The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

and of course a freemarket is incorruptable; allowing for freedom of speech and understands individuals

Well that's what a free market requires. It is impossible.

 

[Liberal Scum]

I never said it was incorruptable, merely that it is less so than a communist society purely because having 100+ business leaders conspire to do something radical is a lot harder than just sending an order from the party room and having it done, not to mention that even if all the major businesses agreed, there would still be minor ones that did not and the corruption, while undesirable, would not be absolute.

The press will publish any opinion that makes them money, whether it be for or against the owner of the publication's political views or not. This leads to a wide expression of political views.

The market understands what individuals tell it through their purchases.

 

[walrusbear]

I never said it was incorruptable, merely that it is less so than a communist society purely because having 100+ business leaders conspire to do something radical is a lot harder than just sending an order from the party room and having it done, not to mention that even if all the major businesses agreed, there would still be minor ones that did not and the corruption, while undesirable, would not be absolute.

i'd argue that business leaders are required to be corrupt to succeed in a free market

The press will publish any opinion that makes them money, whether it be for or against the owner of the publication's political views or not. This leads to a wide expression of political views.

no, it just expresses the political views of the rich

The market understands what individuals tell it through their purchases.

thus why it is socially unviable

 

[Liberal Scum]

i'd argue that business leaders are required to be corrupt to succeed in a free market

Which is why there would be certain laws to prevent corruption, insider trading etc. It falls in the same basket as private monopolies.
And what makes you say they must be corrupt to succeed?

no, it just expresses the political views of the rich

If the poor can write a piece which expresses logical views in an appealing way then the private media will pick it up and publish it. Secondly, the diversity of views between the rich is huge anyway, and so even if your statement were true it still provides something of a free expression of ideas.

thus why it is socially unviable

You're suggesting that you know what I want for breakfast better than I do?

 

[Sarah]

The market understands what individuals tell it through their purchases.

thus why it is socially unviable

You're suggesting that you know what I want for breakfast better than I do?

Well there is the issue of market failure, negative externalities and public goods that you have to deal with. It's not as clear cut when you look at it from the macro level.

 

[erawamai]

Well there is the issue of market failure, negative externalities and public goods that you have to deal with. It's not as clear cut when you look at it from the macro level.

I'm not sure 'Liberal scum' has a grasp of the phases 'market failure' and 'public good'.

 

[walrusbear]

If the poor can write a piece which expresses logical views in an appealing way then the private media will pick it up and publish it. Secondly, the diversity of views between the rich is huge anyway, and so even if your statement were true it still provides something of a free expression of ideas.

You're suggesting that you know what I want for breakfast better than I do?

you're kind of missing the point
it's dubious to claim that private media will publish anything that is quality. you said earlier they publish what will make money. is that what you meant by 'appealing'. in any case, there i still doubt private media would publish 'anything' as long as it 'expresses logical views' - unless 'logical views' means consistent with the private media worldview.
in regards to your second statement regardless of how diverse the views of the rich are, it is still not the views of the marginalised. yours is an expression of ideas backed by money

i hardly see the point your making with your 'breakfast' call. are you telling me the market can uphold proper individual liberties because it can identify commercial practices??

 

[Liberal Scum]

I'm not sure 'Liberal scum' has a grasp of the phases 'market failure' and 'public good'.

I do agree that there are certain elements of society which can't be completely deregulated, however these are rather small in number, and certainly many of those which are heavily regulated now shouldn't be.

you're kind of missing the point
it's dubious to claim that private media will publish anything that is quality. you said earlier they publish what will make money. is that what you meant by 'appealing'. in any case, there i still doubt private media would publish 'anything' as long as it 'expresses logical views' - unless 'logical views' means consistent with the private media worldview.
in regards to your second statement regardless of how diverse the views of the rich are, it is still not the views of the marginalised. yours is an expression of ideas backed by money

i hardly see the point your making with your 'breakfast' call. are you telling me the market can uphold proper individual liberties because it can identify commercial practices??

Private press publishes everything from Mein Kampf through the Communist Manifesto through the Road to Serfdom through to the Anarchist Cookbook. What makes you think that this will change after further deregulation?

And the market will not uphold individual liberties, individuals are perfectly capable of deciding which liberties they want, and the role of government should be to ensure that they do not encroach upon the liberties of others while exerting these rights. The market will identify commerical practices and deliver goods which the consumer desires.

 

[walrusbear]

Private press publishes everything from Mein Kampf through the Communist Manifesto through the Road to Serfdom through to the Anarchist Cookbook. What makes you think that this will change after further deregulation?

these texts are deceptive examples because they are historic and cultural exceptions. they have commercial value attached to their 'canonicity'. it is in the majority of pressings where you will most likely see a homogeneity of print. for a real example look at the commercial media?

