-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
There's been Royal Commissions into Child Sexual Abuse, Trade Unions, the Banking and Financial Sectors, and now the Aged Care industry.
I wonder why they don't have one about the Lobbing Industry :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
The sh!t would hit the fan if the average punter knew just half of what those scum bags get up to.
I wonder why they don't have one about the Lobbing Industry :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
The sh!t would hit the fan if the average punter knew just half of what those scum bags get up to.
DavidSSS said:
And if you had done it back then you could still be getting 68c for every kW you put back into the grid!
Gas production would be vastly smaller without the QLD gas export projects, so prices would still be high. The problem is that various state governments don't allow for more supply to come online to bring prices down.craig said:
DavidSSS said:
Aware of that DS. More so aimed at those who didn’t and now *smile* and moan about electricity prices. There are things that people can do themselves rather than wait for governments/industries to try and sort *smile* out.
From a strategic sense (and on several other fronts), I'd like to see Australia as a whole, make a concerted effort to make natural gas a primary energy source for transport, as a substitute for oil. We have generations upon generations of supply right here in our own country. Ring fence and stockpile reserves for domestic use and make a concerted effort for all heavy transport to convert to natural gas. Perhaps as second order, offer incentives for private vehicles to be converted to natural gas.Giardiasis said:
From an energy security and foreign policy perspective, it allows us to tread our own path by reducing greatly our reliance on oil and hence, it reduces our vulnerability to the quagmire, that is middle-eastern geo-politics. People don't seem to realise how vulnerable we are to a major shake up in the oil supply chain. We have bugger all reserves and hardly refine any on shore anymore. If a major conflict broke out, disrupting the supply chain of oil, Australia's transport network - and hence supply chain of all the goods that keep our society running - would be severely impinged within a matter of weeks.
Surely, even with all parties thinking along their ideological lines and motivations, you could get bipartisan support for such a strategic vision, if they would think rationally and practically. From the LNP and even One Nation perspective, it bolsters our self reliance and energy security. From the ALP perspective, it involves some govt intervention to achieve the greater good. And from the Green's perspective, it's an energy source that generally burns cleaner than oil based products.
On the back of this, would there be other opportunities created? For instance, could we create competitive niche, manufacturing natural gas powered heavy vehicles (and other natural gas powered modes of transport)?
Australia is a country absolutely blessed with natural resources, that any idiot could run and look OK. But to truly harness these competitive advantages and opportunities, you need more than idiots to run it.
PT, all government subsidies distort markets like the renewable subsidies have done and lead to general impoverishment had they taken no action. We don’t need to pick winners, people can decide what they want and entrepreneurs can bring it to them. Distorting markets breaks this process down.
Gia, I agree that a capitalist system is the most efficient way of distributing goods and services to people as a basic underlying framework. However it ignores some quirks in general human behaviour. Like for example, the assumption that people will always work rationally. If you've ever seen any of my other contributions on here, I'm most certainly not a sympathiser to the left of the political spectrum. However the reality of life is we will never live in an entirely capitalist system. I like to call it, 'tamed capitalism' as the system that I prefer.Giardiasis said:
To me, I'd see this as an extension of defense policy. A necessary evil if you like. Afterall military and defence is something no country in the world outsources to the private sector. Sure there are small operations where some elements are outsourced to private contractors, but pretty much every country in the world maintains a govt provided defense policy. This will always be the case for reasons of security and sovereignty. Whether we see that as rational, is another debate. But that is reality.
I can guarantee you in a time of conflict, oil producers will not give two sh!ts about distorting markets, if it's a choice between that and providing themselves with energy security. In fact, oil producing nations already have made a fine art of regularly distorting markets and don't play fairly. Why would we willingly want to be at the mercy of this?
No need to assume, I used the word all. I discussed the myth of fossil fuel subsides at length with antman a while back, have fun reading it on the climate change thread if you like.DavidSSS said:
Apologies PT, but I'm keen to address the points you made in your post individually.
What is rational work? Everyone at all times acts rationally as they always act to satisfy some desires. Whether they employ the correct means to achieve their goal is a different question. An envious person might act in a way that harms themselves but they deem it in their interests because it harms someone else. Another person might make an incorrect investment decision and lose money when their goal was to gain money. Another person might take a drug fully understanding the harmful consequences in doing so because the short term effects were deemed worth it. All these people are acting rationally. It is up to individuals to decide for themselves what goals to value. As value is subjective, it is not for others to substitute their own value judgement for those of acting individuals and to claim they know what would make them happier.
