|
On February 04 2013 18:36 acker wrote: This thread was confusing me until I remembered that Liberal=Conservative everywhere but the United States. Not really. I think it's just Australia where Liberals = conservatives. Yeah, it's rather backwards.
|
Maybe they're using the classical liberal definition.
But it's still left wing=right wing everywhere else, right?
|
On February 04 2013 18:36 acker wrote: This thread was confusing me until I remembered that Liberal=Conservative everywhere but the United States.
In Australia, the Liberal party is a combination of the liberal (libertarian in the states) and conservative movements. They are in coalition with the Nationals which are essentially liberals for the rural areas of Australia..
|
On February 04 2013 18:42 acker wrote: Maybe they're using the classical liberal definition.
But it's still left wing=right wing everywhere else, right? The Greens = Left Labor = Center-left Liberals/Nationals = Right
|
On February 04 2013 18:38 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 18:30 bo1b wrote:On February 04 2013 18:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On February 04 2013 18:13 bo1b wrote:On February 04 2013 18:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On February 04 2013 18:04 bo1b wrote:On February 04 2013 17:57 paralleluniverse wrote:On February 04 2013 17:18 Robo-boogey wrote: Did Australia dodge the North Atlantic Financial Crisis because of: (a) fiscal stimulus? Yay Labor saved us! Vote 1 Gillard! (b) monetary stimulus? Yay Labor saved us! Although they did waste all that fiscal stimulus money for no reason. Vote 1 Gillard, but with reservations.
Bonus option (c) neither of the above, current Govt made no difference either way, it was all setup by the previous Govts - the mining industry / stable banks / some other reason. Vote 1 Abbott!
As soon as economists can resolve this question, I will be ready to cast my vote. Mostly (a) and (b), and a little of (c). If you look at the difference between Australia and other countries, the main difference is that we had fiscal stimulus, whereas the UK went austerity, and the US went with a modest stimulus compared to the size of the economy. It certainly helped that financial regulators in Australia believed in regulation so banks didn't collapse, unlike in the US. After all, the collapse of HIH was a mini financial crisis, which led to far more effective regulation from APRA. I don't buy that the mining sector had much of an effect. Probably a small effect. The mining sector is only 10% of Australia's GDP, so it wouldn't have saved the country from recession. Lastly, I also believe that the surplus left by Howard was mostly irrelevant. How does a surplus stop a financial crisis? It doesn't. Spain had a surplus before the crisis, yet it still went bust. Spain also had a lot more problems then we did going into it. Having a surplus, having exceptionally low unemployment, having a mining boom all contribute quite a lot. The ludicrous way that labor has spent through the surplus and came out with a 400bn debt is hardly inspiring. Tell me how does a surplus stop a financial crisis. Spending in a recession is exactly what the government should do. And it wasn't even all stimulus. In a recession, tax revenues fall, unemployment claims raises, therefore leading to a deficit. If you think Australia has a debt problem, then you've been brainwashed by the Liberals. Australia has one of the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any OCED country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt I don't think Australia has a massive debt problem, I think that people are giving undue credit to decisions that have been executed poorly. Again, how does a surplus stop a financial crisis? Has a surplus ever stopped a financial crisis? Executed poorly? The results speak for themselves: unemployment quickly fell from it's 6.7% peak, recession was adverted, public debt remains low, inflation is within the RBA's 2-3% target, government borrowing rates are very low, unemployment is now at 5.4% compared to 7.9% in the US and 7.8% in the UK, etc. Executed poorly? I mean the way that it was done. $900 a head to tax paying residents works fine I suppose, just an inelegant way to spend it, with most of it probably turning into tv's and then making its way to china. I think you've mistaken me for a liberal supporter through and through, when in reality I'm beyond disgusted in what labor has done in recent years. When you spend $900, there's a lot of value added in Australia. The retail sector is a large part of the Australian economy. By your logic, there should never be a tax cut, after all, all that extra money is going straight to China. By my logic, that $900 per head should be invested in Australia on something that will pay off at some stage in the future. At the stage that Rudd implemented that we weren't directly affected by the GDP. Investing in new infrastructure would have been an alternative way, hell a $900 debit card that can only be spent on products made in Australia would have been more effective. I'm simply against shipping 50billion overseas with no real direct benefit.
|
I guess I just disagree with the sentiment that Australia was always heading towards a recession. Our banks were simply to well regulated, we had a very low unemployment and a budget surplus, and all the other countries that got into such a situation all got into a cycle of loans they couldn't possibly pay off.
|
On February 04 2013 18:19 paralleluniverse wrote: Of course, it wasn't Julia Gillard that saved Australia from the GFC, it was Kevin Rudd and Ken Henry.
