Latham or Howard? (1 Viewer)

[AGB]

firstly, enlightened one (quite ironic dont u think?), the change i was referring to was a change of government. i suppose that could have been misinterpreted as change in general, so that is understandable. however, it is reasonably obvious that a government can do absolutely nothing over the long term i.e. remain static in regards to policy, whilst at the same time achieve progress

secondly, the free trade agreement will actually be beneficial to australia. i am guessing that you dont do economics, as any economics student could explain to you why free trade is better than no free trade. however, for your sake, in short the free trade agreement will benefit australia on the whole, just as it will also benefit the US overall. sure, some of our industries will suffer in the SHORT TERM, but in the long term those INEFFICIENT industries will be eliminated, which is GOOD because no country wants to support inefficient industries as it represents an opportunity cost of total output. people employed in those industries will, in the future, be employed in the more efficient industries, thus our total output will increase. on the other hand, industries that we have which are efficient in global market terms will benefit as they are competing against now non protected competitors due to free trade. therefore, our output increases. i am not sure whether or not what i said here is clear, so i have provided a link for you to become 'more enlightened'

http://internationalecon.com/v1.0/ch40/40c000.html

in regards to the HECS situation, it was necessary for brendan nelson to do something with it because it was unsustainable. the government could not keep on allocating funds for our tertiary education, however, a new plan, which will solve the problem, is just about to be passed in the senate (there is some change for you ). however, there has been a mechanism set up, where we can borrow funds now with a minimal interest rate to pay for university, then pay it back when we have a job (in simple terms).

the public education problem is actually a state government problem, not federal. the low wages that teachers receive are really quite dismal, and if the state labour government could get their act together and realise that if they dont start paying teachers more, the quality of teachers will decline significantly, then the problem might be fixed. at the moment, we have people like andrew refshaugie, sitting there on their high horses pretending that the problem doesn't exist.......i would fully support a change of government at the state level in NSW.

the health crisis is, for your information, being solved. however, these things take time and dont just happen overnight. read the papers occasionally or watch the news, and you would be even more enlightened that you currently are

 

[Kittycat]

Originally posted by J0n
Latham cause he called howard an arse-licker

lol, true, I agree. I don't like John. He cuts too much funds from the education system. I don't like it.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Ok AGB, guess I been told. Now talk a small breath before you have a heart attack. My name was actually an anonym. I was only fooling around. And secondly don't take shit so seriously.
Inefficent industries mate? You seem to forgot that it's people who make up these indsutries. Decent, hard working people, who have no say in how these industries are run, but need to be part of them to maintain a living. It's these people, simple farmers mate, who earn a living of the land. Free trade will jeopardise there way of life.
I have sene industries deregulated, continually, and the unemployment in the country rise. Rise, because people like you say somehting that isn't broekn needs fixing to remain 'competitve'. The turth is, our farming indsutries don't need to become more competitve, they get enough demand, now, that is.
We have more than enough locally produced produce to feed this nation more than once over. We don't need to import something we already have more than enough of. A free trade agreement simply brings in cattle, something we have an plenty of. the same with the push for chicken importd. Speaking of chickens, I've seen the chicken industry become more competitve, so that the quality fell, but the production went up, and the jobs went belly up. And also it has become crueller to the animals themselves. They are packed tighter for 'efficiency'.
Who we need a free trade agreement with is Japan, or something similiar. You see, mr economics, Japan produces two things, technology and people.
We always ned better, and more, technology. They always need food. Hence we help each other. Bartering at it's lowest forms, technology for food, true trade.
And, I assume you don't know much about farms, but local produce is a lot bloody better quality. I'd not be game to touch some imported foods with a ten foot pole (cliche, I know).
Now, mr economics, lets do a little maths.
The price of trucking something across the state as compared to shipping something across the ocean. Imports cost more, and the profits disappear overseas, not to mention the imports are of a lower quailty.
Or, actually I should say transporting by train, because our rail system needs work to survive. It is inefficient, I'll be the first to say. Yet the cost of transporting something by rail is cheaper (and quicker) than shipping.
You forget one thing in your big efficiency rambling. It's all about capabilities. We have a small population on a large land, so lets make use of that and support our own people.
This free trade agreement, you watch, will be a little one sided. We are becoming too American, and it's about time we remembered we are Australian.
I did watch the news last night, and I feel sorry fro Sydney people. Apparently another scandal was uncovered at another hospital. That, to me, isn't fixing any problems.
The new plan for higher education is to pay more. That isn't to good for people with not a lot of money. It creates a higher strain, yet the rich get it easy, and they even get student allowance (or something if they produce the money up front).
I concede the point about education, if it is state, so be it. I don't study politics.
And by the way, AGB, econmomics wasn't offered to us, but if it breeds, self righteous overworked arrogant people like you, I'm thankful.
Perhaps it's time you come down off your high horse and meet the people you say are inefficient. Meet the people about to become jobless. Give them faces, make them real people, then shove your concieted attitude where it fits. No offence intended.

 

[Enlightened_One]

And mate, your link backs up what i said. We farm, so we don't need any farming products from others. Yet we could use America's technology, or Japan's technology, but nothing we produce, as there's nothing wrong with it.

And I quote:

In his example Ricardo imagined two countries, England and Portugal producing two goods, cloth and wine, using labor as the sole input in production. He assumed that the productivity of labor (i.e., the quantity of output produced per worker) varied between industries and across countries. However, instead of assuming, as Adam Smith did, that England is more productive in producing one good and Portugal is more productive in the other; Ricardo assumed that Portugal was more productive in both goods. Based on Smith's intuition, then, it would seem that trade could not be advantageous, at least for England.

