Dammit, who puts the "no" option above the "yes" option in a poll? The tally is actually closer by 2, my bad.
Anyways, I don't see her being really "targeted". If anything, her rant about Abbott being a "misogynist" her using her gender to target others, so I think the ground is fairly even here.
What exactly are these "political failures" you speak of?Not Representing democracy. Given that opinion polls clearly show that no body wants a carbon tax why did she persist in pushing it through? Why is she so unconcerned of the will of the people? Is this what democracy is? Where the Prime Minister ignores the voice of the citizens? Is this the type of women leader Alice Paul sacrificed her life for?Is this what Alice Paul fought for? julia Gillard or more like 'Juliar' has discredited the reputation of not only herself however also the women by portraying them to be so weak when they are in trouble they seek to "lie"?
I'm not exactly a big fan of gillard, but I think you need to do some more research before you make that presentation
Given that opinion polls clearly show that no body wants a carbon tax why did she persist in pushing it through?
The question isn't what are "these political failures" however rather, what has she done that is "politically correct"?
Crying misogyny? Its obvious that she is crying misogyny to obtain the support of the women! However I will not be falling for "lie" again.
Hahah, well the presentation is around the corner and Im fairly happy with my points.
I agree. You really need to do some actual research if you want to do well on that oral, and by research I don't mean reading a few news articles from The Australian.
*cough John Howard cough GST cough*
We have international obligations to do something about global warming. And we are most definitely not the only country in the world to have a system like this in place.
Not to mention recent polls show that most businesses experienced little to no negative effects from the scheme.
And if you want to pull out the poll matter, have a look at the most recent ones. They are showing increasing support for the scheme. Do some research.
Also, it's called the carbon pricing scheme because it is not a tax. DO SOME RESEARCH.
Hmmm let's see. Nothing much, only took Australia through the GFC almost unscathed, leaving us one of the strongest economies in the world, with one of the lowest unemployment rates and consistently excellent ratings from international economic bodies such as the IMF.
It is most definitely misogyny to have her fashion and hair choices criticised when no other Prime Minister has undergone that type of scrutiny.
Honestly, I can't actually see any points. I hope you have more than just "carbon tax [sic] bad!!!!"
And yes, I have done my research however my job is to persuade the audience
to be on my side and if I want to do that I dont have to be correct.
oh my god, the ironyI wouldn't say its irony but rather misinterpretation. By that I did not mean i am incorrect! However thanks for letting me know that some people will be misinterpretting! I will fix it ;D
My teachers would definately disagree!Ten bucks says private school.
Not Representing democracy. Given that opinion polls clearly show that no body wants a carbon tax why did she persist in pushing it through? Why is she so unconcerned of the will of the people? Is this what democracy is?Well, ironically enough, it is called representative democracy...
How was the speech misandric?
Put simply, she has not delivered on her promises and the amount of spending is ridiculous.
Remember, the Howard Government left office with money in the bank!
How was the speech misandric?
What does that have to do with anything? (And what's the point of deleting your account straight after posting?)
Remember, the Howard Government left office with money in the bank!
The speech Julia Gillard gave you must admit was a full attack on Tony Abbott!
The whole 'misogyny' speech was cheap points-scoring and pandering to the feminist vote, which is highly unnecessary as there is no way that group would vote for an Abbott-led LNP.
This. Could not have said it any better- She realized she lost some vital votes from public, and now is trying to receive sympathy of the people.
Yeah, Tony Abbott is totally not a misogynist... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJTX0iWYX9A
This is a guy who happily gets photographed with supporters holding up signs of "Julia Gillard is a Witch!" and other gender-based slurs. But please, enlighten us about how Tony Abbott is so pro-feminist.
In his defense, a collection of quotes taken wildly out of context isn't exactly meaningful.
And irrespective of whether her speech was points scoring or not (it was), doesn't somehow make it mutually exclusive with sexism being at play
You're absolutely right; Tony Abbott holds extremely archaic, and in some cases outright offensive views. It is known that he was little more than a glorified thug and a political bully while at university.
Which is exactly why my point holds that the LNP needs a reshuffle, and Abbott and his ilk need to go. That said, I'll still be voting for LNP come election-time.
Why would you vote for a party that represents the worst of a selfish attitude towards humanity? This is a party that fundamentally values the dollar bill over the survival of our living atmosphere.
Primarily because I strongly value economic liberalism, and the support for private enterprise that the party ideologically offers. If I were to vote for "a party that represents the worst of a selfish attitude towards humanity", I definitely wouldn't be in Australia. That's hyperbole and you know it.
