Elect your FSN statesmen (final round!)

[Collin Li]

What position are we voting for exactly?

It isn't actually meaningful.

I have set a time for the poll to close - second round voting (taking the top two candidates) will begin afterwards, and will run on indefinitely (e.g: no winner will be declared, but if there is a clear majority, someone can claim victory, haha).

[Collin Li]

Results:

Question: Who would you like to be your president?  (Voting closed: Today at 10:27:53 PM)
Mao - 0 (0%)
Ahmad - 3 (13.6%)
Riete - 1 (4.5%)
droodles - 2 (9.1%)
Eriny - 7 (31.8%)
brendan    - 0 (0%)
coblin - 5 (22.7%)
Ninox - 0 (0%)
Neophyte - 3 (13.6%)
Toothpick - 1 (4.5%)

Total Voters: 22

In two-round voting, the top 2 progress to the second and final round.

[Collin Li]

An explanation for some of the proposals made in this post

I share the belief that greed is a powerful force that is intuitively very destructive, but I believe that the system of capitalism, proposed by great thinkers like Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, provides the best system to keep greed in check. It is capitalism that has allowed greed to become a positive and constructive force. Greed has driven so much innovative and intellectual efforts to provide the best services to the consumer. I recognise that the underlying principle that keeps greed in check is competition - this is why the consumers get lower prices despite the existence of greed. As a politician, I would keep a close eye on anti-competitive practices and on monopolies. One of the major inhibiting factors to competition are the number of contracts that big business and labour unions sign with the government to protect their workers. I will not support them: I will not support a tyranny of the majority, I will not support a tyranny of the rich, or a tyranny of minorities, but I will uphold a government that enshrines the rights of the individual. I will revive the economy by ousting these special interest groups from the receiving end of our taxpayer dollars - I will fight for the rights of the individual to stand up against organised lobbying.

Outside of the economy, I will lead a non-interventionist government that protects individuals from crimes against victims, but will not support the impractical enforcement of victimless crimes (where no one has an incentive to report the crime). I believe in privacy in the bedroom, and that the government has no say in what you choose to do with your life, given it does not deduct from the experience of others. The government should be a referee, not your manager or your parents.

However, I do recognise that there are roles for the government. The environment, for example, is a public good that the government has neglected for too long. We need to represent the social cost of pollution by adding a gradually increasing tax on carbon. The government needs to intervene in education, in the right way: giving parents the power to choose, and taking away the monopoly of control owned by teacher unions.

Ultimately, the government has a role - it has to step in when there are flaws in the market. It has to make sure the market runs smoothly, it has to enforce contracts and protect private property rights. However, we need to have more faith in the ability of markets to fix problems, or else we risk producing the worst kind of monopoly: a big government.


Hehe, it's my hypothetical speech if I ever plan to pursue a political career. Do you like it ?

[Eriny]

Okay, I thought I should make a list of all my policies like coblin did, although it may not be as comprehensive as his, believe it or not, I haven't spent a great deal of time thinking about what my policies would be if I had power.

In no particular order:
Reconciliation:
Awarding Indigenous communities government grants in order to implement their ideas towards making a better comunity. Indigenous Australians keen to make a difference in their lives would talk about their ideas with a small panel of elders and politicians. These suggestions would talk about problems the community is having and strategies in which to fix them - some suggestions would be vauge, others would have more clear steps. Worthy applications would be awarded the funds as well as other resources to turn these suggestions into a reality in direct consultation with the groups throughout the process, utilising the skills of the community where appropriate. The point is that the community themselves is part of the process of improving living standards, because government policies in the past telling these communities what to do is both unsuccessful and does nothing to ensure the cohesion of these communities.

