Political Ideology Important? (1 Viewer)

[Bored_of_HSC]

I can guarantee your opinion will be nothing special or contraversial just have a discussion or if you're unwilling to, why even post in this section

Fair enough point. My original post of me saying i didn't want to discuss was of 'politic' asking for an explanation.

 

[Lolsmith]

lol the majority of the regulars here (myself included) are fairly belligerent libertarians.

As long as you aren't a Shane Lively libertarian, stick around and have a spin at some topics.

 

[zombie omie jay]

communist

 

[Bored_of_HSC]

lol the majority of the regulars here (myself included) are fairly belligerent libertarians.

As long as you aren't a Shane Lively libertarian, stick around and have a spin at some topics.

Haha cheers for the invite.

Haven't ventured much out of the Prelim section...

 

[funkshen]

birds of a feather flock together

 

[Politic]

Fine if you must know i'm essentially a libertarian at heart. However, i sympathise with certain labour economic policy. That's why i hate categorising.



Not really 'caring', more of apathy in arguing right here. I agree that discussion and debate can only result in improved understanding. But i also believe that there must be a certain framework of learning.

Such as?

 

[funkshen]

stopping the boats, of course

 

[dionb2014]

I support all government. Take from the poor and give to the rich

 

[Bored_of_HSC]

Such as?

Keynesian economics. I believe in the gov's role in boosting ag. demand through stimulus and taking certain measures of deficit. However a lot of the stimulus the gov provides is of little use in the long term, effectively making the gov dig itself a hole. This is because there are other factors which may lead to busts in the general business cycle or recessions/depressions. (eg the credit crunch was a result of a banking system left to it's own means, gov spending won't do much for to aid that). This also serves the case for prudential economic reform/regulation.

Also, certain parts of the welfare state are admirable (e.g. look at Aus's healthcare as opposed to the US's) and the gov supplying public goods for non-rival goods (as there are no real incentives of the market to provide such goods/it's easier to provide goods through natural monopolies). Market failure in the form of externalities are another thing i hold as something only gov can fix (yes, i do believe in a price in carbon).

That said. I believe in the end it is incentives which drive the economy. Too much government intervention will just stifle this.

 

[funkshen]

you sound like a year 11 economics student.

p.s. what you have just described is not ALP policy. you've described the neo-classical synthesis and public economics, which is, broadly speaking, a notion that both the ALP and Liberal party endorse.

 

[Politic]

Keynesian economics. I believe in the gov's role in boosting ag. demand through stimulus and taking certain measures of deficit. However a lot of the stimulus the gov provides is of little use in the long term, effectively making the gov dig itself a hole. This is because there are other factors which may lead to busts in the general business cycle or recessions/depressions. (eg the credit crunch was a result of a banking system left to it's own means, gov spending won't do much for to aid that). This also serves the case for prudential economic reform/regulation.

Also, certain parts of the welfare state are admirable (e.g. look at Aus's healthcare as opposed to the US's) and the gov supplying public goods for non-rival goods (as there are no real incentives of the market to provide such goods/it's easier to provide goods through natural monopolies). Market failure in the form of externalities are another thing i hold as something only gov can fix (yes, i do believe in a price in carbon).

That said. I believe in the end it is incentives which drive the economy. Too much government intervention will just stifle this.

Interesting that you meet Labor at some level. So you obviously have more support the Libs, but what are your thoughts on Tony Abbott as the leader and possible future PM?

 

[zombie omie jay]

the us has the best patient outcomes in the world for cancer and heart conditions sounds pretty good to me

 

[Bored_of_HSC]

you sound like a year 11 economics student.

p.s. what you have just described is not ALP policy. you've described the neo-classical synthesis and public economics, which is, broadly speaking, a notion that both the ALP and Liberal party endorse.

Yeh, never said i was well-versed. Sorry if i ever gave off the impression. Still a noob.

Labour and lib are quite similar nowadays as compared to the past. However, i clearly took sides on things both parties oppose (as of this time at least). E.g. Carbon tax, appropriate levels of fiscal policy to boost ag demand.

Interesting that you meet Labor at some level. So you obviously have more support the Libs, but what are your thoughts on Tony Abbott as the leader and possible future PM?

Would've preffered Turnbull, though i'd choose him anyday over Gillard.

the us has the best patient outcomes in the world for cancer and heart conditions sounds pretty good to me

That's true, but universal coverage and efficiency are still major problems. Good patient outcomes are partially the cause of it having the best resources and research institutions in the world.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Keynesian economics. I believe in the gov's role in boosting ag. demand through stimulus and taking certain measures of deficit. However a lot of the stimulus the gov provides is of little use in the long term, effectively making the gov dig itself a hole. This is because there are other factors which may lead to busts in the general business cycle or recessions/depressions. (eg the credit crunch was a result of a banking system left to it's own means, gov spending won't do much for to aid that). This also serves the case for prudential economic reform/regulation.

Also, certain parts of the welfare state are admirable (e.g. look at Aus's healthcare as opposed to the US's) and the gov supplying public goods for non-rival goods (as there are no real incentives of the market to provide such goods/it's easier to provide goods through natural monopolies). Market failure in the form of externalities are another thing i hold as something only gov can fix (yes, i do believe in a price in carbon).

That said. I believe in the end it is incentives which drive the economy. Too much government intervention will just stifle this.

