• 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 |OT| Boats? What Boats?

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fredescu

Member
Really, we should be preventing the concentrations of wealth that makes it a problem in the first place, but it's too late for that now.
 
M

Myansie

Member
Yagharek said:
The idea that either party will ever have "enough money" is what is preposterous. They will always want more - even if public funding is sufficient. Hence private donations. Public funding solves nothing.
Click to expand...

If both sides are equal it does. The corruption is coming from the arms race on the private side. The public funding is inadvertently boosting it, but remove the private funding and you've evened the sides. There are very strong external pressures on the parties not to go nuts on campaign spending. It's a budget emergency!

It's also worth noting the article you've posted while on the ABC is written by a journalist from The Australian.

Arksy in the article it says it's implied in the constitution. That doesn't sound like a total brick wall. Maybe it isn't doable, but I strongly believe it would make for a healthier system.
 
A

Arksy

Member
Myansie said:
If both sides are equal it does. The corruption is coming from the arms race on the private side. The public funding is inadvertently boosting it, but remove the private funding and you've evened the sides. There are very strong external pressures on the parties not to go nuts on campaign spending. It's a budget emergency!

It's also worth noting the article you've posted while on the ABC is written by a journalist from The Australian.

Arksy in the article it says it's implied in the constitution. That doesn't sound like a total brick wall. Maybe it isn't doable, but I strongly believe it would make for a healthier system.
Click to expand...

People think that the word implied means that it's a weak right. This is false. Being an implied right means that the reasoning behind the right can be considered 'weak' but the right is in fact very strong. In fact all implied rights at this stage might be implicit words in the constitution for all it matters.

The right to donate money was just affirmed in the case where NSW tried to ban Union and Corporate donations to political campaigns. This was thrown out unanimously. It's not going anywhere any time soon.

markot said:
My guess is that it wouldn't be that hard to get a referendum passed on the issue. But neither party will support it.
Click to expand...

Incredibly difficult actually. Even if it was incredibly popular the mechanism for amending our constitution makes anything difficult.
 
A

Arksy

Member
hidys said:
This is true, but what about a cap on private donations?

Also I'd just like to point out that today is the 98th birthday of Gough Whitlam.
Click to expand...

I think caps would be constitutional...the Court would likely predicate the constitutionality on whether or not these caps were sufficiently high enough not to restrict free political campaigning. Where that line is....is a matter for the Court I guess...
 
R

reptilescorpio

Member
Stunning
BsTE5-fCcAAyGfh.jpg:large
 
H

hidys

Member
Arksy said:
I think caps would be constitutional...the Court would likely predicate the constitutionality on whether or not these caps were sufficiently high enough not to restrict free political campaigning. Where that line is....is a matter for the Court I guess...
Click to expand...

What about spending limits during political campaigns would that also be constitutional?
 
D

Dryk

Member
Leyonhjelm is gunning for same-sex marriage, marijuana and euthanasia. Seems to be winning him some support, though it's all fun and games until he abolishes the minimum wage and starts handing out guns.
 
J

Jintor

Member
Carbon tax with the palmer amendments passed the lower house and seems set to pass the upper house. Let's see how much consumer prices drop (maybe Palmer's amendments will actually do something, or maybe they'll get thrown out for being unconstitutional, I can't remember)
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Dryk said:
Leyonhjelm is gunning for same-sex marriage, marijuana and euthanasia. Seems to be winning him some support, though it's all fun and games until he abolishes the minimum wage and starts handing out guns.
Click to expand...
That's where you're wrong. The market determines who gets what guns and how many, and if you don't feel safe wandering the CBD surrounded by traders wielding military grade assault weapons then you should start working harder, leaner.
 
W

wonzo

Banned
Deadly Awards founder Gavin Jones dies after funding cut
The Aboriginal founder of the Deadly Awards, the annual celebration of indigenous achievement, was shattered last month when he learnt that he would lose federal funding worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Gavin Jones, 47, was found dead on his farm at Goulburn on Saturday. While his family did not want to discuss the nature of his death, they and his friends were aware of his devastation at the loss of funding affecting his ventures, which had spawned radio and television productions, the national Deadly Vibe magazine, the annual Deadly Awards, sport, dance and hip-hop events, and much more.