Education
Education would be treated as a state investment for the future. We all reap the economic and social benefits of a well-educated population. Therefore, it's important to lift standards both of schools and students.
We'll get better teachers by increasing the incentive to become one - this does not stop at the existing reduced HECS fees for teachers. Teachers will be able to choose whether they wish to have union representatives determine their pay, or whether they would like to directly consult with the principal of their school (who already determines their employment) to determine their wage. To ensure that this is fair between all public schools, they will all be given a teacher employment budget based on how many teachers at different skill levels are required (it will be reccommended that a mixture of both experienced and inexperienced teachers would teach at the same school). Also, there will be a scheme in place so that people who have had professional experience and success in their field may be entitled to a scholarship during the year they complete the DipEd. This is so that teacher worth is never under-valuated, the proffession attracts the most qualified and there will be less of a concern with older people no longer being able to access the workforce.
Specialised shools would be built for students in years 9-10 who either want to go into VCAL in their senior years, who are likely to drop-out or who are better suited to an "alternative" environemnt in which to complete the VCE (e.g. TAFE). These schools will focus on "real world" preparation, job placements, and the development of important skills. These schools would be quite small and each student would be allocated a industry-specific mentor.
Also, there would be more funding towards academic research to ensure that the top researchers stay in Australia and to promote the quest for education. This would improve Australia's university rankings, thereby increasing international students who will further subsidise the education for local students. These international students would be permitted to have concession cards for public transport.

Foreign Aid
Australia (or whatever nation this is) will commit to their share in achieving the UN's Millenium Development goals. We will also continue working primarily with communities in the Asia Pacific to reach better standards of living. The economic stabilisation of this area will help improve national security also.

The Aging Population
The economy will continue to be restructured with various microeconomic and technological reforms in order to make the economy stronger and more flexible to meet the demands of a changing workforce. One microform will be continuing the gradual tariff reduction. More FTAs will also be sought, but only if they are fair to all nations.
In order to create a society that encorages child birth, we would implement subsidies for child care and 3 year old kinder. Also, unpaid maternity leave would be extended for big business and this leave would be available to the father also.

Climate Change and the Environment
Businesses will be more answerable for their energy use through a carbon trading scheme. There will also be in increase in subsidies for solar panels and investment in alternative energy sources.
All tariffs will be removed on hybrid cars.
Whaling in ocean under Australia's jurisdiction can not be legally or ethically tolerated.


Human Rights
Australia will no longer tolerate the abuse of human rights, either in foreign countries or locally. This means that sedition laws will be dropped and Australia will request that no Australian ever be murdered by the state.
Refurendum to design a national Bill of Rights which instills the freedoms inherrent and necessary in a democracratic nation.
No detention centres.

Obesity
Primary schools will be offered subsidies to build a kitchen in order to help encourage children make and consume healthy food and teach them the skills required to understand these issues for themselves without becoming obsessive over food.

Legalisation of Same Sex Marriage

Mental Health
More funds into research, treatment and school-based suicide prevention programs (because Australia has the third highest rate of suicide in the world for male teenagers).
Abortion Councilling offered by the government, as opposed to church-based organisations who may have an ulterior motive.
Drugs will continue to be illegal but will be decriminalised. They'll be treated in society as a health issue, and we'd be mindful about rehabilitation rather than legal action.
Emphasis again will be on rehabilitation for criminals. Prison would be seen as a time for reflection and to construct a healthy identity. More specially trained councellors/psychologists would be available to those who require such services than now.

Refurendum to become a Republic

Welfare
People receiving welfare payments will have programs, seminars and work expereince available to them. This is to empower individuals to become a competitive job applicant or give them access to further education.



I think that's it. If I have any glaring ommissions, please do tell me.

[Collin Li]

Why a carbon trading scheme? The costs pass onto the consumers just like a carbon tax does, except with a carbon trading scheme, the government gets no revenue, which means there is no benefit to society to compensate pollution - the money is just traded around big business.

I am in support of a Bill of Rights and for Australia becoming a Republic. My policy on education reform is one of choice, it is to break the one-size-fits-all system. In regards to the Aboriginal people, we need to ensure there is proper enforcement of the law - however, I do not believe in special treatment. The Indigenous people are as able as us, we are all capable individuals.

