Johnny Boy Running Scared [Archive]

polite

13-02-2004, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by HiredGoon

1. Does Latham have what it takes to win the next election?
2. Is John Howard stupid enough to think that people can't see this decision is nothing more than a vote grab?
3. Is Latham to herald a new era of politics where the opposition focus is a little more than "Not what he said..."
4. Has the democratic political system become irrelevant and ineffectual in this era of thriving capitialism?

1. Yes. Provided he doesn't revert to type and break a cabbies arm or call Janet Albrechtson a "Skanky Ho" ...again.
2. No he's not. He was just defusing a ticking bomb before it went off.
3. Possibly, His behaviour, demeanour, call it what you will since being elected to lead the ALP shows all the hallmarks of a very cunning plan.I watched an interview where Kerry O'Brien tried every thing to needle him and he just sat there like the Dalai Lama. The old Latham would have bitten his head off.
4. I hope not.One vote is all we have, but combined we are an Army!

I am less cynical about Politics now than I was 9 or so weeks ago.So a personal paradigm shift for such a cynic as me is saying something. Also when I hear journos like Alan Ramsey and"The sphere of influence" Laurie Oakes say what they have recently I think the press gallery is re-energised too.It has to be healthy.
Ask me next week!!

;)

The Avatar

13-02-2004, 06:59 PM

I have never been a fan of labor, they have run this country into the ground. But Mark does have much more personality that howard.

And after the iraq war shit, he has lost my vote. I cant stand the way he sucks up to america, passes on the lies, and gererally mis-represent australia.

If Latham keeps up his current behaviour, then he will have my vote.

brotherkrusty

13-02-2004, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Cassa
Phillip Ruddock is my local member :barf:

It looks like you and I are barfing in the same neck of the woods.

He will not survive the next round if I have anything to do with it.

Latham has two things Howard does not - the low income earners and Witlam.

His speech about growing up in public housing and free University would win over those in similar situations. There are a lot of people out there that believe Howard has lost touch with this demographic.

Bifrost

13-02-2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by The Avatar
I have never been a fan of labor, they have run this country into the ground. But Mark does have much more personality that howard.

And after the iraq war shit, he has lost my vote. I cant stand the way he sucks up to america, passes on the lies, and gererally mis-represent australia.

If Latham keeps up his current behaviour, then he will have my vote. Werd. I have never - ever - been a Labor voter, however, Mark Latham has nailed so many issues I am concerned about that I am seriouely considering voting 1 Labor next election...

Not only that, but he has also managed to smack down the medi whenever they try to spank his ass with crap spin - he's juts shat on most of the interviewers I've seen...And he's got more charisma than little Johnny's entire family tree...

Anyway...Over recent years I've come to know that the Australian economy cannot be ultra-strong at the same time as we have decent health care, education and welfare - it cannot happen...Personally, I'd rather pay the extra for my computer game than have my friends and family dying in hospital all because they were not educated weel enough to fill in their health care card form properly...Fuck that.

Go Mark Latham.

utopian

13-02-2004, 09:56 PM

Bifrost brings up an interesting point with his comments on health care, education and welfare. Some of us here will vote Labor based on Party politics, some will vote because of Lathams' personality and gusto, and some will vote on his personal choice of policies (or even policies of their local candidate).

Which are you?

I will be voting based mainly on party politics. I believe that a Centrist-Leftist government is what is needed to keep Australia alive. Education, Health and Science are three of the bigger issues that I feel about. I don't believe in a more Leftist state than that because I do think that too much Socialism can lead to the complete collapse of the economy, and big businesses can give the world things that small businesses can not.

I have always felt strongly about voting for the ALP, but I'm glad that my vote will be putting someone like Latham in power instead of those two morons Crean and Beazley.

polite

13-02-2004, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by utopian
I have always felt strongly about voting for the ALP, but I'm glad that my vote will be putting someone like Latham in power instead of those two morons Crean and Beazley.

Have you thought about becoming a member?. I pulled the pin in 1996, but with Lathams rise I have since rejoined. Generational change is needed. I can't think of any period in my lifetime that the difference has been so stark between the major parties.(the leaders rather) I think that the Democrats will fall and the "lefties" that you mentioned will vote Green.I think we are in for an interesting year.:)

utopian

13-02-2004, 10:22 PM

The Green Party is moving further right. Do they know that you don't have to be a Conservative to be a Conservationist?

And no I haven't given much thought to becoming an official ALP member.

polite

13-02-2004, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by utopian
The Green Party is moving further right. Do they know that you don't have to be a Conservative to be a Conservationist?

And no I haven't given much thought to becoming an official ALP member.

