Liberal or Labor? (or other) (1 Viewer)

[gnrlies]

Nobody is denying that it's a powerful construction, but I take it that you have missed the way in which other economic systems have also provided us with much of what we take for granted? (with some of these things being slowly eroded by the rising tide of economic rationalism, funnily enough).

Such as china's "communist" system which is booming as a result of economic rationalism and capitalism?

I mean its fairly evident that the best performing economies (i would say most efficient, not necessarily the biggest or fastest growing as there are other factors which affect this) in the world are the ones that have adopted economically rational policy (i.e. OECD nations).

As I said:

Where economic rationalisation can get nasty is where people fail to accept that some government intervention is necessary. For example with that schools plan, there would still be a requirment to make it fair for all children irrespective of their background, or location (in the form of government assistance).

there is still a need to adjust these policies as the free market fails. There are other objectives other than a booming economy that policy needs to achieve (such as social or environmental policies). But this is where I see the role of governments come in.

often any downside to an "economically rational" policy policy isn't the fact that it's rational, but rather that its just bad policy to begin with. I mean just because it's economically rational does not make it perfect. Some rational policies are going to be better than others. But I would maintain that any problem could be solved with an economically rational solution.

 

[Generator]

...

Ah, no. I was referring to the many social democratic institutions that are/were in place within many nation-states (such as Australia), and it stands to reason that neoliberal states (or states that lean this way) will perform well when the measure of success is one that measures economic growth within a neoliberal framework.

 

[transcendent]

You obviously don't know who welfare works. Let me explain, first you apply for it, then they make you go to this government sponsored employment agency. You have to find work everyday, the agency helps you find the work or gives you skills to help you find work. You go to training for 100 hours. This tedious process continues UNTIL you find work. The purpose of welfare isn't a replacement for wages it WONT help you get by unless you are living in a 3 x 3 metre cubical living off bread and milk. Welfare is there so that if you are hard done by it counters to a certain extent poverty. These systems are in place so that YOU can have and live in such high living standards. Medicare is there so EVERYONE can have the benefits of a good health and when people are healthy they can work and isn't that what you money lovers want, people to work and generate more money for you to play with?

In no way did I say economic rationalism was bad for EVERYTHING, but there is a problem when it gets applied TO everything. As a means of cutting costs it has a certain amount of effectiveness before it has a negative effect.

 

[gnrlies]

One that sees it ensure the economy is running well, and that handles all the diplomatic/international relations stuff, but doesn't interfere with people's personal lives. I don't believe in government intervention in marriage, right to choose - but I also don't really believe in the welfare system because I'd prefer it to go to things that can benefit everybody and/or help them rather than just chucking money at the problem. To give an example - I'd rather the government better funded public education than paid out a baby bonus, because education is something that everybody can tangibly benefit from.

Also, I think the government's role is to provide essential services - healthcare, education, infrastructure and public transport would be great examples of these because everybody can use them and benefit from them.

I agree with the first part, howevor I think its necessary to take a step back.

We will always need welfare in society. It doesn't matter what you do, you are always going to have people in society that require assistance.

I personally believe that the solution to a lot of problems comes in the form of education reform. We need to make sure that education is equally accessible (sorry to all the spelling and grammar freaks, im hopeless without spellcheck) to every single child in australia. We need to start every child on the same foothold. You should not be disadvantaged in life due to the inequalities experienced by your parents.

Once we've achived this (which I dont believe the current system does) you can step ahead and hope that society will be a lot more equal. But it will still have inequalities. The fact is that not everyone is born with the same capabilities. Some people are inevitably going to earn more income than others. This is not something that can be solved by the market.

These people need assistance, and this is why we can never get rid of welfare. Families is the big thing as well. It's one thing to earn a single income for a single person, but where one income supports a whole family, this is where the real divide begins. This is why family based welfare is really important. But i guess where I 100% agree with you, is that we need to do all we can to reduce the remedial need for welfare, and solve it in a form of preventive welfare (i.e. through education assistance).

Where I disagree with you is the concept of the government providing public education, healthcare etc. I support privatisation with government assistance to those who are on lower incomes.

 

[gnrlies]

You obviously don't know who welfare works. Let me explain, first you apply for it, then they make you go to this government sponsored employment agency. You have to find work everyday, the agency helps you find the work or gives you skills to help you find work. You go to training for 100 hours. This tedious process continues UNTIL you find work. The purpose of welfare isn't a replacement for wages it WONT help you get by unless you are living in a 3 x 3 metre cubical living off bread and milk. Welfare is there so that if you are hard done by it counters to a certain extent poverty. These systems are in place so that YOU can have and live in such high living standards. Medicare is there so EVERYONE can have the benefits of a good health and when people are healthy they can work and isn't that what you money lovers want, people to work and generate more money for you to play with?