My policy on tariffs has not been made explicit, so here it is: I will flatten them all across the board so that they do not selectively advantage one industry over another, then I will gradually flatten these tariffs to 0%. The Australian consumers should have the right to choose what products he or she wishes to buy from abroad without government intervention.

[Eriny]

I believe it would be most effective in actually reducing emissions and achiving the goals I'd set out to achieve:

Carbon Trading is sometimes seen as a better approach than a direct carbon tax or direct regulation. By solely aiming at the cap it avoids the consequences and compromises that often accompany those other methods. It can be cheaper, and politically preferable for existing industries because the initial allocation of allowances is often allocated with a grandfathering provision where rights are issued in proportion to historical emissions. In addition, most of the money in the system is spent on environmental activities, and the investment directed at sustainable projects that earn credits in the developing world can contribute to the Millennium Development Goals.

(from wiki)

[Collin Li]

I don't see how any of that supports carbon trading. Carbon taxes are as easy to implement as the GST was, except it's only on one good. Carbon trading is essentially a quota. It is unrealistic to set a limit on carbon consumption - needs, costs and benefits change. A tax that represents the social cost of pollution is more effective for correcting the market.

Why should it be 'politically preferable'? My goal is for a government that is not politically influenced by existing industries. A grandfathering provision would not be fair. I also don't see how a cap-and-trade system generates revenue for the government. Tokens are assigned to historically emitting companies (favouring the big business in the carbon emitting industry, in other words), and then traded amongst other big businesses.

[Eriny]

Well, actually, it's likely that the effects of both would be similar, including revenue (although I don't think a cap and trade would produce quite as much).
There's no use if all businesses do is rasie government revenue because there is a limit to strategies the government can implement in order to tackle climate change. The businesses that cut down emissions will profit from doing so by selling carbon credits, those that do not cut down will have to pay for these credits - thereby providing strong incentives to reduce emissions. The process would be gradual, to decrease the cap every year, so that no business is 'shocked', and price rises will not be too huge a burden on consumers. Businesses who do not have enough credits for their level of emmissions would be penalised through tax also. This system has appeared to work very well in Denmark.

[brendan]

I believe it would be most effective in actually reducing emissions and achiving the goals I'd set out to achieve:

Carbon Trading is sometimes seen as a better approach than a direct carbon tax or direct regulation. By solely aiming at the cap it avoids the consequences and compromises that often accompany those other methods. It can be cheaper, and politically preferable for existing industries because the initial allocation of allowances is often allocated with a grandfathering provision where rights are issued in proportion to historical emissions. In addition, most of the money in the system is spent on environmental activities, and the investment directed at sustainable projects that earn credits in the developing world can contribute to the Millennium Development Goals.

(from wiki)

"Cap-and-trade = Carbon tax + Corporate welfare" - Greg Mankiw, Harvard Economist

Say NO to corporate welfare!

Carbon Tax vs Cap-and-Trade
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/02/carbon-tax-vs-cap-and-trade.html

Case against Cap-and-trade
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/04/case-against-cap-and-trade.html
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html

People for a carbon tax:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/rogoff-joins-pigou-club.html

Greg Mankiw (Fortune 5/24/99, WSJ 1/3/06, 5/31/06)
Bill Nordhaus (Foreign Policy in Focus 3/27/06)
Martin Feldstein (WSJ 6/4/92)
Gary Becker (Businessweek 5/27/02)
Robert Frank (NY Times 2/16/06, 6/8/06)
Andrew Samwick (his blog)
Ted Gayer (Regulation)
Mike Moffatt (about.com)
Ken Rogoff (Project Syndicate)
Paul Krugman (Slate 4/18/97)
Greg Easterbrook (NY Times 5/25/04)
John Tierney (NY Times 10/4/05, 5/23/06)
Jonathan Rauch (National Journal 2/9/02)
Thomas Friedman (NY Times 9/21/05, 2/8/06, 6/16/06)
Joe Klein (Time 5/7/06)
Andrew Sullivan (Time 4/11/04)
Jane Galt (her blog)
Christopher Farrell (Businessweek 8/19/05)
William Baldwin (Forbes 6/19/06)
Clive Crook (National Journal 6/2/06)
Al Gore (Charlie Rose Show 6/19/06 at 42:45)
We are always looking for more members. An elected official or two would be nice.