It's pretty much Bob Browns baby at present which is more than tinged with irony.I met Keating once at a function through my membership.They can say what they like but there was something magnetic about that guy. Passionate. Which Latham has in spades and Howard never has had.To get people to vote for you need to get to the centre of them. Some feeling of related ideals.Not just idealogy.The hip pocket nerve scenario is not always the way to go.
Just my 2cents, rounded off to 0;)

this just popped up also
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/13/1076548221243.html

Hired Goon

15-02-2004, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by polite
I met Keating once at a function through my membership.They can say what they like but there was something magnetic about that guy. Passionate. Which Latham has in spades and Howard never has had.To get people to vote for you need to get to the centre of them. Some feeling of related ideals.Not just idealogy.The hip pocket nerve scenario is not always the way to go.

Yep - right on the money. What Howard lacks is charisma - I guess it may come from so many years of being in politics. He's a professional politician - and one who'll be largely forgotten in history's pages, even though he has served multiple terms.

I think the Australian people are ready for a leader who'll make some controversial comments and ruffle a few feathers. Latham could be that man - but John Howard definitely can't be - it's just a matter of whether he can convince the people that the 'same old' is good enough for the next three years.

We'll see - but for the first time in a while I think this election will be good to watch.

polite

15-02-2004, 09:06 PM

John Howard to me has always seemed so Grey.My understanding is that grey is a mixture of black & white.My problem with this is do you vote for the black or the white knowing you might get Grey?.I like people that say what they think and take the hits accordingly, there is nothing wrong in being true to yourself.The cynics(who I will admit to being) are poised to tear him down. Well I'm not.
Cheers;)

*latham is the one they'll try to tear down I mean.Grammar is lacking this end.:(

Maestro

15-02-2004, 10:42 PM

"Sticking to his guns" is precisely what Latham is not doing, which is why Howard called him "Mr Flip Flop" last week, and Costello burnt him for attacking the FTA. This week's opportunism attacking the FTA was a major symbolic backdown from Latham's earlier speeches about following Anthony Giddens' "Third Way".

Ironically enough, Howard appears to have backed down on politician's super packages, but historically Howard has rarely backed down from a position unless it was politically untennable. Immigration policy and the War on Terror (although he did re-dub it the "War on Saddam" during Wednesday's Question Time...) being the latest examples.

What Latham lacks that Howard has is a public show of solidarity. Howard managed to quell the Party-room angst over super annuation with a little help from his attack dog, Costello, but Latham is struggling somewhat to maintain closed ranks within the party:

The Chaser - Hack - From Edition 80

What really happened at ALP National Conference?

DESPITE all the talk of party reform and democracy, the National ALP Conference was the same as always: a highly stage-managed event where no vote was taken without everyone in the room knowing the numbers beforehand.

Despite the efforts of the Labor for Refugees grouping to create a cross-factional voting bloc, it all collapsed at the last minute, and the final vote read like an (almost) exact factional break-down of the conference 226-167. If all that's holding them together is the chewing-gum and gaffer-tape of election-year jitters, I shudder to think what will happen if they take power and the arguments actually start counting for something.

My personal opinion is that if Latham is indeed elected, he's going to struggle to put together a cabinet anywhere near as capable as the current Howard ministry. Love them or loathe them, Costello, Downer, Vanstone, Ruddock, Abbott and the rest are all very experienced players, and certainly show more solidarity with their leader than the Shadow Ministry is showing theirs. Of those in the Labor camp (just the shadow ministry) that actually show their faces, Simon Crean, John Faulkner and Wayne Swan are the only ones that I have any respect for. The problem, of course, is that people elect leaders and not ministries.

polite

15-02-2004, 10:56 PM

Maestro, Sydney, North shore or similar? You are clutching at straws that are already gone. Time for original thoughts and not what your parents drummed into you.:)
Pittwater in the summer perhaps?

p.s Maestro, your yellow tick thingy,(unlike mine) is not on. So I don't know if you are coming or going.

frednurk

15-02-2004, 11:06 PM

It has been my observation that voters will go for character traits every time in a leader. How long they have been in the job, or how smart they are doesn't count for a lot. Nor does it matter greatly that a leader is only as good as the team he leads. Latham does better in this regard, although his team is crap. I wish that pollies could just understand that we need and want integrity in our representatives.
I remember Keeting saying that Howard was nicknamed "araldite", and that he had his bum stuck to the PMs chair. He also lamented that to get rid of araldited arses, one had to use a sword, and that Costello was not good with the sword.

I must aside and say that we get the pollies we deserve. Thankfully Zgeek seems to be a good forum for intelligent discussion, and that if this is any indication- it could be a most enlightening election year :)

polite

15-02-2004, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by frednurk
Thankfully Zgeek seems to be a good forum for intelligent discussion, and that if this is any indication- it could be a most enlightening election year :)

So Discuss!!