The LNP's stance on many issues leaves plenty to be desired (for example, the environment and handling of immigrants), especially with the current leadership (I think I've made that emphatically clear). However, I believe that they could implement greater change if in government that our current ALP leadership.
Why would I vote for the ALP, a party that despite its trade-unionist origins, still manages to routinely piss off the trade unions?
We keep hearing LNP is the party of strong economics!
Howard sold us up the river. Everyone likes to gladhand about how he got us into surplus. Do you know how he did that? By selling off a ton of our assets, effectively fucking over all future governments. Just read what the IMF has to say about him, they think he is the most wasteful spender in Australia's history. So you're voting for LNP again because why?
His selling saved us from the GFC I guess.
I would certainly posit that the LNP is the party of strong economics. Though I doubt it's currently the party of strong economists...
And you don't necessarily vote for a party based on its former leaders. You're all like "don't vote for LNP because the IMF said that the Howard government's spending was profligate" and then I'm all like "but the IMF also said that Curtin's Labor government was profligate" and we go back and forth with neither of us actually making a point. I would posit that in both these cases fiscal history is a bygone.
And yes, I do believe that Australia would be more fiscally secure with an LNP government.
I'd agree with you, Hustler. Good old Swannie didn't really do anything to save us from the GFC, he just fed off the Howard-era surplus.
How is Tony Abbott a misogynist?Quote: ‘I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons’
1) What do you have to go on, but past experience? Please tell me what you are basing your declaration that LNP is economically strong if not on past experience?
2) Economists widely agree that Swannie's stimulus package did in fact save Australia from the recession.
3) You just said that fiscal history is a bygone, but were then happy to credit Howard with it when you thought it helped support your point.
You basically have this pre-conceived notion in your head that LNP = fiscal superheroes and then try to shoehorn whatever evidence you can to fit it, simultaneously dismissing counter-evidence out of hand. It's rather odd.
2) So Swannie 'saves Australia from the recession'. Nek minnit - he does a backflip late December and announces that there probably won't be a surplus in the next budget.
Sinclair Davidson, Professor of Institutional Economics at RMIT University - "It was inevitable, mostly because this is a government that spends too much money.
Every year they’ve been talking about cuts but these cuts have always been on future expenditure or proposed expenditure. They’ve never actually cut current expenditure. I think the government has been right in trying to return to a budget surplus. It is good policy to have a budget in balance or surplus rather than deficit. Unfortunately they haven’t had the fiscal discipline to cut the spending they should have."
Yah, no more budget surplus... decent treasurer the ALP's got there.
What the government should do is just accept that occasionally governments go into deficit and that’s a normal way of coping with slowdowns in growth.
...
Most people would understand that occasionally you have to go into deficit to finance key spending. As long as the government does it wisely the same logic should apply.
It surprises me that the government hasn’t used this as a political tool in its favour to differentiate itself with conservative governments in the States who are blindly pushing for surpluses at all costs.
That said, the target wasn’t achievable, mainly because of the lack of revenues coming in — not because of government spending.(lol if you're going to blame lack of revenue on the government, though I wouldn't be surprised if you tried doing that argument)
The surplus admission from Wayne Swan is not surprising. But what is remarkable is the way in which he got himself cornered in trying to achieve a surplus, when international conditions didn’t favour a budget going to surplus.
It wouldn’t have been good policy to try and persevere when the conditions didn’t warrant it.
Hey, how about you quote the other economists' opinions as well? Or are you ignoring them because they don't suit your argument?
1) Have you even read Abbott's policy document? Tell me which of these policies you think are soooooooo much better than Labor's.
2) Majority of economists agree that it's actually very much acceptable to run at deficit during recession to keep the economy pumping. A paper surplus would do nobody any service because it'd be hoarding money for the sake of hoarding money which is not what we need right now.
3) Labor's spending is sustainable, hence why we have one of the strongest rated economies in the world.
alondouek, do you really believe the ALP is not in favour of a free market economy?
Both parties support appropriate regulation for the economy, and obviously oppose each other on the details. It is the ultimate strawman to say that the ALP does not believe in a market economy.
You keep contradicting yourself in terms. You say that the past is simply a bygone and doesn't inform your opinion now, and then you use it as evidence in point 3! You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Then why use the term "free-market oriented LNP"? Are you saying there is a non free-market oriented LNP?
You clearly have tried to make the claim that the ALP is not free-market oriented, and are now backtracking when you realise the sheer height of ignorance that that argument betrays.
You're really going to reduce your argument down to semantics? The term "free-market oriented LNP" clearly means "the LNP, which is free-market oriented".
It's not semantics, you clearly tried to make the argument that ALP are not free-market oriented.
Oh, you.
