Society & Culture Thread Title

[Plugger35]

See the thread title......there is no topic, there are all topics, anything and everything is a topic.

Fair enough.

Anyway back on topic.



Bill Murray is beyond awesome.

Loved him in What About Bob too.

 

[rayven]

Would of been a specialist ground attack aircraft, not a fa/18. Did you see the maneuver it did on radar to keep out of sight?

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[grizzlym]

Lies abound

In Sin City they do. They do indeed.

And as a metaphor for the scum that 'rule' and administrate our country, it 'aint a bad one.

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[grizzlym]

Australian politics, and what's going on with Australia due to politicians....regrettable.

Oh, yes.

On that, my sister is an economist with the RBA. She was saying to me the other day that negative gearing in Australia is one of the stupidiest economic policies imaginable. And one that does 'bad' for not only government coffers, but also house affordability. She also says pretty much everyone on both sides of politics who have the foggiest about economics agrees. Problem is, it would be the biggest vote loser and no party would be game to do it. Anyway, she said there's a number of policies/things like this that need reforming but the political parties aren't interested in doing things that would see them lose votes. She then told me of an idea that's been circulating around her circles about how this might be resolved. It goes like this:

The Liberal party will win this election by a landslide, nothing short of a massive accident or unimaginable scandal will see that result change. So for the good of the country they agree, across parties, on some serious policy reform. labor introduce it, the libs say they won't roll it back, and it's passed. No elections are decied on the issue, votes aren't lost. Neither party really suffers. And the country gets some much needed reform on key policies.

It's an interesting idea. I'm sick of the politics of staying in power.

Hey, you read Collapse by Jared Diamond? The chapter on Australia is thought-provoking in the extreme.

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[grizzlym]

As for what your sister and her circle proposed....that's possible. But i dont see Labor doing Liberal a favor, or Labor acknowledging Liberal will win by a landslide. And come election time, for some unknown reason, people will continue to vote Labor, 50:50, even vote them back in.

Oh, don't get me wrong, she can't see it happening either. It's an idea born out of sheer desperation at insane policies that won't be reformed out of the politics of staying in power. In her scenario, no one gets done a favour or comes out on top, it's just being presented as a possible time where this sort of thing could work, be politically neutral, and benefit the country. I will also say it's purely a thought exercise too.

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[grizzlym]

Plus, if Liberal really wanted to remove negative gearing (and make other genuine reforms), they could just do it themselves if they win in a landslide, if that's a reform they genuinely wanted, as they'd have the power in both houses. Wouldn't have to worry about getting voted out for 4 years. By which time, if said reforms worked well, people would vote them in for a second term. Australia wouldn't need both parties to collude pre-election, re: negative gearing, if Liberal indeed wins by a landslide.

Yes, of course. But, then there would be a party, although, decimated who didn't do it and therefore not tainted by it. The collusion is about neutralising the whole introduction - no party loses from it.

But, as I said, it's more a thought exercise based on the frustration of parties only doing what's good for their long-term re-election prospects rather than making the tough, unpopular and visionary calls that can cost you and your mates their jobs.

 

[Tigger Please!]

From apathy to dependence;

this is where we are right now.

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[Sanders]

On that, my sister is an economist with the RBA. She was saying to me the other day that negative gearing in Australia is one of the stupidiest economic policies imaginable.

She's a junior economist isn't she?

 

[Footypie32]

Bring forth the Philosopher King!

 

[grizzlym]

She's a junior economist isn't she?

Ah, no.

 

[rayven]

I think with the NDIS scheme your seeing it in action. Of course there's semantics.....

Yep, and as I've been saying/thinking for a while now, the world per se is headed into a period of war, poverty, bondage, etc, before recovering and heading back into prosperity and more spirituality etc. Natural wheel, up/down swings, of life on earth.

Good half century of a raising mean temp ahead. Something most philosophers or visionaries never saw coming..Unique times ahead. Probably only the monotheist religious texts addresses this with use of the written word.



That cycle has gone around so many times, I believe we're in dependance phase. Dependance on the scientists.The same ones who brought us that wonderful thing called nuclear power..

 

[TheStinger]

It's only a matter of time before the scientists construct an enormous shield to block out the sun and our dependence on nuclear energy will be complete.

 

[rayven]

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[Sanders]

Ah, no.

with such a poor grasp, I rather think she might be

 

[grizzlym]

with such a poor grasp, I rather think she might be

My point isn't to debate economic policy, rather I tendered it as an example of the politics of staying in power can have on policy.

As for poor grasp, quite possibly, she does work for the government after all.

 

[Sanders]

My point isn't to debate economic policy, rather I tendered it as an example of the politics of staying in power can have on policy.

Yeah fair enough. But it wasn't the best example.

 

[grizzlym]

Yeah fair enough. But it wasn't the best example.

It's the one she gave to me. Perhaps because it's the one I would relate to the best. And understand.