Politically, Gillard has no economic creditability after make a stupid promise to get a surplus and backflipping. But objectively, the economic indicators are excellent.
QFT. The biggest KO punch labor has to deal with the liberals and they screw it up with a messy divorce and idiotic PR stunts. The press gallery are predicting another factional kerfuffel in Victoria over Nicola Roxon's vacated seat, especially after Martin Foley's attacks on the Labor right/Gillard/everyone. I'm also interested in seeing how Gillard's move to cut benefits for the wealthy will play out regarding working class voters, especially in places like Western Sydney considering how toxic NSW Labor's brand still is.
|
On February 04 2013 18:54 Ultimo Hombre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 18:19 paralleluniverse wrote: Of course, it wasn't Julia Gillard that saved Australia from the GFC, it was Kevin Rudd and Ken Henry.
Politically, Gillard has no economic creditability after make a stupid promise to get a surplus and backflipping. But objectively, the economic indicators are excellent. QFT. The biggest KO punch labor has to deal with the liberals and they screw it up with a messy divorce and idiotic PR stunts. The press gallery are predicting another factional kerfuffel in Victoria over Nicola Roxon's vacated seat, especially after Martin Foley's attacks on the Labor right/Gillard/everyone. I'm also interested in seeing how Gillard's move to cut benefits for the wealthy will play out regarding working class voters, especially in places like Western Sydney considering how toxic NSW Labor's brand still is. It's hardly a KO when still being debated.
http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/The Rudd Government: Australian Commonwealth Administration 2007 - 2010/5091/ch10.xhtml
|
I'm an avid environmentalist but am somewhat disillusioned by the Greens who now seem to only care about social issues. Refugee rights, gay marriage, drug reform are all things I support; but they are things I expect from Labor, not the Greens.
I have very little respect for Tony Abbott, Christopher Pyne, Julie Bishop, and most other Lib front bencher's. I do believe they have good people in their party, but can't support them in their current state. Where is Malcolm?
Labor are pretty dismal at the moment, but my man Mike Kelly is moving to the front bench. I have faith that this party are the better choice than Liberal, and support a lot of their policies. Also Penny Wong.
Probably voting Labor
|
On February 04 2013 18:45 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 18:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On February 04 2013 18:30 bo1b wrote:On February 04 2013 18:17 paralleluniverse wrote:On February 04 2013 18:13 bo1b wrote:On February 04 2013 18:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On February 04 2013 18:04 bo1b wrote:On February 04 2013 17:57 paralleluniverse wrote:On February 04 2013 17:18 Robo-boogey wrote: Did Australia dodge the North Atlantic Financial Crisis because of: (a) fiscal stimulus? Yay Labor saved us! Vote 1 Gillard! (b) monetary stimulus? Yay Labor saved us! Although they did waste all that fiscal stimulus money for no reason. Vote 1 Gillard, but with reservations.
Bonus option (c) neither of the above, current Govt made no difference either way, it was all setup by the previous Govts - the mining industry / stable banks / some other reason. Vote 1 Abbott!
