BOS Voting Intentions: 2013 Federal Election (1 Viewer)

[hayabusaboston]

I feel it's pretty clear, he's a floundering buffoon who utterly lacks the skill to construct a remotely clear and coherent argument (source: every post he's ever made).
He routinely resorts to attacking other people's opinions/statements while providing nothing of substance himself.
He displays neither logic nor wit and sums himself up pretty well with
As such, he is in no position to legitimately criticise anyone else and his attempts to do so only reflect more poorly on himself.

Original NBN estimate (from memory) was $36 billion.
NBN is currently estimated at $44 billion.
Considering that it will be paid for by the revenue raised from those who choose to use it (30 billion), and the remaining 14 billion by private investors, is a blowout of 8 bil when dealing with 10s of billions really that significant?

Stats back you up on Asylum seekers, though I'd contest that it reached the level of remotely alarming let alone disastrous.
You're probably right about the BER too, idk enough about it to be sure but it seems like a lot of money just to be spent on making / improving buildings which is pretty wasteful, so I'll agree with you on that.

Oh would you be quiet you sad little fool! you're not making yourself appear intelligent in any way by saying the fashionable "He lacks any ability to construct a remotely clear and coherent argument" insult. Has that become the new way of insulting people? Cos it seems everyone says that EXACT SAME PHRASE, even when its not even remotely true. Its the NEW and HIP and FASHIONABLE way to make yourself appear smarter on the internet. "He utterly lacks the skill to construct a remotely clear and coherent argument" is as spurious as townie's interest in women, such a statement is in no way applicable to anyone except pure fools with IQ's of less than 90, noone on BOS would fall into that category, even you. Yes, EVEN YOU.
"He displays neither logic or wit"...
Really? Grow up man. And dont try to be mould your cybernetic vernacular just to suit the fasion, a slightly different context such as this one will only enhance the perception of your intellect as being inferior. Your intellectual insecurity and inferiority shines very brightly in this post of yours Tasteless, for you know about me and what ive said and yet you post the diametric opposite. I am in the position of being in year 12 as a determined student, as such it is not in my interests to delve into lengthy discussions with you or anyone else on BoS, but rather to focus on my final weeks before HSC exams. If you were "witty" enough you would realise this fact.
I urge you to grow up, and actually critically think about things before you adopt them into your expression, as well as learning what they actually mean and whether they are even applicable.

 

[Tasteless]

Nah it's pretty accurate, you put forward no worthwhile points and just make baseless moronic claims that make no sense outside your own mind.
Compared to vast majority of users of this site I am pretty dumb, I have no problem admitting that and I have no desire to feel superior.

Your profound stupidity just annoys the shit out of me but I realise (hope) you're actually just trolling.

 

[Kiraken]

Oh would you be quiet you sad little fool! you're not making yourself appear intelligent in any way by saying the fashionable "He lacks any ability to construct a remotely clear and coherent argument" insult. Has that become the new way of insulting people? Cos it seems everyone says that EXACT SAME PHRASE, even when its not even remotely true. Its the NEW and HIP and FASHIONABLE way to make yourself appear smarter on the internet. "He utterly lacks the skill to construct a remotely clear and coherent argument" is as spurious as townie's interest in women, such a statement is in no way applicable to anyone except pure fools with IQ's of less than 90, noone on BOS would fall into that category, even you. Yes, EVEN YOU.
"He displays neither logic or wit"...
Really? Grow up man. And dont try to be mould your cybernetic vernacular just to suit the fasion, a slightly different context such as this one will only enhance the perception of your intellect as being inferior. Your intellectual insecurity and inferiority shines very brightly in this post of yours Tasteless, for you know about me and what ive said and yet you post the diametric opposite. I am in the position of being in year 12 as a determined student, as such it is not in my interests to delve into lengthy discussions with you or anyone else on BoS, but rather to focus on my final weeks before HSC exams. If you were "witty" enough you would realise this fact.
I urge you to grow up, and actually critically think about things before you adopt them into your expression, as well as learning what they actually mean and whether they are even applicable.

Lol worst troll

 

[hayabusaboston]

Lol worst troll

Oh I forgot about the Äha he's a troll" insult too.
Bask in your mediocrity Kiraken.

 

[OMGITzJustin]

wow Libs 64% to Labs 36% two party preferred on here

 

[kaz1]

wow Libs 64% to Labs 36% two party preferred on here

probably trolls manipulated it, polls indicate younguns are overwhelmingly labor/green over the coalition

 

[isildurrrr1]

Most people are pretty rational in reality.

yeah and most people believe in a supreme being. hows that for rationality.

 

[bhsrepresent]

so are the libs softcore fascists

let me preface by saying I'm not a diehard liberal at all. I'm somewhat disillusioned with Australian politics in general, as the parties as a whole seem to deviate from their intellectual basis purely for political gain. (but hey that's politics)

But nonetheless, how the hell is smaller less intrusive government, fascist? In any sense of the word?

