2013 Federal election (1 Viewer)

[funkshen]

In a time of slowing growth in Australia and so called 'end of the mining investment boom' (I hope the pollies know the amount of money being invested in LNG, just a different type of mining), HARSH austerity can harm an economy, however sustained budget deficits get the government into the problem of implementing austerity. That's why to balance both, solely on economic terms the LNPs NBN makes much more sense. In hindsight the big spending items like NDIS make sense socially, but economically it's not the right time. At a time when everyone is talking about fiscal responsibility, the ALP turn around and massively increase discretionary spending. Yes we want to reduce unemployment, but making it harder to lay off, and increasing the public service payroll, is not a long term option.

budget deficits "get the government into the problem of implementing austerity" is either a trivial or nonsensical statement. maybe you could elaborate on it.

claiming that the coalition's NBN plan is the more fiscally responsible approach is a baseless claim. the government can borrow at historic lows to fund infrastructure projects such as the NBN, not to mention that the cost of the network will eventually be recouped. the coalition's cost projections are dubious at best and they will only do a cost-benefit analysis after (or if) they are in government. furthermore, by the time the coalition's NBN plan is implemented (and let's assume it goes according to schedule), the network will already be at capacity and there will be no room for network growth. upload speeds on the coalition's NBN will also be fucking awful. the coalition's plan is, essentially, a politically motivated and fiscally irresponsible means of delaying current spending.

the NDIS has bipartisan support and is almost fully funded.

the public service has grown by 8.4% in the past 7 years. that is below total labour force growth. also, substantiate your claim that it is labor policy to 'make it harder to lay off' workers.

it's a truly bizarre election when labor's sports the most fiscally responsible platform.

 

[lochnessmonsta]

budget deficits "get the government into the problem of implementing austerity" is either a trivial or nonsensical statement. maybe you could elaborate on it.

claiming that the coalition's NBN plan is the more fiscally responsible approach is a baseless claim. the government can borrow at historic lows to fund infrastructure projects such as the NBN, not to mention that the cost of the network will eventually be recouped. the coalition's cost projections are dubious at best and they will only do a cost-benefit analysis after (or if) they are in government. furthermore, by the time the coalition's NBN plan is implemented (and let's assume it goes according to schedule), the network will already be at capacity and there will be no room for network growth. upload speeds on the coalition's NBN will also be fucking awful. the coalition's plan is, essentially, a politically motivated and fiscally irresponsible means of delaying current spending.

the NDIS has bipartisan support and is almost fully funded.

the public service has grown by 8.4% in the past 7 years. that is below total labour force growth. also, substantiate your claim that it is labor policy to 'make it harder to lay off' workers.

it's a truly bizarre election when labor's sports the most fiscally responsible platform.

The sustained budget deficits of Greece (for example) since 1975 sent its public debt higher and higher, and when it was finally revealed that Greece may not be able to repay all of its debt, confidence dried up and in order to avoid defaulting on the loans Greece had to adopt austerity measures in order to receive ECB money. You can even take queensland as a smaller example of a state living beyond its means.

I understand your point about borrowing about historically low rates (below emergency according to Swan), but the thing is that S&P has stated that our AAA rating only remains so long as we are able to achieve a surplus in 5 years. I never made any comment on the quality of either NBN (only in pure economic terms) but you seem to reference that I did. In any case, the extremely slow rollouts, meeting 10% of 'original' targets means that it will take so much longer to pay off the NBN, all the while we are paying interest. This is all assuming of course that consumers will pay 3x as much as they do now on broadband in 10 years, outlined in NBN Co papers. Unless you are in the IT/Telco industry (in which case I will concede to your wisdom) but I doubt either of us know the network capacity of the Coalition broadband once it is completed, much less whether or not this will be filled (be aware that the plan is outlined to 2019). You cannot make comment on Coalition upload speeds because they havent been mandated, and at any rate data is becoming even more asymmetrical http://www2.alcatel-lucent.com/techzine/is-symmetrical-bandwidth-a-myth-or-a-must/. Both NBNs are politically motivated, thats the nature of politics, so it is silly to denounce only the Coalition's as being so. I dont see how it is a baseless claim - your claim on upload speeds is baseless.

