The Official "Argue with waf" Thread (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

Well first of all i don't see why we whould give a shit about Indonesian farmers at all, they're Indonesia's conern not ours.
Second, I really don't believe you could ever question a farmer's performance. I think you'll struggle to find a lazy farmer.

If indonesian farmers can make oranges cheaper, everyone gets cheaper oranges, and a couple of Aussie farmers have to plant apples instead. So some indonesians benefit, Australian consumers benefit, and a few farmers are minorly inconvenienced but also ultimately benefit because Indonesia will buy our apples, because we can make them cheaper then they can.

End result: everybody wins.

 

[The Brucemaster]

If indonesian farmers can make oranges cheaper, everyone gets cheaper oranges, and a couple of Aussie farmers have to plant apples instead. So some indonesians benefit, Australian consumers benefit, and a few farmers are minorly inconvenienced but also ultimately benefit because Indonesia will buy our apples, because we can make them cheaper then they can.

End result: everybody wins.

You clearly do not comprehend the severity of the situation. If Australia chooses to by oranges from Indonesia then EVERY SINGLE ORANGE FARMER IN AUSTRALIA loses a job. It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that they will even consider just nonchalantly converting their entire orange farm in to an apple farm.
Not only that, but every single proletariat job that is associated with the orange industry (manufacturing of juice, packaging etc.) with the exception of distribution is made redundant. That is a VERY SIGNIFICANT number of jobs lost.

Another point that really should have occurred to me earlier, why are we assuming that the orange farmers will simply be relocated to a similiar industry. What if there is no demand there, what then?

Once again The Liberals fail to see the entirety of a situation.

 

[loquasagacious]

They'll transfer somewhere there is demand because there is always demand somewhere, everyone has a comparitive advantage in something.

And also re orange processing industry it is actually less upheaval for them because the machinery can be used to process other fruits.

 

[withoutaface]

You clearly do not comprehend the severity of the situation. If Australia chooses to by oranges from Indonesia then EVERY SINGLE ORANGE FARMER IN AUSTRALIA loses a job. It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that they will even consider just nonchalantly converting their entire orange farm in to an apple farm.
Not only that, but every single proletariat job that is associated with the orange industry (manufacturing of juice, packaging etc.) with the exception of distribution is made redundant. That is a VERY SIGNIFICANT number of jobs lost.

Another point that really should have occurred to me earlier, why are we assuming that the orange farmers will simply be relocated to a similiar industry. What if there is no demand there, what then?

Once again The Liberals fail to see the entirety of a situation.

So because a couple of farmers like their jobs, the whole of Australia should pay twice as much for oranges? Even when these farmers are benefitted by free trade in other sectors meaning that the extra money they make over the Indonesians will actually buy shit?

Again, why don't we just subtract that cost of Indonesian oranges from the cost of Australian ones and pay them that much to dig holes and fill them in again, because that would have the same net effect.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Waf, is it acceptable for all notions of environmental conservation to be discarded for the sake of the free market? Or would you be willing to have some economic inefficiency for the sake of protecting certain environmental/natural/heritage sites?

 

[withoutaface]

Waf, is it acceptable for all notions of environmental conservation to be discarded for the sake of the free market? Or would you be willing to have some economic inefficiency for the sake of protecting certain environmental/natural/heritage sites?

I support pollution taxes, which would encourage industry to minimise their pollution, lest it cut into their profits. There is no natural incentive for the market to protect the environment.

 

[loquasagacious]

Interesting point I think you're both wrong.

I think that free trade is actually good for the environment because as a result crops are grown in the areas to which they are best suited at various times of the year because these are the cheapest areas to grow them. Because the need to irrigate, fertlise or otherwise expensively interfere with nature is lessened.

And I think that there sometimes is a natural incentive for companies to protect the environment eg when their business depends on it eg tour operators and because it doesnt make sense for a long run business like farming not to take environmental impact into consideration, the real problem is asymmetric information meaning that environmentally bad decisions are made because the long lasting effects are not known. And also because especially in farming activities my not impact on you but on your neighbours.

Overall I like a pollution tax or even credit system as has been variously proposed.