I find it funny that you can equate the economic right with fascism. The economic right is the antithesis of fascism. If anything, the left portrays a higher degree of fascism. Enforced coercion in the form of wealth redistribution or interventionism IS more fascist than liberal free markets (which are, by definition, the opposite of state coercion).

 

[funkshen]

long term unemployability? yeah like all those autoworkers won't be able to find a job in other industries right?

you're right, why would there be any long term unemployment? thousands of new manufacturing jobs are going to magically appear for all the low-skilled assembly line workers that are now out of a job, and for the parts suppliers that rely wholly or substantially on the auto trade.

are you daft? long term unemployment skyrocketed after thousands of manufacturing jobs were wiped during the recession in the early 1990s. there is almost no demand for these workers (one of the factors in the decision of holden assembly line workers to accept a wage freeze for 3 years). most of these guys have no hope without a shitload of welfare, targeted reeducation, and job placement programs.

ford and holden arent exactly well known for producing fuel efficient vehicles in the first place. hell a BMW does better in that field.

i'm not defending ford and holden vehicles, but you claim that subsidising the auto industry contradicts environmental policy aims and it quite clearly doesn't. also, don't forget that toyota receives subsidies to manufacture the camry, camry hybrid, and aurion, though they are much more competitive and the cost to the taxpayer per vehicle is far lower.

 

[bhsrepresent]

Have you done economics before?

Business that don't want to pay the tax won't pollute as much, and furthermore , this will compensate for the negative externalities produced by factories with high pollution. FYI, it's called a pigovian tax or corrective tax. Want me to draw the graph ?

Theoretically, pricing carbon reduces emissions. Does that make a carbon tax valid and economically sound? No.

Just because you've 'done economics', you cant just dismiss opposing views purely on that basis. Economics is not a science; there are rational, theoretically sound arguments AGAINST a carbon tax, does that mean I can dismiss your theory purely on the basis of the logic behind mine? No...

So please, don't use your supposed authority of 'doing economics' to patronise any opposing argument.

 

[isildurrrr1]

you're right, why would there be any long term unemployment? thousands of new manufacturing jobs are going to magically appear for all the low-skilled assembly line workers that are now out of a job, and for the parts suppliers that rely wholly or substantially on the auto trade.

are you daft? long term unemployment skyrocketed after thousands of manufacturing jobs were wiped during the recession in the early 1990s. there is almost no demand for these workers (one of the factors in the decision of holden assembly line workers to accept a wage freeze for 3 years). most of these guys have no hope without a shitload of welfare, targeted reeducation, and job placement programs.



i'm not defending ford and holden vehicles, but you claim that subsidising the auto industry contradicts environmental policy aims and it quite clearly doesn't. also, don't forget that toyota receives subsidies to manufacture the camry, camry hybrid, and aurion, though they are much more competitive and the cost to the taxpayer per vehicle is far lower.

at first someone said these jobs are specialized yada yada, now theyre low skilled. lol. Yeah i'm sure with our low unemployment rate all those auto workers are really feeling those effects, none of them could pick up another trade at all. Toyata is a different beast altogether because of how their supply chain works. They don't even build their own cars, 80% of their parts are from outsourced suppliers because of the keiretsu system. they just do the basic assembly in certain areas.

Were not a big enough country to make our own cars anyway and why should we? if it was competitive enough in the first place why give out the subsidies? We can't compete on tech, labour or research in the auto industry. It's just plainly not profitable.

 

[bhsrepresent]

there is almost no demand for these workers (one of the factors in the decision of holden assembly line workers to accept a wage freeze for 3 years). most of these guys have no hope without a shitload of welfare, targeted reeducation, and job placement programs. .

So let me get this straight... Since there's no demand for a particular set of skills, the government should discriminate and serve a particular industries' special interest by eliminating competition? By that logic, I'm sure you propose that we subsidize all industries that have little demand behind them?

Subsidies reduce competition and hurt consumers. Subsidies reduce labor market mobility. Subsidies distort prices and retard the allocation of resources. Subsidies ULTIMATELY destroy the workers they are out to protect (What happens when Holden eventually closes down and workers are too old to re-train?)

So please, stop trying to justify protectionism (those arguments died along time ago). It makes you seem like an economic illiterate

 

[someth1ng]

Theoretically, pricing carbon reduces emissions. Does that make a carbon tax valid and economically sound? No.

Just because you've 'done economics', you cant just dismiss opposing views purely on that basis. Economics is not a science; there are rational, theoretically sound arguments AGAINST a carbon tax, does that mean I can dismiss your theory purely on the basis of the logic behind mine? No...

So please, don't use your supposed authority of 'doing economics' to patronise any opposing argument.

It has hardly affected the economy and really, the cost is quite small - $5000 by 2050 as quoted by Tony Abbott himself.

Do you even science?