"NDIS has bipartisan support and is almost fully funded". Well I guess we should just, you know, borrow some more. Who cares if we cant afford it? Well just revise the budget and cite "revenue write down" (I thought you could only write down an asset?). Im not against disabled people and I think its a good thing, but I have my reservations. Like I know each broadband plan and the differences without research, but what is this scheme actually paying for? They haven't shoved that down my throat so I wonder if it will do anything. Insurance sounds like everyone begins paying taxes and then if they become disabled they get a payout.

As for the public sector, we both know those figures come straight from Dreyfus' mouth. In the AFR back in May I think - "Since the global financial crisis in 2008, private sector jobs in Australia have increased by 279,000, while public sector jobs have increased by 406,000". Tell me thats not massively increasing the public service.

As for harder to fire someone. 5600 unfair dismissal claims a year under Workchoices compared to 15000 under FWA. With arbitration half in favour of plaintiff under FWA compared to 1/3 under Workchoices. Also some interesting cases at the start of http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/nothing-is-fair-about-unfair-dismissal-laws/story-fnbkvnk7-1226304466304. Either unlawful dismissals have truly gone up by half since 2006 or whatever, or it is harder to dismiss someone without blowback.

 

[Sathius005]

White Knight Beattie agrees to serve King Kevin.

Source: The Australian

Historian Ross Fitzgerald believes his friend Peter Beattie is the white knight who will rebuild Labor after Kevin Rudd yesterday shrugged off years of personal conflict and drafted the former Queensland Premier to run in a must win seat for the Labor government. Fitzgerald said that if Mr Beattie came up trumps in the marginal seat of Forde but Labor lost the election on September 7, he would be the man to remake the party from Opposition. Labor parachuted Mr Beattie into the Coalition held electorate yesterday, elbowing aside the endorsed candidate amid concerns the previous Labor candidate's campaign was faltering.

 

[Kiraken]

The sustained budget deficits of Greece (for example) since 1975 sent its public debt higher and higher, and when it was finally revealed that Greece may not be able to repay all of its debt, confidence dried up and in order to avoid defaulting on the loans Greece had to adopt austerity measures in order to receive ECB money. You can even take queensland as a smaller example of a state living beyond its means.

I understand your point about borrowing about historically low rates (below emergency according to Swan), but the thing is that S&P has stated that our AAA rating only remains so long as we are able to achieve a surplus in 5 years. I never made any comment on the quality of either NBN (only in pure economic terms) but you seem to reference that I did. In any case, the extremely slow rollouts, meeting 10% of 'original' targets means that it will take so much longer to pay off the NBN, all the while we are paying interest. This is all assuming of course that consumers will pay 3x as much as they do now on broadband in 10 years, outlined in NBN Co papers. Unless you are in the IT/Telco industry (in which case I will concede to your wisdom) but I doubt either of us know the network capacity of the Coalition broadband once it is completed, much less whether or not this will be filled (be aware that the plan is outlined to 2019). You cannot make comment on Coalition upload speeds because they havent been mandated, and at any rate data is becoming even more asymmetrical http://www2.alcatel-lucent.com/techzine/is-symmetrical-bandwidth-a-myth-or-a-must/. Both NBNs are politically motivated, thats the nature of politics, so it is silly to denounce only the Coalition's as being so. I dont see how it is a baseless claim - your claim on upload speeds is baseless.

"NDIS has bipartisan support and is almost fully funded". Well I guess we should just, you know, borrow some more. Who cares if we cant afford it? Well just revise the budget and cite "revenue write down" (I thought you could only write down an asset?). Im not against disabled people and I think its a good thing, but I have my reservations. Like I know each broadband plan and the differences without research, but what is this scheme actually paying for? They haven't shoved that down my throat so I wonder if it will do anything. Insurance sounds like everyone begins paying taxes and then if they become disabled they get a payout.