 

[Sarah]

I endorse a shareholder system to replace the current one, whereby a certain individual may choose to buy 'shares' in the education of, say, a hundred science students, and later, once they enter the workplace, they receive a certain percentage of that cohort's income for a given number of years. The benefits of this over HECS are as follows:
1. Students will be able to opt for a variety of packages, from a basic tuition fees only, to one which covers both that and certain living expenses, for a higher percentage of their future earnings. The way I see it, this will increase accessibility and help to overcome problems where students can't afford to move to the big cities to go to university.
2. It will make students more aware that at any moment people might refuse to buy shares for their next semester's worth of tuition, and so will give a greater incentive to work hard.
3. Gives universities greater incentives to find alternative sources of funding, such as what has occurred in the United States with Vanderbilt University, which only gets 9% of its income from tuition fees.
4. Creates closer to the right number of skilled graduates for any particular market condition. This is because when there are not enough students being sponsored compared to what the market requires, the projected income of these students will be a lot higher, and this will encourage sponsorship to rush into this sector, and once the right number is reached, prices will once again communicate this to investors, and they will invest in other degrees instead.
5. Lower taxes because taxpayers are no longer subsidising higher education.

Look, there are problems with the above.

1. I really don't get how it will increase accessibility. It may increase it in some professions but likewise it may decrease accessibility into other. You keep mentioning that the market will signal which areas investors will invest in and this will create places for degrees geard towards to profession. Well yes this might happen but it may also come at the cost of a decrease in individuals choice.

Individuals are also part of the market and should have choice. Sure you say there will still be places for caterpillar degrees (it's late but i'm sure it was mentioned pages ago) and performing arts degrees but under this policy, it restricts the number of places available.

Just because demand from industry may not be there, it doesn't mean that demand from the consumer is non-existent.

2. I don't see how that comes into place. It will probably just encourage the student to get a job or increase current working hours.

3. On a side note, I'm curious as to the breakup of that university's funding.

4. Well as some people have pointed out, there are time lags. And I recall you mentioned that the market can forecast ahead.

Will the market really forecast ahead? Because at the moment, there's (supposedly) a skill shortage and the need to import labour. Now, if the market truly did work, this skill shortage wouldn't be such big news in HRM and wouldn't register with the media.


Overall, parts of what you've proposed sound similar to co-op scholarships and traineeships that already operate. I support the HECS system but I would also like to see more industry support in education by providing funding for study in areas where there is a demand as a supplement to the system currently in place.

Oh also, apparently Britain is also adopting a system similar to HECS. Granted I don't know if this is correct and the details of their proposal but if what I've heard is correct, then the HECs system can't be that flawed.

 

[Mongke]

what. the. hell. waf, you need to reconsider some of this stuff. orranges to be bought from indonesia and thats not going to affect the industry in australia? students partly owned by buisness people? you really need some life experience here. what you seem to exude in your posts is that people are just parts of a company, not living, breathing, and feeling beings. you are so caught up in the big picture that you have no concept of living as the common worker. factors of the working class dont occure to you, i cant quite believe that you are serious sometimes when you post. you seem so innocent, do you go to uni?

 

[withoutaface]

Look, there are problems with the above.

1. I really don't get how it will increase accessibility. It may increase it in some professions but likewise it may decrease accessibility into other. You keep mentioning that the market will signal which areas investors will invest in and this will create places for degrees geard towards to profession. Well yes this might happen but it may also come at the cost of a decrease in individuals choice.

Individuals are also part of the market and should have choice. Sure you say there will still be places for caterpillar degrees (it's late but i'm sure it was mentioned pages ago) and performing arts degrees but under this policy, it restricts the number of places available.

Just because demand from industry may not be there, it doesn't mean that demand from the consumer is non-existent.

Individuals should not be offered a choice at the expense of society if the decision they make does not benefit society as a whole.

2. I don't see how that comes into place. It will probably just encourage the student to get a job or increase current working hours.

How so? If I think that my sponsorship could be cut off tomorrow then I'd want to be working my hardest not to fail anything.

4. Well as some people have pointed out, there are time lags. And I recall you mentioned that the market can forecast ahead.

Will the market really forecast ahead? Because at the moment, there's (supposedly) a skill shortage and the need to import labour. Now, if the market truly did work, this skill shortage wouldn't be such big news in HRM and wouldn't register with the media.

The market's forcasting is not flawless, but it is far superior to any substitute government could provide, and thus it is desirable that it has control.

Overall, parts of what you've proposed sound similar to co-op scholarships and traineeships that already operate. I support the HECS system but I would also like to see more industry support in education by providing funding for study in areas where there is a demand as a supplement to the system currently in place.

