Election: November 24

[Collin Li]

Ah, I see your point. I didn't even know that, lol - oh well, I've got 3 days between my last exam and the election to really read up on each party's policies. Maybe then I'll be able to actually make an informed choice :roll:

I guess I'm just attracted to Labor's foreign policy as that is the only area in which I have some knowledge. My friend, who is going for Liberal, keeps reminding me that Rudd will screw up the economy. Can someone explain how?

Rudd and his team have a clear lack of experience.

I'm not too concerned about experience, because Howard is going to hand over to Costello. He's had no experience as PM too (but he has had great years as Treasurer). I think that Costello would be a good leader though.

I would look at someone based on their values rather than criticise them on inexperience, because everyone started off inexperienced at some stage.

[Collin Li]

Hm... I'm sceptical of Labor's stance on foreign policy to be honest. Rudd wants to be out in 1.5 years. This is good compared to the Democratic candidates in the U.S., who want out in 2012!

Mm, yeah, I like his approach to the Iraq situation, although it could be better. I also like some of the other aspects of Labour's foreign policy, such as its advocacy for greater involvement in the UN, and greater integration into the Asia-Pacific region, rather than viewing the ANZUS alliance as the cornerstone of Australian foreign policy - the Liberal stance - which I think can only be good for Australia.

I'm also worried about the "me-too-ism". I wonder, how many of the policies Rudd is pushing now will actually come to fruition?

EDIT: Then again, most parties are like that.

Yeah, I'm not too happy with Liberal's foreign policy. Labor's foreign policy is really the only place where it shines, although ideally, I would prefer fewer military alliances and more free trade, so I'm not that interested anyway. A Liberal government still focuses on China (just as much as Rudd) in terms of trade, but I don't think alliances are necessary. We should not align ourselves militarily with a country that is so oppressive to it's people. We should only ally with countries who show a clear understanding of liberty.

[kido_1]

Ah, I see your point. I didn't even know that, lol - oh well, I've got 3 days between my last exam and the election to really read up on each party's policies. Maybe then I'll be able to actually make an informed choice :roll:

I guess I'm just attracted to Labor's foreign policy as that is the only area in which I have some knowledge. My friend, who is going for Liberal, keeps reminding me that Rudd will screw up the economy. Can someone explain how?

Government interventions in economy create "dead-weight loss." This is economic jargon for economic inefficiency, because the government interventions often have adverse effects on the amount of trade that goes on, causing to differ from the "optimal" amount of trade. Basically, there ends up becoming trades that would have otherwise been mutually beneficial, but they are now prevented because of the government intervention (a tax or something).

Hm... I'm sceptical of Labor's stance on foreign policy to be honest. Rudd wants to be out in 1.5 years. This is good compared to the Democratic candidates in the U.S., who want out in 2012! What worries me is Rudd's me-too'ism, that the media has played on a lot, and I have generally interpreted this as an attack on his credibility as a prime minister. I don't think he has values that he will stick to, and will tend to cave in on his values due to popular demand. This is horrible for the economy (leads to big deficits), and is also bad in principle. Once the labourers in power plants start complaining that their jobs are being cut because of environmental reform, Rudd will cave in. He is weak on his values.

Wow, Collin.
You should be some sort of political/economic advisor.

I agree that Rudd is weak on his values and may even change what he has promised if he gets elected.

[brendan]

On the dead weight loss - think of government intervention this way: the government takes $10, then they calmly burn $2 and then they give $8 back to the people. That's how government works.  

Andrew Leigh, economist at ANU:
http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/opinion_fulltext2.htm
    
"With a few exceptions (such as the improved targeting of private school funding), much of the increased social spending in Australia has been devoted to universal benefits. The First Home Owner Grant, Private Healthcare Rebate, and Family Tax Benefit Part B are just three examples of policies that have enormous budgetary costs, but minimal social impact. By international standards, Australia?s welfare system is still reasonably well targeted, but we?re headed in the wrong direction.

Peter Saunders, from the Centre for Independent Studies, calls middle-class benefits the ?tax/welfare churn?. But this implies that the problem is simply one of moving money around. In fact, because taxes have an efficiency cost, each dollar raised in taxes reduces economic output. Estimates of the efficiency cost varies, but the best recent estimate for the ?deadweight burden? in Australia is around 20 cents in the dollar. Perhaps ?tax, burn and churn? would be a better description....

A taxpayer hands over five $20 notes. The government representative calmly burns one of them, and hands back the remaining four."

[Defiler]

I'll be voting the Coalition, not because I think they are great, but because I'd rather vote them than Labor or the Greens. If a Ron Paul-esque person arose from the ashes and started their own party - that's who I'd be voting. Until then, I'll continue voting the Coalition.