Maestro

15-02-2004, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by polite
Maestro, Sydney, North shore or similar? You are clutching at straws that are already gone. Time for original thoughts and not what your parents drummed into you.:)
Pittwater in the summer perhaps?

p.s Maestro, your yellow tick thingy,(unlike mine) is not on. So I don't know if you are coming or going. Sorry pal, you've missed on all counts. I live in Sydney's southern suburbs, I'm publically-educated from first to last, my parents have never given me any kind of financial assistance, and they have absolutely no idea about politics - partly because as permanent residents they're ineligible to vote. The suburb I live in is staunchly Labor, and I happen to be against conservative politics. I don't vote Labor, Liberal or anything else - I make my mind up based on who I believe is the most suitable candidate in all the circomstances. My ideas are entirely my own, other than the stuff I borrowed from the Chaser and duly referenced.

What the hell is your sentence about "Pittwater in the summer" meant to mean? You have this extra-special (read: extra pompous) tendency to put non sequiters in where actual justification should go.

And finally, what is your obsession with me being online or not online? This is at least the third time you've mentioned it to me, but I still fail to see why I should care. How, exactly, does it make a difference?

polite

16-02-2004, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Maestro
Sorry pal, you've missed on all counts. I live in Sydney's southern suburbs, I'm publically-educated from first to last, my parents have never given me any kind of financial assistance, and they have absolutely no idea about politics - partly because as permanent residents they're ineligible to vote. The suburb I live in is staunchly Labor, and I happen to be against conservative politics. I don't vote Labor, Liberal or anything else - I make my mind up based on who I believe is the most suitable candidate in all the circomstances. My ideas are entirely my own, other than the stuff I borrowed from the Chaser and duly referenced.

What the hell is your sentence about "Pittwater in the summer" meant to mean? You have this extra-special (read: extra pompous) tendency to put non sequiters in where actual justification should go.

And finally, what is your obsession with me being online or not online? This is at least the third time you've mentioned it to me, but I still fail to see why I should care. How, exactly, does it make a difference?

Re: your last point. Snipers generally require camouflage.
Your second last point is that you don't vote.
The "Pittwater in the summer" reference was to this knob I met in 1986 who thought he was God. I apologise for thinking you did not have more in common with Mark Latham than those other wannabes.Finally, fuck you, I think you are a pretentious little turd who is all talk and no action. If you can prove otherwise please do so. .

frednurk

16-02-2004, 12:23 AM

Thats not very very polite polite.

Maestro

16-02-2004, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by polite
Re: your last point. Snipers generally require camouflage.Snipers hide because they don't want to get shot - it makes absolutely no difference in this case whether you can see me or not, because my opinions are available for you to pick apart and do with what you please

Originally posted by polite
Finally, fuck you, I think you are a pretentious little turd who is all talk and no action. If you can prove otherwise please do so. . I'm not about to get all apologetic for putting you in your place, and I certainly don't feel I owe you proof that I'm not what you believe I am. It was you who implied that I was a pretentious rich kid who had been indoctrinated by my parents, and that's clearly not the case (apology accepted). Far from refuting my points, all you did was take a cheap shot at my character. Call it character assasination if you like, but I take it that's not being a "sniper" in your all-mighty opinion?

In order for me to be pretentious, I would need to uphold a pretence, yes? And what would that be? That I believe I'm of better stock than a mere country boy? I don't think so - I'm not particularly proud of my heritage, and it's certainly not better than anybody else's. Whatever pretence appears to be, your constant attempts to establish yourself as an intellectual are bound to fail unless you find the courage to actually put them out in public rather than claiming to be be intelligent through snide and sarcastic questions.

And while we're on the topic of being pretentious, Fred, being one of the more balanced and intelligent people on these forums, has made some very valid points, and you are arrogant enough to believe that you can "educate" him, but for whatever reason refuse to do so in public. For someone who enjoys critiquing me for not being online, you seem to be hiding an awful lot of what actually counts.

Edit: spelling.

Maestro

16-02-2004, 12:59 AM

Sorry to disturb the arrogant and staccato air of high school debating in this thread, but I thought I'd make a run at responding to the first post:Originally posted by HiredGoon

1. Does Latham have what it takes to win the next election?
2. Is John Howard stupid enough to think that people can't see this decision is nothing more than a vote grab?
3. Is Latham to herald a new era of politics where the opposition focus is a little more than "Not what he said..."
4. Has the democratic political system become irrelevant and ineffectual in this era of thriving capitialism?
Unless there's another moral panic like immigration policies or wars-on-something-or-other, I'd say he'll make a good run at it, yes. Particularly if the coalition don't detract attention too far away from education and health policies, which appear to be his strong point.

