Countdown to the Election

[Goreripper]

More stuff. This is from Mike Carlton. Yes, he is a Labor apologist, though probably not to the same extent that Alan Jones and Piers Akerman are Liberal hardliners, but it does sum up the feelings of the electorate towards Howard at the moment:

"The fact is, it's no longer the economy, stupid. The audience in the front stalls has stopped listening to Honest John, the man who gave them the never-ever GST, the rottweilers on the waterfront, the kiddies overboard, Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon, the Pacific solution, the policy formerly known as Work Choices, the foot-dragging on climate change, the love-in with the despised George Bush, those non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the AWB wheat-for-weapons scandal, the David Hicks injustice and, to top it all, the catastrophic war in Iraq. And the punters correctly recognise that a vote for Howard would be a vote for the still more unpopular Peter Costello."

This is why people are swinging toward Labor. It has nothing to do with the economy anymore.

 

[Dän]

Dan, you're doing really well backing up your beliefs here. It's not going to change my mind about them, but your arguments are good. You should think about what you post all the time, instead of the off-handed foolishness you're sometimes capable of. When is your band coming to Sydney so we can have a beer?

Cool man; we'll be doing a show at some stage in Syd im sure; probably at the end of the year hopefully.

The problem with being an angsty teen is that you dont always think about what you say and type, hense the stupid things I say.

 

[Dän]

More stuff. This is from Mike Carlton. Yes, he is a Labor apologist, though probably not to the same extent that Alan Jones and Piers Akerman are Liberal hardliners, but it does sum up the feelings of the electorate towards Howard at the moment:

"The fact is, it's no longer the economy, stupid. The audience in the front stalls has stopped listening to Honest John, the man who gave them the never-ever GST, the rottweilers on the waterfront, the kiddies overboard, Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon, the Pacific solution, the policy formerly known as Work Choices, the foot-dragging on climate change, the love-in with the despised George Bush, those non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the AWB wheat-for-weapons scandal, the David Hicks injustice and, to top it all, the catastrophic war in Iraq. And the punters correctly recognise that a vote for Howard would be a vote for the still more unpopular Peter Costello."

This is why people are swinging toward Labor. It has nothing to do with the economy anymore.

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.

 

[Dän]

you were stating ZERO before, as in "don't owe anybody anything", like I said, weasel words to cover that they DO have debt, and have to pay interest on it.

Ok, I was wrong on that. Nonetheless, if public debt is equal to zero in that assets and liabilites are equal then that is admirable, did we see that under a labor gov? did we see low UE under labor? did we see high sustainable long term growth under Labor? did we see stable inflation under labor? did we see relativly low interest rates under labor? These are the things I look at, I like waking up tomorrow and knowing that it is going to be the same as today. In a world as volitile as ours is now, I take comfort in a conservative society and one where i am guranteed a job and know that I have every opportunity to have a affluant future, and I'm worried that a Labor gov cannot provide that as it cannot provide that list of things I mentioned above; thats my rationale for voting.

 

[Stonewall]

BTW, the "Fourth World" refers to a marginalised minority population living within a First or Third World country, ie Aboriginals. And if you don't believe there are Australians who aren't Aboriginal living in poverty, you have obviously never been to Macquarie Fields or Blackett.

Thanks Gore,

btw.. I see the above to be of greater concern than the economic conditions which allow me to afford a plasma screen tv from China. Why do we need so much stuff anyway?

I read the interesting essay by Schumacher "Buddhist Economics" the other day. Applying the 'middle-way' to economic production. Recognising the parasitic use of resources as an act of violence to both the planet and other humans who are not as well endowed with these resources.

I believe it is essential to observe that the current paradigm which sees economic growth as being the same thing as development is misguided.

 

[Goreripper]

And your points are all valid. Howard got elected last time because of the economy, but this time people are realising that there's more to life than just the state of the economy. This election is going to be won and lost on how the parties handle social issues, and the Liberals and Howard in particular have never been good with those. I've been posting links to today's Herald and Age a lot today because they've run a bunch of stories about why Howard is sliding in the polls (even the Murdoch media is admitting this, without the same degree of analysis), and a lot of comes down to people no longer trusting the man, expressing even more distrust of his Cabinet should they replace him after the next election, and dissatisfaction with things like work hours, and fear that Howard's sweeping IR changes will affect either them or people around them in a negative way. The economy is simply no longer an issue, and the electorate, sheep or not, are focusing on other things which Howard and the Libs don't have satisfactory answers for. His entire mandate has been economy-related and now that his chickens are coming home to roost, he's realising that people are worried about other things, and he doesn't know what to do.

 

[Goreripper]

Thanks Gore,

btw.. I see the above to be of greater concern than the economic conditions which allow me to afford a plasma screen tv from China. Why do we need so much stuff anyway?

I read the interesting essay by Schumacher "Buddhist Economics" the other day. Applying the 'middle-way' to economic production. Recognising the parasitic use of resources as an act of violence to both the planet and other humans who are not as well endowed with these resources.