As for the public sector, we both know those figures come straight from Dreyfus' mouth. In the AFR back in May I think - "Since the global financial crisis in 2008, private sector jobs in Australia have increased by 279,000, while public sector jobs have increased by 406,000". Tell me thats not massively increasing the public service.

As for harder to fire someone. 5600 unfair dismissal claims a year under Workchoices compared to 15000 under FWA. With arbitration half in favour of plaintiff under FWA compared to 1/3 under Workchoices. Also some interesting cases at the start of http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/nothing-is-fair-about-unfair-dismissal-laws/story-fnbkvnk7-1226304466304. Either unlawful dismissals have truly gone up by half since 2006 or whatever, or it is harder to dismiss someone without blowback.

isn't the plan for the coalition nbn to roll out fibre optic to street cabinets rather than direct to homes, which will pretty much always result in slower speeds?

 

[funkshen]

The sustained budget deficits of Greece (for example) since 1975 sent its public debt higher and higher, and when it was finally revealed that Greece may not be able to repay all of its debt, confidence dried up and in order to avoid defaulting on the loans Greece had to adopt austerity measures in order to receive ECB money. You can even take queensland as a smaller example of a state living beyond its means.

the greek fiscal crisis is as much of a cautionary tale as the insolvency of the medici bank in the late 1490s. neither the federal government, nor the state of queensland, have much if anything to learn from it.

I understand your point about borrowing about historically low rates (below emergency according to Swan), but the thing is that S&P has stated that our AAA rating only remains so long as we are able to achieve a surplus in 5 years.

losing a AAA rating isn't a huge deal and given the various spending and taxation commitments the coalition has made, they are no more likely to achieve a surplus in 5 years than labor.

I never made any comment on the quality of either NBN (only in pure economic terms) but you seem to reference that I did. In any case, the extremely slow rollouts, meeting 10% of 'original' targets means that it will take so much longer to pay off the NBN, all the while we are paying interest.

it is certainly true the NBN rollout has been handled poorly

This is all assuming of course that consumers will pay 3x as much as they do now on broadband in 10 years, outlined in NBN Co papers.

this is a complete misrepresentation. the "3x as much" refers to the wholesale charge to the user, which is only one component of the average cost to the user, and this is based on assumption that many (or most) users will elect to pay for higher bandwidth and higher download volume. if you don't think that, in 10 years, australians will be more or just as willing to pay for more and better internet you're a fool - the australian people have an extraordinary willingness to fork out for telecommunications technology and are willing spend more on mobile phones than their internet, even though they deliver much less content.

Unless you are in the IT/Telco industry (in which case I will concede to your wisdom) but I doubt either of us know the network capacity of the Coalition broadband once it is completed, much less whether or not this will be filled (be aware that the plan is outlined to 2019).

yes we do know what the network capacity will be (there is hard cap determined by the physical capacity of the copper network) and we have accuracte projections of what network demands will be. if bandwidth growth remains at between 30 to 50% every year, the coalition's NBN will be obsolete when the rollout (if it proceeds at schedule) is finished in 2019-2020.

You cannot make comment on Coalition upload speeds because they havent been mandated, and at any rate data is becoming even more asymmetrical http://www2.alcatel-lucent.com/techzine/is-symmetrical-bandwidth-a-myth-or-a-must/. Both NBNs are politically motivated, thats the nature of politics, so it is silly to denounce only the Coalition's as being so. I dont see how it is a baseless claim - your claim on upload speeds is baseless.

the coalition doesn't get to 'mandate' upload speeds. the capacity of the copper from the node scheme is physically determined. theoretically, speeds of 50Mbps down, 10Mbps up are achievable but, of course, very few will enjoy the theoretical maximum. these speeds will also be reduced by the physical condition of the existing copper network. fiber on demand will be available under the coalition NBN. no one is sure when, but will be expensive as fuck.

fiber to the premises allows users to choose speeds of up to 1000Mbps down and 400Mbps up. furthermore, upgrading to 10,000Mbps will be cheap and involve no civil works. the network is fast as fuck and fucking FUTURE PROOF. why do you think all the big telcos, and even google, are putting FTTP down WITHOUT government assistance in numerous locations across america?

yes, that's a good article you linked, but unfortunately the best part is it doesn't make your point at all. it stresses the importance of both download and upload speeds. both are woefully inadequate under the coalition plan.

it turns out that it is your dismissal of the fiscal irresponsibility of the coalition's NBN scheme that is baseless.