In no way did I say economic rationalism was bad for EVERYTHING, but there is a problem when it gets applied TO everything. As a means of cutting costs it has a certain amount of effectiveness before it has a negative effect.

I am pretty sure the first part of that is not refering to me, so I wont comment on it.

I will focus on the second part.

I would disagree, perhaps on on semantics, but nonetheless I would disagree (haha just for the sake of it).

I think any problem can be efficiently and effectively solved (that is it achieves its objective, and does so in a rational manner). A policy might be rational but bad. All this means is that there is another rational policy that should have been chosen. Economic rationalism is not necessarily about cutting costs. To get technical, its about maximising utility. This is what economic rationalism is all about.

 

[transcendent]

Wow I love how you used the economical rationalisation arguement in DVD prices when IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! DVDs started out as being a geek's supertoy before being accepted by the greater market. Because of the demand, manufacturers started producing more of them, and with advances in technology were able to make them better forcing the prices for DVDs before lower due lower standards. Because they designed machines to mass manufacture DVDs and players more efficiently and there was greater demand for production it lowered prices. This process only needs economic rationalism applied when they feel inferior about their profit margins thereby shifting production overseas to cheap Asian country so they can get off their annual bookkeeping records. Remember, supply and demand first, economic rationalism later when they aren't getting any at home.

 

[gnrlies]

I'm less talking about the dole - which, since there's Work for the Dole programs, is an OK short-term thing because you're doing something to EARN that money - but about things like child tax credit or family benefit, where you're not actually doing anything to get that extra money, which means its basically middle-class welfare that doesn't actually go to someone who truly needs it, and instead squanders the money we pay (through really high taxes).

Private charity has always existed to help the truly needy, and a little government help wouldn't go astray for certain groups - like disabled carer's payments are a great thing, for one.

I agree with waf re: baby bonus and funding boomer's retirements. I generally agree with him on a lot of things - though I'm not sure where he stands on paid maternity leave, which I just noticed someone mentioned in the thread and which I'm not a big fan of.

I think middle class welfare is an extremely misunderstood thing.

Its not about giving income to middle income earners just because we want to have more people on welfare, its about truly helping out the most disadvantaged in society.

I might earn $20 000 a year, and be far better off than someone on $40 000 a year with a family of 4.

 

[gnrlies]

Wow I love how you used the economical rationalisation arguement in DVD prices when IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! DVDs started out as being a geek's supertoy before being accepted by the greater market. Because of the demand, manufacturers started producing more of them, and with advances in technology were able to make them better forcing the prices for DVDs before lower due lower standards. Because they designed machines to mass manufacture DVDs and players more efficiently and there was greater demand for production it lowered prices. This process only needs economic rationalism applied when they feel inferior about their profit margins thereby shifting production overseas to cheap Asian country so they can get off their annual bookkeeping records. Remember, supply and demand first, economic rationalism later when they aren't getting any at home.

haha what you just wrote is riddled with economic rationalism....

As the super slueth I will point out all the economic rationalism contained within that post

1 - Value gained by DVD technology encouraged firms seeking the allmighty dollar to pour R&D money to refine and perfect the technology.

2 - Advances in technology as driven by firms wishing to reduce costs in order to increase profit

3 - Governments and firms understand the benefits of comparative advantage and decide to specialise in what they do best. This results in technology transfer and trade

-----------

The fact is that all of that is economic rationalism. Its the economy working in its glorious manner.

In the early 1900's in australia, the big debate was between those advocating free trade and those advocating economic isolation. Prime ministers rose and fell on account of their convictions (a modern day labor vs liberal). If it werent for the application of economic rationalisation, you'd be lucky to be listening to the latest phonograph, let alone DVD.

Supply and demand IS economic rationalism.

 

[transcendent]

There are a number of model experiments implemented to try and cut the costs of healthcare. First why is the cost of healthcare spiralling out of control? Aging population, PBS... etc.

