Australian 2013 Federal Election Megathread

[lala1911]

(Image removed from quote.)

I was wondering why there was a little nutella jar in the pantry.

[JellyDonut]

Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz reckons the general public dont realise just how good we have it with regards to the economy.

If our overbearing pessimism is what got us here, we're probably doing something right huehuehue

[alondouek]

Just voted! Filling out 97 preferences was good fun

[Special At Specialist]

I'm going to vote on Saturday at my local town hall so that I don't have to worry about postal voting. Unless anything significant changes, I'm going to vote:
1) Greens
2) Labor
3) Sex Party

I'll make sure that Tony Abbott goes at the bottom of my list.

[Russ]

I endorse this website as a highly accurate reflection of ALP/LNP policy

http://dontbeafuckingidiot.herokuapp.com/

[vox nihili]

This is pretty helpful for the senate


http://www.belowtheline.org.au/

Apologies if it's already been posted.

[alondouek]

There's something I don't quite understand about Australian politics (having never formally studied it): Why is it that small parties such as the "Bullet-train for Australia party" or the "Australian Motoring Enthusiast party" are allowed to run independently in elections? Why not just remain non-parties or lobbies, and thereby have greater political influence on the major parties? Surely that would be less expensive than running an election campaign for no notable outcome.

I don't get it

[slothpomba]

I found this amusing - http://i.imgur.com/oLxbCRd.jpg

Refer to previous response: https://twitter.com/simpak/status/374327195801362433

Is your face OK?

There's something I don't quite understand about Australian politics (having never formally studied it): Why is it that small parties such as the "Bullet-train for Australia party" or the "Australian Motoring Enthusiast party" are allowed to run independently in elections? Why not just remain non-parties or lobbies, and thereby have greater political influence on the major parties? Surely that would be less expensive than running an election campaign for no notable outcome.

Vanity parties? Sly feeder tickets?

See how anthony green feels about this:

[alondouek]

Vanity parties? Sly feeder tickets?

See how anthony green feels about this:

I didn't quite understand the technical terms, but I'd agree that having parties that exist for a sole issue, or simply to counter another party makes things unnecessarily complicated come election time. I doubt it would be something you could legislate against though

[simpak]

I'll make sure that Tony Abbott goes at the bottom of my list.

Get what you're trying to say, but you don't actually get to vote for or against Abbott   Presuming you live in Victoria.

Also, alondouek you don't understand the part about democracy in Australian politics?  There are already difficulties for smaller parties to get their name on a ballot.

slothpomba, the scars will never heal and it's all thanks to you.

And whatever was said about not trying to rebut the article before, I'm not going to try and rebut the article (also I have a presentation tomorrow legit so I don't have time) but I will say I don't think it's healthy to sit around comparing yourself to others as a sole read of 'how good you have it'.  Better than others?  At the present time, yup.  Unable to be better? No, not at all.  Secondly, when I make decisions re: voting, re: economy, I'm making them for a whole /four years/.  Not just based on what is happening rn.

That aside, that wasn't why I posted that tweet, and I wasn't trying to be serious by posting it here in response to kp!   It was followed by another tweet which said something along the lines of 'it is legitimately the only thing in my news feed, pretty sure it's impossible not to now know how good I have it'.  I was just referring to how many times people had posted it on my feed and how it's not really 'news' because it's so over-endorsed, not the content!  I apologise for sparking debate

[JellyDonut]

peeps need to stop pretending that the stimulus package was THE solution to our gfc problems. it wasn't the sole reason. and it's also hardly an indication that the rudd government 'gets' keynesian economics (which is a funny doctrine to follow considering it came out close to a century ago).

stephen king, when he's not writing horror novels, did a write-up on the australian thing:
http://economicstudents.com/2013/07/why-did-our-banks-survive-the-gfc/

(Image removed from quote.)

still kinda fun to follow
http://www.betmetrix.com/

sports bet is running 1.02: 12 that labor is going to lose. while newspoll, nielsen and stuff are polling close to 50%.

gonna put like 10 bucks in and it'll be like we started from the bottom now we here

[slothpomba]

peeps need to stop pretending that the stimulus package was THE solution to our gfc problems. it wasn't the sole reason. and it's also hardly an indication that the rudd government 'gets' keynesian economics

I think there's a pretty decent international recognition that the stimulus did stop us from going into a recession. We already had a decently good financial position but i think it really did avert it. We see in countries that stimulated to little or too late the impact of their choices.