As soon as economists can resolve this question, I will be ready to cast my vote. Mostly (a) and (b), and a little of (c). If you look at the difference between Australia and other countries, the main difference is that we had fiscal stimulus, whereas the UK went austerity, and the US went with a modest stimulus compared to the size of the economy. It certainly helped that financial regulators in Australia believed in regulation so banks didn't collapse, unlike in the US. After all, the collapse of HIH was a mini financial crisis, which led to far more effective regulation from APRA. I don't buy that the mining sector had much of an effect. Probably a small effect. The mining sector is only 10% of Australia's GDP, so it wouldn't have saved the country from recession. Lastly, I also believe that the surplus left by Howard was mostly irrelevant. How does a surplus stop a financial crisis? It doesn't. Spain had a surplus before the crisis, yet it still went bust. Spain also had a lot more problems then we did going into it. Having a surplus, having exceptionally low unemployment, having a mining boom all contribute quite a lot. The ludicrous way that labor has spent through the surplus and came out with a 400bn debt is hardly inspiring. Tell me how does a surplus stop a financial crisis. Spending in a recession is exactly what the government should do. And it wasn't even all stimulus. In a recession, tax revenues fall, unemployment claims raises, therefore leading to a deficit. If you think Australia has a debt problem, then you've been brainwashed by the Liberals. Australia has one of the lowest debt to GDP ratio of any OCED country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt I don't think Australia has a massive debt problem, I think that people are giving undue credit to decisions that have been executed poorly. Again, how does a surplus stop a financial crisis? Has a surplus ever stopped a financial crisis? Executed poorly? The results speak for themselves: unemployment quickly fell from it's 6.7% peak, recession was adverted, public debt remains low, inflation is within the RBA's 2-3% target, government borrowing rates are very low, unemployment is now at 5.4% compared to 7.9% in the US and 7.8% in the UK, etc. Executed poorly? I mean the way that it was done. $900 a head to tax paying residents works fine I suppose, just an inelegant way to spend it, with most of it probably turning into tv's and then making its way to china. I think you've mistaken me for a liberal supporter through and through, when in reality I'm beyond disgusted in what labor has done in recent years. When you spend $900, there's a lot of value added in Australia. The retail sector is a large part of the Australian economy. By your logic, there should never be a tax cut, after all, all that extra money is going straight to China. By my logic, that $900 per head should be invested in Australia on something that will pay off at some stage in the future. At the stage that Rudd implemented that we weren't directly affected by the GDP. Investing in new infrastructure would have been an alternative way, hell a $900 debit card that can only be spent on products made in Australia would have been more effective. I'm simply against shipping 50billion overseas with no real direct benefit. Money *was* invested in Australia through the stimulus package, building school halls, installing insulation, and other stuff. The first package was $11 billion in cash payments, see here. The second was $13 billion in cash payments, and $29 billion in infrastructure spending, see here.
So I don't see how you can say more should be spent investing in Australia, when most of it was infrastructure. And the fact that it was so timely made it more effective.
Again, you've dodged my point. Just handing out $900 is effectively an immediate tax cut for most people. So how does the same logic not apply to a tax cut? That is, all tax cuts are necessarily wasteful, because people use that money on cheap Chinese products, thereby transferring that money to China.
|
On February 04 2013 18:56 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 18:54 Ultimo Hombre wrote:On February 04 2013 18:19 paralleluniverse wrote: Of course, it wasn't Julia Gillard that saved Australia from the GFC, it was Kevin Rudd and Ken Henry.
Politically, Gillard has no economic creditability after make a stupid promise to get a surplus and backflipping. But objectively, the economic indicators are excellent. QFT. The biggest KO punch labor has to deal with the liberals and they screw it up with a messy divorce and idiotic PR stunts. The press gallery are predicting another factional kerfuffel in Victoria over Nicola Roxon's vacated seat, especially after Martin Foley's attacks on the Labor right/Gillard/everyone. I'm also interested in seeing how Gillard's move to cut benefits for the wealthy will play out regarding working class voters, especially in places like Western Sydney considering how toxic NSW Labor's brand still is. It's hardly a KO when still being debated. http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/The Rudd Government: Australian Commonwealth Administration 2007 - 2010/5091/ch10.xhtml
I mean a KO politically. I am not an economist by any means, having read a grand total of 2 economics textbooks in my life so i am not really qualified to debate the effects of Rudd/China/Costello/Mining Boom on the economy. But a lot of people believe (rightfully or wrongfully) that Rudd's government played an important role in our economic survival. Labor prior to the Gillard/Rudd split could have sold that the same way Tony Abbott has sold his stop the boats/overcrowding queue jumper shit
|
On February 04 2013 18:56 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 18:54 Ultimo Hombre wrote:On February 04 2013 18:19 paralleluniverse wrote: Of course, it wasn't Julia Gillard that saved Australia from the GFC, it was Kevin Rudd and Ken Henry.
