coblin i have magical candy

[brendan]

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=progress&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=

# S: (n) advancement, progress (gradual improvement or growth or development) "advancement of knowledge"; "great progress in the arts"

[kingmar]

That is a definition, not a synonym.

Regardless, my views are expressed herein and I don't expect to need to justify them to myself. If yours was the only one that mattered, we would all be on $1 wages and the coalition would never be voted out of office.

[Collin Li]

If yours was the only one that mattered, we would all be on $1 wages and the coalition would never be voted out of office.

Wrong.

The labour market is simply what it's name suggests: a market. If all these consumers are trying to buy goods at 5 cents, who is going to supply them? Similarly, if employers are only offering $1 to buy the employees services, who is going to be stupid enough to say yes? Only those who value the dollar more than the hour (and energy) they spend. For a trade to proceed, both the employer and employee must think they will benefit. Just like in a market, you only buy an orange if you value the orange more (or equal to) the price of the orange.

The fundamental idea of a free-market is that when we are given choice, both parties must believe they will benefit, or the transaction would not have occurred in the first place. Employers cannot just freely choose a price and dictate that employees get this wage, because no employee would sign his contract. Instead, a serious employer would set an acceptable wage and then employees would start taking job offers. The employer would benefit because he is willing to pay that much for his employee, and the employee benefits because he is willing to sacrifice his time and energy for his wage.

Brendan does not even support Liberal as his first preference. He wants to see the views of the LDP encouraged.

Electing a Labor government for the sake of electing a Labor government, as has just occurred, is progress to me.

Is this what you meant?

[brendan]

That is a definition, not a synonym.

even better.

[asa.hoshi]

coblin lets start a club where u are leader

lol

[kingmar]

kingmar said stuff, i eat magical candy

1. This argument could go on and on and on and on.

I personally do not think your world would work. But, we'll leave it for IRC.

2. Yes, that's what I meant. commas, w/e.

3. Brendan, you win. I'll concede I have negligible chance of winning a debate against you, so I give up.

[rustic_metal]

In a year no one will be sure if Rudd or Combet is in charge.

[Collin Li]

I personally do not think your world would work.

In response to that:

The government does not need to mandate what is fair for individuals. If individuals are too dumb to decide for themselves, why should we let the government (a group of individuals) to decide on fairness?

The reason why my world would work is because of competition.

I think the Labor party is not a safe vote because of socialist Gillard and the union members dominating the backbench. This, added with 11 years of pent up leftist frustration will add to a Rudd government swayed to the worse of the two evils.

I will admit that Howard vs. Rudd, was a very dull contest, but I thought we should have given a chance to Costello, rather than Rudd.

[Mao]

hey, thanks guys, i didnt even need to say anything!
lol and i swear if someone quote something i didnt say.... *boom shakalaka*

[Eriny]

The economy has been good for a number of reasons. Yes, the Howard government has done a good job in not messing it up, but it's had heaps of outside help. The resources boom for example, has meant that the government has collected greater sums of revenue from businesses. The government does not control that.

We can thank the RBA also for avoiding the recessions suffered by a number of different countries in recent years. They excercised expansionary monetary policy at a time when they would be tempted to raise the cash rate due to their preemptiveness and economic wisdom. The government probably also played a role, but they can't take all the credit.

Furthermore, the Howard government has been excercising a slightly expansionary stance on the economy. Frequent tax cuts and their own jeopardisation of their own established medium-term framework of fiscal consolidation has been partially responsible for interest rate rises. Again, the government does not have full control over the economy, but they have made a contribution to the rises by injecting more money in the economy than was deemed (by themselves back in 1996) to be suitable. Rather than strictly adhereing to fiscal consolidation, they've attempted to win votes by only keeping the budget surplus at 1% of GDP.

It's also not fair to say that higher interest rates under the labour government necessarily was caused by bad economic management. Interest rates currently target inflation, but the role of the RBA has changed. For example, during the Keating government they used interest rates to target external stability. Needless to say, that was a big mistake, but things are obviously different now. The economy is better managed due to better knowledge on the subject and the development of new strategies throughout the world which have been copied by Australia, largely due to their efectiveness (The Kiwis actually came up with the idea to target inflation through the cash rate).

And yes, both political parties have allocated lots of funds for spending, however Rudd has committed less money to initiatives and has had lower tax cuts. Therefore, he would run a higher surplus than Howard, thereby excercising a more contractionary stance on the economy, which is really what it needs.

Lol, sorry. I'm still not over VCE economics...

[Collin Li]

I'm not sure if I subscribe to the budgetary policies that VCE Economics teaches. I can definitely teach them and explain their aims and consequences, but I don't think I agree with it.

I do not accept that government management of the economy is the best way. Building up a surplus is nothing but holding citizens' income for no reason. Even though I accept that budgetary policy indicates contraction is required, I believe that the RBA ought to stop serving the special interest of banks, by having the power to print money for last-ditch liquidity loans. Banks ought to take responsibility for themselves, but this will mean the cash rate will be higher. However, I do not accept the premise that high interest rates are necessarily bad. You cannot have low interest rates while trying to contract the economy, because you encourage expansion by having low interest rates. A high interest rate in a free-market reflects the high demand for cash for investments, and represents a "strong economy."

I am relatively new to this idea of liberalising monetary policy, but I think it would work. I have not really read this idea anywhere, so I may be missing some critical ideas.

[brendan]

It's also not fair to say that higher interest rates under the labour government necessarily was caused by bad economic management.

 

Needless to say, that was a big mistake

contradiction.

[Eriny]

I meant that at the time they were still figuring out what to do. They didn't know it would be a big mistake until after it happened, obviously. I don't know if anyone did.

[Collin Li]

I meant that at the time they were still figuring out what to do. They didn't know it would be a big mistake until after it happened, obviously. I don't know if anyone did.

Yes. I would support that. You can't blame Keating for going with the flow of global economics. You can't single out, say the Australian PM(s) in the 40s and 50s for using Keynesian economics, when it was the global trend.

[brendan]

I meant that at the time they were still figuring out what to do. They didn't know it would be a big mistake until after it happened, obviously. I don't know if anyone did.

 "i was still figuring it out", "i didn't know i was making a mistake". such apologetics is a cop-out. They need to take some good old fashion responsibility. It's not about what you know or did know - it's what you ought to have known, that is important. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand adopted inflation targeting in early 1988. The works of Milton Friedman on monetary economics, that have been so influential in getting central banks to accept responsibility for inflation control, were not all written in 1993 when current RBA Governor Glen Stevens says Australia adopted inflation targeting.