Toby.
Smash Master
omg Cao you are amazing!
and <3 andrew
and <3 andrew
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
SMASHPOLL: The 2010 Federal Election
- Thread starter CAOTIC
- Start date
- Status
It was a nice post... but...
Labour (left wing) movement's economic policy throughout the entire world, as well as in Australia (before Howard-Costello era) was to maintain a budget at 0.1%-1% deficit as a constant standard' was somewhat ignored in the argument.
HOWEVER, unlike most other countries in the world; governments wouldn't be accruing national debt at 1% of GDP every year - last time Labour was in government though.... Eh, terribly annoying coincidence that occurs every time they're in a recession is afoot (last notable one being in the early 90s). BUT, paying off the previous year's debt, the policy ideal in general was that of expansion, an investment. One can argue though that most deficits made by ALP haven't had notably successful economic returns; inflation would rise, unemployment would as a result. This is why ALP as government would have debt accrue, GDP would not expand at a level "expected"; I would call this economic mismanagement. How would they do it now? who knows. How liberal would do it now? who knows. How would either of them have done it in the opposites shoes? Eh, I'm still of the opinion Labour would have been running at a sustainable deficit during an amazing "mineral boom", but which due to the speed and ferocity of the GFC would have had a lot harder to deal with consequences.
Now luckily, budget "surplus" or it's purpose of economic contraction has been spun to actually be purely beneficiary in Australia today ("what a nice word surplus is, let's make PEOPLE LOVE IT!!!!!!!"). Economists 20+ years ago would have called it insane. Budget deficit or surplus are not inherently bad things, but how they are managed is what's important.
Yet again, even with this knowledge, I am still wary of either liberal or labour in government. Liberal party since the last election has been one hell of a crappy roller-coaster.
Labour (left wing) movement's economic policy throughout the entire world, as well as in Australia (before Howard-Costello era) was to maintain a budget at 0.1%-1% deficit as a constant standard' was somewhat ignored in the argument.
HOWEVER, unlike most other countries in the world; governments wouldn't be accruing national debt at 1% of GDP every year - last time Labour was in government though.... Eh, terribly annoying coincidence that occurs every time they're in a recession is afoot (last notable one being in the early 90s). BUT, paying off the previous year's debt, the policy ideal in general was that of expansion, an investment. One can argue though that most deficits made by ALP haven't had notably successful economic returns; inflation would rise, unemployment would as a result. This is why ALP as government would have debt accrue, GDP would not expand at a level "expected"; I would call this economic mismanagement. How would they do it now? who knows. How liberal would do it now? who knows. How would either of them have done it in the opposites shoes? Eh, I'm still of the opinion Labour would have been running at a sustainable deficit during an amazing "mineral boom", but which due to the speed and ferocity of the GFC would have had a lot harder to deal with consequences.
Now luckily, budget "surplus" or it's purpose of economic contraction has been spun to actually be purely beneficiary in Australia today ("what a nice word surplus is, let's make PEOPLE LOVE IT!!!!!!!"). Economists 20+ years ago would have called it insane. Budget deficit or surplus are not inherently bad things, but how they are managed is what's important.
Yet again, even with this knowledge, I am still wary of either liberal or labour in government. Liberal party since the last election has been one hell of a crappy roller-coaster.
xXArrowXx
Smash Champion
green give the choice to the mother to have an abortion, so i hear...
and i am against that @_@
lol abbott...
and i am against that @_@
lol abbott...
god ****it arrow, how can you be against mother's having the choice to abort?
Yes I can fully understand your religious / similar reasons, but can you not at least accept that God himself gave humans free will?
Yes I can fully understand your religious / similar reasons, but can you not at least accept that God himself gave humans free will?
isthattim?
Smash Ace
*Ahem
also, cao seems to be forgetting that the coalition kept interest rates down, completely through their excellent financial management and the introduction of the GST which was a wonderfully progressive sales tax which went a long way to simplifying the business tax system and increased productivity, especially during the july-sep-oct period.
The introduction by the howard government of a more streamlined system of industrial relations also went a long way to keeping unemployment down and interest rates low. it also would've helped to keep many australians employed when they would've otherwise been let go, however this was not a problem thanks to the ENTIRELY howard government responsible low unemployment rate and economic prosperity.
People underestimate how much Howard did for this country, people can't get over his bushy eyebrows and see the rational, strong heroic leader that led our country through hard economic times and wasn't afraid to make the tough decisions.
This was especially highlighted when he made the tough decision to involve australia in an extremely justified mission to eliminate hateful regimes in far off lands, like a modern day heroic crusader.
