Talking Politics

[Giardiasis]

I can only speak for myself, I can't speak for anyone else in regard to where they want their money spent. That is for you and everyone else to decide.
As you would know contracts don't need to be signed to be binding, basic contract law 101.
My only suggestion to you is if you don't like it then you make your own choice about what you want to do but at the very least please do not call those of us who accept the social contract as persons who condone theft and whatever else you are suggesting.
There are people dying today because australia has cut it's aid budget. There are children not going to school, food packages not being delivered, basic housing and water not being provided. So many programs to provide basic needs to human beings have been cut. I know that for a fact because I know many people who have been involved in programs that have been cut because of it. In South Sudan, in the refugee camps in northern Iraq and in Turkey for example.
You also seem determined to put words into my mouth. I didn't say the tax cut would have no effect just not the one the Government suggests it would. What do you think a multi national would do with a 1.5% tax cut ? They will pay less tax, make more profit after tax and pay more dividends home. They would pay a tiny witholding tax on the dividend and say thankyou very much. If you think that is good for Australia then fair enough. I don't.

It isn't up to everyone to decide, everyone doesn't get to decide where their money is spent, politicians and their agents decide, that is the whole point!

Basic contract law is that criminal contracts are unenforceable, such as person A making a contract with person B to rob person C. Your so called social contract is an attempt to legitimise crime against third parties. I won't be a dupe to the politics of obedience or pretend the emperor is wearing a fine outfit. What we have are rules for some rules for others. A private person prints money it is called counterfeiting, the government does it, it is called monetary policy. A private person robs another it is called theft, he government does it, it is called taxation. A private person buys and sells stolen goods it is called fencing stolen property, the government does it, it's called redistribution. You might not like harsh reality, but it's there for all to see. Pretending theft isn't theft doesn't change what's really going on.

Those people are not dying because aid is decreasing they are dying because of the horrible conditions they have to live in. By all means donate all you wish and encourage others, choose the organisation you think is doing the best job of it, but don't think yourself virtuous because you'd rob someone with the intentions of helping others. Government aid programs won't solve destitution and war, and it is very questionable how effective they are.

Semantics, the tax cut won't have the desired effect, i.e. tax revenue will drop! Perhaps we should increase the tax rate by 1.5%? Surely tax revenue will increase, a great result for Australia (whatever that's supposed to mean?). Then perhaps in a few years time, surely another small increase will be another boon! Then perhaps again in a few more years? Let's forget about the Australian business' shall we? Perhaps NSW should tax those nasty foreign Victorian companies!

So again, it is obvious that you are using tax revenue as your basis of determining the goodness of budget policy, which goes back to the question of where is money best spent, private individuals or politicians and their army of bureaucrats? Answering this question requires an understanding of the nature of man and economic law. You seem to think that arbitrary judgement trumps economic theory. To quote Murray Rothbard,
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialised discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

 

[martyshire]

To quote Murray Rothbard,
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialised discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

The same quote could be adapted to emphasise the importance of many other abilities and expertise when making decisions that economists would consider to be 'economic subjects'. e.g. human behaviour, critical thinking, creativity, vision, problem solving, empathy, international politics, etc. Ignoring other skills and expertise when making such decisions could blind us from infinite dangerous paths as a society. In fact I would argue we are already headed down some them...

 

[Baloo]

Whats all this got to do with the Malcolm in the Middle v Billy Boy Battle ?

 

[Giardiasis]

The same quote could be adapted to emphasise the importance of many other abilities and expertise when making decisions that economists would consider to be 'economic subjects'. e.g. human behaviour, critical thinking, creativity, vision, problem solving, empathy, international politics, etc. Ignoring other skills and expertise when making such decisions could blind us from infinite dangerous paths as a society. In fact I would argue we are already headed down some them...

Before I reply, can you please provide an example of a decision that you are talking about? I just want to make sure I’m fully across your point.

 

[AngryAnt]

Whats all this got to do with the Malcolm in the Middle v Billy Boy Battle ?

Nothing. G-Man is extrapolation from esoteric libertarian economic theory and political philosophy nd trying to apply this to the detail of which party's company tax policy is better.

 

[RemoteTiger]

What a sad sad state Australian Federal politics is when the incumbent Prime Minister is mouthing Slogans to get elected but is shallow on the policies he will enact under those slogans - the Company Tax decrease will inject millions into the economy creating more jobs - please people of Australia do not swallow this tripe - Reagan and Thatcher eras proved this does not work and opens the door to big economic issues further down the path.

Innovation and Jobs - the Conservatives under John Howard used this slogan in the late 1990s and won the election - once they were in there was no innovation and no flamin' jobs.

I had great hopes that Malcolm Bligh Turnbull would lead Australia out of the gloom of the Global Financial Crisis - he has failed, still is failing and with *smile* slogans will continue to fail - I am a small "L" Liberal but he has lost me. He's not a leaders bootlace.

