EPTOn June 26 2010 08:36 Dunk.vn wrote:
Am I the only one seeing this?
![[image loading]](http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/4004/76703765.png)
Am I the only one seeing this?
haha, a landmark event, indeed.
the citizens of australia must be thrilled
Australia's first female PM - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ZaplinG
United States3818 Posts
haha, a landmark event, indeed. the citizens of australia must be thrilled | ||
|
ooni
Australia1498 Posts
On June 26 2010 08:42 hejakev wrote: Women leaders seem to keep cleaner, more peaceful countries. I think it's great. Assumption! Add prove or examples here~~~ Finally we have a backstabbing PM in our country. Wait... We had Howard before, too. Sighz | ||
|
Lurgee
Australia252 Posts
On June 25 2010 23:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Sure , help people less fortunate.Send them food aid (although this does not actually help their countries since it undermines local food producers but the do gooders won't listen).Don't resettle them here , we have enough people here , heard of something called the water shortage? They don't call this the driest continent on earth for no reason. I don't see how you could say wanting to return to Howard era policies means i support anarchy but whatever.Raising interest rates is not always 'bad' , just like dropping interest rates is not always 'good' - banks will continue to increase profit margins regardless of whether a banking tax is implemented or not.Banking execs will continue seeing more and more money i assure you. Labors emissions trading tax would hurt economic growth and investment far more by creating more red tape and jacking up fuel prices adding to inflation. High interest rates now would be VERY BAD. Also, ROFL at your 'undermines local producers', are you joking? We send them the food as they can't produce enough after natural disasters etc, else to Africa where due to civil unrest etc many people are in poverty. edit: Australia is nowhere near it's holding capacity, and bringing more people in who have a strong desire to live and work in a democratic environment would be good for our economy. | ||
|
ShroomyD
Australia245 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4438 Posts
On June 26 2010 16:22 Lurgee wrote: High interest rates now would be VERY BAD. Also, ROFL at your 'undermines local producers', are you joking? We send them the food as they can't produce enough after natural disasters etc, else to Africa where due to civil unrest etc many people are in poverty. edit: Australia is nowhere near it's holding capacity, and bringing more people in who have a strong desire to live and work in a democratic environment would be good for our economy. High interest rates would be good if you were saving for a new home , if you are a pensioner living off money accrued via interest (My grandparents are doing it tough in the UK right now) , if you have a large amount of savings , if you are an importer of goods.If people overextended themselves with housing loans in the midst of a housing bubble they should have read up on history a little more. No , im not joking.It's pretty basic economics - if you were offered a foodstuff for free or the same foodstuff that cost you either money or barter you would pick the free one. The Food Trade and Nutrition coalition agrees with me on the topic of WTO food dumping and aid : http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/ngo_e/posp47_dumping_food_aid_e.pdf 3. Food aid in developing countries:producers and consumers (see annex Synopsis of Ethiopia study at page 24 ) Long-term dependency on food aid in kind, sold on local markets, shows different kinds of problems that will send the country into a downwards spiral. National prices will collapse, local food production fall, and local markets and incentives to improve local infrastructure will be disrupted. The incentive to produce food for the following seasons is taken away when farmers know that cheap food imports and food aid in kind will flood their markets. As for the holding capacity are you aware of the acidification of the Murray river Basin? Due entirely to too much water being sucked out.It's pretty hard to find a job if you can't talk English like alot of these illegals , and if they don't want to assimilate into our society then they really are not welcome here as far as i'm concerned.Do-gooders will have a differing opinion of course but how many is too many? 100,000 illegals a year? 1 million?? | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway474 Posts
| ||
|
Lurgee
Australia252 Posts