So hows the stagflation over there? Keynesian economics was disproved to be a barrel of bat shit back in the 70's stop paying attention to it... well stop paying attention to it once you have done the HSC. Try and write an HSC econ essay from an Austrian or Chicago perspective and get 0 marks XD

Also fact: A tax on business is just a tax passed onto the consumer, I mean ffs if they have to tax us at least be honest about it and just have income tax

Lastly its not a demand problem its a supply problem, I mean seriously if its a demand problem than the government should employ all the unemployed and make them dig holes and fill them up again, (they actually did this during the great depression) that we pay for in tax dollars since its such a demand problem

I won't fight you on health care because that is more a debate of morality than anything else. Where efficiency takes the back seat in comparison to the idea that everybody for some reason has a right to health care

 

[scuba_steve2121]

also no joke post all the causes for inflation that your econ textbook has I need a good laugh, last time i checked it was like 7 or something?

 

[Bored_of_HSC]

So hows the stagflation over there? Keynesian economics was disproved to be a barrel of bat shit back in the 70's stop paying attention to it... well stop paying attention to it once you have done the HSC. Try and write an HSC econ essay from an Austrian or Chicago perspective and get 0 marks XD

Agreed, macroeconomic policy can often be unnecesary and can fuck things up. Later on in this post you mentioned supply. Don't you agree that much of the problems in the 70's were also caused by 'supply shocks' though?

Also fact: A tax on business is just a tax passed onto the consumer, I mean ffs if they have to tax us at least be honest about it and just have income tax

What do you say about the gov constantly repeating that it'll pass on the revenues from the tax to consumers. (the means by which it does is another question). It's harsh but what are the alternatives you'd offer up?

Lastly its not a demand problem its a supply problem, I mean seriously if its a demand problem than the government should employ all the unemployed and make them dig holes and fill them up again, (they actually did this during the great depression) that we pay for in tax dollars since its such a demand problem

Boosting ag demand is also boosting consumer confidence. That's something very important in keeping the economy flowing. Supply won't do much for that. And also, modern stimulus tends to be more constructive than that.

I won't fight you on health care because that is more a debate of morality than anything else. Where efficiency takes the back seat in comparison to the idea that everybody for some reason has a right to health care

Truth.

 

[Lolsmith]

What do you say about the gov constantly repeating that it'll pass on the revenues from the tax to consumers. (the means by which it does is another question). It's harsh but what are the alternatives you'd offer up?

If the government takes money from a business (who is run and owned by individuals (google Free Lunch myth)), that business will correct this extra cost by upping their prices; so the consumer pays more. If the government takes the money the business already had, makes them increase their prices and then gives the consumer the ability to pay the higher cost with no extra impact, what's the fucking point of the tax in the first place? The government gains no revenue because it's just giving money to the masses, the business doesn't gain nor lose any money because its customers' demand hasn't changed despite the price change and the consumer just pays more for the same thing, but that new extra is paid for by the government. Retarded shit like this just leads to cost-push inflation which is fairly rampant amongst our economy and is partially the reason why we have lower purchasing power compared to other nations like the US.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Agreed, macroeconomic policy can often be unnecesary and can fuck things up. Later on in this post you mentioned supply. Don't you agree that much of the problems in the 70's were also caused by 'supply shocks' though?



What do you say about the gov constantly repeating that it'll pass on the revenues from the tax to consumers. (the means by which it does is another question). It's harsh but what are the alternatives you'd offer up?



Boosting ag demand is also boosting consumer confidence. That's something very important in keeping the economy flowing. Supply won't do much for that. And also, modern stimulus tends to be more constructive than that.



Truth.

70's supply shocks were caused by a few things, you can blame oil on the US being idiots about their foreign policy in relation to Iran and also starting a 700 billion dollar war in Vietnam. Otherwise any 'supply shocks' were probably caused by the price controls implemented by Nixon lol, even your economics textbook will tell you that

You got to get it out your head (once the HSC is over) that the 'flow' is all that matters; you can't put today's globalised economy on a fricken flow chart lol. I mean what happens when the government stimulus runs out? You still have the mal-investment of capital and labour, that problem isn't going away no matter how much inflationary money you shove down their throats.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

If the government takes money from a business (who is run and owned by individuals (google Free Lunch myth)), that business will correct this extra cost by upping their prices; so the consumer pays more. If the government takes the money the business already had, makes them increase their prices and then gives the consumer the ability to pay the higher cost with no extra impact, what's the fucking point of the tax in the first place? The government gains no revenue because it's just giving money to the masses, the business doesn't gain nor lose any money because its customers' demand hasn't changed despite the price change and the consumer just pays more for the same thing, but that new extra is paid for by the government. Retarded shit like this just leads to cost-push inflation which is fairly rampant amongst our economy and is partially the reason why we have lower purchasing power compared to other nations like the US.

I hope you are just using that term because hes studying year 11 economics, not because you believe that's a thing because that would suggest that inflation isn't just the expansion of the money supply and that any rise in prices means that inflation is present

 

[mirakon]

If the government takes money from a business (who is run and owned by individuals (google Free Lunch myth)), that business will correct this extra cost by upping their prices; so the consumer pays more. If the government takes the money the business already had, makes them increase their prices and then gives the consumer the ability to pay the higher cost with no extra impact, what's the fucking point of the tax in the first place? The government gains no revenue because it's just giving money to the masses, the business doesn't gain nor lose any money because its customers' demand hasn't changed despite the price change and the consumer just pays more for the same thing, but that new extra is paid for by the government. Retarded shit like this just leads to cost-push inflation which is fairly rampant amongst our economy and is partially the reason why we have lower purchasing power compared to other nations like the US.

Or in the case of the carbon tax they could invest in technology which reduces emissions. Or businesses could just take grow a pair and take the extra cost for themselves without offsetting it into the community and know they took one for the team