Shorten - is hitting the mark with his policies - he is forcing the issues of this election - Turnbull is on the backfoot competing against these issues - with only one reply - "How is the Labor Party going to fund it" - Shorten scares me but at least he is putting up viable alternatives. We have nothing from Turnbull and co. but slogans and a proven inept trickle down economics policy.

Turnbull reminds me of the Richmond Football Club Players - running around, skirting the packs/issues, waving his arms saying give me the ball - not chasing not tackling and worst of all leading us into oblivion.

Sadly this makes Shorten look better than he really is.

I just heard on the radio Turnbull is not attending the next Town Hall "Meet the People" debate. He is leaving it solely for Shorten - to me that is an election campaign mistake. Yes OK Shorten does handle these better than Turnbull - but to be seen as running away from the people - in an election campaign - not a good look.

For *smile* Sake Turnbull get into the packs and get the *smile* ball before the game is over........

 

[Baloo]

I just heard on the radio Turnbull is not attending the next Town Hall "Meet the People" debate. He is leaving it solely for Shorten - to me that is an election campaign mistake. Yes OK Shorten does handle these better than Turnbull - but to be seen as running away from the people - in an election campaign - not a good look.

To be fair, this wasn't an agreed town hall. Sky News just decided when and where to have won and invited both leaders publicly to turn up without any prior discussion. That's not how it's done. Cheap point scoring by Sky.

As far as MT is concerned, I still want to see what he is like as an elected PM which will give him more leverage in the party room. His policies and speech now are not what he used to believe in. He's got to keep the feral tea party types at bay for now.

For me, at least this election, it's better the devil you know. I don't trust Shorten at all.

 

[tigersnake]

I can only speak for myself, I can't speak for anyone else in regard to where they want their money spent. That is for you and everyone else to decide.
As you would know contracts don't need to be signed to be binding, basic contract law 101.
My only suggestion to you is if you don't like it then you make your own choice about what you want to do but at the very least please do not call those of us who accept the social contract as persons who condone theft and whatever else you are suggesting.
There are people dying today because australia has cut it's aid budget. There are children not going to school, food packages not being delivered, basic housing and water not being provided. So many programs to provide basic needs to human beings have been cut. I know that for a fact because I know many people who have been involved in programs that have been cut because of it. In South Sudan, in the refugee camps in northern Iraq and in Turkey for example.
You also seem determined to put words into my mouth. I didn't say the tax cut would have no effect just not the one the Government suggests it would. What do you think a multi national would do with a 1.5% tax cut ? They will pay less tax, make more profit after tax and pay more dividends home. They would pay a tiny witholding tax on the dividend and say thankyou very much. If you think that is good for Australia then fair enough. I don't.

All makes sense to me sin. G-man is a fundamentalist. Very difficult to argue with a fundamentalist. Some would say its a pointless exercise.

 

[poppa x]

I have nick names for the leaders.

Malcolm MoreBull
Bull Sh*tten
Richard Di Nothing

The names sum up how I feel about this election.
Never has the choice been so poor.

We have the Liberals who know what to do but are afraid to do it or even talk about it.
Whereas Labor know what to do but what they'll do is wrong.
And the Greens just talk to the fairies (and Nick Xenophon) at the rear of the garden.


What do I want?
A party that will act on the Nation's deficit and debt before my kids and grandkids have to pay for our sins.

Help.

 

[Giardiasis]

All makes sense to me sin. G-man is a fundamentalist. Very difficult to argue with a fundamentalist. Some would say its a pointless exercise.

You can't deal with the arguments, so you resort to ad hominem. What does that say about you old chap?

 

[RemoteTiger]

What do I want?
A party that will act on the Nation's deficit and debt before my kids and grandkids have to pay for our sins.

Help.

This in my opinion is scare mongering by the conservatives - why do I say this.

In my life I have seen Australia go into debt many times - always bigger than the last time - and the cry from the Libs is "it is the end of our lifestyle" or "our kids will have to pay it back".

Its *smile* - Australian economics is cyclical -

I remember as a kid we had bad droughts when Australian rode on the sheep's back and the country went into debt - the drought broke and we were back in surplus.

I remember as an early adult there was another drought, wages increase, government borrowing and interest rates went through the roof - Australia was in debt - the drought broke, manufacturing got a second wind, tourism took off and Australia was in surplus

I remember Paul Keatings "recession we had to have" - Australia in Debt - then came the mining boom and the banking boom and we went into surplus

Blind Freddy can see all these had little or naught to do with Federal Government policy - it was a boom and bust cycle every time. (Although I must admit Howard had a real chance to slow the cycle down - but he hoarded the surpluses for election campaigns and getting voted back in - he could have built infrastructure during the mining and banking booms period that would have been far more resistant to the Global Financial Crisis when it happened at a latter date than the Labor Government just giving the people money to stimulate the economy).

