It's the economy, stupid? (1 Viewer)

[jb_nc]

lol, yeah, wtf as if Labor would deregulate the health care market.

 

[onebytwo]

All trains/buses are crowded in all cities the size of Sydney and bigger around the world during morning peak hour. It is not John Howard's fault that it rained and some one did not get enough sleep. They should've gone to bed early.

i didnt say it was anyones fault, and its a shame that you missed the light hearted nature of that particular post.

 

[banco55]

Yeah i thought the original post was pretty good. It's fair to say that other things are ignored at the expense of the economy. But of course this threat has degenerated into the usuall partisan Labor v Liberal discussion between Frog, Nezzeburer, Iron ect. that dominates every political thread. Can anyone on BoS studies put asside their own political beliefs...ever!

Ahhh isn't economics inherently political?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

To be fair, I usually avoid getting into partisan bullshit until frog comes in and starts rambling on about boring crap, whinging about Wayne Swan, acting like a faux-politician and such. And yeah, I do put aside my partisan beliefs. I think I kinda supported the idea of the federal govt taking powers to control unis away from the state. So yeah...

"social reform"? What are you expecting them to do?

What was I expecting the government of the past 11 years to do? Keep up with the times, my friend. I mean, I'll resort to the usual suspects of euthanasia, gay marriage, stem cell research and whatever. Why are we lagging in terms of reform in these areas? Even the one where we got further in, stem cell research, only got a little further because of a conscience vote. Clearly, the government ain't terribly interested in keeping up with modern times.

And don't bother mentioning the ALP here. If they don't satisfy me, I won't vote for them again. That's what happened at the state election.

Obviously the educational focus has been wrongly focused.. NECESSARY..

Running out of things to confront, eh froggy?

By social and educational reform what examples could you provide?

mmmkay. aside from those hackneyed examples already mentioned, there's the lack of funding going into schools and unis, the increased privatisation of schools, a lack of focus on climate change, barely anything put towards this mental health crisis, ever increasing work hours, a war in Iraq...I'm sure there's a tonne more if I spent more time on it. Yeah, Labor seems to be the best bet for fixing those things. Who knows, maybe they won't fix them. They're the best bet though.

Every attempt to address issues such as the national curriculum, national standards and improving the performance of inept teachers, has met irreversable opposition by the State Governments, that of course ultimately provide the educational service to the electorate. It has taken the Commonwealth to tie funding to the implementation of reform for the States and the Education Union to start listening.

I'd say that educators are the ones who have the best idea of what should be taught in curriculums and such. A national curriculum, yeah, it's a fantastic idea. Good for 'ol Johnny. What else is he doing that's good for education though? Hell, at the very least, having a leader that's somewhat compatible with the states should lead to some co-operation on these matters, rather than partisan bickering between the states and Howard. Another one for 'ol Ruddy.

I also don't like chronic and dishonest liars. Howard is a dishonest man. I can't bring myself to vote for a chronic liar.

Educational reform has been proposed by the Federal Government and shot down by the State. So what do you suggest should happen Nebuchanezzar?

examples, and how this relates to the matter and hand plz.

 

[Tulipa]

examples, and how this relates to the matter and hand plz.

I only ever care about Education and you said "The government of the past decade or so has done nowhere near the amount of social reform and dedication nessecary [sic] to be eligible for relection [sic], in my eyes."

Correct? That is how it relates to the matter at hand.

Right. Now what about federalisation of education? Is that not a large enough reform? And did not every state pretty much shoot the proposal down?

Then what about the university fund recently set up by the budget? How are these not reforms in the educational sector?

 

[banco55]

What was I expecting the government of the past 11 years to do? Keep up with the times, my friend. I mean, I'll resort to the usual suspects of euthanasia, gay marriage, stem cell research and whatever. Why are we lagging in terms of reform in these areas? Even the one where we got further in, stem cell research, only got a little further because of a conscience vote. Clearly, the government ain't terribly interested in keeping up with modern times.