Birth grant attempts to counter aging population, I personally don't think paying someone to have a child works, I mean the poorer people will try to take advantage of this but they are the ones that will be less able to afford it. No it's the richer folk who work all the time and have none to spend on little baby that need to pop out a few. It's a financial, sociological and most of all a personal problem society has with children. Immigration is IMO only going to increase. There will always be old people and they WILL be sick. I love how everyone is so happy about life longevity and comparing it to other countries but IMO why are we keeping them alive? If they are such a burden why do we continue to save lives? You really want our economy to grow, how about culling the pensioners? Oh wait that's a bad idea, and wrong.

PBS is subsidising medicine, their job is to decide which drugs to subsidise cause boy are those pills for Osteoarthritis an arm and a leg! And who are the biggest consumers of those pills? That's right boy! Old people! Do you see the dilemma we're in? We don't want them, we can't get rid of them and if we keep them well they just suck the economy dry like vampires starved of blood.

Next up hospitals. They are by far one of the most wasteful industries ever. All this to maintain a sterile environment. See when you start applying economic rationalism to hospitals they are short staffed, that sound familiar? short supplied, someone say hospital beds? and stressed to the core, waiting lists. See you can try and cut costs by privatising this but the government has tried and well costs have only increased. Deals with private companys where the government builds the hospital to have the company take charge only result in something like Cross City Tunnel. If there ever was an attempt a trying to keep costs down by playing games with private companys Cross City Tunnel just yells out economic rationalism. Same thing happens when you try to apply it to other state owned services.

 

[gnrlies]

Firstly, I'd like to state that I believe children are a choice, and so I don't necessarily agree with family-based welfare. If you can't afford them, don't have them.

well it's hardly a choice if you cannot afford them...

But taking a step back, children are not an item that you go to the shop and purchase. They arent like a dog or a pony that you just feed for the occasional bit of love and affection. They form the fabric of society, and are immensely important. We cannot deny a persons right to a child just because they cannot provide for it in the same way as other people can.

The importance of welfare is for the children, not the parents. Some families are better off than others. Its these other families which we need to help so that the children who are less fortunate have a decent chance in life.

This is all irrespective of the fact that we've been trying to boost our population.

 

[gnrlies]

There are a number of model experiments implemented to try and cut the costs of healthcare. First why is the cost of healthcare spiralling out of control? Aging population, PBS... etc.

Birth grant attempts to counter aging population, I personally don't think paying someone to have a child works, I mean the poorer people will try to take advantage of this but they are the ones that will be less able to afford it. No it's the richer folk who work all the time and have none to spend on little baby that need to pop out a few. It's a financial, sociological and most of all a personal problem society has with children. Immigration is IMO only going to increase. There will always be old people and they WILL be sick. I love how everyone is so happy about life longevity and comparing it to other countries but IMO why are we keeping them alive? If they are such a burden why do we continue to save lives? You really want our economy to grow, how about culling the pensioners? Oh wait that's a bad idea, and wrong.

PBS is subsidising medicine, their job is to decide which drugs to subsidise cause boy are those pills for Osteoarthritis an arm and a leg! And who are the biggest consumers of those pills? That's right boy! Old people! Do you see the dilemma we're in? We don't want them, we can't get rid of them and if we keep them well they just suck the economy dry like vampires starved of blood.

Next up hospitals. They are by far one of the most wasteful industries ever. All this to maintain a sterile environment. See when you start applying economic rationalism to hospitals they are short staffed, that sound familiar? short supplied, someone say hospital beds? and stressed to the core, waiting lists. See you can try and cut costs by privatising this but the government has tried and well costs have only increased. Deals with private companys where the government builds the hospital to have the company take charge only result in something like Cross City Tunnel. If there ever was an attempt a trying to keep costs down by playing games with private companys Cross City Tunnel just yells out economic rationalism. Same thing happens when you try to apply it to other state owned services.

Two points I would make:

Firstly a point I noted earlier, economic rationlisation is utility maximisation, not cost cutting, or any of that stuff. So all that stuff about letting old people die because its economically rational to do so is incorrect (cos last time i checked not too many people in society want this).

Secondly, bringing up healthcare. Compare a public to a private hospital. Which one is better and why? Those are all the questions I need to ask in order to make my point.

 

[gnrlies]

I'm not taking a step back because I believe skilled targeted immigration is the answer, not 'Have some children for your country!'

And your reasons for family welfare are the same reasons I think you shouldn't have a child if you're not financially able - you can't just return a child to where it came from. You have to work out how you will be able to properly care for a child in the long-term - and I just don't think society should have to foot the bill.

When I said "take a step back" I was refering to my own writing. I.e. I was going to take a step back in what I was saying.

I would say you fit into one of two categories.