However, Ricardo demonstrated numerically that if England specialized in producing one of the two goods, and if Portugal produced the other, then total world output of both goods could rise! If an appropriate terms of trade (i.e., amount of one good traded for another) were then chosen, both countries could end up with more of both goods after specialization and free trade then they each had before trade. This means that England may nevertheless benefit from free trade even though it is assumed to be technologically inferior to Portugal in the production of everything,.


Our farming produce is good enough as it is, our industries are right. We should only import what we can't produce.

 

[AGB]

enlightened one, i think our disagreement on this issue is stemming from the fact that i am looking at the economy as a whole and the future of the economy, whereas you are looking to protect one declining sector of the economy, and are looking at the australian economy only today rather than tomorrow.

i am gathering that you live in rural australia, as u seem to be focusing on that impact (also the fact that your school does not offer economics.....). a reduction in agricultural subsidies in the US (this will occur with the free trade agreement) will benefit australian farmers. i agree that we our nation is never going to starve, but farmers will be able to sell their product to the US, where our prices are comparatively lower, and our quality is significantly higher, thus farmers will benefit. the australian farming industry does not need to become more competitive, but other industries do , and if they do not become more competitive, then they should not be able to operate. if this is at the cost of a rise in unemployment in the SHORT TERM, then so be it. those people will have to find new jobs for the sake of economic progression and the benefit of the rest of australia. if we did continue in the vein, then economic growth would start to stagnate after several years, and that is something that we definitely dont want.......

your complaints about the health system are actually a state issue as well. i originally thought you were referring to medicare, but the hospitals aren't a howard government problem - they are a state labour carr govt problem. if you had bothered to read the papers, as i suggested, you would have seen that it is craig knowles (the ex minister for health) who is copping the flack over the hospital issue. as i said in my previous post, i would fully support a change in state govt.....

the new plan for higher education is the only plan that would allow it to remain sustainable over the long term. i dont think you should be comparing the rich and the poor, as it isnt rich peoples faults they are rich. poor perople are still able to go to university, but they will have to pay for it. i mean, it is only reasonable that you pay for what you are getting. you cant expect the govt to pay for everything......

i hope this post clears everything up. if it has not, i am sure you will reply again.

oh, and by the way, the best usually are self righteous and arrogant.....

 

[Enlightened_One]

Then I guess I'm one of the best. I concede the point. I do read papers though, more than you, I'd wager. (Actually they come free).
You're one hell of a person to argue with.

 

[Generator]

'the new plan for higher education is the only plan that would allow it to remain sustainable over the long term. i dont think you should be comparing the rich and the poor, as it isnt rich peoples faults they are rich. poor perople are still able to go to university, but they will have to pay for it. i mean, it is only reasonable that you pay for what you are getting. you cant expect the govt to pay for everything......'

All people have had to pay for some time, yet the problem is is that now some are able to (potentially) gain easier access for a higher price.

But ... If people are paying more due to their full-fee status, then why are they getting the same service as those on the HECS system? How is that fair (using your logic from above)?

The reforms are practical, but that is about it.

 

[Nearlyfinished!]

Originally posted by ...
Bring back Goth!

I think you might mean GOUGH. He is not a rebellious teen who wears too much black eye makeup, black clothes and hates the world.

Oh yeah, back to the important stuff:
I would put Latham in as PRESIDENT any day over most of Australia's politicians. He obviously is in touch with the average Australian.

 

[Alexander]

I dont think Latham is big enough for Australia's land of political giants. The skin is too thin. Heck, he'd still lock up refugees.

 

[MaK]

All politicians are fukheads they have all the same mindsets and everything, no matter what.. nothing will ever change. Howard is an atheist and doesn't give a shit about anything except money and securing the future of himself, friends and family.

All the smart people go into Multi-National Companies and are Multi Milionaires. Who which of some should be politicians.

 

[freaking_out]

Originally posted by MaK
All politicians are fukheads they have all the same mindsets and everything, no matter what.. nothing will ever change. Howard is an atheist and doesn't give a shit about anything except money and securing the future of himself, friends and family.

All the smart people go into Multi-National Companies and are Multi Milionaires. Who which of some should be politicians.

yeah, howards policies are always for the rich!

 

[abdooooo!!!]

howard.

 

[Xayma]

Howard instead of Latham, definately maybe its just because Im liberal minded.

 

[Rorix]

Howard, Costello, Abbott > Latham.

 

[Xayma]

Maybe not Costello, hopefully Howard stays on long enough for Costello to go.

 

[glitter burns]

I picked Latham as the lesser of two evils...
I personally preferred Beazley, but that's a different story I guess...

 

[mic]

but beazley already lost the last two elections

i guess with latham, howard's been caught off guard. i pray latham will come up with the goods. give me a reason to vote for labor.

 

[Rorix]

On a slightly related note, why choose between the lesser of two evils? Vote Cthulhu.

http://www.cthulhu.org

 

[Ziff]

On a slightly related note, why choose between the lesser of two evils? Vote Cthulhu.

Why not just draw in an extra box on the ballot and label it "Adolf Hitler"?

- Godwin's Law!

 

[Rorix]

Ok Godwin's Law invoked, discussion over!


(nice one Ziff, this thread was getting a bit pointless)