On June 26 2010 18:59 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: High interest rates would be good if you were saving for a new home , if you are a pensioner living off money accrued via interest (My grandparents are doing it tough in the UK right now) , if you have a large amount of savings , if you are an importer of goods.If people overextended themselves with housing loans in the midst of a housing bubble they should have read up on history a little more. No , im not joking.It's pretty basic economics - if you were offered a foodstuff for free or the same foodstuff that cost you either money or barter you would pick the free one. The Food Trade and Nutrition coalition agrees with me on the topic of WTO food dumping and aid : http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/ngo_e/posp47_dumping_food_aid_e.pdf [/QUOTE] That isn't wrong, but it's completely irrelevant. High interest rates make loans more expensive to pay off, which makes businesses less inclined to borrow money to finance expansion etc. In case you didn't notice, recently Australia's economy narrowly avoided recession. We're doing quite well now but are still recovering. To increase interest rates would be to shoot ourseves in the foot, as they would slow economic growth. Your grandmother who is doing it tough is not as important as the whole economy, and I'm truley sorry if you're too short sighted to see why we can't just place a supertax on banks, causing an increase in interest rates. The rest of your arguments do not warrant a responce. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4438 Posts
You really have no grasp on how the world came to be in this horrible economic situation do you? You seem to be of the opinion what we have experienced over the past 10 years has been normal.It's been a debt fueled monster that will keep going so long as the Chinese bubble economy keeps going.A typical 2 bedroom 1 bathroom apartment goes for $274,000 (Thats USD) in Beijing , 22 times average income.How can you say this is normal and will continue without serious consequences? When the bubble in China collapses mining will suffer a massive shock as demand collapses. I eagerly await your "responce". http://www.chinarealestatenews.com/news/2010-06-22/31812/ In the past a few years, with a large number of families and investors into the real estate market, including Beijing, Shanghai and major cities, including prices have doubled in length. cite a typical example: a 2 room, a satellite of the 93 square meter apartment in Beijing, the price for the 274,000 U.S. dollars, which is an ordinary Beijingers 22 times annual income. | ||
|
Darpa
Canada4413 Posts
On June 24 2010 14:20 3clipse wrote: MORE LIKE PMS RITE GUYS User was temp banned for this post. I have to admit, that made me laugh. But, out of curiosity, was she named PM after he stood down, or was there actually a formal election where you could only vote for her? seems strange to me if there was, when this happened in canada, there was an election 6 months later in which she was humiliated, simply because she made some very poor decisions (combined with an unhappy populace with the ruling party. Who knows, she could be the next german chancellor! | ||
|
snotboogie
Australia3550 Posts
| ||
|
Mykill
Canada3402 Posts
she might be the first and last like us in canada  | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
On June 24 2010 15:36 youngminii wrote: Do you have any idea how the economy works? Generally speaking, being at a surplus is BAD. Being at a deficit is GOOD. Saving too much money = Recession. Spending money (in the right ways) = Fixing the recession. This is absolutely retarded. You're completely wrong. Generally speaking, being at a surplus is good; being at a deficit is bad. Since a counter-cyclical fiscal policy helps smooth the economic cycle, spending more money (and possibly going into a fiscal deficit) during a downturn can be a good thing; but running a fiscal deficit 'generally speaking' will lead your country into financial collapse, default, or massive inflation. Ask Zimbabwe, Greece or Argentina how their deficits worked for them. | ||
|
k!llua
Australia895 Posts
On June 26 2010 09:07 ZaplinG wrote: haha, a landmark event, indeed. the citizens of australia must be thrilled nah, we've always had the boat people to shack up with. | ||
|
k!llua
Australia895 Posts
Generally speaking, being at a surplus is good; being at a deficit is bad. Not to have a go, but you probably realise that this is an over-simplification of Keynesian economics (the principles on which most Western governments run). So, to be a hypocrite, let's simplify! When the economy is experiencing strong growth, a government will run a big surplus. Essentially, the government isn't putting as much money back into the economy as they're receiving, which is intended to slow growth slightly - preventing the boom from being too big, as to avoid ... The bust, when an economy is experiencing negative growth. (If an economy has negative growth over two quarters, this is classified as a recession.) To manage a bust, governments run up deficits to try and promote growth, counter unemployment or whenever a recovery is slow to take hold. But don't believe me - believe Wikipedia, TEH SOURCE OF THE INTERWEBZ~ Keynes′ theory suggested that active government policy could be effective in managing the economy. Rather than seeing unbalanced government budgets as wrong, Keynes advocated what has been called countercyclical fiscal policies, that is policies which acted against the tide of the business cycle: deficit spending when a nation's economy suffers from recession or when recovery is long-delayed and unemployment is persistently high—and the suppression of inflation in boom times by either increasing taxes or cutting back on government outlays. He argued that governments should solve problems in the short run rather than waiting for market forces to do it in the long run, because "in the long run, we are all dead." Thanks for joining Macro Economics 101 with dippa. Next week, Micro 101 Asian Tigers style! | ||