All this ALP and green love fails to take into account the fantastic job that the coalition has always done at moving australia towards a more progressive free market economy with less government intervention and more personal freedoms (the freedom to negotiate your own contract, freedom from oppressive foreign regimes, freedom from fear of terrorism) something that australia desperately needs lest we lapse into a horrible socialist world akin to the late 80's USSR or modern day NORWAY.
Shaya:
Note: Be careful of labelling: the use of 'left-wing,' etc. It's all relative and can mean entirely different things. To a Liberal, ALP is left wing; to a Green, ALP is almost as right as Liberal is. To an American, all of Australia's main parties are socialists.
I didn't give it proper attention, because the global economic policy you are stating as a standard is not in line with economic reality, nor is it in line with the current ALP policy (when they are pushing for a surplus to manage a defecit). To put things in persepctive, there is not much difference between a defecit of 0.1%-1% and a surplus of 1%, especially if you look at the global foreign economic indicators closer (this is all RBA data btw):
From 1976-1992:
- Japan's average account balance: +1.7%
- Taiwan's average account balance: +7.1%
- Hong Kong's average account balance: N/A* due to British occupation, but as a de-facto SAR in its own right would have been entirely positive within the same period.
Variations are quite broad.
There were already other countries actively trying to accrue long and sustained periods of surplus. What Australia did from 1997-2007 in maintaining a surplus against your alledged 'global trend of defecit,' is nothing new, although it was new for Australia.
Australia maintained strong defecits from the end of WWII until the Howard era. However, Australia's debt wasn't unsustainable, because it was constantly being paid off by foreign investment -- also, the country went through the longest period of economic prosperity in Australian history, which lasted from the late 1940s to the early 1970s. This period saw continual economic growth, rapid development and unemployment rates below two per cent. Australia hit an account defecit of greater than 5% in 1960, 1966, and much of the period between 1980-1993. More broadly, it posted an average defecit of 2.4% between post WWII and the early 1980's.
In any case, economics isn't a science, hence why economists are almost always wrong (the cool economists are those like Steven Levitt who wrote Freakonomics and Super Freakonomics). That's why the economy is managed in a reactionary way -- not standard ideal target defecits or surpluses. So you're right that one could argue that most defecits made by the ALP haven't had notably successful returns (as all debts are subject to foreign externalities) -- it's a professionally subjective matter, but subjective all the same. Conversely, one could argue the exact opposite, but these things can only be properly analyzed in retrospect. And what would have Liberal done during the GFC? Not the economic stimulus -- they were vehemently opposed to it -- but we can still speculate the ways in which we may or may not have needed it.
Note: Be careful of labelling: the use of 'left-wing,' etc. It's all relative and can mean entirely different things. To a Liberal, ALP is left wing; to a Green, ALP is almost as right as Liberal is. To an American, all of Australia's main parties are socialists.
I didn't give it proper attention, because the global economic policy you are stating as a standard is not in line with economic reality, nor is it in line with the current ALP policy (when they are pushing for a surplus to manage a defecit). To put things in persepctive, there is not much difference between a defecit of 0.1%-1% and a surplus of 1%, especially if you look at the global foreign economic indicators closer (this is all RBA data btw):
From 1976-1992:
- Japan's average account balance: +1.7%
- Taiwan's average account balance: +7.1%
- Hong Kong's average account balance: N/A* due to British occupation, but as a de-facto SAR in its own right would have been entirely positive within the same period.
Variations are quite broad.
There were already other countries actively trying to accrue long and sustained periods of surplus. What Australia did from 1997-2007 in maintaining a surplus against your alledged 'global trend of defecit,' is nothing new, although it was new for Australia.
Australia maintained strong defecits from the end of WWII until the Howard era. However, Australia's debt wasn't unsustainable, because it was constantly being paid off by foreign investment -- also, the country went through the longest period of economic prosperity in Australian history, which lasted from the late 1940s to the early 1970s. This period saw continual economic growth, rapid development and unemployment rates below two per cent. Australia hit an account defecit of greater than 5% in 1960, 1966, and much of the period between 1980-1993. More broadly, it posted an average defecit of 2.4% between post WWII and the early 1980's.