 

[bhsrepresent]

It has hardly affected the economy and really, the cost is quite small - $5000 by 2050 as quoted by Tony Abbott himself.

Do you even science?

LOL I'm not even sure of what you're trying to say here...

I was simply pointing out that if something is logically sound, it doesn't automatically make it utilitarian or practical for an economy. That is the essence of economics; finding and pursuing the BEST alternative with the lowest cost and highest net return, not simply pursuing something in spite of opposing theory.

Do you even comprehend opposing arguments and construct coherent responses?

 

[funkshen]

at first someone said these jobs are specialized yada yada, now theyre low skilled. lol. Yeah i'm sure with our low unemployment rate all those auto workers are really feeling those effects, none of them could pick up another trade at all. Toyata is a different beast altogether because of how their supply chain works. They don't even build their own cars, 80% of their parts are from outsourced suppliers because of the keiretsu system. they just do the basic assembly in certain areas.

Were not a big enough country to make our own car s anyway and why should we? if it was competitive enough in the first place why give out the subsidies? We can't compete on tech, labour or research in the auto industry. It's just plainly not profitable.

i agree that the auto industry needs to die - it's unproductive and inefficient. but so is idle labour, which is why cutting all subsidies is completely irresponsible.

the high skilled labour (research and design) might fare well in the job market since australian high-tech manufacturing is still profitable, but the situation is far more dire for the thousands of low skilled assembly line workers and the machinists. do you really think it's that easy to "pick up another trade"? do you think a 37 year old assembly line worker with a wife and two kids can survive on an apprentice's wages?

ford and holden are grossly unprofitable largely because the research and design of the falcodore is local and uncompetitive. however, both toyota (camry etc) and holden (cruze) have demonstrated that supporting the local assembly of internationally designed cars is a feasible and sensible stopgap - the subsidy per unit is about 1/3 to 1/4 what it is for the falcodore - while the industry winds down.

 

[isildurrrr1]

Or we can have a too big to fail situation and end up like detroit. You can't always support a dying industry, sure you'll help it survive a few more years to stave off the inevitable and most of your arguments are highly emotional with the whole "omg job loss!" There are other manufacturing jobs people can go into in Australia. When you start looking at the micro level too intensely, youre missing the forest for the trees.

 

[funkshen]

Or we can have a too big to fail situation and end up like detroit.

irrelevant and incomparable. by any measurement our automobile is puny in comparison to detroit, and is nowhere near too big to fail. it is well within the government's power to manage the decline of the industry.

You can't always support a dying industry, sure you'll help it survive a few more years to stave off the inevitable and most of your arguments are highly emotional with the whole "omg job loss!"

please, show me where i appealed to emotion. the example of a "37 year old assembly line worker with a wife and two kids can survive on an apprentice's wages?" was a response to your flippant remark that the auto workers should just find a new profession. but do you not realise these are peoples livelihoods we're talking about? the australian government has a duty to not fuck these workers over considering that they successive government policy has been the only thing responsible for keeping it alive, and keeping people employed in the industry.

There are other manufacturing jobs people can go into in Australia.

which ones

When you start looking at the micro level too intensely, youre missing the forest for the trees.

not looking at a micro level at all, and i'm not sure which forest you're talking about. be more precise.

 

[isildurrrr1]

you do realize agricultural packaging is considered under manufacturing right? Yeah sure it's a shitty situation that people are going to lose jobs. What do you expect the government to forever keep injecting cash in dying industries so people won't lose their jobs? Great way to run an economy. industries rise and fall, it's just a natural mode of economics. Ford is already going to pull out anyway despite the subsidies, doesn't that tell you a lot about how inefficient it is to build cars here? We've been building cars for so long here and we still can't get a competitive advantage at all, it's seriously time to cut the cord. You let one group have subsidies, everyone else would start begging for one, see how well that turns out.

 

[funkshen]

you do realize agricultural packaging is considered under manufacturing right?

most meat packing jobs are most often rural, pay far less than automotive jobs do, and i guarantee the meat packing (and domestic manufacturing in general) industry can't soak up somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 autoworkers.

Yeah sure it's a shitty situation that people are going to lose jobs. What do you expect the government to forever keep injecting cash in dying industries so people won't lose their jobs? Great way to run an economy.

literally not what i'm advocating at all.

Ford is already going to pull out anyway despite the subsidies, doesn't that tell you a lot about how inefficient it is to build cars here?

ford has been negotiating the winding down of domestic manufacturing with the federal government for years. the australian government is coordinating with ford to improve and create employment opportunities for redundant workers through the Automotive Industry Structural Adjustment Program. this is exactly what i advocate. thanks for making my point.

You let one group have subsidies, everyone else would start begging for one, see how well that turns out.

we're already letting them have subsidies and no one else is begging for them (beyond wanting free money in general), so what is your point?

 

[soloooooo]

Pauline Hanson has a good chance of getting a senate seat.