I don't know that I agree that it is a vote-grab. I personally think that it's just what he says it is - an attempt to get the issue off the table before the election, or damage-control. It certainly isn't going to buy him any votes, since he "gave in" to Labor demands. It's certainly better from his perspective to clear the decks now, before we get too close to election time.

Maybe, if he keeps his eye on the ball. However, in Queensland, Beattie's approach that "if it's good for Queensland, we're interested" seems to go down well with voters, and it looks like Latham may take a leaf from his book. QLD is quite important, given that it's peculiar because in many areas where people consistently vote Labor for state elections, they nevertheless vote in conservative Liberal Federal Governments...

Capitalism and democracy are not mutually-exclusive. Actually, they are highly dependent on one another. I'm not sure how you meant the point...?

durus

16-02-2004, 10:07 AM

Maestro you made some good points.
Just put in my opinion on how all of this will affect things. Even if Latham doesn't get in he has already effected change by forcing howard into the salary concessions. This is a good thing. Not completely sure who i'll vote for i'll have to look up their policies/promises a little more. Howard does have a good track record of getting things done (be they good or bad). While Latham is untried. Just a thought to leave you with: getting into power may enable Latham to create solidarity within the labour party. Either that or their internal conflicts once they have power will tear them appart and they'll get little or nothing done.

Hired Goon

18-02-2004, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Maestro

Has the democratic political system become irrelevant and ineffectual in this era of thriving capitialism?

Capitalism and democracy are not mutually-exclusive. Actually, they are highly dependent on one another. I'm not sure how you meant the point...?[/list] [/B]

My point was really asking if people agree that the democratic political system is somewhat redundant because the politicians are incapable of changing the dominance of capitialism throughout australia (and the world). Mind you - it's pretty hard to capture the essence of this issue in one sentence. :)

Maestro

18-02-2004, 09:09 PM

So you're implying that democracy is only worthwhile if it can topple capitalism?

frednurk

18-02-2004, 10:34 PM

Preface= IMO- If you ask a politician who is considered "Good" whether they consider democracy a good system, invariably they verryy begrudgingly admit that it is probably the best way. It is slooowww like a 486, no actually really frustrating like a commodore 64, but surprisingly accurate in producing a result that is in the best long term interest. I have said it before but will repeat it here:-
Every time I have found myself at odds with the result of a proper democratic process, I have been proved wrong. Either I couldn't adequately read between the lines to work out the affect on the larger picture of the result, or my focus was just too narrow and ignorant.
The system works, just very painfully. I live for the day when it is less painfull.
Now please excuse me 'cause Maestro will come back and I'll get a swelled head, and a big ego.
*No, not that head you hormone fuelled Geek. *

Hired Goon

19-02-2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Maestro
So you're implying that democracy is only worthwhile if it can topple capitalism?

Well, no - because ultimately a democratic society with a capitialist focus is the best alternative - as fred nurk said. It's a hell of a lot better than a communist society with a socialist focus (but thats a whole other discussion!).

dwarfthrower

19-02-2004, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by HiredGoon
1. Does Latham have what it takes to win the next election?

So far he's been applying a strategy of throwing policies and promises at whomever whinges loudest... That's usually a pretty successful strategy until you run out of money to fund them with.

2. Is John Howard stupid enough to think that people can't see this decision is nothing more than a vote grab?

John Howard is anything but stupid... Unfortunately when the leader of the opposition starts chucking around populist crap like cutting polititians benefits he gets backed into a corner and has to counter, even though it's not in the public interest.

3. Is Latham to herald a new era of politics where the opposition focus is a little more than "Not what he said..."

No... Latham is a big-mouthed, moderately intelligent thug.

4. Has the democratic political system become irrelevant and ineffectual in this era of thriving capitialism?

I wouldn't say that capitalism was exactly "thriving". The FTA certainly was a big leap forward, but in essence, what we have is a democratically elected socialist government with some tolerance of capitalism.

Scythe

19-02-2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by HiredGoon
It's a hell of a lot better than a communist society with a socialist focus (but thats a whole other discussion!).

Only because the people fail the system, rather than the other way around. Without the capitalistic incentive of being able to own their own properties, and make their own profits, communist systems have always descended into corruption, black markets and profiteering. The fault in communism is not in its theory, it's that it is impossible to be implemented in reality. The people at the top always want to stay there, and the people at the bottom are not content to remain where they are.

One of the prime reasons that democracy works today is that it gives the majority of the population the oppurtunity to rise through the economic, political and social strata of a society, and also that the average citizen feels that they have a the power to make an impact on the politics of their country. When people feel that they don't have that power you get protest and political apathy.

dwarfthrower

19-02-2004, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Scythe
One of the prime reasons that democracy works today is that it gives the majority of the population the oppurtunity to rise through the economic, political and social strata of a society, and also that the average citizen feels that they have a the power to make an impact on the politics of their country. When people feel that they don't have that power you get protest and political apathy.