And don't bother mentioning the ALP here. If they don't satisfy me, I won't vote for them again. That's what happened at the state election.
.

It seems like leftists really want to see how far they can push things. This decade it will be euthanasia and gay marriage. I'm waiting to see what other "progessive" goals they have for the next 10 years. It sometimes seems like they are totally unaware of the concept of unintended consequences.

 

[frog12986]

To be fair, I usually avoid getting into partisan bullshit until frog comes in and starts rambling on about boring crap, whinging about Wayne Swan, acting like a faux-politician and such.

Of course, you are as Bi-Partisan as they come.. I don't profess to be bi-partisan, however, it was you who made this an issue of politics by claiming that the government had been lax in terms of social and educational reform.. I merely responded to what you said..

What was I expecting the government of the past 11 years to do? Keep up with the times, my friend. I mean, I'll resort to the usual suspects of euthanasia, gay marriage, stem cell research and whatever. Why are we lagging in terms of reform in these areas? Even the one where we got further in, stem cell research, only got a little further because of a conscience vote. Clearly, the government ain't terribly interested in keeping up with modern times.

Euthanaisa and Gay marriage are keeping up with modern times? If that's the case, I'd rather not keep up with modern times merely for the sake of doing so. Ultimately, the electorate decides on the policy of each party and the reason each of those issues have not received support from EITHER side is because they are not electorally popular.

mmmkay. aside from those hackneyed examples already mentioned, there's the lack of funding going into schools and unis, the increased privatisation of schools, a lack of focus on climate change, barely anything put towards this mental health crisis, ever increasing work hours, a war in Iraq...I'm sure there's a tonne more if I spent more time on it. Yeah, Labor seems to be the best bet for fixing those things. Who knows, maybe they won't fix them. They're the best bet though.

Lack of funding in education? 74% real increase since 1996.. Privatisation has reduced the strain on the public system, and ultimately made it more viable. Imagine the state of our health and education systems had the willingness of government to subsidise part of the cost been absent...

Where were Labor's cries about Climate Change prior to 2006? I'd rather a government that will make measured policy assessments as oppose to establishing emissions targets on the premise of political expediency over sustainability.

What are these education reforms? The moment states accede power in relation to education, they are consigning themselves to abolition. If you believe that merely because Rudd will be a Labor Prime Minister that it will automatically translate into cooperation you are in la la land..

 

[townie]

Share with me what trumps it, townie.

i suppose 2 examples i had in mind were doing something about global warming (and yes, this assumes that it is real and not everyone agrees it is, but assume it is) politicians dont want to do anything that will harm the economy

and WorkChoices, all the arguments in favour are mainly, it will help the economy. well thats all well and good, it might, but what about people being able to see their kids on the weekend and not working, or being able to get public holidays off etc.

 

[WWJD_2005]

a) global warming

You can make an economic argument for fighting it on the basis that if we don't then we lose all wealth in the end anyway. That's just to begin with, others might have ideas about becoming leaders in green tech or whatever (i'm skeptical about that) but yea... I don't see this issue as somehow being beyond the economy.

b) WorkChoices

How long will we have such luxury if we do not start to become somewhat more flexible?

Anyway to re-submit your question I'd say it goes something more like "Should short-term, traditional economic achievements be paramount?"

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I only ever care about Education and you said "The government of the past decade or so has done nowhere near the amount of social reform and dedication nessecary [sic] to be eligible for relection [sic], in my eyes."

Correct? That is how it relates to the matter at hand.

Right. Now what about federalisation of education? Is that not a large enough reform? And did not every state pretty much shoot the proposal down?

Then what about the university fund recently set up by the budget? How are these not reforms in the educational sector?

Lol, ok, if you consider those worthwhile "reforms", then that's fine. Creating a national curriculum? Yeah, if you say so, but it's not really going to make a massive difference to many people now, is it? If I were to think of a massive reform of education, I'd be thinking something worthwhile like, iuno, equal funding for both public and private schools maybe. Perhaps a big budget increase into the sector.