And the market will not uphold individual liberties, individuals are perfectly capable of deciding which liberties they want, and the role of government should be to ensure that they do not encroach upon the liberties of others while exerting these rights. The market will identify commerical practices and deliver goods which the consumer desires.

this seems nonsensical
you pretty much admit that liberty can't exist without government regulation...

 

[Liberal Scum]

these texts are deceptive examples because they are historic and cultural exceptions. they have commercial value attached to their 'canonicity'. it is in the majority of pressings where you will most likely see a homogeneity of print. for a real example look at the commercial media?



this seems nonsensical
you pretty much admit that liberty can't exist without government regulation...

Yes, minimal regulation is required, and I don't think you'll find anyone but anarchists claiming otherwise.

If we want other examples we can look to papers and essays published online, there would be many of those with many different viewpoints, and they are accessible to just about anyone who wants them.

 

[walrusbear]

Yes, minimal regulation is required, and I don't think you'll find anyone but anarchists claiming otherwise.

If we want other examples we can look to papers and essays published online, there would be many of those with many different viewpoints, and they are accessible to just about anyone who wants them.

how minimal are we talking?
and how are individuals 'perfectly capable' of choosing their liberties? and what about the liberties of those that the market infringes upon; the disenfranchised?

and i thought the internet was meant to become a market property too??
are you conceding that we need a degree of centralised space for real diversity to be expressed?

 

[Liberal Scum]

The internet would exist with or without centralised control, it would have developed as a whole bunch of smaller networks which would eventually have linked up through private cooperation. The internet is part of the market, access and hosting are bought and sold, and iirc the central servers are also privately owned.

Roles of govt
1. Protecting individuals from oppression and coercion from both within the society, and outside. Covers military defence of a country, policing against violent crimes, protections against monopolies etc.
2. Maintaining goods which are not feasible under the market, such as footpaths, small parks, non-highway roads, some public schools, some public hospitals etc
3. Recognise that the mentally disabled and orphaned children are unable to take care of themselves, and in this instance be paternalistic towards them.

 

[Generator]

AWA's 'can't be forced' on workers

Workplace laws showing chinks in their legal armour

 

[erawamai]

Roles of govt
1. Protecting individuals from oppression and coercion from both within the society, and outside. Covers military defence of a country, policing against violent crimes, protections against monopolies etc.
2. Maintaining goods which are not feasible under the market, such as footpaths, small parks, non-highway roads, some public schools, some public hospitals etc
3. Recognise that the mentally disabled and orphaned children are unable to take care of themselves, and in this instance be paternalistic towards them.

You have a very rose tinted view of the market.

I hope you don't think ALL rights can be traded and earned on the market...

 

[spell check]

why can't howard get his story straight

oh wow the economy is so spectacular, but suddenly we have to set the labour movement back decades of progress because there is such a dire need to improve the economy

next thing we'll have child slavery because it's what australia needs to help move forward

 

[Not-That-Bright]

oh wow the economy is so spectacular, but suddenly we have to set the labour movement back decades of progress because there is such a dire need to improve the economy

Well there is a bit of a lag time, and he has reason to believe that if we keep our current laws tough times lay ahead, despite the current good times.

 

[spell check]

i think the times ahead will be made more tough if people have no rights at work

seems to me it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy on the part of the government

of course times will be tough if workers get shat on by their employers

 

[Not-That-Bright]

True, it is quite likely that if times do get tough (due to, or not due to the new legislation) the government will blame the economy, and say "thank god we've got the laws".

It is hard.

 

[Generator]

PM 'will accept' minor IR changes

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Costello hiding Treasury IR report

Brad Norington and Steve Lewis
November 05, 2005

THE Howard Government has been accused of concealing specially commissioned advice from Treasury that fails to show any economic benefit from the workplace changes unveiled in parliament this week.

Treasury was commissioned to provide cabinet with specific advice on the economic justification for proceeding with the historic reforms.

But the Government is refusing to release the advice, raising suspicions it did not match claims by John Howard and Peter Costello that the changes would boost employment, wages and productivity. [...]

Senior Treasury official David Tune has confirmed the department reached conclusions about likely changes to productivity as a result of its economic modelling. [...] Mr Costello refused to release the advice yesterday or say whether it supported the Government. A spokeswoman said: "Advice from Treasury to cabinet remains confidential."

But Opposition Treasury spokesman Wayne Swan said the Government had hidden the advice because it told the wrong story. The economic basis to proceed with changes was significantly weakened, he said. [...]

Economists have questioned whether there is any evidence that moving people on to the Government's individual contracts boosts productivity, with respected Melbourne Institute deputy director Mark Wooden saying, "I'm not sure there is any". [...]

- Full Article, The Australian

..........