It's actually capitalism that allows people to better their socioeconomic status rather than democracy. Even in our democratic society we still have socialist institutions like the welfare nanny state which work to continue the cycle of poverty.

Scythe

19-02-2004, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
So far he's been applying a strategy of throwing policies and promises at whomever whinges loudest... That's usually a pretty successful strategy until you run out of money to fund them with.

So you disagree with an increased emphasis on education, literacy and health care, at the expense of the military and other non-essential services that are good for winning public support?

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
John Howard is anything but stupid... Unfortunately when the leader of the opposition starts chucking around populist crap like cutting polititians benefits he gets backed into a corner and has to counter, even though it's not in the public interest.

John Howard has never been backed into a corner on anything in his entire political career. If anything could have backed him into a corner it would have been the worldwide protests against the war in Iraq, which cumulatively were the largest organised series of protests in the history of humanity, but he held his ground. Any major public initiative he anounces, including superannuation, is carefully calculated to give him the largest possible boost in popularity while doing the most political damage to his enemies.

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
No... Latham is a big-mouthed, moderately intelligent thug.

Beats a slimy political operator with a set of morality and ethics that are fifty years out of date, who persists in tying our fortunes to an ally who regards us as little more than addendum to southern asia and another soft market.

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
I wouldn't say that capitalism was exactly "thriving". The FTA certainly was a big leap forward, but in essence, what we have is a democratically elected socialist government with some tolerance of capitalism.

You've got to be kidding. Australia as a socialist government? We currently have the most right-wing, economically-rationalist government in decades, which has undertaken a steady process of starving education and health care, while doing their best to sell off public services. Hardly sounds like socialism to me.

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
It's actually capitalism that allows people to better their socioeconomic status rather than democracy. Even in our democratic society we still have socialist institutions like the welfare nanny state which work to continue the cycle of poverty.

A nanny state? Not where I live. Everything in my experience has shown me that the cycle of poverty is continued by people who know very little about birth control and who lack the skills, opportunities and education for anything but menial minimum-wage jobs, not by excessive welfare support.

As for capitalism allowing people to better their position in life, this is only something that is effective within an democratic framework. Socialist and communist societies throughout history, particularily communist Russia and China, had and have capitalist economies, in the form of extensive black markets, but without the democratic framework that gives everyone a more-or-less equal access to that capitalist system, the only people who benifit are the elites who have sufficient power and resources to gain access. Everyone else is forced to scrape out a living within the system, without the freedom to take advantage of the benifits of capitalism.

dwarfthrower

19-02-2004, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Scythe
So you disagree with an increased emphasis on education, literacy and health care, at the expense of the military and other non-essential services that are good for winning public support?
Yes. Education, literacy and health care are none of the government's concern. Defence is.
Any major public initiative he anounces, including superannuation, is carefully calculated to give him the largest possible boost in popularity while doing the most political damage to his enemies.
And Lathams are out of genuine concern and his altruistic nature right?
Beats a slimy political operator with a set of morality and ethics that are fifty years out of date, who persists in tying our fortunes to an ally who regards us as little more than addendum to southern asia and another soft market.
I'll take a smart slimeball over a neanderthal any day of the week.
You've got to be kidding. Australia as a socialist government? We currently have the most right-wing, economically-rationalist government in decades, which has undertaken a steady process of starving education and health care, while doing their best to sell off public services. Hardly sounds like socialism to me.
Do we have a policy of forced redistribution of wealth from those who create it to those who do not? Sounds like the cornerstone of socialism to me.
A nanny state? Not where I live. Everything in my experience has shown me that the cycle of poverty is continued by people who know very little about birth control and who lack the skills opportunities and education for anything but menial minimum-wage jobs, not by excessive welfare support.
And the process of removing wealth from the economy perpetuates the lack of opportunites to better their state.

As for capitalism allowing people to better their position in life, this is only something that is effective within an democratic framework. Socialist and communist societies throughout history, particularily communist Russia and China, had and have capitalist economies, in the form of extensive black markets, but without the democratic framework that gives everyone a more-or-less equal access to that capitalist system, the only people who benifit are the elites who have sufficient power and resources to gain access. Everyone else is forced to scrape out a living within the system, without the freedom to take advantage of the benifits of capitalism.
Exactly how does democracy give people equal access to the economy?

Scythe

19-02-2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
Yes. Education, literacy and health care are none of the government's concern. Defence is.

I was under the impression that a government's concern was to care for its citizens in the best way possible. Without an educated and healthy citizenry, there won't be much for the military to defend. Without education, literacy and health care, all you'll end up with is a nation filled with ignorant people who will be forced to join the military because it has the best health care and, since they will have difficulty reading, it will be the best place for them.