And the university fund? It was good, but it was hardly drastic. Aside from being a pretty obvious dive for votes, it's not going to do that much for anyone. It's a start, but it's hardly drastic. I want drastic increases in funds. That hasn't happened. I'm not pleased.

So nice of you to derail the subject though. You know, my original post was about giving adequate attention to these things, and you've spun it into so content-less debate about the semantics of reform. Kudos!

It seems like leftists really want to see how far they can push things. This decade it will be euthanasia and gay marriage. I'm waiting to see what other "progessive" goals they have for the next 10 years. It sometimes seems like they are totally unaware of the concept of unintended consequences.

Yes. I fear the day when homosexuals are having mass orgies in our parks, corrupting the minds of the young so that we're unable to replace our population. I also fear the day when doctors run around like mad, euthanasing random people. OoOoOoH.

Of course, you are as Bi-Partisan as they come..

I don't profess to be bi-partisan, however, it was you who made this an issue of politics by claiming that the government had been lax in terms of social and educational reform.. I merely responded to what you said

Oh come now froggy. I was merely using those things as an example of what I consider to be other important issues worth evaluating. After all, written in the first post of this thread was:

It seems to me thesedays that somehow it doesnt matter what is happening, as long as the economy is going well, then it doesnt matter, any sin can be performed as long as it helps the economy, and any action rejected if it won't.

Surely even someone as pigheaded as yourself can see how it related to the subject at hand.

Euthanaisa and Gay marriage are keeping up with modern times? If that's the case, I'd rather not keep up with modern times merely for the sake of doing so. Ultimately, the electorate decides on the policy of each party and the reason each of those issues have not received support from EITHER side is because they are not electorally popular.

Well, the ALP recently picked up a policy concerned with giving gay couples the same rights as straight couples, so they're certainly on the way there. As for their popularity, I really, really don't think that there's been enough attention in the public to form an opinion on whether they're popular or not. Euthanasia would be a contentious issue, but I feel that the electorate is pretty much nonchalant about the matter nowadays. I mean, I didn't hear too much of an outcry of the ALP's policy on gay couples...

Regardless, both issues (and a few others) should have been put into the public debate by now.

Lack of funding in education? 74% real increase since 1996..

Lol. What? I'd love to see some figures on that. I'm not doubting them, just wondering if it's really as glossy as you're making it out to be.

Privatisation has reduced the strain on the public system, and ultimately made it more viable.

Yeah...nah.

Imagine the state of our health and education systems had the willingness of government to subsidise part of the cost been absent...

And this wouldn't be found in an ALP government?

Where were Labor's cries about Climate Change prior to 2006?

Well, I was quite sure that they had a policy on climate change in 1998. I couldn't find much to back that up, but I did find this which states that signing the Kyoto protocol was part of their policy in 2001. At the very least, it was on their agenda quite a while before 2006.

I'd rather a government that will make measured policy assessments as oppose to establishing emissions targets on the premise of political expediency over sustainability.

Such as...ignoring the entire matter until it becomes an electorally significant issue? Oh how I long for the days where politicians had initiative to take action before it was an election issue!

What are these education reforms? The moment states accede power in relation to education, they are consigning themselves to abolition. If you believe that merely because Rudd will be a Labor Prime Minister that it will automatically translate into cooperation you are in la la land..

I certainly believe that the dialogue between State leaders and Federal Labor will be much more productive than between State leaders and Howard...

 

[KFunk]

I realise that it's somewhat dodgy to extrapolate from the individual level to that of the economy, but consider the following maxim:

"We work to live, not live to work."