I think your claim makes more sense if it is that people employ the wrong means to achieve their goals, but even that runs into a problem (for starters that problem exists for all social systems). I would argue that your method of using government coercion to prevent people acting in the way they deem fit to be the wrong means for the goal you are aiming for, but then again what are your goals? You listed energy security and defensive security, you have must have formulated your position based on myriad of other goals you have weighed up in your mind. Just looking at the goals you listed, I'd argue that maximising trade between nations decreases the motivations for war and that energy security is best addressed by allowing entrepreneurs the freedom to supply what the market demands. So why do you get to decide otherwise? Also why do you get to decide that these goals are more important than the goals that others deem of higher value? Some examples include reducing CO2 emissions, maximising efficient resource allocation, preventing gas companies from coming onto their private property, etc. A lot of people will act to subvert your dictate because they don't value what you value and if they do they won't agree with your methods.
Why limit yourself to energy? What about food security? Construction materials security? Weapons security?
I don't agree with that statement as a basic underlying framework, capitalism is the most efficient way of resource allocation full stop.Panthera Tigris said:
Capitalism doesn't assume anything, it is simply the privatisation of the means of production. I'll address your claim anyway.Panthera Tigris said:
What is rational work? Everyone at all times acts rationally as they always act to satisfy some desires. Whether they employ the correct means to achieve their goal is a different question. An envious person might act in a way that harms themselves but they deem it in their interests because it harms someone else. Another person might make an incorrect investment decision and lose money when their goal was to gain money. Another person might take a drug fully understanding the harmful consequences in doing so because the short term effects were deemed worth it. All these people are acting rationally. It is up to individuals to decide for themselves what goals to value. As value is subjective, it is not for others to substitute their own value judgement for those of acting individuals and to claim they know what would make them happier.
I think your claim makes more sense if it is that people employ the wrong means to achieve their goals, but even that runs into a problem (for starters that problem exists for all social systems). I would argue that your method of using government coercion to prevent people acting in the way they deem fit to be the wrong means for the goal you are aiming for, but then again what are your goals? You listed energy security and defensive security, you have must have formulated your position based on myriad of other goals you have weighed up in your mind. Just looking at the goals you listed, I'd argue that maximising trade between nations decreases the motivations for war and that energy security is best addressed by allowing entrepreneurs the freedom to supply what the market demands. So why do you get to decide otherwise? Also why do you get to decide that these goals are more important than the goals that others deem of higher value? Some examples include reducing CO2 emissions, maximising efficient resource allocation, preventing gas companies from coming onto their private property, etc. A lot of people will act to subvert your dictate because they don't value what you value and if they do they won't agree with your methods.
Your differences with the left lie in degree. You obviously agree with their underlying premise that violence can be justified outside of simply defending private property.Panthera Tigris said:
It is certainly not a universal law that defense services have to at all times be given up to monopolistic control nor is it a necessary evil. It is certainly necessary if you want to stop others from competing with you and for maintaining dominance over rivals. The vast majority of people just take the idea that defense must be monopolistic for granted, I know I did. Have you seriously looked into this though?Panthera Tigris said:
Sure, so do we just ignore trade then and forever remain in perpetual autarky? So should Tasmania aim for energy security? What about Hobart? Why limit yourself to nations?Panthera Tigris said:
Why limit yourself to energy? What about food security? Construction materials security? Weapons security?
On today's Vic vote, Dutton and Abbott must now surely realise they've done themselves and their colleagues out of any chance of keeping there jobs come May.
The only slim chance the Libs would have is to purge the ultra-hard right and try to bring it back to the middle. But that's not going happen while Murdoch is around and the 2GB loonies are still allowed near a mic.
The only slim chance the Libs would have is to purge the ultra-hard right and try to bring it back to the middle. But that's not going happen while Murdoch is around and the 2GB loonies are still allowed near a mic.
Giardiasis said:
Not going to bother, I'll just note that when the subsidies are for something you favour, you just look the other way. Not a surprise at all really.
Giardiasis said:
Are you saying that defence of private property is the only justification for violence?
Are you also saying that harming people is ok in order to defend private property, that property is more important than people's safety?
DS
Not a surprise that you’d prefer to construct a falsehood to make you feel better about yourself than to take the time to understand something that doesn’t align to your world view.DavidSSS said:
Yes DS, defence of private property is the only correct justification. Private property starts with ownership of your body. If that doesn’t address your hypothetical, perhaps you can provide a more specific example.DavidSSS said:
If you can't distinguish between a person and an object, calling them all private property, then that's your problem.
I don't own my body, I am my body. Big difference, but one a fundamentalist like yourself clearly can't deal with.
DS
I don't own my body, I am my body. Big difference, but one a fundamentalist like yourself clearly can't deal with.
DS
"I don't own my body, I am my body". How does that statement in any way help deal with the problem of rights? I don't even see where you've made an argument? Just more ad hominem (fundamentalist).DavidSSS said:
Your first sentence is a mix of a strawman (I never argued they can't be distinguished) and a non sequitur (how is that a problem?).