Not only are you blatantly straw-manning again, but you're trying to editorialise a point that wasn't actually made.
Let me ask you then, why did you feel like you needed to add that LNP is free-market oriented when both ALP and LNP have free-market support in their platforms?
It'd be like saying the pro-gun NRA, or the pro-environment Greens.
Again, you're picking apart my wording when it actually doesn't have any impact on my argument. I was simply noting that the LNP is pro-free market.
So I used a tautology, sue me!
I think there was a reason why you used the tautology, and that is that you didn't think it was a tautology. You really thought that that was a point which distinguished the LNP from the ALP, and when you actually looked up what the ALP stood for (generally a good idea when trying to argue against them) you have now proceeded to try to worm your way out of it. I'm satisifed that I was right and you're just backpedalling.
You still remain to show how Abbott or an Abbott-less LNP will be stronger for the economy. I've asked you which of their policies will do this, and you're yet to pinpoint one.
I think there was a reason why you used the tautology, and that is that you didn't think it was a tautology. You really thought that that was a point which distinguished the LNP from the ALP, and when you actually looked up what the ALP stood for (generally a good idea when trying to argue against them) you have now proceeded to try to worm your way out of it. I'm satisifed that I was right and you're just backpedalling.
You still remain to show how Abbott or an Abbott-less LNP will be stronger for the economy. I've asked you which of their policies will do this, and you're yet to pinpoint one.
Indeed, let's focus henceforth on alon's reasons for why a LNP (even sans Abbott) might have better economic policies. :)
1. DEBT REDUCTION
Our number one economic priority will be to get Labor’s debt under control as quickly as
possible. Proceeds from the sale of Medibank Private will be quarantined for paying off
Labor’s debt. Through better budget management we will also deliver savings over the forward
estimates to be used to further tackle Labor’s debt. Our Debt Reduction Taskforce will manage
this process.
2. STOPPING THE WASTE
Ending Labor’s waste and reckless spending will help restore the budget to surplus and get
Labor’s debt under control, enabling the Coalition to deliver lower, simpler, fairer taxes in our
second term. We will immediately suspend payments under Labor’s wasteful ‘Building the
Education Revolution’ programme and redirect this funding directly to school communities to
ensure value for money. Other practical measures to reduce waste include the establishment
of an Office of Due Diligence to examine government spending proposals for their potential
for waste and mismanagement before they begin, and a Waste Action website to enable the
Australian public to report waste and make suggestions for savings.
3. TAX REDUCTION
The Coalition will stop Labor’s higher taxes. We will remove the threat of the mining tax and the
carbon tax, and cut company tax, providing targeted and economically responsible tax relief in
our first term. We will also provide a clear medium-term pathway to further tax relief that can be
delivered once Labor’s debt is under control.
4. BOOSTING PARTICIPATION AND PRODUCTIVITY
The Coalition will boost productivity to deliver economic growth. Key productivity measures
include measures to boost workforce participation for young Australians, women, and seniors.
The Coalition’s mental health reforms will further drive workforce participation and productivity
gains. Our comprehensive package of small business initiatives will help to drive the growth of
the ‘engine room’ of the economy. In addition, we will reform the way economic infrastructure
is delivered and provide a new funding stream to boost infrastructure investment. Further
regulatory reform will also help drive growth.
5. SUSTAINABILITY
Economic policies must take into account social harmony, quality of life, the provision of
adequate infrastructure and the preservation of the environment. The Coalition will establish
the concept of sustainability as the cornerstone of economic decision-making by reconstituting
the Productivity Commission as the Productivity and Sustainability Commission. We will also
implement our fully-costed direct action plan on the Environment and Climate Change and our
water policy that will provide sufficient water for the environment while preserving Australia’s
capacity for food security
I'm going to show my political noobiness here, but what policies do the Libs actually have? (not goals, policies)
I'm going to show my political noobiness here, but what policies do the Libs actually have? (not goals, policies)
The difficulty here is that you don't generally have 'policies' when you're the opposition - your goals become policies when you enter government (that's my take on it anyway).Those are 2010 policies...
I'll give you the sources directly for you to read at your leisure. You may as well skip the sections that are labelled "How Labor Has Failed" - that's just electioneering.
"Infrastructure": http://www.liberal.org.au/sites/default/files/ccd/Infrastructure%20Policy.pdf
"Innovation, Industry, Science and Research": http://www.liberal.org.au/sites/default/files/ccd/Industry%20Policy.pdf
"Energy and Resources": http://www.liberal.org.au/sites/default/files/ccd/Resources%20and%20Energy%20Policy.pdf
"Employment Participation": http://www.liberal.org.au/sites/default/files/ccd/Employment%20Participation%20Policy.pdf
"Sustainability": http://www.liberal.org.au/sites/default/files/ccd/Coaition%20Economic%20Principles%2018%20May%202010_0.pdf
"Australia's Future" - whatever they mean by that: http://www.liberal.org.au/sites/default/files/ccd/Australias%20Future%20Policy.pdf
Those are 2010 policies...
