melanieeeee. said:
ahahahahahhahahha.
educated guess my arse, stop accusing the policy of something which you think is an 'educated guess'.
Ok Ok Ok... I got it wrong after all. Secrety Julia Gillard is an economic conservative and is going to cut taxes, and lower expenditure for all.... Unlikely. Your issue with $10bn is besides the point. The fact is that she isn't an economic conservative and she has some grand plans that she has articulated numerous times. As I said if you have a look at the budget papers you will find that $10bn is a very minute amount. In fact it represents less than 1% of GDP. It would be highly improbable that spending will go up by less than 1% let alone this figure being innacurate. But as I said this is besides the point. Her plans for childcare alone are likely to cost a few billion dollars.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2220245.htm
who gives a shit what you think it isn't going to happen for a long while.
No it wont but was that ever the point?
do you know why uni's think that referencing wiki is a no no?
and did you even read my comment.
HELLO! this isn't a formal piece of academic writing. If its such a big deal go and read the citations listed within the text article. I would recommend anything by the Austrian or Chicago schools of economics when it comes to this.
No the wikipedia quote didn't describe why it wouldn't work but it refers to other texts that will (which is precisely why your statement was foolish because the wiki quotation did nothing other than refer to other works!). The critique is that there is no such thing as a mix between free markets and intervention. If you believe free markets work, then you should also believe that free markets will always produce the best results. If you dont believe in this then why on earth would you utilise free market policies? if you do believe in this then why would you intervene in markets? this is the central critique progressed by its opponents. Free market capitalism is a pure theory that need not be compromised. If you compromise it, you worsen the outcomes. Third way politics is an inconsistent approach that does nothing other than appease competing political interests. It doesn't produce effective outcomes.
of course i know that government wastes money at times. that wasn't even what i meant.
ok if every government does it why should it be seen as a bad thing if Rudd does it (not saying that he does)
??? why is it bad? havent we just been debating this whole issue since the beginning?
Rudd will do it. He's already done it. He couldn't even stand solid to political pressure when it came to the one of carers and seniors bonus. I will reserve judgement until a few budgets have gone by, but the signs arent promising. But thats to be expected. No Labor government in history has ever had the ethos of "small government" in mind.
well i think it is definitely a turn to the right direction. and i think Rudd should be proud to do it.
how is it the wrong direction? how has AWA's been a better choice? who says that there can't be economic freedom with Rudd? if you say that Rudd is copying many of Howards policies (of course not AWA's)? you should know that from studying economics that reducing inequality a part of economics. its not even about person freedom, it about creating a fair enough environment that so that it doesn't end up becoming a social problem that will ultimately effect the economy in a negative way.
I know you are only studying year 12 economics so I wont expect you to have studied labour markets; but labour market deregulation produces positive outcomes for both employees and employers.
As for AWA's - these agreements actually enhance the protection of employees. We've always had individual contracts but these have been common law arrangements which means that if you have an issue with the agreement, or your employer, you have to pay a bloody lawyer to help you out. How is that a better alternative to an AWA that allows you to fall under the formal industrial relations system and give you the formal rights of concilliation and arbitration?
As for wages, how does it improve the distribution of income if we artificially inflate wages such that we have unemployment as those with low skills are too expensive to be hired by employers? there are in fact a lot of jobless people out there who would have jobs if employers could pay them the appropriate rate for a given job. Personally I do not advocate for the removal of minimum wages (although many do) but I do believe that our minimum wage is far too high. We have the highest minimum wage in the world. Whilst workchoices itself didn't entail lowering or removing minimum wages - it did allow employers to negotiate a contract that that made it feasible to employ people that they otherwise couldn't.