"NDIS has bipartisan support and is almost fully funded". Well I guess we should just, you know, borrow some more. Who cares if we cant afford it? Well just revise the budget and cite "revenue write down" (I thought you could only write down an asset?). Im not against disabled people and I think its a good thing, but I have my reservations. Like I know each broadband plan and the differences without research, but what is this scheme actually paying for? They haven't shoved that down my throat so I wonder if it will do anything. Insurance sounds like everyone begins paying taxes and then if they become disabled they get a payout.

we can afford the NDIS

you profess your ignorance of what the NDIS actually entails. maybe you could read the legislation, or any supporting material?

As for the public sector, we both know those figures come straight from Dreyfus' mouth. In the AFR back in May I think - "Since the global financial crisis in 2008, private sector jobs in Australia have increased by 279,000, while public sector jobs have increased by 406,000". Tell me thats not massively increasing the public service.

no, they come from the Australian Public Service Commission you thick fuck.

the federal government is not responsible for public sector growth in the states and even then, i can tell you that the states are not responsible for creating 386,000 new jobs since 2008.

As for harder to fire someone. 5600 unfair dismissal claims a year under Workchoices compared to 15000 under FWA. With arbitration half in favour of plaintiff under FWA compared to 1/3 under Workchoices. Also some interesting cases at the start of http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/nothing-is-fair-about-unfair-dismissal-laws/story-fnbkvnk7-1226304466304. Either unlawful dismissals have truly gone up by half since 2006 or whatever, or it is harder to dismiss someone without blowback.

i don't disagree that FWA is more generous to workers vis a vis employers in terms of employee dismissal, but have you ever considered that something might have happened between 2006 and now to drastically increase the rate of dismissals?'


edit: didn't even mention that the coalition's plan consumes twice as much electricity

 

[bhsrepresent]

i don't disagree that FWA is more generous to workers vis a vis employers in terms of employee dismissal, but have you ever considered that something might have happened between 2006 and now to drastically increase the rate of dismissals?'

There's been no social/ economic change that has led to the increase in unfair dismissal cases. It's the fact that FWA has radically changed the framework behind the legislation as well as the public perception of dismissal. If you fundamentally alter IR to a centralised system, it logically follows that the amount of unfair dismissal complaints (whether justified or not) will increase.

In many cases, dismissal automatically equates to unfair dismissal - any unfavourable move in the labor market is grounds for claims of discrimination or unfairness. That's an absolute joke.

 

[bhsrepresent]

losing a AAA rating isn't a huge deal and given the various spending and taxation commitments the coalition has made, they are no more likely to achieve a surplus in 5 years than labor.

Losing the AAA credit rating is a huge deal. For one, its indicative of Australia's capacity to meet it's foreign liabilities - if investors/ creditors think Australia is insolvent, a negative change to investor sentiment and thus foreign investment is inevitable.

If investors think negatively about Australia's external stability (which they will if the credit rating falls off), there will be a major drop off in confidence. Financial markets will take a huge toll that could ultimately undermine the entire economy, particularly the dollar as lower confidence will mean FOREX traders would sell off the dollar and move elsewhere - leading to downward pressure on the $A and potentially a huge rise in domestic inflation.

 

[funkshen]

There's been no social/ economic change that has led to the increase in unfair dismissal cases. It's the fact that FWA has radically changed the framework behind the legislation as well as the public perception of dismissal. If you fundamentally alter IR to a centralised system, it logically follows that the amount of unfair dismissal complaints (whether justified or not) will increase.