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
And Lathams are out of genuine concern and his altruistic nature right?

Maybe, maybe not, but at least he was the one who proposed it, and he suggested that it apply to all politicians, including himself, unlike Howard, who will only implement it for newly admitted MP's, thereby safely leaving himself with a sizeable superannuation package.

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
I'll take a smart slimeball over a neanderthal any day of the week.

I was trying to think of something sarcastic and snide to say here, but this is really a matter of personal preference, and if that's the way you feel, you're entitled to it. :)

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
Do we have a policy of forced redistribution of wealth from those who create it to those who do not? Sounds like the cornerstone of socialism to me.

Also sounds like one of the fundamentals of a democratic nation, which is supposed to care for all its citizens as best it can, not just the ones it thinks are worthwhile or who make the most money. Hence the principle of higher taxes for the wealthy.

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
And the process of removing wealth from the economy perpetuates the lack of opportunites to better their state.

Only because the money that is being removed from the economy is being given to people who lack the education and training to know how to put the money to best use, thus perpetrating the cycle.

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
Exactly how does democracy give people equal access to the economy?

I never said it gave equal access, but any access at all is better than an underground economy in a society that claims to exercise total control over all financial transactions. In such a society only those who have the power to ignore or obfuscate the rules gain the benifits. In a democracy, all its citizens, whether rich or poor, have at least the right to potentially participate in the economy, even if they lack the means.

dwarfthrower

19-02-2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Scythe
Without an educated and healthy citizenry, there won't be much for the military to defend.
I didn't suggest that the healthcare and education industries weren't neccessary for a healthy community. Simply that they are none of the government's concern. Food is also neccessary for a healthy society that is none of the government's concern. As far as I can see, the only reason for a government is to maintain law & order and defend the nation.
Maybe, maybe not, but at least he was the one who proposed it, and he suggested that it apply to all politicians, including himself, unlike Howard, who will only implement it for newly admitted MP's, thereby safely leaving himself with a sizeable superannuation package.
The reason Howard didn't propose it is because he knows full well that it's not in the national interest. But once Latham whipped the masses into an ill informed hysteria on the issue he was left with no choice.
Also sounds like one of the fundamentals of a democratic nation, which is supposed to care for all its citizens as best it can, not just the ones it thinks are worthwhile or who make the most money. Hence the principle of higher taxes for the wealthy.
Lets get one thing straight before continuing this. "Democracy" is a political system. "Capitalism" and "Socialism" are economic systems. Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.
The principle of higher tax rates for the wealthy is a misnomer. The net effective tax rate (the degree of punishment for each dollar earned) for a working couple often exceeds 65-70% when you take into account loss of FTB and Childcare allowances. Punishing those who create the most wealth, while a good vote-buyer, doesn't actually serve to do anything but make it a disincentive for talented and hard-working individuals to contribute to the nation's economy.
Only because the money that is being removed from the economy is being given to people who lack the education and training to know how to put the money to best use, thus perpetrating the cycle.
Who do you suggest they give it to?
I never said it gave equal access, but any access at all is better than an underground economy in a society that claims to exercise total control over all financial transactions. In such a society only those who have the power to ignore or obfuscate the rules gain the benifits. In a democracy, all its citizens, whether rich or poor, have at least the right to potentially participate in the economy, even if they lack the means.
No... sorry, my mistake, you said "more-or-less equal"... So I guess what you're really saying is that under a socialist system, only those who have the means to succeed do so, while under a capitalist system only those who have the means to succeed do so. Yeah... I see where you're coming from now.

utopian

19-02-2004, 02:23 PM

Socialism sets everyone at the same standard of living so no one is left behind. Well, theoretically. I wouldn't want a Communist style of living because I believe in putting personal effort in to get personal gain.

Socialising some services such as health and education are a good idea because they are essential to the survival of a nation's citizens from an internal point of view. Externally, Defense is a large issue if you're in an area that shares many borders with countries who are ideologically different.

I guess it's just a case of weighing the benefits and costs of external and internal security. Australia shares NO land borders and as such I think putting Defense as the #1 priority is a bad move. The United States, however, has a history of getting involved with other nations, and has done for about the last sixty years. This means that they've made a lot of enemies over the years.

Internal safety, including but not limited to a good economy, civil rights and political/religious freedoms, is an important issue to Australia. We're not a corporate police state (except Qld in the Sir Joh era), we're a democratic nation with a right wing government who seeks to maximise profits by privatising instead of socialising a lot of the services in our nation.

Dwarfthrower, for thinking that Australia is a socialist nation, you're a fool. Australia has a state funded school system and a nationwide postal service, but that's about it. Medicine and hospitals are privatised and as such, private health cover is pretty much a necessity these days.