Oh also, apparently Britain is also adopting a system similar to HECS. Granted I don't know if this is correct and the details of their proposal but if what I've heard is correct, then the HECs system can't be that flawed.

I hear parts of South America are adopting socialism, continue reductio ad absurdum.

what. the. hell. waf, you need to reconsider some of this stuff. orranges to be bought from indonesia and thats not going to affect the industry in australia?

It will affect the industry in Australia, but it is in the industry's long term interests that it occurs.

students partly owned by buisness people?

The entire population party owned by the government?

you really need some life experience here. what you seem to exude in your posts is that people are just parts of a company, not living, breathing, and feeling beings.

You seem to think that the laws of logic and observed patterns are completely irrelevant as soon as you throw people into the mix, which they're clearly not. This mistake has been made by many governments, and most of them have failed dismally.

you are so caught up in the big picture that you have no concept of living as the common worker. factors of the working class dont occure to you, i cant quite believe that you are serious sometimes when you post.

Of course the plight of the working class occurs to me, that's why I endorse policies that deliver them cheaper products (and therefore higher real wages), greater social freedoms, and the ability to be able to say that Wednesdays are important to them, and that they want to take them off in exchange for a 5% pay cut on other days. You, on the other hand, endorse policies that, while they do tend to acheive their stated aim of equality, leave the entire nation in absolute poverty, and below the bottom rung of any society with a relatively liberal market.

You're very quick to jump upon any you seem so innocent, do you go to uni?

Yes, of course I do.

 

[transcendent]

In theory and at first glance it may be a new idea but something I eventually choose to disagree with. You are under the impression that everyone has the ability to digest and understand the changes to the market place, be able to market themselves and their abilities, leading towards to cutthroat competitive industry, focused solely on the individual to work as a professional. Without base education, and not everyone is able to learn at elevated ability, and an understanding of the market place, especially to those such as myself who shun economic/financial studies, how will you support say, nursing which is searching for more students but are not able to retain them, having a large percentage of graduates drop out due to various reasons, one being an employment environment that fosters stress and greater accountability.
Such a market, and your idea being that if they want and really need the money they will do the work, in my opinion will only lead to a recession and possible depression of the market when salaries become lower and living standards lower as people will not be able to spend money on luxuries. I believe this is why the Howard government is doing well in terms of economics as people's spending is largely on luxury goods, aka flat widescreen tvs.
Also rehabilitation centres, as much as I disagree with them, are in place not due solely to rehabilitate but as a means to lower crime and prevent crime. Accept it as a token to keep the harm minimalisation activists from crying out.
Oh, I'm apathetic towards society and I generally have a low opinion of big business. I don't understand the trend towards selling yourself. It's like prostituting your abilities. If you like that sorta thing, go for it, flash your tits and act like a lap dog. Some of us just want honest simple work without acting like a tool to corporations.

 

[wheredanton]

Mathmite makes me laugh.

Do people like this actually exist? Makes you loose faith in humanity.

 

[loquasagacious]

I really don't get how it will increase accessibility. It may increase it in some professions but likewise it may decrease accessibility into other. You keep mentioning that the market will signal which areas investors will invest in and this will create places for degrees geard towards to profession. Well yes this might happen but it may also come at the cost of a decrease in individuals choice.

Individuals are also part of the market and should have choice. Sure you say there will still be places for caterpillar degrees (it's late but i'm sure it was mentioned pages ago) and performing arts degrees but under this policy, it restricts the number of places available.

Why should you or I, as taxpayers, fund people to study their obscure caterpillar interests?

Individuals still have choice, if they in themselves can justify it. If they personally believe that doing a Bachelor of Philosophy will elevate society and provide them gainful employment eg if their personal cost of educating themselves in that manner is lower than the benefit then they still can. They could become conventional full-feepaying students, funded either from their pocket or by seeking a loan from someone - afterall if we are willing to take out a mortgage to get a house then why not take out one to get an education?

 

[ur_inner_child]

Mathmite makes me laugh.

Do people like this actually exist? Makes you loose faith in humanity.

everything you say is SO CUTE.

Makes me gain a little hope for humanity.

I am officially quite in love with you as much as an internet crush can accumulate to.

 

[loquasagacious]

everything you say is SO CUTE.

Makes me gain a little hope for humanity.

I am officially quite in love with you as much as an internet crush can accumulate to.

All the sleaze of L&R and NS in NCAP......

Oh and wheredanton - go son!