In many cases, dismissal automatically equates to unfair dismissal - any unfavourable move in the labor market is grounds for claims of discrimination or unfairness. That's an absolute joke.

yes im fine with this logic but neither of you have adduced any evidence as to the economic consequences of the FWA's generosity to unfair dismissal claimants. the data that has been cherry picked is unfair dismissal claims, not outcomes or payouts. im under the impression that most claims are settled for fairly meager sums.

also if you think that a higher dismissal rate (a la GFC) isn't correlated with the incidence of unfair dismissal claims you're stupid

Losing the AAA credit rating is a huge deal. For one, its indicative of Australia's capacity to meet it's foreign liabilities - if investors/ creditors think Australia is insolvent, a negative change to investor sentiment and thus foreign investment is inevitable.

If investors think negatively about Australia's external stability (which they will if the credit rating falls off), there will be a major drop off in confidence. Financial markets will take a huge toll that could ultimately undermine the entire economy, particularly the dollar as lower confidence will mean FOREX traders would sell off the dollar and move elsewhere - leading to downward pressure on the $A and potentially a huge rise in domestic inflation.

first of all, S&P have only stated that the failure to achieve surplus would only be a factor in their decision to revise their ratings outlook on australian sovereign debt. this would not mean revising the rating (from AAA to AA+) but rather from AAA (stable) to AAA (negative). a cursory examination of who we share AAA status with (the UK for example) and who is a AA+ (the US, france) reveals that our prospects are fucking fantastic.

secondly, falling to AA+ doesn't mean borrowing costs will change significantly. the fact that all of the AA+ countries enjoy lower borrowing rates than we do is prima facie evidence that the ratings agencies are not determinative of investor appetite for sovereign debt. a revised rating would probably be attendant on fairly poor economic circumstances as well, when investors flock to government bonds and drive borrowing costs down even more.

your hyperbole about economic collapse is nonsense.

 

[bhsrepresent]

yes im fine with this logic but neither of you have adduced any evidence as to the economic consequences of the FWA's generosity to unfair dismissal claimants. the data that has been cherry picked is unfair dismissal claims, not outcomes or payouts. im under the impression that most claims are settled for fairly meager sums.

also if you think that a higher dismissal rate (a la GFC) isn't correlated with the incidence of unfair dismissal claims you're stupid

How are outcomes or payouts relevant to a discussion of the number of CLAIMS? We're talking about the amount of people who have claimed to be unfairly dismissed, not the outcomes succeeding their complaints.

It comes down to this: Establishing a centralised framework for industrial relations will give greater incentive for employees to claim unfair dismissal when they are dismissed (If you think otherwise, you're stupid.) Unless employees have genuinely become more discriminatory, which is unlikely considering FWA forces them to be LESS discriminatory, the higher rate of unfair dismissal claims is wholly due to the effects of FWA.

And a higher dismissal rate is NOT correlated to a higher rate of unfair dismissal, it is intrinsically linked to cyclical factors that shape economic growth and thus unemployment. During the GFC dismissal rates rose because the economy was growing at a slower rate; because employers couldn't afford to keep workers: It has nothing to do with fairness.

first of all, S&P have only stated that the failure to achieve surplus would only be a factor in their decision to revise their ratings outlook on australian sovereign debt. this would not mean revising the rating (from AAA to AA+) but rather from AAA (stable) to AAA (negative). a cursory examination of who we share AAA status with (the UK for example) and who is a AA+ (the US, france) reveals that our prospects are fucking fantastic.

secondly, falling to AA+ doesn't mean borrowing costs will change significantly. the fact that all of the AA+ countries enjoy lower borrowing rates than we do is prima facie evidence that the ratings agencies are not determinative of investor appetite for sovereign debt. a revised rating would probably be attendant on fairly poor economic circumstances as well, when investors flock to government bonds and drive borrowing costs down even more.

your hyperbole about economic collapse is nonsense.

LOL being on par with the US or the UK is a GOOD thing right?

The US, albeit a AA+ credit rating, is in absolute shambles - when the monetary heroin stops (QE3), which it won't anytime soon because the economy would die and Bernanke knows this, Australia will realise exactly why it doesn't want to be anything like the US.