You ask who the tax money should be given to instead of to those too stupid to know what to do with it. I propose vastly raising the levels of public schooling so that parents who want a good education for their kids don't have to fork out loads upon loads of money to send them to a private school.

dwarfthrower

19-02-2004, 02:49 PM

Socialism (in practicality) simply leaves everyone behind. The only way equality can be attained is to set everyone back at the lowest common denominator.

If the government were to privatise services rather than socialising them, the savings from not having to fund the bloated administration of the socialised services can be passed directly back to the population.

The way it works under a socialist model:
You earn money
Government takes half
Government uses half of that to provide services
Government uses the other half to fund:
a) the initial removal of your money, and
b) the administration of services you may or may not want
Net result: you end up paying exorbitant amounts of money for services you don't neccessarily need or want.

The way it works under a capitalist model:
You earn money
You buy whatever services you want at whatever price you're prepared to pay for them.

To take the example further, Why doesn't the government take an extra amount of tax out of everyone's paypackets and set up a food service. Food is pretty fundamental to the health of a nation yeah? The government could build supermarkets and everyone could go in and take whatever food they need.

Why wouldn't that work?

BlueBoy

19-02-2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
I didn't suggest that the healthcare and education industries weren't neccessary for a healthy community. Simply that they are none of the government's concern. Food is also neccessary for a healthy society that is none of the government's concern. As far as I can see, the only reason for a government is to maintain law & order and defend the nation.
Please don't ever, ever run for government.

The government exists to provide sevices to it's citizens, hence 'public service'. These include (but are not limited) to health, education and security (or 'law and order' as you put it).
It's in the government best interest to keep taxpayers alive, happy and able to function as a useful member of society. Where do you think they get their money from?

Feeding its citizens is a huge concern for Government. I don't know whay you'd think otherwise. Import/Export and even the FTA revolve around it. Hell, they even created a Department (http://www.affa.gov.au/) to deal with it.

dwarfthrower

19-02-2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by BlueBoy
Please don't ever, ever run for government.
You'll be happy to know I've got no intention of ever running for government. Especially now that both sides plan to kill entitlements for MPs
The government exists to provide sevices to it's citizens, hence 'public service'
I would've said, that the government... like any other parasitic organism exists to further it's own interests.
It's in the government best interest to keep taxpayers alive, happy and able to function as a useful member of society. Where do you think they get their money from?

Like most parasitic organisms, it's not in their interest to kill the host. Why do you think they don't tax everyone at 100%?
Feeding its citizens is a huge concern for Government. I don't know whay you'd think otherwise. Import/Export and even the FTA revolve around it. Hell, they even created a Department (http://www.affa.gov.au/) to deal with it.
I'm not sure why you think the charter of the department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry entails anything other than protecting the interests of primary producers.

BlueBoy

19-02-2004, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
You'll be happy to know I've got no intention of ever running for government. Especially now that both sides plan to kill entitlements for MPs
No one ever joined the Army to make money. It's the same with public service. You want money? Go private sector.

I would've said, that the government... like any other parasitic organism exists to further it's own interests.
Why do you think it's a parasite?
If we go by the biology analogy then the government/citizen relationship is more symbiotic in nature. They give, we give. Sure it's not even, but what relationship ever is?

Like most parasitic organisms, it's not in their interest to kill the host. Why do you think they don't tax everyone at 100%?
They could do that!
The main thing that's stopping them is the fact that as stated above, it's not a parasitic relationship, little things such as the Constitution and democratic society also help in that regard. As I stated in my last post, one of the Government's aims is to keep the people happy (read: content). 100% tax = 0% happiness. You don't need to be a political science graduate to understand that.

I'm not sure why you think the charter of the department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry entails anything other than protecting the interests of primary producers.
What happens to the produce?
Do I have to draw a diagram?

Edited for formatting.

utopian

19-02-2004, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
The way it works under a capitalist model:
You earn money
You buy whatever services you want at whatever price you're prepared to pay for them.
Capitalism doesn't necessarily mean a system with lower tax rates. Sometimes a government will slash tax rates so that citizens will go out and drive economic growth. That's not capitalism, that's tax cuts in a consumerist society. Capitalism isn't necessarily consumerism.

If socialism meant that there were such high tax rates, the USA wouldn't have such a growth based economy. The United States has a socialist, democratic, government with an economy based on consumerism and growth.

dwarfthrower

20-02-2004, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by utopian
Capitalism doesn't necessarily mean a system with lower tax rates.

True capitalism taxes at 0% just as true socialism taxes at 100%.

Neither, by itself, is a good model. We still need some taxation to support government. However if the majority of the interests that the government currently controls were privatised (and there's absolutlely no reason why they shouldn't be) then the amount ofr taxation required to support the government would be drastically reduced.