This debt we are in now started with the GFC and is continuing through middle class welfare payments (which get votes) - there will be another boom industry (my guess is the Digital economy - only if we get a true fibre to the premises NBN) and record agriculture returns come along that will blow the debt away and put us in surplus and your and my kids will be doing exactly the same thing as you and I have done - gone to work to support and enjoy a family and cheer at the footy.

Please please don't be swayed by fear - for usually it is groundless

 

[1eyedtiger]

RT,

A country can be in debt and have a budget surplus. Unless you mean deficit in your post?

 

[tigersnake]

You can't deal with the arguments, so you resort to ad hominem. What does that say about you old chap?

life is too short G. There is no escaping the fact you are a fundamentalist in the area of economic theory. I read one of your posts and think 'where do I even start with this?'. I've made half-arsed attempts in the past that have gone nowhere. I don't think you're anywhere close to the mark, but I could be wrong. I like markets, but believe they must be regulated, for all sorts of reasons gone over already.

 

[Giardiasis]

What do I want?
A party that will act on the Nation's deficit and debt before my kids and grandkids have to pay for our sins.

Help.

It’s too late for that poppa. People understand that the welfare/warfare state (i.e. interventionalism) is not working, but they don’t understand why. So they can’t effectively counter the propaganda and economic fallacies that we hear from the government and their agents.

RemoteTiger’s spiel above hits a good point about the boom and bust cycle, however he doesn’t seem aware of why it occurs, or he would definitely blame Federal Government Policy and not make Keynesian fiscal policy suggestions that just exacerbates the problem further. The government can’t transcend economic law, no matter how much it likes to pretend it can. I’d suggest that another boom industry is not around the corner, because scare capital has been wasted in large scale malinvestment (such as government infrastructure boondoggles – see Chinese ghost cities, Japanese bridges to nowhere, and large scale commodity production projects mostly in oil/gas/iron ore), hence there is precious left with which to develop the next big thing.

Whatever boom that can be started by further inane government and central bank policies will just further delay the inevitable. The world economy is screaming out for deflation and a correction of asset values, but this would mean that a lot of people would lose a lot of money, and politicians and their agents would lose prestige. Unfortunately, only after prices have corrected to reflect reality can the overall process of capital formation and economic development start again.

Your kids and grandkids are going to have to pay one way or another, as the scarce capital has already been consumed; it is just a question of how long the market takes to realise that. The quicker the better, but I’m afraid you’re in the small minority of people that prefers to take the hit today rather than tomorrow. So tomorrow it will be.

 

[Brodders17]

read somewhere (cant verify it is 100% true), but that Turnbull inherited $30m from his old man and that Packer lent him $100m when he was starting out in business. if true it certainly puts a different slant on his Wealth creating abilities.
as an aside I have seen similar for Trump- in his case that if he put his inheritance in the bank he would have more money than he does now.

 

[Giardiasis]

life is too short G. There is no escaping the fact you are a fundamentalist in the area of economic theory. I read one of your posts and think 'where do I even start with this?'. I've made half-arsed attempts in the past that have gone nowhere. I don't think you're anywhere close to the mark, but I could be wrong. I like markets, but believe they must be regulated, for all sorts of reasons gone over already.

The problem is that I’m discussing things that you have little to no exposure to. If you are interested in understanding more about economics, then I’d recommend you start with Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson”. It is available for free here:
https://mises.org/library/economics-one-lesson

 

[tigersnake]

The problem is that I’m discussing things that you have little to no exposure to. If you are interested in understanding more about economics, then I’d recommend you start with Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson”. It is available for free here:
https://mises.org/library/economics-one-lesson

that isn't the problem

 

[tigersnake]

read somewhere (cant verify it is 100% true), but that Turnbull inherited $30m from his old man and that Packer lent him $100m when he was starting out in business. if true it certainly puts a different slant on his Wealth creating abilities.
as an aside I have seen similar for Trump- in his case that if he put his inheritance in the bank he would have more money than he does now.

Dunno about the inheritance from his Dad, but Packer definitely bankrolled him.

Yes true on Trump, his Dad was a bigger tycoon than him, NY real estate, Coney Island, skyscrapers, big slumlord. I read an article that said if DT had just put his inheritance in a interest-bearing savings account he'd have about $3 billion, but he has $1 billion after all his wheeling and dealing. The article also listed some of his businesses that have tanked, jaw-droppingly dumb some of them. Can't remember what they were it was a while ago

 

[Giardiasis]

that isn't the problem

Cool, the status quo it is then. Enjoy your internal squabbles about who to choose, the douche bag or the *smile* sandwich?

 

[tigersnake]

Cool, the status quo it is then. Enjoy your internal squabbles about who to choose, the douche bag or the *smile* sandwich?

Even if the unfettered free market could save us, it has less chance of ever happening than a revolution. Besides, its giant douche or *smile* sandwich.