The facade of US recovery is based on rising asset prices and growth in the stock market. However, this is directly linked to the printing press (Which is exactly the case leading up to the GFC) so what happens when the cheap money stops, which it has to eventually? As well as this, the falling rate of u/e has coincided with a rise in part time employment and fall in the labor force participation rate (so really, it means shit all).

This notion that the US is a good benchmark for Australia (via comparison of credit ratings) is superficial and fails to consider the reasons WHY investor confidence has not died in the US, albeit a fall in the credit rating. Investor confidence remains PURELY due to the actions of the federal reserve - and as far as I'm concerned, the RBA isn't buying $30b worth of bonds per month and blasting the market with liquidity - so investor sentiment would not necessarily follow the trend in the US and what would happen if the credit rating was to fall is NOT the same outcome as what has happened for the US.

How is poor external stability leading to economic crisis hyperbole? Hence the entire Asian Financial Crisis of 1997

 

[funkshen]

How are outcomes or payouts relevant to a discussion of the number of CLAIMS? We're talking about the amount of people who have claimed to be unfairly dismissed, not the outcomes succeeding their complaints.

because it was never actually a discussion of the number of claims. it is implied in lochnessmonsta's original post (and in the articles linked) that the rise in the rate of claims was economically deleterious. if the economic consequences of a tripling of claims is trivial then i consider it a non-issue. the success rate and outcomes of these cases is extremely relevant in this regard.

blah blah blah FWA

you'll note that i never disagreed with the logic regarding the FWA and unfair dismissal claims. one explicit objective of the act is to increase access to such claims.

unless i'm misunderstanding you, i'm not actually aware that poor business performance (vis. poor economic circumstances) leading to genuine redundancies is not a legitimate reason for termination of employment... maybe you could elaborate?

when you concede that unfair dismissal claim rates are linked to "cylical factors that shape economic growth and umemploymen" and "during the GFC dismissal rates rose" you've actually managed to prove my statement that the overall dismissal rate and unfair dismissal claim rates are directly related while simultaneously claiming to refute it. congratulations.

LOL being on par with the US or the UK is a GOOD thing right?

this is not what i said and your failure to grok

The US, albeit a AA+ credit rating, is in absolute shambles - when the monetary heroin stops (QE3), which it won't anytime soon because the economy would die and Bernanke knows this, Australia will realise exactly why it doesn't want to be anything like the US.

okay so atleast you admit that the rating agency assessments don't reflect economic reality and are a red herring.

The facade of US recovery is based on rising asset prices and growth in the stock market. However, this is directly linked to the printing press (Which is exactly the case leading up to the GFC) so what happens when the cheap money stops, which it has to eventually? As well as this, the falling rate of u/e has coincided with a rise in part time employment and fall in the labor force participation rate (so really, it means shit all).

ok glad to see you've been keeping up with the mises. what is it with you autists being completely incapable of resisting an opportunity to regurgitate some lew rockwell talking points and go on a tangential rant? i was talking about the NBN for fucks sake.

This notion that the US is a good benchmark for Australia (via comparison of credit ratings) is superficial and fails to consider the reasons WHY investor confidence has not died in the US, albeit a fall in the credit rating. Investor confidence remains PURELY due to the actions of the federal reserve - and as far as I'm concerned, the RBA isn't buying $30b worth of bonds per month and blasting the market with liquidity - so investor sentiment would not necessarily follow the trend in the US and what would happen if the credit rating was to fall is NOT the same outcome as what has happened for the US.

if you could show me where i said that the US was a good benchmark or it had good economic prospects that would be great.

How is poor external stability leading to economic crisis hyperbole? Hence the entire Asian Financial Crisis of 1997

the asian financial crisis, essentially precipitated by enormous foreign debt to GDP ratios and unsustainable currency pegs, has little to no relevance to the sustainability of australia's finances. your economic illiteracy is showing. australia has incredibly strong (possibly unparalleled) economic fundamentals. your doom and gloom peddling is fucking absurd and you have the reading comprehension skills of a goldfish.

