Countdown to the Election
- Thread starter Spiff
- Start date
‘Give me a good reason not to vote for him; challenge the undeniable sound economic policies that this government has with better ideas then I'll consider changing my mind, until then you clearly have no reasons that are intellegent. I could write a good bit about why you should vote for Howard, and why a vote for Rudd will only secure a gradual demise of the country, buy you wont read it because, even faced with indesputable evidence, you will deny it and say Hes a cock and be done with it. WHy not think about your vote and actually look at Labor's terrible unionised policies? Or dont you want to face the reality of the situation?’
‘Uninhibited growth over the last 10 years, unemployment 30odd yr low, wages continue to rise despite unionised labor propaganda to try and convince you other wise. The Australian economy has been refered to as 'As good as it gets' under Howard; many countries model their macro policies on Australias. Prices rise steadily; there exists enough supply side incentives for produces to increase production as to keep up with demand, allowing the economy to further grow and ensure further prosperity, a vote for labor will throw this away.
Theres various social issues that annoy me about Rudd, non of which I'll mention because its likely that Goreripper expecially will get offended by my conservative views on life, not wrong, but conservative.’
‘Dont get me wrong, I really do appreciate what the Unions have done for this country, I say that with honesty. But I think that either the Unions dont understand reality or choose to ignore it. Sure it is an integral part of any democratic system to have an independant entity that is dedicated towards preserving and advancing workers rights, I would never disagree with that or agrue against the abolition of the unions in any way. However, my beef with the unions is such that they are far to one sided for me to take them seriously. In a perfect utopia workers wages would increase 10 fold all the time, everyone would be earning big bucks, but it doesn work like that. Its important that wages dont rise too fast, currently nominal wage is rising at about 4%, which is big, even though I was told by the unions that wages would actualy go down, so they have lied to me. Furthermore, Higher wages means higher unemployment, higher unemployment means the economy contracts and becomes unstable. I agree wages should rise, but should do so farily, a real wage increase of between 0-1% per year is healthy, a stable atmosphere means that workers factor a stable inflation rate of say 2-3% in there wages, leaving things steady and people know that when they wake up tomorrow things will be the same as today.’
’The main reason why I'll vote for Libs is because I have no reason not to; If Unemployment was at 10%, Interest rates at 12% and inflation at 9% then yeh I'd vote for labor, but there not. Inflation is at around 3%, UE at 4.4%, interest rates at the same as they were in Aug 2000, before the dot com crash, at 6.25% and growth is steady and higher compared to most other western nations.
Sure the economy is mainly based on natural resources and I dont know what we'll do when we run out of coal and uranium, neither party will talk about it and the issue, like the water crisis, and it wont be adressed and until the voters deem it be a serious issue, as they, we, now are with climate change.
overall, why change out of a good thing into something that is unlikely to improve things?
Its entirly possible to have continue growth, once you have 2 neg quaters of growth in a row thats a recession and that rarely happens and it need never happen with the right policies. Of course, with the world becoming a more globalised place there is ripple effects so I guess infinate growth is impossble, but i believe at least for the next decade theres no reason we cant continue to see growth.
edit - the brakes are being put on, hence rising interest rates to slow the economy down to ensure sustainable growth; that is precisly the liberal governments aim; not to have a volitile boom and bust economy but one that rises with the overall long term growth regression line of the business cycle, and thats what they have a achieved thus far and thats the exact reason why ill vote for the this election, and its something i think labor is unable to achieve’
‘Yes, but also people behave like cattle. There has been a massive swing toward labor on the back of a leadership change, not a change in Labor policy. Kinda like the watercooler effect; people like to believe in things and sound smart, but most dont have a great understanding of politics or parties policies, so if someone sounds like they know something then people will listen. It's really not hard to make people believe you even if what you are saying is complete BS, so long as you say it in a convincing manner, which is what politics is about. The wise voters, who are in the minority, will not be sucked in by a sweep in public opinion, but most go with it because they think it is the right way when, without attempting to sound arrogant, they probably really don't know much about it.