This money, back into private hands gives back to the citizenry the liberty to decide how their money should be spent. Having more money floating around the economy means more money being spent on goods & services leading to jobs growth.

Take that money out of the economy and redistribute it under the banner of "welfare" only serves to deprive those who most need jobs of the opportunity to get them.

dwarfthrower

20-02-2004, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by BlueBoy
No one ever joined the Army to make money. It's the same with public service. You want money? Go private sector.
So you're of the opinion then, that the country is so overrun with competent and effective politicians that we need to make the job less attractive to those best qualified to occupy it. When you can make double the salary as a partner in a law firm than you can as prime-minister, only underachieving powermongers are going into the political system.
Why do you think it's a parasite?
If we go by the biology analogy then the government/citizen relationship is more symbiotic in nature. They give, we give. Sure it's not even, but what relationship ever is?
They take... we don't give. A gift implys that we pay our taxes free of the threat of force if we don't. If you want a symbiotic relationship then that would be free trade between producer and consumer.
What happens to the produce?
Do I have to draw a diagram?
You could start by answering the question... why doesn't the government start a national food-care program setting up taxpayer-funded supermarkets so we can all just walk in and get the food we need?

Scythe

20-02-2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
When you can make double the salary as a partner in a law firm than you can as prime-minister, only underachieving powermongers are going into the political system.

Or those who are really want to serve their country, and are willing to do it regardless of the rewards.

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
They take... we don't give. A gift implys that we pay our taxes free of the threat of force if we don't.

Living in a society implies that you have agreed to a social contract, which in turn entitles you to help support the society whose services you make use of. Read a philosopher named Rousseau.

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
If you want a symbiotic relationship then that would be free trade between producer and consumer.

Because of course the notion of free trade is completely based on equitable and honest relationships between consumers and producers. :rolleyes: I don't even know where to start providing examples to debunk this. How about music sharing and file-swapping? Consumers aren't willing to pay for movies and music if they don't have to, and producers are taking legal action to threaten and coerce them into doing to. Doesn't sound like fair and equitable trade to me.

A capitalist system is based on the idea of an steady or expanding market. Since producers know full well that they cannot expand the market forever, they tend to take one of a number of alternative routes in order to make a profit.

1. They make products which do not last very long, and continually need to be replaced and repaired. A prime example is razor blades, which could easily be made from steel which doesn't rust or go dull, but which isn't because that would undermine their market and raise production costs prohibitively.

2. Continually producing "upgraded" and "improved" versions of things people already own, and insisting that they must immediately buy them in order to keep at the cutting edge. Hence the continual turnover of new cars and other such products, all packed with features that people don't really use or need, but which we are told are vital.

3. The creation of new markets or extensions on markets that already exist. Hence the creation of new products which are really just the old products with a single new feature added, such as scented tissues, which nobody actually needed until they were created.

Unresticted capitalism of the kind you seem to be suggesting can easily result in a huge power imbalance between producers and consumers, since the consumers will lack any sufficiently large and powerful structure to curb the actions of companies whose only purpose is to keep their consumers just rich enough to buy their products.

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
The way it works under a capitalist model:
You earn money
You buy whatever services you want at whatever price you're prepared to pay for them.

The problem with that theory is that people can be fairly easily convinced to pay far more than the services are actually worth, especially if they lack the education to understand the nature of capitalsm and their own place within it. Besides, if you cut off all funding to schools, how long before a cash-starved school goes looking for corporate sponsorship, soon followed by many others, when they realise how generous corporations can be. Then you will have schools that avoid teaching things that might upset the corporation that provides the majority of their funding. Economically-motivted self-censorship is already incredibly influential, how much more so would it become without a regulatory body?

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
No... sorry, my mistake, you said "more-or-less equal"... So I guess what you're really saying is that under a socialist system, only those who have the means to succeed do so, while under a capitalist system only those who have the means to succeed do so. Yeah... I see where you're coming from now.

Actually, what I was saying was that in a communist system, if you lack the power to shield yourself, you will be persecuted and arrested for violating the laws prohibiting economic activity, whereas in a democratic system the government at least allows you the oppurtunity to participate in the economy, whatever your level of power.

Originally posted by dwarfthrower
This money, back into private hands gives back to the citizenry the liberty to decide how their money should be spent. Having more money floating around the economy means more money being spent on goods & services leading to jobs growth.

I think you are forgetting the fact that, since companies exist to make a profit, one of the first things any company tries to do is reduce the size of its workforce and the cost of employing them. Combine the increased automisation and robiticisation of many industries with the outsoursing of all kinds of jobs to countries where the workers are willing to work for minimum wages in terrible conditions, and you have a steady flow of capital into a corporation and from there out of the country, not back into the national economy. Continued deregulation in an economy without a structured international regulatory body can only accelerate this trend.