In any case, economics isn't a science, hence why economists are almost always wrong (the cool economists are those like Steven Levitt who wrote Freakonomics and Super Freakonomics). That's why the economy is managed in a reactionary way -- not standard ideal target defecits or surpluses. So you're right that one could argue that most defecits made by the ALP haven't had notably successful returns (as all debts are subject to foreign externalities) -- it's a professionally subjective matter, but subjective all the same. Conversely, one could argue the exact opposite, but these things can only be properly analyzed in retrospect. And what would have Liberal done during the GFC? Not the economic stimulus -- they were vehemently opposed to it -- but we can still speculate the ways in which we may or may not have needed it.
dainbramage
Smash Journeyman
EDIT: Actually,
Remastered
Smash Lord
The basic understanding of left and right wing is: left spread the wealth to the poor, and the right say you get what you work for. I for one am not interested in getting more money taken off me and given to the people who don't work for it. This is why labour have put out advertisements to make sure all the people who have just come of age vote, because as it stands most young people who have little to no money vote labour as benefits from the government rise when they are in power. Most older people who have accumulated some kind of wealth vote liberal because they keep inflation down, help out businesses with the work choices Acts etc, and interest rates steady meaning an overall better economic benefit to investors. Liberal is the only sensible option as they flatten out costs and inflation, making it far cheaper to live. This however is missed completely by those receiving benefits as they see money paid to them as economic wealth rather than seeing costs go up. Although these days both parties are moving closer and closer to the middle to gain votes from both sides.
All the new policies are to nab last minute votes from people who don't really understand how the structure of our federal government works.
On a closing note, the interest rate went up everytime a labour government was in power, and down everytime a liberal government was in power. John Howard saved us from recession by accumulating an 80 billion dollar surplus while in office. Not labour who did exactly what any economic advisor would tell you to do as a leader of a country.
All the new policies are to nab last minute votes from people who don't really understand how the structure of our federal government works.
On a closing note, the interest rate went up everytime a labour government was in power, and down everytime a liberal government was in power. John Howard saved us from recession by accumulating an 80 billion dollar surplus while in office. Not labour who did exactly what any economic advisor would tell you to do as a leader of a country.
isthattim?
Smash Ace
contrary to whatever cao keeps talking about (*cough* irrelevant *cough*) we all know what the issues of this election truly are
Toby.
Smash Master
Liam is going to have an aneurysm when he sees Adept's post.
I'm going to uni now, but let me just say that your perspective is extremely narrow.
I'm going to uni now, but let me just say that your perspective is extremely narrow.
Remastered
Smash Lord
As it said 'basic'.
Sorry I was encouraged to expand on something that you think is irrelevant.
As for Adept, try and read some more of the thread if you haven't already. A basic perspective is indeed quite narrow and blatantly ignorant insofar.
isthattim?
Smash Ace
I was actually saying that all this talk of economics is irrelevant when we have important issues such as gay marriage, abortion and asylum policy to discuss.
As adept clearly stated
so why worry about the economic policies of either side, since there is obviously only one way to ever deal with economic issues, by listening to the advice of omnipotent economic advisors.
Thanks adept for clearing this up for us, you are obviously very old and wise with a very high paying job in the finance sector and a number of investment properties.
also, apologies to sam/liam etc. for improper use of (sic) i have no idea what to do with it.
Edit: wtf is an automatic money organiser? is that one of those online currency trading scams?
xXArrowXx
Smash Champion
abortion clearly more important than gay marriage. >.>
we live in australia. we can accept aslyum seekers? but we cant let a baby live.
need money and time to solve problems >.>
nice sig btw
we live in australia. we can accept aslyum seekers? but we cant let a baby live.
need money and time to solve problems >.>
nice sig btw
isthattim?
Smash Ace
at least some people can keep track of what the important factors are when choosing a government
The government can't do that at all. It's like saying you can make the wind blow where you want when you're sailing a ship.
Last I checked, there are a lot of babies living everywhere, so yeah, we can let babies live.
Babies don't get aborted, fetus' do. There are a number of reasons why abortions are a fair thing to do. The family can't support a new child. Should that child then grow up in an unstable home that'll always be tense to to not being able to afford the kid? What about casees where a woman is ***** and impregnated? Should she be forced to forever carry a reminder of this horrific assault, made to see her attacker in the face of her child every day?
isthattim?
Smash Ace
if you're gonna get all technical, embryos and fetuses can be aborted.
a very, very large percentage of embryos are spontaneously aborted anyway. I seem to recall from my mammalian growth and development lectures that over 75% of embryos spontaneously abort due to mistakes in meiosis (including but not limited to chromosomal abnormalities etc.), non-favourable conditions, mistakes in apoptosis or unknown reasons.