 

[bhsrepresent]

ok glad to see you've been keeping up with the mises. what is it with you autists being completely incapable of resisting an opportunity to regurgitate some lew rockwell talking points and go on a tangential rant? i was talking about the NBN for fucks sake.

I brought the US up to highlight the fact that we can't benchmark the implications of a declined credit rating with the US situation:

I have the reading comprehension of a goldfish? you clearly state that 'a cursory examination of who we share AAA status with (the UK for example) and who is a AA+ (the US, france) reveals that our prospects are fucking fantastic' implying the US position is a positive prospect that wouldn't absolutely destroy the Australian economy.

Before you rely on rhetoric that is blatantly designed to formulate personal insults and boost your own ego, maybe you should read what I actually say (and perhaps think about why I say it).

the asian financial crisis, essentially precipitated by enormous foreign debt to GDP ratios and unsustainable currency pegs, has little to no relevance to the sustainability of australia's finances. your economic illiteracy is showing. .

My economic illiteracy? you're an absolute joke if you think external stability doesn't have anything to do with unsustainable levels of foreign debt/ borrowing (which is what we're talking about) - I'm sorry that you don't understand how economics works - we look at events that have happened in the past and apply them to current or potentially future scenarios based on criteria that lead to these previous events.

Talking about the Asian Financial Crisis, just as talking about the US economy, is a means of comparison - if we don't compare Australia with previous/ current events we have no economic basis to judge the implications of high levels of foreign liabilities/ a poor credit rating

australia has incredibly strong (possibly unparalleled) economic fundamentals. your doom and gloom peddling is fucking absurd .

The boom that has sustained our TOT and kept the fundamentals strong is largely over. IMO unless there's a change in government the Australian economy, a haven of red tape and taxation, we won't enjoy the prosperity we now take for granted. As shown by recent treasury reports, the fundamentals are not 'strong'; u/e is set to rise and growth to decline (even if they are better relative to the world, they are on a decline and are poor relative to Australian standards)

 

[funkshen]

I brought the US up to highlight the fact that we can't benchmark the implications of a declined credit rating with the US situation

no, I brought up the US, and then with the rabid fixation of an autistic pitbull you bit down hard and went on a rant about RON PAUL GOLD IS MONEY

I have the reading comprehension of a goldfish? you clearly state that 'a cursory examination of who we share AAA status with (the UK for example) and who is a AA+ (the US, france) reveals that our prospects are fucking fantastic' implying the US position is a positive prospect that wouldn't absolutely destroy the Australian economy.

you have the reading comprehension of a goldfish because the easily deducible effect and intent of my statement was to evidence that 1) australia's economic outlook would have to drastically deteriorate to be comparable to the ratings neighbours, 2) a ratings adjustment would not have a significant effect on the government's borrowing costs (we were talking about the NBN) or lead to economic ruin.

Before you rely on rhetoric that is blatantly designed to formulate personal insults and boost your own ego, maybe you should read what I actually say (and perhaps think about why I say it).

i am sorry 4 ur upset, but i can't help but notice that i have responded to all of your statements in a concise and structured manner.

My economic illiteracy? you're an absolute joke if you think external stability doesn't have anything to do with unsustainable levels of foreign debt/ borrowing (which is what we're talking about) - I'm sorry that you don't understand how economics works - we look at events that have happened in the past and apply them to current or potentially future scenarios based on criteria that lead to these previous events.

i'm sorry if you think australia is on the brink of collapse due to external stability, but you are hopelessly misguided. we do not have unsustainably high levels of foreign debt and the medium term fiscal outlook is actually relatively positive.
also this is incredibly fucking ironic because you're obviously some kind of austrian economics fellow and yet you're extolling the knowledge-generating virtue of post-hoc empirical methods.