(which is a funny doctrine to follow considering it came out close to a century ago).

I don't really think that's a valid point of criticism. Democracy is an older idea and you wouldn't call it out on its age. I don't think the age of an idea has much to do with it. Obviously the way keynesian economics is implemented has changed since keynes time with the knowledge we have so i find that criticism a little confusing.

stephen king, when he's not writing horror novels, did a write-up on the australian thing:
http://economicstudents.com/2013/07/why-did-our-banks-survive-the-gfc/

Once again im confused, thats about banks surviving, not the economy as a whole or a recession per se.

sports bet is running 1.02: 12 that labor is going to lose. while newspoll, nielsen and stuff are polling close to 50%.

gonna put like 10 bucks in and it'll be like we started from the bottom now we here

As anyone who has placed more than a few bets will know, the odds they offer don't necessarily match the probability of a win. Betting companies have acturaries to balance their bets, its more like an insurance company in pricing their risk than anything really. They can offer odds that high because almost no one is betting on Labor so they don't stand much to lose (alongside the probability of them actually winning). If you played a 50,000 bet on it i guarantee those odds would shorten real soon to match the new risk.

They're even larger on betfair but since you're betting against other people (e.g. someone will take your bet FOR labor winning, if they actually win then they have to pay you) they tend to act a bit more smart. Look at how much cash is on the coalition haha  http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=100231558&ex=2&origin=MRL

[simpak]

My dad used to engage in political betting all the time, it's kind of sad he's not here to participate this year!  It was his favourite activity ever.  Just betting on politics and nothing else.

[JellyDonut]

I think there's a pretty decent international recognition that the stimulus did stop us from going into a recession. We already had a decently good financial position but i think it really did avert it. We see in countries that stimulated to little or too late the impact of their choices.

I'm not disputing the effects of the stimulus but I'm just pointing out that it's far from the only factor. I know this sounds pretty lazy but Brown and Davis actually lays out a variety of factors http://www.kevindavis.com.au/secondpages/acadpubs/2009/Brown-Davis_GFC_Kolb_chapter_final2.pdf instead of just singling out one factor. In terms of effective government policy, I'd say their immediate securing a deposits played a bigger role. No point giving out money if you don't have anywhere to put it. We also had good regulation on commercial banking activities

I don't really think that's a valid point of criticism. Democracy is an older idea and you wouldn't call it out on its age. I don't think the age of an idea has much to do with it. Obviously the way keynesian economics is implemented has changed since keynes time with the knowledge we have so i find that criticism a little confusing.

Fair point.

Once again im confused, thats about banks surviving, not the economy as a whole or a recession per se.

The GFC also predominantly affected banks in the US, and see what they eventually became. The financial sector is so entrenched in the economy - it is the backbone of it. Like the GFC was a housing and banking problem, but the ramifications of the mispricings ended up affecting the entire economy.

As anyone who has placed more than a few bets will know, the odds they offer don't necessarily match the probability of a win. Betting companies have acturaries to balance their bets, its more like an insurance company in pricing their risk than anything really. They can offer odds that high because almost no one is betting on Labor so they don't stand much to lose (alongside the probability of them actually winning). If you played a 50,000 bet on it i guarantee those odds would shorten real soon to match the new risk.

They're even larger on betfair but since you're betting against other people (e.g. someone will take your bet FOR labor winning, if they actually win then they have to pay you) they tend to act a bit more smart. Look at how much cash is on the coalition haha  http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=100231558&ex=2&origin=MRL

goddamn, that's a lot of money.

[ninwa]

Libtards are 1) cutting foreign aid, 2) implementing a mandatory internet filter... Gooooo Australia, you deserve everything you get for voting these pricks in.