that industry will get redirected elsewhere.

And you'll put a whole lot of people out of jobs unecessarily. Where are jobs going to come from to support a 20m population? Are you saying heaps of people go into teaching? Where do the students come from? Do we ship them over from Asia where their teaching standards are crap? How are all the asians going to afford to send their kids over here for schooling?

The UK used to be the biggest shipbuilder in the world by a mile, now they build basically none other than a couple for the navy. They also used to have a massive car industry, now it has dramatically shrunk and is all foreign owned. Ditto coal mining, was a massive employer now almost totally disappeared. Yet the UK economy has done better than France, Italy and Germany over the last decade and the UK unemployment rate is far lower than in those countries. So much having to build stuff to be a successfull economy

You assume tha because a few industries have changed that free trade (all industries unprotected) will work. free trade across the board would collapse the economy.

BTW BB, Communism sucks even in theory, we have been over this. Have you not defended people who voted in the best interests of themselves and their families on another thread? Is this not incompatible with the concept of communism?

Listen delusional right wing redneck, communism in theory is great because everyone is equal and everyone puts in effort for the team and everyone gets their fair share. That is the communism in theory I refer to. But we all know in reality that human nature doesn't allow people to get their fair share and doesn't allow everyone to contribute adequately.

 

[funkyfreo]

Despite voting green FF is not an idiot and is correct on this matter.

I would much rather vote for a Liberal government that actually implemented genuine economic reform and places true value on the environment so that the economy can grow without irreversably destroying the environmental systems upon which not only species etc rely upon but so do entire human economies and societies.

To be even more anti-green, Bottom line is you don't need to give a rats about whales, pandas, and big trees - species come and species go who cares. The planet certainly does not it will keep evolving and changing to suit conditions - that is the beauty of evolution. The planet did not care when the dinsaurs got wiped out, and it will not care when we wipe ourselves out.

Until we have a Liberal party that genuinely stands for liberalisation, as opposed to wedge politics and right wing stances on social issues, then I'd rather vote for a party that will never be in power, but at least has a chance to try and influence some decisions relating to the environment.

So I vote Greens as a tourniquet to stop the bleeding until the rest of the body figures out that it is not so smart to chop off your own arms.

Was actually discussing just this on the way home from Indoor Cricket last night with my mate, we have decided we are so unhappy with the election result that we are going to join the Greens here in WA and see if we can't drag them to the centre a bit.

 

[funkyfreo]

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.

Ok here we go again:

1) Countries will not join free trade when it is at a disadvantage to them - you are correct. I will state this - you can quote me - "No country will join free trade when it is at a disadvantage to them." But i I will follow up with this "Free trade will happen, because countries will join because it is of great advantage to them."

I feel I have fully answered your question. I know you disagree with the answer, but it is answered in full.

2) "How do we get 93% employment in a select few industries such as wheat, sheep, and tourism?" I have isolated this as the question, from the rant.

My answer, and you can quote me again : "Australia will never get 93% employment in a select few industries such as wheat, sheep, and tourism." (Btw I figure we also do mining pretty well so you may want to add that too). Anyway there you go, I have directly answered your question.

Maybe you should try and convince a party to run on that line "we promise to restrict the freedom of employment to these select industries". Why you would want to restrict our booming economy to just that I'm not sure BB.

2xquestions answered in full. Looks like you need better questions.

 

[bunsen burner]

Ok here we go again:

1) "Free trade will happen, because countries will join because it is of great advantage to them."

So we've gone full circle and where back at the beginni9ng where my assertion that you don't know economics past the year 11 text book stands.

"Australia will never get 93% employment in a select few industries such as wheat, sheep, mining, and tourism."

So you actually disagree with yourself? You want free trade which means only and handful of industries will exist in this country and unemployment will rise substantially.

Why you would want to restrict our booming economy to just that I'm not sure BB.

It's not me who wants to restrict it, it's you. I'm quite fine with our current trade barriers (give or take). You're the one who wants free trade that will inevitably destroy much of our industries.

Looks like you need better questions.

Your answer to the questions (particularly the second one) proved you wrong.

 

[funkyfreo]

BB you did not ask me those questions. You asked how will they be forced to do something that disadvanteges them. I said they will not be forced, and they will not do anything that disadvantages them.

You then asked how we could maintain employment levels with just those select industries. I said that could not be done. You are the one who thinks only those industries will exist, not me. Refer to Medders post for support in the industry types in which we will remin internationally competitive.

You seem to want answers to questions you have not asked?

 

[bunsen burner]

You then asked how we could maintain employment levels with just those select industries.

Go back and read what I said - those industries I named were a few examples rather than the whole lot. There are not a lot of industries in this country that would not be dramatically reduced or even wiped out if free trade was introduced. That's a lot of jobs. These jobs will not be able to be replaced.

If you want to think different and take a simple model used to explain concept literally, then I repeat: my assertion that you have little understanding of economics stands.

 

[funkyfreo]

Go back and read what I said - those industries I named were a few examples rather than the whole lot. There are not a lot of industries in this country that would not be dramatically reduced or even wiped out if free trade was introduced. That's a lot of jobs. These jobs will not be able to be replaced.

If you want to think different and take a simple model used to explain concept literally, then I repeat: my assertion that you have little understanding of economics stands.

BB if you want to live in a world where we can up the borders and barriers and fingers crossed then go ahead. But my disagreeing with you has nothing to do with a low-level understanding of economics. In fact I still hold that the vast majority of credentialled economists would very much be on my side of this argument.

 

[medusala]

we are going to join the Greens here in WA and see if we can't drag them to the centre a bit.

good luck, dont fancy your chances of even getting them to the soft left.

 

[funkyfreo]

good luck, dont fancy your chances of even getting them to the soft left.

I've been tossing up trying to drag the libs to the left, Labor away from the unions, or the greens to the centre. Any help appreciated?

 

[medusala]

They don't need to provide jobs for a population of 20m people. Take the textile industry. Plenty of people live for fashion and to obliterate the textile industry would mean these people would have to go overseas to realise their dreams. I'd like to think Australia can cater for everyone.

The textile industry is already stuffed and job losses constantly occurring. Designers could still design in Australia as they are in a different part of the market, its the mass produced garments that will all end up being produced in China etc.

And you'll put a whole lot of people out of jobs unecessarily. Where are jobs going to come from to support a 20m population? Are you saying heaps of people go into teaching? Where do the students come from? Do we ship them over from Asia where their teaching standards are crap? How are all the asians going to afford to send their kids over here for schooling?

We actually wouldnt need to create that many jobs. Lets say the car industry can survive without tarriffs (and even if it doesnt the losses could be covered). The only industry at risk is TCF. What else are we going to lose out on unde free trade? We already let everything else in with virtually no tarriffs anyway so what will change?

You assume tha because a few industries have changed that free trade (all industries unprotected) will work. free trade across the board would collapse the economy.

As stated above we have bugger all industries that are protected. Free trade across the board wont make much difference to us because our tarriffs are already so low. So to say that it would collapse the economy is clearly a ridiculous thing to say.

Listen delusional right wing redneck, communism in theory is great because everyone is equal and everyone puts in effort for the team and everyone gets their fair share. That is the communism in theory I refer to. But we all know in reality that human nature doesn't allow people to get their fair share and doesn't allow everyone to contribute adequately

.

Its nothing to do with being right wing. Communism denies individual freedom and choice. Its an appalling system in theory let alone practice and plenty of others ie Catholics for starters would agree.