I don't think that economic wealth, in and of itself, has any great value - it's what we can do with this wealth, in terms of advancing the quality of human lives, that matters (and of course, throwing one in favour of the economy, it is important to sustain our ability to purchase those social goods that wealth can buy). In particular I think healthcare is important - though I am biased in this respect of course. My personal view is that if we a) manage to be a wealthy society yet at the same time b) fail to adress the health needs of the entire community (e.g. by allowing groups,such as aboriginals, to fall to developing world standards on certain indicators) then we have failed to adress those things which matter (this is my own view of what is important of course).

One may argue that supporting the economy in a given way will benefit the health sector, and that to divert more funds into health to the detriment of the economy will also negatively effect health standards. Sure, I will accept this argument if it is the case that a certain decision to fund health will actually cause a decline in health outcomes. However, and this is a big however, if we can attain higher health standards in a way which involves sustaining economic loss then I feel that we should follow such a path - moderating, of course, for impacts on other things which will affect quality of life for the population. In short:

Quality of life >> economic prosperity

Economic growth should be valued in so far as it benefits our quality of life, otherwise I think it is a false idol.

 

[Sparcod]

It's because the biggest truism about politics is that governments get punished at elections when the economy is performing poorly.

It's difficult to see a Labor win when the Coalition has done such a great job. I know the news polls say otherwise, but when Australia goes to the real polls later this year, they'll be faced with the question 'can the labor party keep this expansion growing?'

As a matter of fact, you are quite right. The state of the economy does strongly influence the image of the government. John Howard gets some if not all the credit for this strong economy at the moment but was this all his doing?

First of all, it's worth pointing out the 'mining boom', the stronger US dollar, the rise of China and India as economic powerhouses, improved technology and globalisation experienced recently.

One more thing. In the long term, education and healthcare will sustain future economic growth and is considered the two best things to invest in. Education has been seen by liberals (with no capital 'L') as a way to cure problems such as lowering crime rate etc.

I certainly believe that the dialogue between State leaders and Federal Labor will be much more productive than between State leaders and Howard...

Perhaps you remember this.

 

[Iron]

I believe that we are seeing an end of the pressumption that a strong economy creates a strong government, visa versa. Politics famously cares little for precedent.
Affluent and confident, hopefully we're finally ready to turn back to the bigger picture. I've got a gut feeling this is the case. We're finally crawling out of the individualistic, material shells of the 1990s recession, and seeking something more.
The Labor ascension, bathed in the pale light on the hill and ordained by St Kevin, is the answer.

 

[pete_mate]

74% increase in education spending over 11 years, big fucking whoop.

economics professor Joshua Gans on the 2007 budget:

"The moves on higher education are welcome but don’t get us near the share of GDP spend that we had in 1996 (2% then and projected to be 1.6% soon) and so we lag other countries in this regard. This is despite its critical role in productivity, competitiveness and innovation."

there's probably been a 140% increase in defence spending since 1996, it now sits at over 20 billion dollars, whereas education is only 18. In the 2007 budget the increase in defence expenditure WAS LARGER than the increase in education.

i can't believe you can fall for this blatant propoganda, do you have even the slightest concept of how statistics can be easily manipulated?

further, : "Australia’s innovative capacity has stalled. While the 1980s and early 1990s brought about changes that increased innovative capacity (and with it its performance), there has been no appreciable improvement since 1998. This is due primarily to reductions in R&D by universities, stagnating funding of R&D by industry and some cuts in public education spending."

this will have disastrous effects on future economic growth.

fuckit, i dont care, i'll be in some investment bank in england or new york by the time it hits, but the gullible voters won't.


on workchoices: IT WILL NOT IMPROVE THE ECONOMY, THIS ARGUMENT IS BULLSHIT

gittins:

"Grossly unequal bargaining power is a form of market failure. And when the law permits employers to drive a harder bargain and lower wage costs (say, because workers are no longer able to set a higher reservation price for work on weekends, public holidays or at other unsociable times), you get higher profits but no gain in productivity (which is a real not a monetary concept: output per unit of input).