I'll be entirely honest (and enwiabe's going to love this), but I don't know the particulars of the LNP's economic policy.
Why would I love that?
You're right, that was rude and I apologise.
But I have to ask, to what "hubris" are you referring? The hubris of I admitting that I don't fully know particularities about something, or where I apologised for an back-handed remark?
I wouldn't say I've "blindly aligned myself" to the LNP - I've made my decision based on how I see their policy. If my choice bothers you so greatly, good. Democracy!
The hubris of claiming LNP will be better for the economy when you don't even what their plan is.
Hubris = 'excessive pride or self-confidence'. Not sure if that's entirely applicable here, but call me whatever names you like.
And you know what? If all voters were to vote for the party whose policies they understand best, our next government will be the Australian Pirate Party.
Welcome to free Australia, where I don't have to be castigated for not knowing each and every detail of my preferred party.
You're right! You are free to be as ignorant as you want, and to be as proud of it as you like :)
And I am free to make fun of you for it.
I mean, it's hard to see any point you're making past all the ad homenum, buddy!
Why do you feel so strongly that the ALP would be better for Australia's future, anyway?
I'm not actually an ardent supporter of the Labor party. I'm of the belief that the economy would be managed fine by either party. I support Labor over the LNP because I support efforts to address climate change, big infrastructure problems and living in the 21st century.
if you know so little about the LNP
I don't doubt that the Liberal Party can manage the economy just as well. But the economy is meaningless code-name for a whole bunch of indicators which are practically useless without knowledge of how people are doing. Economists would tell you that the economy has been doing great since Reagan came into power (up until the GFC). Inflation has been in check, unemployment fairly low, and GDP rising all the time.
But here is what's really been happening:
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/2010.08.25-f2.jpg)
All the wealth has gone to the top, while everyone else has stayed rather stagnant. If you are not a member of the wealthy class, all the economic growth since 1979 has not helped you one bit.
And this is why our system is so flawed.
So, our contentions are pretty much similar, other than preferred party. I too want to see regulation of infrastructural sprawl and better civic planning, combating of current actions that damage the environment, and I have decries numerous times Abbott archaic views (the anti-vaccine position really, really gets me angry). The difference is, I do not want a Labor government because I see their spending as problematic.
Look, we can acknowledge that the basic positions of both parties have their flaws. The Liberals tend to neglect public requests (re: GST etc) in favour of building a strong economy and a strong dollar, while Labor tends to lapse into over-spending to appease the wants of the population. I do not believe that said spending based solely on popular want is justified or sustainable, hence my position in favour of the LNP.
Given the above, that's not a fair statement to make. I am familiar with basic Liberal policy, just as I am with Labor. I won't profess myself to be an expert, so it's unfair to expect of me to know the LNP economic position inside-out.
This brings it to a debate on socialism vs. capitalism. If you'd like to have that debate, could you start a new thread for it?
No sane person believes in a fully deregulated economy.
All this "ALP is against free market" bit reminded me of this
National Constitution of the ALP:
The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields.
Just like Labour's (UK) Clause IV, it'll probably have to go sometime. I find it nice though that they remember their roots, even if actually practicing it in today's economy would be suicidal (or, at best, a massive risk). Labor today, of course, is no less a supporter of the neoliberal free-market system than the Liberals, except one which helps the lower and middle classes more.
Whether Tony Abbott is a misogynist or not (and that depends on your definition of misogyny, and getting into definitional debates is stupid), his views on social issues are outdated and fit in much more 60 years ago than today. Gillard's speech was an attack on Abbott, but unlike those going the other way, it was substantiated with evidence and quotes.
Labor's economic management has been nothing short of amazing. If it wasn't for cheap politicking, that stupid surplus promise would never have happened and we'd be happy with a budget deficit. Like a budget deficit in the order of 0.15% of the GDP is going to have any substantial impact on our economy.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/hey-big-spender-howard-the-king-of-the-loose-purse-strings-20130110-2cj32.html
Despite its many strengths, Bohn’s (1998) approach also has limitations. First, configurations
of the debt ratio and ρ may emerge in which the primary fiscal surplus implied by the
estimated fiscal policy reaction function is too high to be politically feasible or realistic. In
the empirical applications, this limitation becomes relevant, as we show below. Second, the
test was conceived against the background of a generally rising debt ratio. However, many
countries experienced declining debt ratios for several decades: we would argue that, in that
context, failure to obtain a positive and significant Bohn coefficient (which would require a
worsening primary deficit) would indeed indicate an inconsistency with the intertemporal
budget constraint but should be labeled as over-accumulation of assets rather than lack of
fiscal prudence.