|
snotboogie
Australia3550 Posts
| ||
|
ilovesoulmirrorrr
United States43 Posts
On June 24 2010 13:44 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: would hit it User was warned for this post lol nice` User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Lurgee
Australia252 Posts
On June 26 2010 21:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Basically what you want is more debt fueled growth. You really have no grasp on how the world came to be in this horrible economic situation do you? You seem to be of the opinion what we have experienced over the past 10 years has been normal.It's been a debt fueled monster that will keep going so long as the Chinese bubble economy keeps going.A typical 2 bedroom 1 bathroom apartment goes for $274,000 (Thats USD) in Beijing , 22 times average income.How can you say this is normal and will continue without serious consequences? When the bubble in China collapses mining will suffer a massive shock as demand collapses. I eagerly await your "responce". http://www.chinarealestatenews.com/news/2010-06-22/31812/ If China suddenly stops growing, India won't, SEA probably wont, Chile won't. Debt fueled not-falling-into-a-recession is good, but as you're clearly just some right wing redneck, there is no point attempting to educate you about economics, go troll elsewhere. | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9175 Posts
On June 26 2010 21:43 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Basically what you want is more debt fueled growth. You really have no grasp on how the world came to be in this horrible economic situation do you? You seem to be of the opinion what we have experienced over the past 10 years has been normal.It's been a debt fueled monster that will keep going so long as the Chinese bubble economy keeps going.A typical 2 bedroom 1 bathroom apartment goes for $274,000 (Thats USD) in Beijing , 22 times average income.How can you say this is normal and will continue without serious consequences? When the bubble in China collapses mining will suffer a massive shock as demand collapses. I eagerly await your "responce". Here's a "response". Your basic argument seems to be that the world is in this horrible economic situation because some flat prices in shanghai are not normal. This is such a retarded oversimplification it hardly bears response. Simultaneously accusing others of not grasping the situation just makes you look like an ignorant Howard fanboy playing at economics expert. Debt fuelled growth is not a bad thing, it depends alot on how it is managed and how much growth it induces. Your previous comment about "illegals" (aka refugees/immigrants) and having no space in Aus for them due to the Murray dying is Howardesque racist bullshit. The Murray is dying due to farmers taking too much water for agriculture, particularly cotton. A larger population would not affect the Murray basin problem. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4438 Posts
On June 27 2010 12:42 Scarecrow wrote: Here's a "response". Your basic argument seems to be that the world is in this horrible economic situation because some flat prices in shanghai are not normal. This is such a retarded oversimplification it hardly bears response. Simultaneously accusing others of not grasping the situation just makes you look like an ignorant Howard fanboy playing at economics expert. Debt fuelled growth is not a bad thing, it depends alot on how it is managed and how much growth it induces. Your previous comment about "illegals" (aka refugees/immigrants) and having no space in Aus for them due to the Murray dying is Howardesque racist bullshit. The Murray is dying due to farmers taking too much water for agriculture, particularly cotton. A larger population would not affect the Murray basin problem. Debt fueled growth is never a good thing. Look at this graph , maybe do some research on the great depression? We are headed for the biggest (worldwide) crash in history thanks to Greenspan and his bubble making policies. ![[image loading]](http://lakeweb.com/money/Total%20U.S.%20Debt%20to%20GDP.gif) As for the illegals it's all part of Labors 'Big Australia' policy ; 35 million living here by 2050.How can adding 13 million have no impact on the environment? Sure it's a big country but noone really wants to live in the desert last time i checked , it'll just mostly be population increases in the cities.Higher water use is inevitable. | ||
|
Lurgee
Australia252 Posts
| ||
| ||