In other words, there's no overall gain to the economy, just a transfer of income from one part of the economy (workers) to another part (employers).

It may even be the economy is left worse off because efforts to cut wage costs can be a substitute for efforts to raise the productivity of labour by increased training or the provision of better machines."

http://www.cpa.org.au/irlaws/gittins_november_2005.html

"..most economists I have had contact with expect the gains to be modest. They cannot see where all the employment and productivity improvement are supposed to come from"

http://www.theage.com.au/news/busin...orkchoices-hype/2005/10/14/1128796707445.html

so much fucking misinformation, mindless idiots lapping up propoganda, and complete ignorance of the intricacies of economics.

 

[volition]

"The moves on higher education are welcome but don’t get us near the share of GDP spend that we had in 1996 (2% then and projected to be 1.6% soon) and so we lag other countries in this regard. This is despite its critical role in productivity, competitiveness and innovation."

I don’t see why spending on something should remain at a certain percentage of GDP for an indefinite period of time, I think it’s a decision that needs to be made on a different basis. In short, it’s not necessarily ‘bad’ because it’s less as a % of GDP.

there's probably been a 140% increase in defence spending since 1996, it now sits at over 20 billion dollars, whereas education is only 18. In the 2007 budget the increase in defence expenditure WAS LARGER than the increase in education.

Ok yeah, I reckon we probably do blow too much money on defence spending.

This is due primarily to reductions in R&D by universities, stagnating funding of R&D by industry and some cuts in public education spending."

The argument for publicly funded science is weak. There’s no good reason to suggest that the profit motive wouldn’t induce private firms to commit funding to research and development of new technologies.
A few points against the notion of publicly funded science:
- R&D is not a public good
- Returns to public science are low
- Governments find it hard to pick ‘winners’, failure by the govt reflects on every citizen, whereas a private firm’s failure is only bad for the people who invested in it
- Economists are unable to show how valuable these supposed spillover effects are

Where an employer can use AWAs to cut the cost of labour per hour, that may do wonders for profits, but only by transferring income from the worker to the boss. There is no increase in efficiency.

He doesn't mention that it also means a truer allocation of resources, which IS essential for efficiency. For all we know, people might be getting paid more/less than they should be.

As for “Grossly unequal bargaining power”, this only happens when you get too many/not enough workers in the one field. Could I argue that people who work in jobs where labour supply is low (and therefore employers must pay more) are ‘exploiting’ their employers? No! So it works likewise with employers to employees. Equal bargaining power is not something that needs to be preserved, as long as both parties can walk away from the transaction, and each one can take the other to court for stuff like breach of contract. It is 'unequal bargaining power' that can actually work as the signal to move in/out of an industry.

You don’t have the ‘right’ to work in whatever field you want at the price you want, you should only have the opportunity to try and get the best wage for yourself that you can, while still doing something you’re prepared to do. That, or start your own business.

say, because workers are no longer able to set a higher reservation price for work on weekends, public holidays or at other unsociable times

See this is one of those things that seems pretty nonsensical to me. If I ‘deserve’ 2.5X normal pay(public holiday rate) for working on a certain day in the year, then why wouldn’t the market price actually reflect that itself(which would do away with the need to legislate for higher pay)? If this isn’t the case, and I can’t justify 2.5X normal pay, why should a business be forced to pay it to me?

I’ve worked public holiday shifts before, thinking, damn I certainly would’ve worked for less than $37/hr!

 

[KFunk]

You don’t have the ‘right’ to work in whatever field you want at the price you want, you should only have the opportunity to try and get the best wage for yourself that you can, while still doing something you’re prepared to do. That, or start your own business.

Should business owners receive such a 'right' if we're going to deny it to their employees?

 

[volition]

Should business owners receive such a 'right' if we're going to deny it to their employees?

I'm not entirely clear on what you mean. That statement put from an employer's point of view is simply: You don't have the 'right' to buy somebody's labour at the price you set, you only have the opportunity to buy it at the price they're willing to sell it to you.