Either your parents are rich enough to have been able to support you, in which case you would not understand what it is like to struggle in society. Its not always the fault of the individual that leads to their situation.

Or alternatively your parents might have struggled in which case I shouldn't be talking to you right now!

But in any case just about every single adult in australia would be able to afford to support a child. Even a single parent earning minimum wage would still be able to afford a child. Its not about giving people money so that they can "afford" a child, its about giving people money so life is a bit easier on them and their child.

I mean cavemen had children didn't they? they didn't need to be well off to do so. It all comes down to this concept of stopping inequality at the start. Helping children out so that they arent disadvantaged in society.

 

[crazyhomo]

However, your points on education are really good. Education reform is something that's absolutely essential. Something I'd love to see implemented is that you either a) do your HSC or b) you have to do a trade, traineeship, etc. - none of this drop out of Year 10 and do nothing bullshit. Even if you're not conventionally (ie university) educated/intelligent, you'd still have the skills to make something of yourself.

how red....

 

[transcendent]

It's a financial, sociological and most of all a personal problem society has with children.

Thats what I meant by the choice factor. People who don't want kids wont and this is the problem that can't be fixed.

 

[transcendent]

It's a problem only from the point of view that we have an aging population.

 

[ZabZu]

Go the ALP

Under the conservative Liberal federal government we have seen the Americanisation of Australia with increasing education costs, increasing health costs and a new industrial relations that decreases the rights and pay of blue collar workers.

It needs to stop, the low and middle income earners are suffering. When you vote think about them.

 

[gnrlies]

Then the problem can be fixed through skilled migration. I guess a lot of people are of the 'immigrants steal our jobs' persuasion so it's not as populist as a baby bonus, but I think it'd be more effective.

I am a big fan of skilled migration, but definately not over increasing our birth rate.

Im not one of those isolationist old fashion people who believe that australia should only be for white anglo saxons etc etc, but we want to strenthen ourselves as a country.

Migration does not do this. Migration can also cause a lot of social issues if not managed properly.

Not to mention the fact that skilled migration is not always easy. Whilst lots of people want to come to australia, they are not always skilled. Even if they do have a degree (as do many people in say asia), they may not necessarily suit the australian jobs market.

 

[gnrlies]

Go the ALP

Under the conservative Liberal federal government we have seen the Americanisation of Australia with increasing education costs, increasing health costs and a new industrial relations that decreases the rights and pay of blue collar workers.

It needs to stop, the low and middle income earners are suffering. When you vote think about them.

Increasing health / education costs, IR reforms are worthy of their own discussion and debate, but one point I want to query.

How are we americanised?

this is a load of rubbish. I feel no less australian (or no more american) than i did in 1996. Certainly its plain to see america's influence on australia, but how is this the fault of the liberal party, let alone it actually even being a problem? (i dont think its americanised, I think its more westernised - a conglomeration of western cultures)

Just because we went to war to support america. I mean lets face it, there is a huge problem going on in the world at the moment. The problem is in its infancy, but terrorism driven by islam-facism could develop into a huge problem.

Australia chose to take a proactive step by supporting the USA. Whether you agree with the war or not is a personal choice, but we did nothing wrong by supporting the US.

 

[ZabZu]

Increasing health / education costs, IR reforms are worthy of their own discussion and debate, but one point I want to query.

How are we americanised?

this is a load of rubbish. I feel no less australian (or no more american) than i did in 1996. Certainly its plain to see america's influence on australia, but how is this the fault of the liberal party, let alone it actually even being a problem? (i dont think its americanised, I think its more westernised - a conglomeration of western cultures)

Just because we went to war to support america. I mean lets face it, there is a huge problem going on in the world at the moment. The problem is in its infancy, but terrorism driven by islam-facism could develop into a huge problem.

Australia chose to take a proactive step by supporting the USA. Whether you agree with the war or not is a personal choice, but we did nothing wrong by supporting the US.

If you read what i said properly you would realise i wasnt refering to foreign policy or culture or anything like that.

Look at the US today. The minimum wage is US$5, university degrees are very very expensive, health costs are tremendous, theres a huge gap between the rich and the poor. 10 years ago health and education in Australia is much cheaper than it is today. The costs of these services in this country is getting closer to those in the US.

 

[Gangels]

LABOR: the way of the future
social democracy.

Social democracy doesnt exsist! Sociaism is the beginning of communism and when someone stupid e.g Kim Beasley, Mark Latham, Paul Keating, gets in power for long enough, they will lead in that direction.

GO THE MARIJUANA PARTY!