In its final year in office, the Coalition boosted the AusLink national roads program by $2.3 billion and announced grants for water conservation and water buybacks worth $10 billion over 10 years.
Labor's economic management has been nothing short of amazing. If it wasn't for cheap politicking, that stupid surplus promise would never have happened and we'd be happy with a budget deficit. Like a budget deficit in the order of 0.15% of the GDP is going to have any substantial impact on our economy.
But here is what's really been happening:The source for your picture, the "Congressional Budget Office" on http://www.cbpp.org, is an US organisation. Several sources cite this as the income distribution of US, How is this relevant to what we are discussing here?
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/2010.08.25-f2.jpg)
All the wealth has gone to the top, while everyone else has stayed rather stagnant. If you are not a member of the wealthy class, all the economic growth since 1979 has not helped you one bit.
I don't buy any of these "Australian economy is one of the strongest economies" stories. The last thing I want is for the next government to rack up even more debt.
The Australian economy has been growing faster than most advanced countries, benefiting from its trade linkages with Asia, particularly China.
Budget surplus and deficit aside, can we please have a look at the actual debt figures.Oops, that was supposed to be 1.5%. My bad. I was referring to the updated 2012-13 financial year figures, which I actually can't find now. But anyway, the deficit for 2012-13 is something like $2 billion, which is less than 2% of the GDP.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/government-debt-to-gdp
Since 2008, our debt increased by about 13% GDP (0.15% GDP per year over 6 years is slightly under 1%GDP).
If this continues, we can hit the Keating numbers of ~30% within 5 years, which is when we were in trouble last, and that took Howard 10 years to correct.But it won't continue.
The figure of 30%GDP is still far below what other economics are currently supporting (US, UK, Eurozone). Do we know for sure that we can actually support a figure as high as these other economies are?Yes
What I'm driving at here is that the debt-to-GDP ratio supportable by a government varies from country to country, since tax revenues of the governments are so different. Debt-to-revenue data is not so easy to come by, especially since tax cuts comes and goes year-to-year.But by measuring the debt, you've already taken account for revenues. Also, Australia has plenty of room to tax more if desperately needed:
I don't buy any of these "Australian economy is one of the strongest economies" stories. The last thing I want is for the next government to rack up even more debt.It is the strongest in the world, if you ask many economists. Nothing short of that. And unless the next government completely violates budgetary and financial principles and rack up more debt in a time of growth than Labor did during the downturn (which was a good thing), there's no reason why that should happen.
The source for your picture, the "Congressional Budget Office" on http://www.cbpp.org, is an US organisation. Several sources cite this as the income distribution of US, How is this relevant to what we are discussing here?Actually, the CBPP is a (generally left-wing) American research and policy institute (think tank). They cited CBO numbers, which are official. It was a general comment on why a supposedly strong management of 'the economy' is not necessarily good, as per the US' (and I'm inclined to believe you'd find similar figures in all other countries).
Announcement:
Moody's says outlook for Australia's Aaa rating remains stable
Global Credit Research - 12 Jun 2012
New York, June 12, 2012 -- Moody's Investors Service says that the outlook for Australia's Aaa foreign and local currency ratings remains stable.
Australia's Aaa ratings are based on four factors: the country's very high economic strength; very high institutional strength; very high government financial strength, and very low susceptibility to event risk.
The conclusions were contained in Moody's annual Credit Analysis of the Government of Australia.
Economic strength is classified in Moody's rating methodology as very high, based on the country's economic diversity, the performance of the economy during the past two decades, relatively good growth prospects and high per capita income. During the global financial crisis and recession, Australia, while recording one quarter of negative GDP growth in the last quarter of 2008, did not have a recession, as did almost all other Aaa-rated countries.
The outlook is for some acceleration in the rate of economic growth, supported by the mining sector. In the next few years, investment in the mining sector (including LNG, iron ore, and coal) should remain strong, while private consumption continues to grow at about 3% annually, supported by a relatively strong labor market.
Thus, over the medium term, real GDP should return to near its level of the two decades before the financial crisis, in the 3.0-3.5% range. The risks to this scenario are primarily from external factors — global and East Asian growth and financial market developments (Europe or elsewhere) -- that could affect Australia because of its dependence on external finance.