If it's their money, business owners should be able to decide how much of it they are prepared to pay, employees will decide what they are willing to work for, and the market will do the rest. I don't see why a third party (the government) should come in and dictate terms(such as penalty rates, public holiday rates, sick leave etc).

 

[frog12986]

i can't believe you can fall for this blatant propoganda, do you have even the slightest concept of how statistics can be easily manipulated?

Indeed I do. As you just did. Comparing the expenditure as a proporiton of aggregate output is a manipulative way of measuring the expenditure patterns over a given period; regardless of who does it. It fails to account for growth patterns in the relative aggregate and assumes that government should maintain particular spending percentages regardless.

Maintaining a particular percentage of expenditure, should not be undertaken for the sake of doing so. The very fact that total government expenditure equates to around 21% of GDP in the FY 06/07 (down from 25% in 1996) is regularly ignored. Further to this, the government has prioritised expenditure in areas that are requiring the greatest response relative to population. 'Experts' seem to ignore the fact that we have a smaller proportion of our population within the education system each year, which should rightfully reduce the proportion of government expenditure.

Here are the relative expenditure patterns: (a) pecentage of Gov't Expenditure, (b) percentage of GDP (approx)

Health (a) 19.1% (b) 4.2%

FaCASIA (a) 21.2% (b) 4.6%

Education, Science and Training (a) 10% (b) 2.2%

Workplace Relations (a) 12.3% (b) 2.6%

Defence (a) 13.6% (b) 3.0%

Veterans Affairs (a) 4.9% (b) 1.0%

Treasury (a) 9% (b) 1.9%

Other (a) 9.9% (b) ?



Relative to total expenditure, education receives a fair share, particularly as it is predominantly a peripheral department in terms of service provision

The Opposition and liberal economists such as Gittins criticised the government for reducing the expenditure on education as a proportion of total government expenditure from 7.7-7.4% over the period 2007-2010, implying the government had actually taken money away from the education portfolio. However, the Opposition had failed to point out that on average over this period, education spending would increase by about 3.4% in real terms p.a. Again this highlights the shortfalls of using comparisons to aggregate expenditures without considering outlay increases.

You make accusations that people unwittingly absorb blatant propaganda, yet you gleefully lap up comments by 'experts' who have their own biases and political views.

 

[menelaus]

i think that people tend to forget the point of economic growth. the ultimate aim is to increase economic growth in order to increase economic development and improve standards of living.
forget about being able to brag about our trillion dollar economy. what good is such great economic growth if you are not experiencing an improvement in life. what is the good in saying you are working harder and longer than ever when you have nothing to show for it except a larger pay packet? its all well and good to want to pursue economic growth, but i think we should consider the improvements in standards of living and quality of life (as a result of that growth) more important. like marshall said, an economist should have 'a cool head and a warm heart'.

 

[Sparcod]

However, the Opposition had failed to point out that on average over this period, education spending would increase by about 3.4% in real terms p.a. Again this highlights the shortfalls of using comparisons to aggregate expenditures without considering outlay increases.

Who's contributing the most money? Is it the states or the federal government? I need to know.

i think that people tend to forget the point of economic growth. the ultimate aim is to increase economic growth in order to increase economic development and improve standards of living.
forget about being able to brag about our trillion dollar economy. what good is such great economic growth if you are not experiencing an improvement in life. what is the good in saying you are working harder and longer than ever when you have nothing to show for it except a larger pay packet? its all well and good to want to pursue economic growth, but i think we should consider the improvements in standards of living and quality of life (as a result of that growth) more important. like marshall said, an economist should have 'a cool head and a warm heart'.

In the long run, I think economic growth usually improves living standards but you are quite right and you do have an extremely valid point there. An increase in income doesn't always have to be accompanied by an improvement in living standards. Can you give some explanation as to what you mean by "not experiencing an improvement in life"?