Is Julia gillard being targeted due to her gender?

[Mao]

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>

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.

It's not good enough for a government to say "we'll be fine, as long as nothing unusual happens". I want a government to say "we want to make sure that even if something unusual happens, it wouldn't hurt us". Neither ALP or LNP can deliver my ideals, but the LNP is much much closer in its philosophy.

[Mao]

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).

What do you mean by 'strong management'? And what policies would you advocate to fix this problem?

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. Sometimes we discover valuable resources, other times we create inventions. Then there are production and manufacturing, and goods and services. I ask you, do every citizen of a country contribute to the creation of value equally? What would that distribution look like?

I believe that much of the value is actually created by very few, but I don't have statistics to back this up, so this is only a personal opinion. 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. I don't have the answer to this question, and I don't think anyone has the statistics that could answer this.

On this ground, I reject your premise that the system is flawed.

[Professor Polonsky]

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).

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?

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.

And even if someone contributed 50000 times to the economy as the median person does (highly questionable, but I'll accept this) it doesn't mean it's right nor fair for them to hold all that wealth, while we still have people in poverty and struggling.

[ninwa]

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?

[EvangelionZeta]

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?

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.

[Mao]

@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.

[Mao]

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?

Are you claiming our financial position right now is the same as our financial position just before the GFC?

I am being cautious. I'm not certain if Australia would make it through again, because we have no cash reserves nor surpluses unlike in 2008. We will be relying on the lending power of the rest of the world. If there's going to be chain defaults happening elsewhere in the world, I have serious doubts that we will be able to execute the same kind of stimulus package we did last time.

[enwiabe]

@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.

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.

[Mao]

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?

WHAT? Fuck. No.

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.

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.

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.

[Mao]

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.

[enwiabe]

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.

I see, so you just use hyperbole for effect rather than meaning what you say. Good to know you're more reasonable than "this is my lot in life and FUCK anyone who wants some o' mine"

I never said raising it btw, I was just responding to "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."

[Eriny]

@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.

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?

[ninwa]

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).

[EvangelionZeta]

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...

[appianway]

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...

At the risk of sounding really snarky, lumping all of "Asia Pacific" into one without understanding the structures of the individual economies is naive... in any case, Japan has been in some form of a slump since the 1990s. I'd be more worried about how closely coupled the Chinese and American economies have become - countries such as Vietnam and a few other ASEAN countries are particularly at risk to changes in China's economy because of the supply chain, but they all have very different economic structures to China...