I believe it is essential to observe that the current paradigm which sees economic growth as being the same thing as development is misguided.

This is brilliant. I will argue to anyone who listens (and not just because I have socialist sympathies) that individuals don't need plasma screen TVs. They are a false need created by rampant consumerism, that eventually leads to idiotic government policies forcing digital TV on people. Same goes for people who live in the city and don't have boats or caravans (two more things few people actually need) or ever drive off-road but buy 4WD vehicles, cellular phones that double as personal computers and all things of that nature. And the idea that economic growth = development is misguided. Obviously, one begats the other, but when economic growth becomes so important that other issues relating to development (such as fair labour practices, free education, quality and afforadable health care and investment in the sciences) are pushed aside, wheels start to fall off. In some countries, these things lead to revolution (see Russia). Fortunately, we don't have to have an armed insurrection to get rid of our leaders.

I read the interesting essay by Schumacher "Buddhist Economics" the other day. Applying the 'middle-way' to economic production. Recognising the parasitic use of resources as an act of violence to both the planet and other humans who are not as well endowed with these resources.

I hope no one here has missed the irony that the country with one of the world's largest oil reserves has been invaded by the country with the greatest oil consumption. Australia has the world's largest reserves of uranium. Just as well we brown-nose the world's largest uranium consumers.

 

[Shannow]

Climate change is an economic problem as well as a social one, a good ecnomy will see good climate change policies.

I agree in part, in that if there's surplus, it's easier to do things than if there's not.

But there has to be government legislation, and enforced action (just like they do with taxation). Voluntary taxation would never work, same as voluntary actions on climate change.

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.

That statement tells me why you see the world as you do. Thanks for the insight.

In my world, we started as societies, and developed the economy as a tool to enable culture to develop.

When corporations were given the same rights (and even moreso) than individuals, the economy became the master.

 

[Goreripper]

Which is what I was attempting to say, but I obfuscated a bit.

 

[Spiff]

You and your obfuscation.

 

[Stonewall]

Climate change is an economic problem. It has been created and is being perpetuated by global economic practices. Cars and road transport, planes, coal-fired power stations, aircraft, tree felling... all economic activities not only damaging to the planet, but also in many ways socially harmful.

 

[Stonewall]

This is brilliant. I will argue to anyone who listens (and not just because I have socialist sympathies) that individuals don't need plasma screen TVs. They are a false need created by rampant consumerism, that eventually leads to idiotic government policies forcing digital TV on people. Same goes for people who live in the city and don't have boats or caravans (two more things few people actually need) or ever drive off-road but buy 4WD vehicles, cellular phones that double as personal computers and all things of that nature. And the idea that economic growth = development is misguided. Obviously, one begats the other, but when economic growth becomes so important that other issues relating to development (such as fair labour practices, free education, quality and afforadable health care and investment in the sciences) are pushed aside, wheels start to fall off. In some countries, these things lead to revolution (see Russia). Fortunately, we don't have to have an armed insurrection to get rid of our leaders.



I hope no one here has missed the irony that the country with one of the world's largest oil reserves has been invaded by the country with the greatest oil consumption. Australia has the world's largest reserves of uranium. Just as well we brown-nose the world's largest uranium consumers.

Nice work here Gore.

And with regards what you have said Dan (I saw the quote in Shannow's last post) about a good economy will see good climate change policies. The irony that strikes me like a red-hot poker being shoved up my arsehole is that the current model of the 'good economy' is what has created the climate change problem.

Lots of oil, well lets manufacture cars so we can sell it...

Lots of coal that burns and generates power, well lets make a lot of gadgets that use it so we can sell power...

Just imagine if all that we powered in our homes was lighting and refrigerators... imagine if these homes were designed with greater thought to the climate and landscape and need less in the way of heating and cooling. Just imagine no pc's and none of us having anywhere to rant :Smug:


you know, we don't live in an economy. We don't even live in an environment. We just live in a gigantic shopping mall with some bloomin' nice landscaped gardens.

 

[Dän]

This is brilliant. I will argue to anyone who listens (and not just because I have socialist sympathies) that individuals don't need plasma screen TVs. They are a false need created by rampant consumerism, that eventually leads to idiotic government policies forcing digital TV on people. Same goes for people who live in the city and don't have boats or caravans (two more things few people actually need) or ever drive off-road but buy 4WD vehicles, cellular phones that double as personal computers and all things of that nature. And the idea that economic growth = development is misguided. Obviously, one begats the other, but when economic growth becomes so important that other issues relating to development (such as fair labour practices, free education, quality and afforadable health care and investment in the sciences) are pushed aside, wheels start to fall off. In some countries, these things lead to revolution (see Russia). Fortunately, we don't have to have an armed insurrection to get rid of our leaders.

Yeh but are our wants the govs fault?