I rekon if you ask why most people will vote for labor in this election I think there response will be non economic reasons, so i agree - climate change, water are the 2 bigger issues I think. Also some are pissed off about Hicks and the war. I dont really look at those things, I look at the economy. Climate change is an economic problem as well as a social one, a good ecnomy will see good climate change policies. I guess I'm one who argues we are an economy and not a society, but I dont say so in a non-human sense, thats just the way I always look at things.’
‘And its because the Libs turned climate change into an economic issue as I said it was a couple of days ago. Who do you trust with your money? Is the question Howard is pushing again, I'm not sure it will play out as well this time as there are many other factors at play this time round, the greatest of which is Labor actually have a sudo-competant leader for the first time in a decade.
All that Labor need to do is this; Make some Economic policies that are backed up by fact and which numbers arent pluked out of no where. Create policies which are consistant with their goals and provide me with reasons why I should trust them not to fuck my country up. Until they are able to do that then I will always vote Liberal because, as I have said before, I have no reason not to, and Labor is not giving me any incentive to. In case you haven't noticed Im a very conservative person and am steadfast in my ways, it will take a good counter opinion or argument to persuade me, an thus far no one at all has answered the question I asked a few pages ago; so I guess Labor really do have no economic policies; if they do the voters for them on this board certainly have no knowledge of them.’
‘Maybe you're right but I still dont believe homosexuality to be a natural thing. For it to be a natural thing it would be nature rather than nurture, and so there would exist something from birth, maybe a 'Gay gene', that would make someone homosexual from birth to death. If thats the case, and it's proven, then I'm wrong and I would rethink my views on homosexuality. But I dont believe that's the case; my argument is crude but valid nonetheless. You state that our instincts go far beyond the means of reproduction and procreation, I agree; but you must also agree that one of the main reasons we are alive is to procreate, if that wasn't the case we would not exist. If we lived in a hypothetical world, which would never ever exist, but say it did, where everybody was gay, then human life would cease to exist as procreation would be impossbile, assuming we leave out the aspect of genetics and test tube babies. I believe their is a reason why we are created we are, why men and and women and made in a such a way that enables us to procreate. Sure, that is far from our sole purpose, and nor should it be our sole purpose; fucking without having a kid is fun is it not?! But my argument is thus; If homosexuality was a natural thing then gay people would have the means to procreate, since they don't, and heterosexuals do, I believe being gay to be un-natural and heterosexuality to be natural.’
‘Thats the thing, they really dont have any economic polcies, and Im not just saying that to be a smart arse tool; go to the ALP website and go to the policies section, then click on the 'Secure The Future: Boost National Productivity' file, theres a section in it on economic prosperity or something to that effect. In it Rudd mentions what he wants to achieve, but not how he's going to do it; and for the most part he slanders Howard as opposed to looking at his own policies. If that article were to sey, for example, we want to cut geenhouse emmissions by 60% by whenever, and this is how were are going to do it...or this is how we aim to keep interest rates low, or this is how we are going to ensure Unemployment stayes low, that wages keep rising etc.... And most importantly, if he said 'These are the mistakes made by our past gov in regards to eco policies, and this is why we wont allow the country to fall into another recession' and then went on to list sound economic reasoning behind this, then I would consider voting for them. They simply do not do this.
edit - dont get me wrong, Rudd has some good policies according to education, and the education system, at least in this state, is such that you can have no mathematical skills and still pass school, which is rediculous; at least Rudd is doing something to raise the standard. But all that, to me, is elimentary compared to the bigger picture.’
‘Your point, albiet lacking any real substance besides Labor seems to be full of nice guys, is as valid as mine in some respects. Its clear you would argue, and I dont mean to put words in your mouth, that we are a society not an economy, I argue the other way. However, I think, in the current climate of our society, the fact that we live in a free world dictated to by the free market I believe it to be foolish to argue the former. I dont say this because I think it is the best option, I really dont, but it is the one in which we live, one that is dominated by money and materials. It sucks in many respects, but I believe it to be the best option around.
