Talking Politics

[Baloo]

Oh FFS! This again?

Might be time to merge climate change with the religion thread.

 

[Sintiger]

Fair point, where is the ABC's critical analysis of the harmful effects of monetary policy and fractional reserve banking? What about critical analysis of how climate change is largely a farce? The best insight is having journo's from a wide range of political persuasions. To get a job at the ABC however you need to be one of the tribe. In reality the whole aim at balance really is an impossibility. Media outlets shouldn't hide their political bias, and the ABC should not be publicly funded.

The real problem for you in this is that your definition of the tribe takes in about 95% + of the population.

 

[Brodders17]

a couple of friends are socialists, and the ABC does not reflect their views. calling the ABC 'socialist' is not at all accurate.

 

[Brodders17]

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/06/25/speaking-of-media-independence-how-does-aunty-fare/ is a link to a list of ABC employees who have gone to work at both Labour and the Libs.

for a bunch of socialists plenty have gone to the conservative side of politics.

 

[Giardiasis]

No it's not the point, it may be the point you are making but it isn't the one I am making. Yes everyone has opinions including journos but the job of the journo is to challenge everyone and dig into the views and statements of the person they are interviewing.

That job is done better by the ABC than anyone else in the Australian media and Sarah Ferguson does it better than anyone.

The show this was referring to was not about political affiliation or based on some social or economic view of the world, it was getting to the truth about a major event in Australian political history.

Ok so your argument is that those using the historical method to elucidate understanding of past events are somehow exempt from bias?

At the end of the day, it is pointless to debate whether the ABC is balanced or not. Everyone has a different idea of what balanced means let alone if the ABC is actually balanced. Personally I think the task impossible. The real question is whether the ABC should be publicly funded.

 

[Giardiasis]

a couple of friends are socialists, and the ABC does not reflect their views. calling the ABC 'socialist' is not at all accurate.

It is accurate but not precise.

 

[Giardiasis]

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/06/25/speaking-of-media-independence-how-does-aunty-fare/ is a link to a list of ABC employees who have gone to work at both Labour and the Libs.

for a bunch of socialists plenty have gone to the conservative side of politics.

Conservatives are just the right wing of socialism.

 

[Sintiger]

Ok so your argument is that those using the historical method to elucidate understanding of past events are somehow exempt from bias?

No , the doco was about discovering the truth of what happened. It was nothing more than an exploration of an important historical event from differing perspectives for the audience to make up its mind about.

The responsibility of the national broadcaster is to present these types of things to the public no matter whether it is damaging to that party or not. The Libs are constantly bleating about ABC bias yet a show which is clearly damaging to both the ALP and its leader is shown. That's what I want from the ABC.

I would be happy to not have a national broadcaster funded by the public but only when I was sure that the commercial interests of the media didn't dictate what I saw and found out about things that are important. I simply don't trust those with the power and money to control the media to do that.

 

[Giardiasis]

I would be happy to not have a national broadcaster funded by the public but only when I was sure that the commercial interests of the media didn't dictate what I saw and found out about things that are important. I simply don't trust those with the power and money to control the media to do that.

The commercial interests of the media don't dictate anything, you are free to not watch it? In any case it seems like you won't ever be satisfied?

You don't have an issue that money must be appropriated from others to subsidise your consumption? You don't see the injustice?

 

[Sintiger]

The commercial interests of the media don't dictate anything, you are free to not watch it? In any case it seems like you won't ever be satisfied?

You don't have an issue that money must be appropriated from others to subsidise your consumption? You don't see the injustice?

I am not worried about it because I want to live in this society . The way I see it I pay for others' consumption of things I don't use and vice versa. It's not perfect.

The injustice I am far more worried about is that people who have far less advantage than I have struggle to survive. The injustice of an accident of birth deciding the chances people have in life both in Australia and elsewhere .

Any injustice I may feel about paying a large tax bill that subsidises others is nothing compared with that.

 

[Giardiasis]

I am not worried about it because I want to live in this society . The way I see it I pay for others' consumption of things I don't use and vice versa. It's not perfect.

The injustice I am far more worried about is that people who have far less advantage than I have struggle to survive. The injustice of an accident of birth deciding the chances people have in life both in Australia and elsewhere .