And yet Christians don't get angry everytime that happens.
picture included for cuteness
xXArrowXx
Smash Champion
zzz i still think its life.
and surely the government can help out with funds. and u can adopt it away.
pregnancy from **** is rare.. but its not like the baby did anything wrong and deserves to die.
as for those other abortions its because it is natural. u dont make a consious decision to abort your baby. but its still sad. and its not just christians that think this way :/
and surely the government can help out with funds. and u can adopt it away.
pregnancy from **** is rare.. but its not like the baby did anything wrong and deserves to die.
as for those other abortions its because it is natural. u dont make a consious decision to abort your baby. but its still sad. and its not just christians that think this way :/
sure it's sad, but that's the mother's guilt to bear, not something that should be illegal.
isthattim?
Smash Ace
another thread successfully sidetracked to abortion by arrow
inb4 shaya points out [again] Christianity's history of reforming their teachings to appease the masses of European barbarians, Pirates, Roman & Greek's sodomise[rs], the uneducated and/or illiterate [best not ask me to write about this one], warmongers, emperors, and strong believers of polytheistic religions (pagans).
But then the Christians gave up trying to stop pagans worshipping their beliefs, so they slaughtered them.
But then the Christians gave up trying to stop pagans worshipping their beliefs, so they slaughtered them.
Hey so i was origonally just going to more or less throw away my vote but just now decided ill try and learn a little bit real quick so my vote can be somewhat more informed.
I remember some pages back Cao posted a summary or each parties polices, to save me spending ages looking could anyone pull that up for me if they know where it is or write a brief brief summary kthx.
<3
e: lol forgot about search, nevermind
I remember some pages back Cao posted a summary or each parties polices, to save me spending ages looking could anyone pull that up for me if they know where it is or write a brief brief summary kthx.
<3
e: lol forgot about search, nevermind
xXArrowXx
Smash Champion
zzz i dont want to talk about abortion we did that before =P
cbf use search function
cbf use search function
Zzz indeed.
Guys, stop arguing abortion with Arrow. He's shown again and again that he's not prepared to change his opinion, no matter how much evidence is shown for the reasonability of choice. He's made up his facts and he's sticking to them. You're just wasting your time.
xXArrowXx
Smash Champion
its not evidence u put forward. its an opinion. which i dont believe. dont make me sound stubborn -,-
isthattim?
Smash Ace
inb4 if you could reason with the religious there would be no religion
There is PLENTY of evidence in the literature. It's been brought up again and again and you can even go look it up if you were actually concerned about being correct. Evidently you just conveniently ignore it.
isthattim?
Smash Ace
actually, i agree with arrow
**** you andy
why don't you just go kill some babies
how would you like it if your mumma didn't have you
fetuses have fingernails, and working central nervous systems and heartbeats
why don't you just kill all the kids born into poverty as well, it would be far more convenient for the parents if they didnt have to deal with them
**** you andy, i hate you and i'm gonna gently caress you next time i see you in public
Tim
**** you andy
why don't you just go kill some babies
how would you like it if your mumma didn't have you
fetuses have fingernails, and working central nervous systems and heartbeats
why don't you just kill all the kids born into poverty as well, it would be far more convenient for the parents if they didnt have to deal with them
**** you andy, i hate you and i'm gonna gently caress you next time i see you in public
Tim
bring it
isthattim?
Smash Ace
next time i see you andy, (probably at robocop fight club) i'm gonna wipe that smile off your face.bring it
by telling you a really sad story
edit: mick, do you mean 22 days or stage 22? and no i don't think that because i believe in god and it is simply not possible that rhino's and humans have a common ancestor
xXArrowXx
Smash Champion
its a boy.. i think. hung like a rhino... >.>
gen 6 pokemon?
gen 6 pokemon?
Whoops, yeah, stage 22. The legs look a bit stump-like and the head looks like a rhino shape.
About 6 hours of boring TV.
isthattim?
Smash Ace
Cao got owned so hard he's giving up
xXArrowXx
Smash Champion
nah debating is hard and tiring.
esspecially to penetrate years of stubborness.
i dont find debating boring at all.. more rage provoking.. but i guess i can be apathetic at times.
esspecially to penetrate years of stubborness.
i dont find debating boring at all.. more rage provoking.. but i guess i can be apathetic at times.
Quetzalcoatl
Smash Ace
I can't make out if people are being serious, sarcastic or whatever half the time in these posts
Toby.
Smash Master
Alright team, we've got a country to save. Vote hard, vote fast. Make sure you keep your suicide pills on you at all times today. If captain ignorance and his band of trouble makers pulls this off...we know what to do.
isthattim?
Smash Ace
toby's encouraging suicide.
ban him mic, ban everyone
ban him mic, ban everyone
- Status