Alan Greenspan, George Schultz, Tony Lake, Nicholas Stern, Hal Varian, Larry Summers, Richard Posner, David Frum, Nouriel Roubini, Joe Stiglitz, Brink Lindsey, Tim Harford, Rob Stavins, Ray Magliozzi, Robert Samuelson, Dan McFadden, Charles Krauthammer, Paul Mulshine, Kevin Hassett, Jason Furman, Anne Applebaum, Paul Volcker, Bill Frenzel, Isabel V. Sawhill, Charles Stenholm, William Hoagland, Robert Shapiro, David Leonhardt, Morton Kondracke, Gilbert Metcalf, Fred Foldvary, Arthur Laffer, and a majority of economists.

[brendan]

Foreign Aid
Australia (or whatever nation this is) will commit to their share in achieving the UN's Millenium Development goals. We will also continue working primarily with communities in the Asia Pacific to reach better standards of living. The economic stabilisation of this area will help improve national security also.

That's just perpetuating socialism and government largesse. You are effectively taking from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries.

Real solution: Remove arbitary barriers that prevent poor people in poor countries from trading with Australia. Remove all trade barriers. Take down all tarriffs, quotas and subsidies.

Human Rights
Australia will no longer tolerate the abuse of human rights

Is not the right to keep the fruits of your labour a human right?

To ensure that this is fair between all public schools, they will all be given a teacher employment budget based on how many teachers at different skill levels are required (it will be reccommended that a mixture of both experienced and inexperienced teachers would teach at the same school).

Why? How is that even fair? If you are going to subsidize education why subsidize the producer? Why not give the education funding to the parents? Why not attach the government money to the child? and then they can take it to whichever school they wish, and then the school will decide for itself what to do with that money (not imposed from above by Eriny).

Education
We all reap the economic and social benefits of a well-educated population.

I've explored this in great detail myself. So just exactly what benefits are you talking about? Up to what level of education? How large are the external benefits to society (i.e. the excess over and above the benefits accruing to the individual being educated)?

Also, unpaid maternity leave would be extended for big business and this leave would be available to the father also.

has not considered the uninteded consequence of employers hiring less people of child-bearing age due to uncertainty and added cost of hiring such people given the risk of them taking maternity leave.

.
Emphasis again will be on rehabilitation for criminals. Prison would be seen as a time for reflection and to construct a healthy identity. More specially trained councellors/psychologists would be available to those who require such services than now.

Why focus more on the criminal than the victim? If reducing the cost of crime to society is the objective then you ought to have policies that promote restitution, restorative justice, and deterrence.

Also, unpaid maternity leave would be extended for big business and this leave would be available to the father also.

has not considered the uninteded consequence of less people of child-bearing age due to uncertainty and added cost of hiring such people given the risk of them taking maternity leave.

more funding towards

permitted to have concession cards for public transport.

subsidies for

increase in subsidies for solar panels

More funds into ... school-based suicide prevention programs

Abortion Councilling offered by the government,

Eriny's view of government and society can be summed up in a few phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

[Rietie]

Well, I'm supporting Eriny (awesome ideas). I was also wondering if Eriny was in support of making Australia a republic? Sorry if she already answered this question.

By the way, Eriny, are you by any chance studying or going to study sociology, anthropology, development studies or geography? You sound a bit like my sister who has studied all those subjects

[costargh]

Long lost sister abandoned at birth?

[droodles]

social freedoms (get the government out of your life)
* legalise same-sex marriages

hi u lost vote bad bad bad

[Collin Li]

Should I make an explicit policy on immigration and war? Tell me what concerns you about my policies - I will give you a clear answer.

[costargh]

Humanitarian and environmental ideas and thoughts please.

Seen your thoughts on Carbon tax, but also other issues eg. water.