At the end of the day most people only give a fuck about themselves, as you said, its sad but true. Most, while still do care about climate change and water, really care about their back pockets, and Howard can and has provided a degree of financial certainty for many families. You can argue all you want about mortages etc, and sure they are a prob, but they would exist regardless of which party is in power; thats by no means an attempt to trivialise the plight of housing costs currently mind you; but you must agree that things are stable in the economy. Most people know that tomorrow will either be the same or better than today; and that is the card Howard will continue to play until it no longer works
Libs have sound economic polices, why not play to your strengths?
A healthy economy = Healthy society; thats why I argue economy not society. An unstable economy means high Enemployment, High Interest rates and the rest of it, which leads to an unstable society. Surely you can all see that? Its really not a politcial issue imo.’
I can get more
‘Uninhibited growth over the last 10 years, unemployment 30odd yr low, wages continue to rise despite unionised labor propaganda to try and convince you other wise. The Australian economy has been refered to as 'As good as it gets' under Howard; many countries model their macro policies on Australias. Prices rise steadily; there exists enough supply side incentives for produces to increase production as to keep up with demand, allowing the economy to further grow and ensure further prosperity, a vote for labor will throw this away.
Theres various social issues that annoy me about Rudd, non of which I'll mention because its likely that Goreripper expecially will get offended by my conservative views on life, not wrong, but conservative.’
‘Dont get me wrong, I really do appreciate what the Unions have done for this country, I say that with honesty. But I think that either the Unions dont understand reality or choose to ignore it. Sure it is an integral part of any democratic system to have an independant entity that is dedicated towards preserving and advancing workers rights, I would never disagree with that or agrue against the abolition of the unions in any way. However, my beef with the unions is such that they are far to one sided for me to take them seriously. In a perfect utopia workers wages would increase 10 fold all the time, everyone would be earning big bucks, but it doesn work like that. Its important that wages dont rise too fast, currently nominal wage is rising at about 4%, which is big, even though I was told by the unions that wages would actualy go down, so they have lied to me. Furthermore, Higher wages means higher unemployment, higher unemployment means the economy contracts and becomes unstable. I agree wages should rise, but should do so farily, a real wage increase of between 0-1% per year is healthy, a stable atmosphere means that workers factor a stable inflation rate of say 2-3% in there wages, leaving things steady and people know that when they wake up tomorrow things will be the same as today.’
’The main reason why I'll vote for Libs is because I have no reason not to; If Unemployment was at 10%, Interest rates at 12% and inflation at 9% then yeh I'd vote for labor, but there not. Inflation is at around 3%, UE at 4.4%, interest rates at the same as they were in Aug 2000, before the dot com crash, at 6.25% and growth is steady and higher compared to most other western nations.
Sure the economy is mainly based on natural resources and I dont know what we'll do when we run out of coal and uranium, neither party will talk about it and the issue, like the water crisis, and it wont be adressed and until the voters deem it be a serious issue, as they, we, now are with climate change.
overall, why change out of a good thing into something that is unlikely to improve things?
Its entirly possible to have continue growth, once you have 2 neg quaters of growth in a row thats a recession and that rarely happens and it need never happen with the right policies. Of course, with the world becoming a more globalised place there is ripple effects so I guess infinate growth is impossble, but i believe at least for the next decade theres no reason we cant continue to see growth.
edit - the brakes are being put on, hence rising interest rates to slow the economy down to ensure sustainable growth; that is precisly the liberal governments aim; not to have a volitile boom and bust economy but one that rises with the overall long term growth regression line of the business cycle, and thats what they have a achieved thus far and thats the exact reason why ill vote for the this election, and its something i think labor is unable to achieve’
‘Yes, but also people behave like cattle. There has been a massive swing toward labor on the back of a leadership change, not a change in Labor policy. Kinda like the watercooler effect; people like to believe in things and sound smart, but most dont have a great understanding of politics or parties policies, so if someone sounds like they know something then people will listen. It's really not hard to make people believe you even if what you are saying is complete BS, so long as you say it in a convincing manner, which is what politics is about. The wise voters, who are in the minority, will not be sucked in by a sweep in public opinion, but most go with it because they think it is the right way when, without attempting to sound arrogant, they probably really don't know much about it.