I think the world would be a better place if there wasnt so much choice. Freedom is good but it brings many problems to society, many things i see to be social ills are largely caused by freedom. Have a ctrolled country led by a humane person who rules through respect rather than fear and you can forgo the rat race and the unlimited wants that we all seem to have. As a parody, its like taking your girlfriend or wife to go shopping and you sit there all day while she tries on dresses, all of which look nice on her, and at the end of the day she might pick say 2 and chucks out her old dresses even though she looked just as nice in the old one. Why is it neccassary to get those 2 new dresses, wouldnt everyone be happier if people were content with living with what they have? if you look fine in your old dress do you really need a new one or is it society that tells you need a new one. If we lived in a place like the Old soviet union, only brought this up because gore mentioned russia, then you didnt have choice but you really dont need it.

Although that would make society bland because I like looking at others people clothes and the colours and materials in them.

I dont need a plasma, but i want one. Theres nothiing wrong with getting things you want so long as you keep it in perspective. The more you get the more you want and thats the kind of culture our society breeds I think. Where happiness is defnied by money and material posetions and many lose site of what life is really about imo.

 

[Dän]

Nice work here Gore.

And with regards what you have said Dan (I saw the quote in Shannow's last post) about a good economy will see good climate change policies. The irony that strikes me like a red-hot poker being shoved up my arsehole is that the current model of the 'good economy' is what has created the climate change problem.




you know, we don't live in an economy. We don't even live in an environment. We just live in a gigantic shopping mall with some bloomin' nice landscaped gardens.

Yeh theres often a trade off between economic growth and environmental degredation. But I stand by my point; if climate change is headed by a gov who has good eco policies then they are the ones who will best lead the country on that issue

Its consumers who drive that shoppingmall man, not the gov. No one buys from starbucks, then starbucks doesnt exist.

 

[Shannow]

Dan, I disagree, because when the "studies" are done on the "economic impact" of fixing something, they are always 3 or 4 times what it ultimately costs. The economists are wrong.

I do agree that a strong economy better allows measures to be taken, but the Govt has to legislate to make people and industry respond. That legislation can be along the lines of "thou shall do", "thou shan't do", or a trading scheme.

"Theou shan't do" fixed the ozone hole. A trading scheme helped markedly with SOx emissions.

Without regulation of some description, the market won't fix anything voluntarily.

I'll tell you what I'd like to see.

Complete transparency in the market, which would helpt the correct decisions be made.

Take petrol. Petrol is heavily subsidised.

When you buy petrol, you are paying for $65/bbl crude, 43 cents/litre petrol excise, 10% GST, a processing fee, expolration costs, and an exorbitant profit. All of the other costs are hidden (like the health cost of burning fossil fuels, the cost of defending the oil producing areas, and wars for oil or oil territory), or the are deferred (the costs of using a finite resource, the costs of relocating low lying communities, the costs of losing agriculture, the price of decentralising to reduce transport costs when it's all over)...the consumer doesn't get a hip pocket understanding of the costs of their purchasing decisions.

Factor in all of those costs to petrol, and immediately people will start using public transport. Immediately ethanol and biodiesel start to become economically viable. They can't compete against the subsidies that petrol has.

Make the total prices transparent, and the brown coal stations in Victoria get closed down, in favour of black coal which produces less than half the CO2 of brown coal. The inefficient 30 year old (30% efficient) black coal stations get ripped down, and replaced by later technology 50% efficient designs, creating jobs and manufacturing in their construction and operation.

Yep, prices would rise, but taxes would drop as all of these subsidies were dropped.

Any politician offered that to me, and I'd vote for him in an instant.

 

[Decadancer]

When people are paying 38.5% of their wages in mortgage repayments, $1.40/L for petrol and 10% GST on every thing, I'm sure the first thing they think about in the morning is how fucking wonderful the economy is. When they're too scared to ring in sick in case they get fired, and when people can't plan their weekends anymore because bosses now have the freedom to change rosters without consultation or warning, I'm sure people think about how wonderful the economy is. When one parent has to stay home and look after the kids because the government refuses to believe that the major capital cities have child care crises, I'm sure they're thinking about how great the economy is. Interest rates have gone up eight times in five years, six times since Howard practically guaranteed people they wouldn't.

In any case, Howard has to go for these reasons:

* "There will never, ever be a GST" - John Howard, 1995
* Convincing people the economy was wonderful so he'd win control of the Senate, then hammering through IR law changes without telling the electorate he was even thinking about it at the time people were voting for him
* That smarmy grin
* Those eyebrows

I'm male and straight (and a good mate of Tonci's, just in case you were wondering where I came from). But fuck it.

Marry me, Goreripper

 

[Goreripper]

Sorry dude, but I'm taken! Thanks for the offer though. And welcome to the board.

 

[Dän]

I'm male and straight (and a good mate of Tonci's, just in case you were wondering where I came from). But fuck it.

Marry me, Goreripper

Go away you homosexual.

 

[salty]

Hey Shaun! I knew by some chance the interwebs would bring you to this thread haha.

 

[Stonewall]

I think the world would be a better place if there wasnt so much choice. Freedom is good but it brings many problems to society, many things i see to be social ills are largely caused by freedom.

Go away you homosexual.

Haha, how much fun is quoting out of context? I can understand why the politicians and the media do it.