 

[wheredanton]

Wheredanton is taken and so is ur inner child! But it's good that people acknowledge my general brilliance. That includes you boys. Love unlimited please.

 

[withoutaface]

In theory and at first glance it may be a new idea but something I eventually choose to disagree with. You are under the impression that everyone has the ability to digest and understand the changes to the market place, be able to market themselves and their abilities, leading towards to cutthroat competitive industry, focused solely on the individual to work as a professional. Without base education, and not everyone is able to learn at elevated ability, and an understanding of the market place, especially to those such as myself who shun economic/financial studies, how will you support say, nursing which is searching for more students but are not able to retain them, having a large percentage of graduates drop out due to various reasons, one being an employment environment that fosters stress and greater accountability.

I understand that unskilled workers will generally lack the capacity to negotiate a contract individually, and this is why I support collective bargaining, to an extent. I do not believe, however, that employers should be obligated to talk to the unions, because then they're held to ransom and the balance of power is swung well and truly away from centre again.

Such a market, and your idea being that if they want and really need the money they will do the work, in my opinion will only lead to a recession and possible depression of the market when salaries become lower and living standards lower as people will not be able to spend money on luxuries. I believe this is why the Howard government is doing well in terms of economics as people's spending is largely on luxury goods, aka flat widescreen tvs.

If most people are working in what could be termed luxury industries, and these industries pay their workers peanuts, and hence the demand for their products go down, and so the prices do as well, doesn't this lead to deflation? If so, this has a restabilising effect, much the same as when there's an imbalance in trade with Indonesian orange farmers.

]Also rehabilitation centres, as much as I disagree with them, are in place not due solely to rehabilitate but as a means to lower crime and prevent crime. Accept it as a token to keep the harm minimalisation activists from crying out.

If they are to be funded, they should be funded exclusively by taxes taken from the products which are addictive, however I have great reservations because this also penalises people who know their limits and don't take things to the point of addiction.

Oh, I'm apathetic towards society and I generally have a low opinion of big business. I don't understand the trend towards selling yourself. It's like prostituting your abilities. If you like that sorta thing, go for it, flash your tits and act like a lap dog. Some of us just want honest simple work without acting like a tool to corporations.

As opposed to being a tool to the government?


On a side note: loquaciousagacious do you support private collective bargaining collectives, as distinct from unions with special legal rights?

 

[Xayma]

What happens to imbalances in trade with countries such as China which does not have a floating currency?

 

[The Brucemaster]

They'll transfer somewhere there is demand because there is always demand somewhere, everyone has a comparitive advantage in something.

And also re orange processing industry it is actually less upheaval for them because the machinery can be used to process other fruits.

You really are rather stupid arent you.

Firstly, these farmers will not just transfer somewhere else. Orange farmers are good at one thing: farming oranges. You cannot reasonably expect a person who has only one major skill to simply change his entire lifestyle simply to suit social demand.
Secondly, we are not just talking about "a few farmers here". Australia produced 395,000 tonnes of oranges in the 2003-2004 growing season (http://www.census.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/2829A5E125F18442CA2568A9001393FC?OpenDocument.)
That takes a considerable number of farmers to do, farmers who also have families who depend on the income generated by the farm for survival.

On your point about industry, the machinery can not be used to process other fruits you ignoramus, there is no demand for it. The apple industry is not going to require five whole factories worth (for arguements sake) of machinery to process apple juice. It cannot be used elsewhere in any event because it is designed to process oranges.

Your ideology in this instance is fundamentally flawed WAF, you seek to protect the needs of the individual by enforcing conformity to societal benefit. What it fails to consider is any individual whose needs/wants are adverse to your idea of societal benefit and i think you'll find this is a substantial number.
You cannot proclaim the freedoms of the individual and conformity to ideals at the same time, the two are contrary to one another.

 

[withoutaface]

Then we pay them $AU, and they end up with a whole heap of plastic bills which they have two options:
1. Bury them in the ground. Good for us, because we get lots of goods for something we can print relatively cheaply.
2. Spend them on Australian goods. Now, if their currency is set below the market value, then that means we can spend relatively few aussie dollars for a lot of goods, and then when they reinvest it, we send back less goods than we received, hence we win out. If their currency is set above market value, then it's unlikely we'll be buying stuff from there in the first place, and they'll find it difficult to buy stuff off us because anyone selling will realise they're being short changed. If it's set at market value, then normal trade rules apply.