I rekon if you ask why most people will vote for labor in this election I think there response will be non economic reasons, so i agree - climate change, water are the 2 bigger issues I think. Also some are pissed off about Hicks and the war. I dont really look at those things, I look at the economy. Climate change is an economic problem as well as a social one, a good ecnomy will see good climate change policies. I guess I'm one who argues we are an economy and not a society, but I dont say so in a non-human sense, thats just the way I always look at things.’
‘And its because the Libs turned climate change into an economic issue as I said it was a couple of days ago. Who do you trust with your money? Is the question Howard is pushing again, I'm not sure it will play out as well this time as there are many other factors at play this time round, the greatest of which is Labor actually have a sudo-competant leader for the first time in a decade.
All that Labor need to do is this; Make some Economic policies that are backed up by fact and which numbers arent pluked out of no where. Create policies which are consistant with their goals and provide me with reasons why I should trust them not to fuck my country up. Until they are able to do that then I will always vote Liberal because, as I have said before, I have no reason not to, and Labor is not giving me any incentive to. In case you haven't noticed Im a very conservative person and am steadfast in my ways, it will take a good counter opinion or argument to persuade me, an thus far no one at all has answered the question I asked a few pages ago; so I guess Labor really do have no economic policies; if they do the voters for them on this board certainly have no knowledge of them.’
‘Maybe you're right but I still dont believe homosexuality to be a natural thing. For it to be a natural thing it would be nature rather than nurture, and so there would exist something from birth, maybe a 'Gay gene', that would make someone homosexual from birth to death. If thats the case, and it's proven, then I'm wrong and I would rethink my views on homosexuality. But I dont believe that's the case; my argument is crude but valid nonetheless. You state that our instincts go far beyond the means of reproduction and procreation, I agree; but you must also agree that one of the main reasons we are alive is to procreate, if that wasn't the case we would not exist. If we lived in a hypothetical world, which would never ever exist, but say it did, where everybody was gay, then human life would cease to exist as procreation would be impossbile, assuming we leave out the aspect of genetics and test tube babies. I believe their is a reason why we are created we are, why men and and women and made in a such a way that enables us to procreate. Sure, that is far from our sole purpose, and nor should it be our sole purpose; fucking without having a kid is fun is it not?! But my argument is thus; If homosexuality was a natural thing then gay people would have the means to procreate, since they don't, and heterosexuals do, I believe being gay to be un-natural and heterosexuality to be natural.’
‘Thats the thing, they really dont have any economic polcies, and Im not just saying that to be a smart arse tool; go to the ALP website and go to the policies section, then click on the 'Secure The Future: Boost National Productivity' file, theres a section in it on economic prosperity or something to that effect. In it Rudd mentions what he wants to achieve, but not how he's going to do it; and for the most part he slanders Howard as opposed to looking at his own policies. If that article were to sey, for example, we want to cut geenhouse emmissions by 60% by whenever, and this is how were are going to do it...or this is how we aim to keep interest rates low, or this is how we are going to ensure Unemployment stayes low, that wages keep rising etc.... And most importantly, if he said 'These are the mistakes made by our past gov in regards to eco policies, and this is why we wont allow the country to fall into another recession' and then went on to list sound economic reasoning behind this, then I would consider voting for them. They simply do not do this.
edit - dont get me wrong, Rudd has some good policies according to education, and the education system, at least in this state, is such that you can have no mathematical skills and still pass school, which is rediculous; at least Rudd is doing something to raise the standard. But all that, to me, is elimentary compared to the bigger picture.’