[Collin Li]

I'll be voting the Coalition, not because I think they are great, but because I'd rather vote them than Labor or the Greens. If a Ron Paul-esque person arose from the ashes and started their own party - that's who I'd be voting. Until then, I'll continue voting the Coalition.

Agree with you mate.

Check out the LDP (Liberty & Democracy Party). They're not fielding many candidates, so you might not be able to vote them. If you're voting them a Senate spot, make sure you manually do your preferences, because I'm not sure how they're preferencing (usually they sign preference deals with minor parties, which are socialist, in order to get a better chance to win).

[brendan]

I'll be voting the Coalition, not because I think they are great, but because I'd rather vote them than Labor or the Greens. If a Ron Paul-esque person arose from the ashes and started their own party - that's who I'd be voting. Until then, I'll continue voting the Coalition.

With the exception of the LDP, Peter Costello from the Liberal Party seems the closest thing to Ron Paul given his views: http://freestudynotes.com/VCEforum/viewtopic.php?p=1167#1167

[Defiler]

Check out the LDP (Liberty & Democracy Party). They're not fielding many candidates, so you might not be able to vote them.

Yeah, they aren't around here. I will have a look at them though, they do seem of interest.

With the exception of the LDP, Peter Costello from the Liberal Party seems the closest thing to Ron Paul

I've always found Peter Costello to be quite excellent, especially his comment (paraphrased a bit here): 'Anyone would think there were never reds under the bed, just economic conservatives'. Great stuff.

Edit: The LDP seems to echo my views in a lot of ways, just reading over a few of their policies... good stuff!

[kido_1]

I just realised something

lol. Someone voted for "One Nation". I for one would never vote for One Nation as they have an anti-Asian/ethnic policy.

[ninwa]

I would prefer fewer military alliances and more free trade

Well, there's the AUSFTA I spose which is huge ... though I think that things got more negative consequences than benefits for Australia ...

[Collin Li]

I would prefer fewer military alliances and more free trade

Well, there's the AUSFTA I spose which is huge ... though I think that things got more negative consequences than benefits for Australia ...

I'm not sure what the AUSFTA is, but I'm ready to take down anyone who wants to argue that free-trade (in general) will have more negative consequences than benefits.

[ninwa]

Sorry, I remember things by acronyms lol: Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.

- Doesn't improve our economy much
- Excludes much of our agricultural industry, which is what we'd originally wanted to include
- Removes some of the restrictions on television content - so now television will be even more Americanised
- May deter other potential trade partners, especially in the Asia-Pacific

[millstone]

ahh coblin, i'd still rather more seats for the greens than for the homophobic liberals

[Collin Li]

Sorry, I remember things by acronyms lol: Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.

- Doesn't improve our economy much
- Excludes much of our agricultural industry, which is what we'd originally wanted to include
- Removes some of the restrictions on television content - so now television will be even more Americanised
- May deter other potential trade partners, especially in the Asia-Pacific

Free trade is a good thing. The "FTA" is a misnomer because it is not actually free trade, but a contract that only allows trade in some sections. That's hardly free trade. The FTA still does more good than bad though. You can never lose from opening up free trade where there was previously none, and the economic benefits will always outweigh the costs.

One example is your fear of Americanised TV. There is no reason why American TV would take over Australian TV unless American TV attracted more viewers in Australia, than Australian TV. What is wrong with that? That means people like it. It simply introduces competition for Australian directors to produce material that appeals to Australians better than American TV producers can.

[Collin Li]

ahh coblin, i'd still rather more seats for the greens than for the homophobic liberals

Your principles are strong, and I commend that, but there needs to be room for pragmaticism.

These seats for the Greens are going to be in the Senate. In the Senate, the Greens do not introduce bills, they only approve or disapprove bills. Both the main parties have shown no resolve on social issues (such as gay rights), and that is not going to change. Voting for the Greens will not change their viewpoint on this. Instead, it will send a mixed message to Labor, influencing them on multiple fronts, such as regressive taxation, and the environment, rather than on gay rights. Since the major parties are going to be fighting around on fiscal policy (where to give tax cuts, whom to give money to), the Greens will only have an economic effect, and if you subscribe to my economic beliefs, their economic principles are bad for the nation, and ultimately bad for the poor and aspiring lower-middle class who want to open small business.

If you truly support liberty (which would be concordant with supporting gay rights), and you do not wish to concede your values, place a vote for the Liberty & Democracy party, not the Greens. This will not send a mixed message to Labor, but in fact, it will send a strong and clear message to the Liberals saying: "social conservatism makes no sense! Get rid of it, and this plus responsible economic management would be a winner for everyone."