Elaugaufein
Member
Deets ?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGaf |Early 2016 Election| - the government's term has been... Shortened
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
Deets ?
Aarglefarg
Member
It happened quickly but it was just to the effect that he's interested in working with Katter about ethanol. He said this was off the record before and after he said that. It was a pre-recorded video today.
There's been only a couple of mentions of this that I've found:
Tom McIlroy (Federal politics reporter with Fairfax Media): "Someone tell Nick Xenophon his presser is going live on News 24" (I don't think it was live)
https://twitter.com/TomMcIlroy/status/750859474919981056
Jennifer Rajca (Reporter, working with AAP in the Canberra Press Gallery) tweeted in response to that "So much for "off the record""
https://twitter.com/jrajca/status/750859619753340929
Elaugaufein
Member
That's a pretty big flub by ABC unless it's footage someone else leaked first.
Aarglefarg
Member
L/NP are up to 73 on the ABC with Gilmore as expected.
Aarglefarg
Member
S&P has moved Australia's credit outlook from stable to negative.
"Growth". But only negatively growing.
Elaugaufein
Member
As certain as Turnbull's inability to manage the Senate.
Aarglefarg
Member
I'd be going to a doctor about this growth.
This is what happens when reforms are blocked by a populist obstructionist senate.
Elaugaufein
Member
Then reform really needs to work out a package that isn't "austerity for the people, tax cuts and less regulation for business". Because while it is people are going to keep voting in populists and obstructionists to say "fuck you to that". But the BCA is about as likely to take that hint as I am to become a Protestant Fundamentalist.
bobnowhere
Member
I wonder if the LNP will finally act on the fact that they have always said we have a spending and revenue problem. You can't bury your head in the sand and pretend the revenue side doesn't matter, Jobson Grothe won't put up with your going after his medicare anymore.
Also NSW banning Greyhound racing from 1 July 2017. Mike Baird still proving his the best worst option. I'm sure the rest of the states will follow.
Elaugaufein
Member
And yet it was political business as usual that put them in a situation where they can't do anything to represent these peoples interests. That's actually a completely valid reason to vote against them (" You fucked me over").
Hssssss. The main beneficiaries of the company tax cuts are the people. Just as the main beneficiaries of less regulation are the people as well. Regulation and taxation inhibits jobs creation and growth (heh), just look at the regulatory costs involved in complying with nuclear regulation in the US. Our tax system is about 40 years out of date; Rudd and Swann had the opportunity to change this but blew the Henry Tax review.
As for 'austerity', we need reforms around health spending as costs are increasing for the same outcomes. We need measures implemented to improve efficiency. This will involve spending cuts and spending redirected. It's just a necessity.
Elaugaufein
Member
I look forward to you visiting a self-certified doctor in an uncertified building after unregulated banks invest all your money in the British property market.
Strawman arguments aren't your strong point!
Elaugaufein
Member
Its not exactly a serious argument as much as me amusing myself. That it points out that regulation exists for a reason and that businesses are often self-interested to the point of social destruction is merely a bonus.
Nobody is suggesting the elimination of all regulation. Also the whole idea behind capitalism is that self-interest will make everyone better off. Obviously we need help for the bottom, but the trend over the last 40 years has been the removal of barriers to growth with the maintenance of a healthy welfare state. And the best performing states have been the ones that have undertaken 'neoliberal' reforms the most.
Those reports you linked that found the opposite certainly convinced me of that.
I agree, but luckily that wasn't one.
I dunno man. Sounds a hell of a lot like trickle down economics. Good luck selling that turd sandwich.
Misinterpreting an argument saying that regulation hampers growth as all regulation is bad and then attacking the user posting on the basis of that reduced position is the definition of a straw man argument.
Regulation does have a negative effect on a number of things, for example it can make it impossible for competitors to enter the market. It can drive out the smaller operators...you could obviously accept that as necessary or that we have gone too far but that's very different to any black or white argument on the matter.
What a weird industry to choose to try and substantiate your argument.
You don't know what a necessity is. An outcome that your political ideology agrees with doesn't make it a necessity.
I have about 20 studies into the effects of corporate tax cuts. Most of them suggest that corporate tax cuts are felt majority by labour. Most of the economists I've talked to say the same thing.
I prefer 'economic rationalism'. Reducing any sort of market-friendly policy to 'trickle-down' is absurdly simplistic.
Why is everyone being so reductionist these days. I advocate strong action on climate change (a carbon tax of about $40/CO2 equivalent), just as I advocate regulation on banking. I also advocate regulations that makes changes for the better, not regulations for the sake of regulation.
It's an extreme example to make my point. You can look at the taxi industry for another good example of regulation hurting consumers, competition and industry.
Right sorry growth in health spending far above growth in tax receipts is totally ok and not at all cause for alarm, nor is multiple credit agencies pointing out this exact same thing in any way impetus for change.
It's looking a lib majority to be honest. Maybe even as many as 78 seats.
Elaugaufein
Member
Fredescu was making the point that the GFC and climate change inaction demonstrate that there's some holes in the theory that self-interest make things better for everyone.
And theres similar examples of self-interest being socially destructive in the frame of capitalism back to at least the Industrial Revolution.
Trade unions didn't form because of mutual self interest (strike breaking certainly demonstrates that).