Politically, Gillard has no economic creditability after make a stupid promise to get a surplus and backflipping. But objectively, the economic indicators are excellent. QFT. The biggest KO punch labor has to deal with the liberals and they screw it up with a messy divorce and idiotic PR stunts. The press gallery are predicting another factional kerfuffel in Victoria over Nicola Roxon's vacated seat, especially after Martin Foley's attacks on the Labor right/Gillard/everyone. I'm also interested in seeing how Gillard's move to cut benefits for the wealthy will play out regarding working class voters, especially in places like Western Sydney considering how toxic NSW Labor's brand still is. It's hardly a KO when still being debated. http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/The Rudd Government: Australian Commonwealth Administration 2007 - 2010/5091/ch10.xhtml
The only debate is how much credit should be attributed to Government and the RBA.
The lack of financial contagion in Australia can be explained both by previous strong regulation, and the actions of the government and RBA (deposit guarantee, interest rate decrease). The relative resilience of the broader economy can be explained by China's continued demand for minerals, the dramatic devaluation of the AUD leading to greater export competitiveness, and the stimulus package in particular the immediate cash payments (the infrastructure spending didn't really kick in until later in 2009)
Additionally, arguing that the surplus left to Rudd in 2007 helped them through the crisis only adds to the argument that stimulus helped avoid recession. The surplus is only relevant to avoiding recession if you spend it, like in a stimulus package.
|
On February 04 2013 18:56 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 18:54 Ultimo Hombre wrote:On February 04 2013 18:19 paralleluniverse wrote: Of course, it wasn't Julia Gillard that saved Australia from the GFC, it was Kevin Rudd and Ken Henry.
Politically, Gillard has no economic creditability after make a stupid promise to get a surplus and backflipping. But objectively, the economic indicators are excellent. QFT. The biggest KO punch labor has to deal with the liberals and they screw it up with a messy divorce and idiotic PR stunts. The press gallery are predicting another factional kerfuffel in Victoria over Nicola Roxon's vacated seat, especially after Martin Foley's attacks on the Labor right/Gillard/everyone. I'm also interested in seeing how Gillard's move to cut benefits for the wealthy will play out regarding working class voters, especially in places like Western Sydney considering how toxic NSW Labor's brand still is. It's hardly a KO when still being debated. http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/The Rudd Government: Australian Commonwealth Administration 2007 - 2010/5091/ch10.xhtml I don't see how that can be considered serious economic analysis. Indeed, it contains no such analysis. It's a summary of news stories.
For example, it goes on and on about all the waste and rip off associated with the school hall building program. But if we look at aggregate numbers, there wasn't really much, only 3.5% of schools complained according to a review.
|
Wow, Kevin 07 was a long time ago.
|
zero interest in voting for a prime minister that instead of backing up their claims and would rather spend a session of question time calling the opposition leader a misogynist.
zero interest in voting for the liberals because they are just wacked.
zero interest in voting greens because thats essentially voting for a shitty prime ministers play toy (political sense) and it just brings useless drama
zero interest in voting for a no name because they wont get in simple as that.
fucking drawing a box and voting Vermin Supreme. At least that man is willing to stand in front of a camera and back up his retarded ideas, trolling or not.
|
On February 04 2013 19:16 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 18:56 bo1b wrote:On February 04 2013 18:54 Ultimo Hombre wrote:On February 04 2013 18:19 paralleluniverse wrote: Of course, it wasn't Julia Gillard that saved Australia from the GFC, it was Kevin Rudd and Ken Henry.