Talking about the Asian Financial Crisis, just as talking about the US economy, is a means of comparison - if we don't compare Australia with previous/ current events we have no economic basis to judge the implications of high levels of foreign liabilities/ a poor credit rating

do you understand that the intellectual validity of an analogy as comparison is derived from the relevance of the analogy to what its being compared to? the asian financial crisis is not relevant and is not a valid means of comparison. it's literally apples and oranges. the asian financial crisis was caused by imprudent currency policies and not simply high levels of foreign debt (and don't try and rely on reinhart and rogoff either because that shit has been debunked). my use of the US's credit rating is a valid analogy because it specifically pertains to my original argument that borrowing costs would not be significantly increased by a (very unlikely) ratings downgrade. your comparison is bad and you should feel bad.

The boom that has sustained our TOT and kept the fundamentals strong is largely over. IMO unless there's a change in government the Australian economy, a haven of red tape and taxation, we won't enjoy the prosperity we now take for granted. As shown by recent treasury reports, the fundamentals are not 'strong'; u/e is set to rise and growth to decline (even if they are better relative to the world, they are on a decline and are poor relative to Australian standards)

you're deluded if you think the coalition has any commitment to reducing red tape and taxation. workchoices is politically toxic now and they won't touch it. the coalition's IR platform is pretty vacuous and is pretty much only tasking the productivity commission to write some reports on tinkering with enterprise bargaining regulation and policing dodgy unions. revolutionary!

your claims that treasury reports state that fundamentals aren't strong are bullshit because both the treasury and RBA maintain that while growth may dip in 2013 it will return to trend in 2014. a rise in unemployment is forecast but this will (in theory) restrain wage costs and does not herald our impending economic doom.

i don't know if you understand what "the boom is over" means. broadly speeking, mining-related capital expenditure has plateaued (at historic highs) and will remain there because we have tonnes and tonnes of rocks to dig up.

i hadn't actually realised this but you seem to be operating under the impression that the FWA is some historically unique 'centralisation of industrial relations'... we've had centralised industrial relations for over 113 years, and it persisted throughout the howard glory years. where's the economic ruin? and before you mention the howard years, none of the economic gains can be attributed to his IR policy.

 

[TheGreatest99.95]

KRudd cheating at the debate. expected nothing less from the egotistical maniac http://www.news.com.au/national-new...es-during-debate/story-fnho52ip-1226695152852

 

[lochnessmonsta]

#stopthenotes

 

[koreafantasy]

Whoever stops supporting money-hungry cash hoarding investors leaving nothing for the 'proletariat' if you can call disadvantaged dole citizens, the big company CEOs who fire employees who have families to feed because 'its too expensive', and any person with wealth exceeding what is required to live a Lannister lifestyle gets my vote. Hell, im supporting the boot-camp-to-get-the-dole scheme because yes, lazy dole-bludgers should stop receiving free money. but capitalism needs to have its limits, otherwise we have a south-korea like situation, where there isnt even a pension, and student suicide rate is scaringly high because of the extreme difficulty of getting into university, or even getting a fucking trade.

 

[Trebla]

Very different viewer results on who won the debate
http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politic...70b-hole-a-fantasy-abbott-20130811-2rqc6.html

 

[kaz1]

KRudd cheating at the debate. expected nothing less from the egotistical maniac http://www.news.com.au/national-new...es-during-debate/story-fnho52ip-1226695152852

who the fuck cares? why should the ability to memorise some facts and figures be so important?

 

[Okashi]

who the fuck cares? why should the ability to memorise some facts and figures be so important?

He contravened the rules of the debate. Abbott didn't get the opportunity to read from prepared notes. It doesn't matter if it wasn't part of the rules that no prepared notes were allowed.

 

[townie]

who the fuck cares? why should the ability to memorise some facts and figures be so important?

Look I'm fairly pro-Labor (who would have guessed!) but even I think it was a bad move by Rudd for two reasons
1) it does go to character if the rules said no notes
But more importantly
2) now more people are talking bout whether Rudd used notes or not than the actual debate itself and the last thing Labor needs is distractions right now. The notion that Abbot will slip and fall leading to a Bradbury-esque win for Labor, whilst a promising possibility when Abbot first because opposition leader, is long since gone.

 

[townie]

In fact I'd go as far to say that the debate will mark the beginning of the end for Rudd, it's just a question of how big the LNP majority will be now