Any injustice I may feel about paying a large tax bill that subsidises others is nothing compared with that.

Ignoring that what you suggest as an injustice is not really an injustice, it is unfortunate that the idea that government redistribution is the most effective way to help these people is so widespread.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Ignoring that what you suggest as an injustice is not really an injustice, it is unfortunate that the idea that government redistribution is the most effective way to help these people is so widespread.

Do you have evidence that another model of society does it better?

 

[Giardiasis]

Do you have evidence that another model of society does it better?

By evidence I suppose you mean from experience. There is of course the logical deductions from the axioms of human action. All empirical knowledge can do in the field of human action is evaluate the particular circumstances of a given situation, but it is never independent of time and space. So the evidence you look for does not provide the knowledge you seek as it does in the natural sciences.

In spite of this, history I think clearly demonstrates that the material improvements in the standard of living of the poor have improved the most under economic systems of the private ownership of the means of production and the division of labour.

 

[Sintiger]

Ignoring that what you suggest as an injustice is not really an injustice, it is unfortunate that the idea that government redistribution is the most effective way to help these people is so widespread.

I am not going to argue about semantics nor am I going to argue about your idea of other ways to help the less fortunate, for no other reason than we have that discussion before and I simply don't agree with you.

It doesn't matter whether you call it injustice or unfortunate the point remains the same. I pay taxes and I strongly suspect that my taxes are a lot more than my Government provided consumption. Do I feel that injustice ? No because whether I win or lose is not very important to me.

My life doesn't revolve around economics it revolves around humanity in all it's forms including friendship, family, giving and helping others and just straight out having fun with people. There is no economic model for that

 

[AngryAnt]

But she challenges them from her own political bias. Is there an interview where she challenges from the perspective of economic liberalism? Surely she had one where she calls into question the economic effects of green policy?

ie I want her to challenge from the perspective of my political bias.

:hihi

 

[AngryAnt]

Do you have evidence that another model of society does it better?

The answer is no, and this is a fundamental critique of the Austrian school and political libertarianism... they are theoretical and also ahistorical.

 

[Giardiasis]

I am not going to argue about semantics nor am I going to argue about your idea of other ways to help the less fortunate, for no other reason than we have that discussion before and I simply don't agree with you.

It doesn't matter whether you call it injustice or unfortunate the point remains the same. I pay taxes and I strongly suspect that my taxes are a lot more than my Government provided consumption. Do I feel that injustice ? No because whether I win or lose is not very important to me.

My life doesn't revolve around economics it revolves around humanity in all it's forms including friendship, family, giving and helping others and just straight out having fun with people. There is no economic model for that

There is no model, but there is theory for human action (praexology) which covers all action, not just actions related to economics. Theories of value, exchange, cost etc. are logically deduced from the axiom that all action is purposeful action in which means are employed to achieve ends. The subjective theory of value explains that you might value a non-economic end.

Anyhoo, I understand it would be difficult to accept all that from some chump on a forum. It is pretty heavy stuff, I haven't articulated the whole picture and people just don't have the time to understand it. Like I said, it is unfortunate.

 

[Giardiasis]

ie I want her to challenge from the perspective of my political bias.

:hihi

Yep ;D

Nah actually I'm happy for the ABC to have whatever political bias they want, I just don't want to be forced to pay for it at the threat of imprisonment.

That's probably why a lot of people here consider the ABC quite balanced, because they challenge from their political bias.

 

[Giardiasis]

The answer is no, and this is a fundamental critique of the Austrian school and political libertarianism... they are theoretical and also ahistorical.

Have a read of "The epistemological problems of economics" and "theory and history".

 

[Sintiger]

There is no model, but there is theory for human action (praexology) which covers all action, not just actions related to economics. Theories of value, exchange, cost etc. are logically deduced from the axiom that all action is purposeful action in which means are employed to achieve ends. The subjective theory of value explains that you might value a non-economic end.

Anyhoo, I understand it would be difficult to accept all that from some chump on a forum. It is pretty heavy stuff, I haven't articulated the whole picture and people just don't have the time to understand it. Like I said, it is unfortunate.

Seriously ( and I mean this light heartedly not as a critcism or attack) if anyone needs some sort of theory for human action to explain or measure the non economic part of their lives they need to get one !! A life that is ;D