Politically, Gillard has no economic creditability after make a stupid promise to get a surplus and backflipping. But objectively, the economic indicators are excellent. QFT. The biggest KO punch labor has to deal with the liberals and they screw it up with a messy divorce and idiotic PR stunts. The press gallery are predicting another factional kerfuffel in Victoria over Nicola Roxon's vacated seat, especially after Martin Foley's attacks on the Labor right/Gillard/everyone. I'm also interested in seeing how Gillard's move to cut benefits for the wealthy will play out regarding working class voters, especially in places like Western Sydney considering how toxic NSW Labor's brand still is. It's hardly a KO when still being debated. http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/The Rudd Government: Australian Commonwealth Administration 2007 - 2010/5091/ch10.xhtml I don't see how that can be considered serious economic analysis. Indeed, it contains no such analysis. It's a summary of news stories. For example, it goes on and on about all the waste and rip off associated with the school hall building program. But if we look at aggregate numbers, there wasn't really much, only 3.5% of schools complained according to a review. Thats exactly the point of the article that I linked. If it was a political KO that article would never have been written.
|
On February 04 2013 19:13 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 18:56 bo1b wrote:On February 04 2013 18:54 Ultimo Hombre wrote:On February 04 2013 18:19 paralleluniverse wrote: Of course, it wasn't Julia Gillard that saved Australia from the GFC, it was Kevin Rudd and Ken Henry.
Politically, Gillard has no economic creditability after make a stupid promise to get a surplus and backflipping. But objectively, the economic indicators are excellent. QFT. The biggest KO punch labor has to deal with the liberals and they screw it up with a messy divorce and idiotic PR stunts. The press gallery are predicting another factional kerfuffel in Victoria over Nicola Roxon's vacated seat, especially after Martin Foley's attacks on the Labor right/Gillard/everyone. I'm also interested in seeing how Gillard's move to cut benefits for the wealthy will play out regarding working class voters, especially in places like Western Sydney considering how toxic NSW Labor's brand still is. It's hardly a KO when still being debated. http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/The Rudd Government: Australian Commonwealth Administration 2007 - 2010/5091/ch10.xhtml The only debate is how much credit should be attributed to Government and the RBA. The lack of financial contagion in Australia can be explained both by previous strong regulation, and the actions of the government and RBA (deposit guarantee, interest rate decrease). The relative resilience of the broader economy can be explained by China's continued demand for minerals, the dramatic devaluation of the AUD leading to greater export competitiveness, and the stimulus package in particular the immediate cash payments (the infrastructure spending didn't really kick in until later in 2009) Additionally, arguing that the surplus left to Rudd in 2007 helped them through the crisis only adds to the argument that stimulus helped avoid recession. The surplus is only relevant to avoiding recession if you spend it, like in a stimulus package. That's sort of why it isn't a political KO as implied lol.
|
Currently as it stands I'd be shocked if Labour loses. We'll see how the campaigning goes, but the majority of the public is probably quite fed up with both parties, and people don't shake the status quo so easily if it's not even "lesser of two evils" but two very samey parties.
Greens vote might peak again. I wouldn't be that surprised. If only because people don't want to vote the other two haha.
Anyway, we'll see how the lead up goes. As far as heads go Julia should still be coming in stronger, not that I've seen a public poll lately. But since she announced the election I'm sure the news will read out different polls twice a day for the next few months.
|
On February 04 2013 19:55 bittman wrote: Currently as it stands I'd be shocked if Labour loses. We'll see how the campaigning goes, but the majority of the public is probably quite fed up with both parties, and people don't shake the status quo so easily if it's not even "lesser of two evils" but two very samey parties.
Greens vote might peak again. I wouldn't be that surprised. If only because people don't want to vote the other two haha.
Anyway, we'll see how the lead up goes. As far as heads go Julia should still be coming in stronger, not that I've seen a public poll lately. But since she announced the election I'm sure the news will read out different polls twice a day for the next few months. The sun had a poll with something like 90% would vote liberal, granted that is a news paper biased against labor. I will be surprised if labor wins.
|
On February 04 2013 17:48 Mafe wrote: In short, are australia's political system and parties comparable to those of the UK? Yes, except that we have compulsory preferential voting in the lower house, rather than first-past-the-post.
In theory this should help minor parties, as you are not penalised for voting for a third party because your preference will still flow to the main party of your choosing. In practice, the UK's third party is stronger than in Aust, so go figure.
|
|
|
|