‘Your point, albiet lacking any real substance besides Labor seems to be full of nice guys, is as valid as mine in some respects. Its clear you would argue, and I dont mean to put words in your mouth, that we are a society not an economy, I argue the other way. However, I think, in the current climate of our society, the fact that we live in a free world dictated to by the free market I believe it to be foolish to argue the former. I dont say this because I think it is the best option, I really dont, but it is the one in which we live, one that is dominated by money and materials. It sucks in many respects, but I believe it to be the best option around.
At the end of the day most people only give a fuck about themselves, as you said, its sad but true. Most, while still do care about climate change and water, really care about their back pockets, and Howard can and has provided a degree of financial certainty for many families. You can argue all you want about mortages etc, and sure they are a prob, but they would exist regardless of which party is in power; thats by no means an attempt to trivialise the plight of housing costs currently mind you; but you must agree that things are stable in the economy. Most people know that tomorrow will either be the same or better than today; and that is the card Howard will continue to play until it no longer works
Libs have sound economic polices, why not play to your strengths?
A healthy economy = Healthy society; thats why I argue economy not society. An unstable economy means high Enemployment, High Interest rates and the rest of it, which leads to an unstable society. Surely you can all see that? Its really not a politcial issue imo.’
I can get more
Goreripper
Metal as fuck
I dont know the full details of the story. If you were paid fuck all and your an adult getting paid as much as a 16 yr old, wouldn't you leave and either work at that hungry jacks were the work is easier or find work elsewhere that pays more; im sure they could find it.
I even got offered a job at derringers music that pays more than that and Im 19, so Im sure that if and adult had of applied there with highter credentials than I, then they would have got the job. If you work for a shit wage you're telling the employer that the wage you're getting is ok; i wouldnt work where I am if my wage were to be decreased by a substantial amount, so why would anyone else?
I understand that others arent in the same situation as I am and most cant afford to be out of work and so need to accept a lower wage rather than be put out of work, and that isnt right. But dont you agree that if you work for a company that is paying such a low wage that it is in your best interest to leave and find work elsewhere? There is a fair few free positions kicking around these days; on avg 2000 jobs were created everyday in the month of may.
I even got offered a job at derringers music that pays more than that and Im 19, so Im sure that if and adult had of applied there with highter credentials than I, then they would have got the job. If you work for a shit wage you're telling the employer that the wage you're getting is ok; i wouldnt work where I am if my wage were to be decreased by a substantial amount, so why would anyone else?
I understand that others arent in the same situation as I am and most cant afford to be out of work and so need to accept a lower wage rather than be put out of work, and that isnt right. But dont you agree that if you work for a company that is paying such a low wage that it is in your best interest to leave and find work elsewhere? There is a fair few free positions kicking around these days; on avg 2000 jobs were created everyday in the month of may.
salty
Member
Dan said:
Were they the jobs that people quit because they were shit or were fired from because they stood up for their rights?
Sydo
.
- Apr 13, 2001
- 6,429
- 5
- 38
- 42
The jobs were created; ie/ 2000 new jobs, not vacent positions opened up due to firing or quitting.
Jobs are created by businesses expanding, and they do so under favourable ecnomic conditions which promote investment which occurs only in a stable financial climate. Labor fail to do this; less incentive for businesses to invest and expand; economy contracts and the country is a worse place.
Goreripper
Metal as fuck
Bullshit. How many of those 2000 jobs a month that are "created" are low-paying, unsatisfying positions like night-fillers, pizza cooks, telephone canvassers, door-to-door sales flunkies, console operators and check-out positions. I'd say most of them are. And most of the places that offer jobs like people are the same ones forcing people to sign AWAs that will rip them off.
The UE figures are bogus anyway. They don't include people who can't work because of physical injury, they don't include stay-at-home parents and they don't include others who are forced out of the job market for various reasons at various times.