And theres similar examples of self-interest being socially destructive in the frame of capitalism back to at least the Industrial Revolution.
Trade unions didn't form because of mutual self interest (strike breaking certainly demonstrates that).
I can assume by this reply you are well aware a ledger has two sides. Ponder if you can reconcile a budget without touching expenditures, then consider what the word necessity means.
Elaugaufein
Member
Comfort yourself with the thought of Turnbull having a knife over his head and the Senate shenanigans. This will probably be the least productive Parliament in our history.
Misinterpreted in an active manner, misconstruing, linking an argument to a different one and then arguing against that new one.
He never said that all regulation is bad, only that regulation gets into the way of growth. He didn't argue for the deregulation of professional health service registration.
Absolutely we should continue raising taxes and growing health care expenditure until we harm long-term economic growth and other expenditures are cut to make way for further healthcare spending. And then once that happens we should harm growth some more, make us less able to meet our long-term spending obligations, and then cut further expenditures.
And then 50 years down the line we can look forward to a country where economic growth is negligible and we spend more than the US does on health-care for similar outcomes.
And then we can raise taxes some more.
Or we can realise that in governance difficult choices have to be made, and that healthcare is an insanely complex policy area where many actions have counter-intuitive but positive reactions (such as freezing the rebate leading to an increase in bulk-billing rates). Not all health-care spending is good. Diminishing marginal returns are real.
I mean, duh. This is a truism.
I appreciate that you want to look at academia, and that's where everyone should start, but I think you overplay you're hand. Economic laws are not physical laws. They are backed by maths and research, yes, but as long as it depends on human behaviour it will be a social science. Which doesn't mean that it's not valuable - I'd love to go back and study it one day - but it's always going to be influenced by values and biases. There's no one objective answer to policy issues. Every paper is going to prioritise different ideal outcomes.
Yes but what do these words mean
Yea it can only tell us outcomes of certain policies (with margins of error) not whether or not these are positive outcomes in the first place. As always we have to decide on the outcomes we want and then look at the ways in which we can get there.
And while it may seem a bit of a truism I have found that there are many segments of the left that want regulation for the sake of regulation, rather than for outcomes. The Sanders supporters and their pushing for the reintroduction of Glass-Steagal (whose removal had no impact on the GFC) as a good example.
Elaugaufein
Member
Are we going to pretend now that the only regulation business wants isn't that which maximizes the barrier of entry to competitors? They aren't asking for relaxation of over-onerous legislation with proof of its lack of necessity. Their primary complaints are that they can't stiff/endanger workers or gamble with overleveraged money.
And even given that second part our banks are still pretty saintly compared to the systematic and ingrained culture of fraud found in the US and UK.
The stated principal of capitalism has wiped out billions of dollars of wealth, and will wipe out same at the very least in terms of waterfront property and insurance payouts (and resultant premium rises). This is not being reductionist, this is a direct attack on that principle of self interest being a useful method of organising society. The principle at the very least needs heavy heavy qualification, if not just setting fire to it altogether.
Aarglefarg
Member
John Howard expresses a need for industrial relations reform.
Elaugaufein
Member
Zombie WorkChoices ?
Obviously it needs qualifications, everything does. The world isn't simple.
The best way to put it is that we know that capitalism is the worst form of ownership of the means of production, other than all those other ones we have tried from time to time.
There's a very big difference, in my mind, between being pro-business, and being pro-market. Some times regulation helps the market, some times it doesn't. Over-regulation in the banking sector created the too big to fail phenomenon that required taxpayers to bail out corporate interests. It was absolutely the stupidity and greed of the bankers which caused this mess, but the fact that there was no competition required people to foot the bill for their mistakes.
On the other hand, this was also caused by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act.....allowing the bigger banks to cannibalise new areas of service. An excellent example of a pro-market piece of regulation that was repealed due to business pressure.
I have to say that wedging in a paragraph acknowledging the complexities of public policy between simplistic points formed from a narrow viewpoint is somewhat perplexing.
No ground is going to be won if the conclusion you insist is the right wing taxes = no growth = no taxes flying in the face of hundreds of years of living economic history.
No ground is going to be won if the conclusion you insist is the right wing taxes = no growth = no taxes flying in the face of hundreds of years of living economic history.
Taxes inhibit growth. This is a truism. Constantly raising taxes to pay for ever-growing expenditure is a downwards spiral without end.
Yeah and I'm not necessarily opposed to company tax cuts like I would be for comparable income tax cuts - intuitively they make more sense (although having said that they've been a disaster in places like Kansas - but that's at the extreme end). Personally it's a cost benefit analysis - is it the best way to spend our money? And I think it says something about priorities and their vision for Australia - but I admit that's pretty wishy washy.
Elaugaufein
Member
This assumes that the tax money disappears , which it usually doesn't , its generally spent on things that encourage growth: education , health and infrastructure. Well educated , healthy workers are more productive and good transit and communication paths are generally at least as good for business as they are the public.
You're argument is more against running unnecessarily large surpluses and I don't think anyone anywhere thinks those are a good idea.
Heavy qualification. Meaning heavy regulation. Meaning an oversight body with teeth. I don't know how such a body can exist alongside the kinds of wealth concentration that we see as a natural part of the system.
Presumably you'd agree there would be a point where not enough tax also inhibits growth.
There are those that would argue that this concentration of wealth is anything but natural.
- Status