Moody's assesses Australia's institutional strength as very high, a classification shared by all Aaa-rated countries, and reflecting overall governance, rule of law, effective monetary and regulatory institutions, and transparency. And, in Australia's case, these features are reinforced by a strong commitment on the part of the major political parties to sound government finance and low public debt levels, an important feature for a highly rated government
In its classification of government financial strength as very high, Moody's notes that even at its peak, Commonwealth government and general government debt (including state and local governments) remains low by global standards, and the 2012-2013 budget forecasts a renewed downward trend in debt. As a result, the Commonwealth will continue to have one of the strongest financial positions among Aaa-rated governments.
The report also notes that as an advanced, diversified economy with strong, stable political institutions, Australia has very low susceptibility to event risk. Commodity-price and exchange-rate volatility affects the economy, but the most important risk remains the economy's reliance on external capital inflows to finance the country's high level of investment, lately dominated by the resource sector, but including residential construction. As a result of the high investment level, the country has consistently run current account deficits and built up one of the largest negative net international investment positions among advanced economies. Australia contrasts with some other current-account deficit countries in that it also has a relatively high saving rate, but the level of investment is even higher.
But it won't continue.You'll have to excuse me for not believing ALP's budget predictions. I wouldn't care to cite the number of times they have promised a surplus and did not deliver.
(http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/overview/image/p1.gif)
(http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/overview/image/p2.gif)
But by measuring the debt, you've already taken account for revenues. Also, Australia has plenty of room to tax more if desperately needed:Debt-per-GDP is different to Debt-per-revenue. GDP is the production of the entire nation, revenue is what the country receives in taxes. Debt-per-GDP is like comparing a personal debt against the income of your extended family.
(http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/glossy/tax_reform/image/tax_overview-3.gif)
Which is something we definitely could do in the next boom part of the economic cycle. We've generally kept revenues confined to 25% of the GDP since just about forever, but we could take more.
Also, having a long-term debt really isn't such an issue, as long as it remains stable... All other AAA economies out there have a stable long-term debt.I struggle to understand why you think having a debt is not an issue. Right now, we are continuously trading debt between different debtors as a way to continuously extend the loan (hence, the debt level is 'stable'). This is of course, assuming that there will always be debtors happy to lend, and that we don't really have any intentions to pay off the debt. It is exactly like paying a credit card off with another credit card.
Well, given that you quoted the IMF before I assume you consider them a reliable source.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=40112.0
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2012/pn12127.htm
You can also check out their World Economic Outlook, but that really only talks about Australia in the context of the Asia-Pacific (which is also doing well economically).
<Moody>
Actually, the CBPP is a (generally left-wing) American research and policy institute (think tank). They cited CBO numbers, which are official. It was a general comment on why a supposedly strong management of 'the economy' is not necessarily good, as per the US' (and I'm inclined to believe you'd find similar figures in all other countries).
Sure, these reports may all say that the Australian economy is relatively well off, compared to other economies such as Canada and US, and basing off projections that assume nothing bad is going to happen. However, if something like the '08 crisis happen again, we will fall just as hard as everyone else.Simply not true. But even if it was true, the possibility of a downfall (a rather unlikely one at this stage), that small risk is not worth sticking to what is an unethical system.
What do you mean by 'strong management'? And what policies would you advocate to fix this problem?Free trade and globalisation policies since the 80s (or even 70s, to some degree). They've lead to an accumulation of wealth at the top, which makes no sense economically (money gets stuck up and isn't spent) nor ethically (no one is worth 1000 times than another person).
I don't believe 'the economy' is a good goal to aim towards, but I believe the ideas behind what drives an economy is very important. To become more prosperous, we need to create value.What's the point of being the most prosperous (the American GDP per capita is still higher than ours) if the people don't share in the wealth? The reason Australia is such a great place to live is not because of our total wealth as a nation, because the US beats the shit of us there. It's because the everyday person does well. And he could do even better.
I ask you, do every citizen of a country contribute to the creation of value equally?No
What would that distribution look like?Much more equitable than the one we have now.
But before I would label the current wealth distribution as 'good' or 'bad', I want to know if that is what the system naturally tends towards, or are we trying to entitle ourselves to things we don't deserve.Do you honestly believe Gina Rinheart (example only, replace with any billionaire) deserves a wealth that is over 50000 times higher than the average Australian? Do company CEO's really deserve wages of tens of millions of dollars a year? Warren Buffet said he doesn't deserve this much money.
Those IMF reports are assessments of Australia's economy having gone through the GFC. What makes you claim that Australia won't make it through again?
Those IMF reports are assessments of Australia's economy having gone through the GFC. What makes you claim that Australia won't make it through again?