The UE figures are bogus anyway. They don't include people who can't work because of physical injury, they don't include stay-at-home parents and they don't include others who are forced out of the job market for various reasons at various times.
Goreripper
Metal as fuck
Your not counted as unemployed unless you are activly seeking work, that's fair isnt?
And so you're going to deny the fact that this government hasnt been able to develope and maintain and secure financial and economic sector that has enabled business to increase investemnt, to expand, and to create more jobs?
Your unwillingness to accept fact is astonishing.
Sydo
.
- Apr 13, 2001
- 6,429
- 5
- 38
- 42
The point being that we shouldn't forfeit the majority* of workers ability to negotiate their own contract because a minority* of employers are dicks.
*(your view will be exact opposite, and I'll quietly respect that).
Goreripper
Metal as fuck
Workers should have a choice. It's that simple. If you want to be negotiate an AWA, you should have access to legal help to assist you. You shouldn't just turn up one day to have your boss say, "Sign this, or you're sacked."
Goreripper
Metal as fuck
Dän;6273482 said:
Sure it has. Now it's giving them carte blanche to underpay workers and diminish their rights. There are plenty of areas where AWAs will work well. The finance sector, for example. BUt they're being forced onto people who don't really have much negotiating clout, like school leavers in menial jobs, and casual and itinerant workers, and migrant workers.
Sydo
.
- Apr 13, 2001
- 6,429
- 5
- 38
- 42
No it shouldn’t happen. And it hasn’t happened on any sort of large scale, as predicted by many like yourself. Neither have the mass sackings.
Yes it is unfortunate that some (few) employers have chosen to take advantage of their employees due to their new 'power', but exactly the same can be said of union officials and the systematic abuse of their collective power.
Goreripper
Metal as fuck
Unions often overstep the mark, and I'm often appalled with the way some of them behave. But I still believe that the best way for workers and employers to negotiate conditions, awards and wages is through collective bargaining that encompasses employers, bosses, unions and independent arbitrators. Sure, it's a pain in the arse for industrialists who just want to get on with the job, but it beats individual contracts. I would bet that a large percentage of workers would probably not be able to negotiate them, and a good percentage of employers would (and do) exploit this. People will take a mile if they're given an inch. That works both ways of course and I won't deny that. I'm not sure that AWAs is a way of stopping that.
Dän;6273405 said:
I keep hearing this sort of thing, but where's the evidence? Labor haven't been in federal govt for a long time, and there have been lots of personnel changes since then, while the state Labor govts haven't exactly ridden the state economies into the ground. If you're looking at distant history, kindly go back to Fraser/Howard disasters as well.
Mate, it's fact.
If firms are feeling more secure and the economy and financial sector are strong and stable, then they will be more inclined to increase investment and an attempt to expand there operations. When a firm expands they must logically employ more workers. So a stable ecnomic environment encourages this; it also encourages a stable society, which is what I've been debating for the last few pages.
If the ecnomy is unstable businesses are less secure, investment goes down, employement goes down, the ecnomy contracts, we become less competative on a global scale, less efficient, society is worse, more UE need to be handed out, less tax is collected; the result is a worse country. You can't debate that reasoning because it is fact.
If wages are going down so much why are they rising by 4.4% nominally?
Everyone was shitting themselves that they'd get payed nothing, but over the last year wages have risen massivly. You cant just make rash comments like that; if you gave me figures showing wages had gone down id agree, but you dont so I wont.
Goreripper
Metal as fuck
The economy under Hawke was better than it ever was under Fraser. As I said earlier, Labor has been in power for 16 years out of the last 58. About half of those 16 years was under Hawke, when the economy was stable and businesses did expand. It might surprise you to learn this, but the 1980s was a period of huge investment in Australia, both domestically and internationally. This was during a Labor government. Your entire argument is based on the "Fact" that Liberal = good for the economy, Labor = bad. But it's clearly not as black and white as that.
Similar threads