@Polonius, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can understand, it seems your premise is that everyone has a duty of care to everyone else. Leading on from that premise, we eventually arrive at wealth should be shared, at least to within an order of magnitude.
I completely reject that premise. Nobody has any duty of care to anyone else. People may choose to care for others, but no one should be forced to do anything for anybody.
A return to a protectionist system; taxing companies using a logical system to ensure they pay their debt to every country they do business in, as many of the world's largest corporations pay no income tax in many countries, and may even have a worldwide negative tax rate; taxing profits; higher inheritance taxes; encouragement of worker cooperatives, maximum wage laws; taxing options at a higher level; ensuring a certain percentage of corporations' profits goes to employers, similar to professional sport systems... Need I go on?
No one individual should be made accountable for another individual in that manner. Society as a whole should be made accountable for the vulnerable among it. And yes, that should be forced. This is the price of a civilised society. Responsibility and accountability for the weak.
Define "the vulnerable".
On one end of the spectrum, I have no problem giving support to disabled citizens who are trying very hard to make the best of their life.
On the other end of the spectrum, I have a huge problem with giving support to people who chose not to take education seriously, end up nowhere in life, and expect to have basic luxuries like everyone else.
IMO the welfare system at the moment gives enough for basic needs. It's not 'living', because the purpose of welfare is not to make life comfortable, but to tide people over to get themselves back on track. I don't see the justification for further wealth to be distributed from the top down. I especially cannot see the justification that anyone other than the owner of wealth can feel they are somehow entitled to a portion of that wealth.
Perhaps you want to talk about a few particular welfare benefits that need fixing, I acknowledge that the current system does have a lot of problems. But I don't think the welfare system is so flawed that it needs to be raised across the board.
@Polonius, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can understand, it seems your premise is that everyone has a duty of care to everyone else. Leading on from that premise, we eventually arrive at wealth should be shared, at least to within an order of magnitude.The question of whether we have a duty of care to others is actually a pretty big one. We are, after all, all beneficiaries of collective efforts that have come before us and continue on today. Were it not for the work of other people, we wouldn't have any infrastructure, education, hospitals, etc. And it goes even deeper than that, for instance, we owe the fact that we have the ability to talk and write and think in a language to collective living. I'm not saying that means that you have to give away everything you have to other people, but I do want to say that we are part of something bigger, and with that comes many gifts as well as the odd responsibility. It's important not to get alienated from this sense of community either, because otherwise what is it that connects you to the world? What's the point of being in it?
I completely reject that premise. Nobody has any duty of care to anyone else. People may choose to care for others, but no one should be forced to do anything for anybody.
To be fair Nina that's a fairly vague question - obviously it would depend on what caused such a GFC. If the root cause was America AND China getting owned (and maybe throw in Indonesia in there as well for good measure), then Australia would probably be screwed, especially given that one of the main reasons we survived the GFC was because of our trade with the Asia-Pacific.
The World Economic Outlook states that the Asia-Pacific region is doing relatively okay on the whole (with some exceptions of course e.g. India).
Oh I know. I don't think my hypothetical situation is very likely at the moment - it was more to just illustrate that a question like "what if there was another GFC?" depends on specifics to be meaningfully answered. :p
Though that said, despite the Asia-Pacific region's current economic strength, there is the very real likelihood of it all going to **** at the moment if a number of countries (eg. China/Japan...) don't pull their acts together. Economics can be thrown wildly off-prediction by real-world disasters, man-made or otherwise. And if this particular prediction about the Asia-Pacific being secure is thrown off, then Australia will have be facing some very real problems of its own...
Oh I know. I don't think my hypothetical situation is very likely at the moment - it was more to just illustrate that a question like "what if there was another GFC?" depends on specifics to be meaningfully answered. :p
Though that said, despite the Asia-Pacific region's current economic strength, there is the very real likelihood of it all going to **** at the moment if a number of countries (eg. China/Japan...) don't pull their acts together. Economics can be thrown wildly off-prediction by real-world disasters, man-made or otherwise. And if this particular prediction about the Asia-Pacific being secure is thrown off, then Australia will have be facing some very real problems of its own...
@Polonius, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can understand, it seems your premise is that everyone has a duty of care to everyone else. Leading on from that premise, we eventually arrive at wealth should be shared, at least to within an order of magnitude.
I completely reject that premise. Nobody has any duty of care to anyone else. People may choose to care for others, but no one should be forced to do anything for anybody.
If I was a country that wants to attract global corporations, I would lower my tax rates to attract them. It's how my country would have the competitive edge. Tax rates are not my highest priorities here, these corporations above all else bring employment. If you want to bleed business interests, go ahead.So a wealthy businessman owns a successful factory - good for them. But the roads they use to transport their goods, everyone else pays for with their tax. The skilled workers they hire, everyone else pays for their education with taxes. Their factory is safe from thefts thanks to the police department - which guess what, we also all pay for with our taxes. They don't have to worry about a fire burning down their factory, as we have a capable fire authority. All that thanks to taxes, and people paying their share.
Maximum wage laws? You have just removed incentives to everyone who wants to create their own wealth. Some people already leave Australia because of its low salary in certain sectors (e.g. a software engineer in Australia (~$80k) is paid far less than a software engineer working for one of the big guns in the US (~$250k+). If you want to bleed out talent, go ahead.I have nothing against a software engineer earning $250k.
And I'm assuming you meant you want profits going to employees. If these employees own shares in the company, then sure. Otherwise, the employee's purpose in the business is no different to a computer's purpose or a filing cabinet's purpose. Employees are part of the operation of the company, not the ownership of the company.
Define "the vulnerable".How many Australians are on the dole? Unemployment figures are constant at about 5%. We pay more in corporate tax breaks and loopholes than we do for the New Start Allowance. Just sayin'.
On one end of the spectrum, I have no problem giving support to disabled citizens who are trying very hard to make the best of their life.
On the other end of the spectrum, I have a huge problem with giving support to people who chose not to take education seriously, end up nowhere in life, and expect to have basic luxuries like everyone else.
IMO the welfare system at the moment gives enough for basic needs. It's not 'living', because the purpose of welfare is not to make life comfortable, but to tide people over to get themselves back on track. I don't see the justification for further wealth to be distributed from the top down. I especially cannot see the justification that anyone other than the owner of wealth can feel they are somehow entitled to a portion of that wealth.
Perhaps you want to talk about a few particular welfare benefits that need fixing, I acknowledge that the current system does have a lot of problems. But I don't think the welfare system is so flawed that it needs to be raised across the board.
That's the thing though - you and Mao are both dealing in hypotheticals - sure, "if" there were a second recession, Labor happened to be in government and we suffered, then I will most definitely criticise the Labor government. However, that hasn't happened. The fact of the matter is that Australia's economy did extremely well comparatively and that it was the Labor government that got us through it.
I can just as easily say "Tony Abbott would suck at managing our economy in the next recession" as an argument against the LNP but it wouldn't really mean anything
So a wealthy businessman owns a successful factory - good for them. But the roads they use to transport their goods, everyone else pays for with their tax. The skilled workers they hire, everyone else pays for their education with taxes. Their factory is safe from thefts thanks to the police department - which guess what, we also all pay for with our taxes. They don't have to worry about a fire burning down their factory, as we have a capable fire authority. All that thanks to taxes, and people paying their share.
No one gets rich on their own. We all put a bit of our money into our society as a whole to help everyone. And there's no reason why corporations should be exempt from that.
I am a free-market conservative
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.
At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issed by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it’s valuables thanks to the local police department.
I then log on to the Internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.
People shouldn't have a "free" commie fire authority either, its not my fault if SOMEONE ELSES house burns down just because they were too stupid to not pay the fire department.
So a wealthy businessman owns a successful factory - good for them. But the roads they use to transport their goods, everyone else pays for with their tax. The skilled workers they hire, everyone else pays for their education with taxes. Their factory is safe from thefts thanks to the police department - which guess what, we also all pay for with our taxes. They don't have to worry about a fire burning down their factory, as we have a capable fire authority. All that thanks to taxes, and people paying their share.
So employees, human beings, are no different to computers or "filing cabinets". Jeez, what a world we live in.Precisely. Life is harsh, so what.
Humor and hyperbole aside, I actually agree with this. In the same way that I think ambulance membership, health insurance, private education and private security should operate, these are things that I would pay for myself. If certain people would otherwise not care for these services, why should my tax dollars pay for it? What difference does it make if the people or the government makes the purchase?
Not sure if you're going for an anarcho-capitalist kind of bent here or not. I'm perfectly fine with private counterparts, as long as public counterparts exist. I think the cost spread over the public also makes it economically cheaper. I remember reading how a bunch of economists worked out the USA healthcare system would actually save a shitload of money if it was public, due to the various inefficiencies and breaking up the market.
No one gets rich on their own. We all put a bit of our money into our society as a whole to help everyone. And there's no reason why corporations should be exempt from that.Benefits to society should not be measured by how much tax a corporation pays. There are other benefits beyond tax revenues, such as employment and opportunities.
...
How many Australians are on the dole? Unemployment figures are constant at about 5%. We pay more in corporate tax breaks and loopholes than we do for the New Start Allowance. Just sayin'.
Precisely. Life is harsh, so what.