“Yes, it was a huge blow to him,” said his long-time friend Shelley Reys, who shared offices in Darlinghurst with Mr Jones when they were establishing their indigenous consulting businesses in the 1990s.

“He was very disappointed by the lack of support, not just to the business but to what the business provided to young people.”

On Monday night, Vibe Australia, which runs the Deadly Awards, revealed this year's event had been cancelled because of the funding cuts. The awards had been due to take place on September 30.

Vibe Australia said it had been informed in June that funds for the Vibe Project would be redirected to federal government programs that deliver "frontline" services from July 1.
Click to expand...

The first of many. :(
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Dryk said:
The LNP Twitter is accusing Labor of trying to undermine the economy for the lulz

https://twitter.com/LiberalAus/statu...97911158104064
Click to expand...
Well to be fair if your economic policies are a deliberate strategy to hurt workers it's perfectly natural to assume that the other side would do the same thing but in reverse.

Also, that twitter account is gold. Carbon tax, carbon tax, carbon tax, misspelling of "handbrake" in Joe Hockey quote about carbon tax (unless he meant that the carbon tax was actually breaking people's hands), carbon tax, carbon tax, Shinzo Abe mentions Dawn Fraser in speech what a legend, carbon tax, carbon tax, this:

BsjrccXCcAEjYSw.jpg:large


I swore off engaging with party politics on social media after John Howard rejected my MySpace friend request but clearly I've been missing out on some great stuff.
 
A

Arksy

Member
I don't know what I think about the carbon tax any more. I can deal with an ETS as long as there's no carbon tax (or the government making money off carbon in one way or another).
 
D

Dryk

Member
Arksy said:
I don't know what I think about the carbon tax any more. I can deal with an ETS as long as there's no carbon tax (or the government making money off carbon in one way or another).
Click to expand...
How do you feel about the Productivity Commissions proposal to track every car in the country? :p
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Arksy said:
I don't know what I think about the carbon tax any more. I can deal with an ETS as long as there's no carbon tax (or the government making money off carbon in one way or another).
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate?
 
L

legend166

Member
Fibre to the node is saved!

Bell Labs says that XG-FAST can provide up to 10 gigabits per second over a distance of up to 30 meters. So if there is a fiber connection on the street, it would be sufficient to deliver lightning-fast Internet over a home’s existing landline wires. For big buildings, fiber could be brought into the basement without needing to route it to individual apartments or offices.

Read more: http://q13fox.com/2014/07/11/report-new-internet-speed-record-blows-past-google-fiber/#ixzz37bDfhTkJ
Click to expand...
 
D

Dryk

Member
Myansie said:
Yeah but the equivalent tech jump for fibre is a laser that operates at 26 terabits per second...

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2011/5/26/technology/alan-jones-labels-nbn-26-million-times-too-slow

And that's 3 years ago.
Click to expand...
You can try to close the gap between wireless, copper and fibre all you want but fibre will always jump much further ahead as soon as you do. And let's be honest 10Gbps over 70m, while incredibly impressive, is rapidly approaching blood from a stone levels of desperate.
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Arksy said:
Basically. :D

No to taxes.
Click to expand...
Is that all? Boo-urns! Next time say something crazy like if the government taxes carbon emissions then there will be an incentive for the government to ensure that those emissions aren't reduced so obviously a carbon tax can't work.

Dryk said:
You can try to close the gap between wireless, copper and fibre all you want but fibre will always jump much further ahead as soon as you do. And let's be honest 10Gbps over 70m, while incredibly impressive, is rapidly approaching blood from a stone levels of desperate.
Click to expand...
That article only says 30m; could be wrong here I'm not sure either would be sufficient to cover an entire street from a single node.
 
H

HowZatOZ

Banned
Dryk said:
You can try to close the gap between wireless, copper and fibre all you want but fibre will always jump much further ahead as soon as you do. And let's be honest 10Gbps over 70m, while incredibly impressive, is rapidly approaching blood from a stone levels of desperate.
Click to expand...

Considering you'd need basically brand-new copper for those speeds to actually be capable, its just pointless. Fibre will always be the winner when it comes to speed increases in technology advancement, but hey who are we to talk when its all up to politicians.
 
A

Arksy

Member
A More Normal Bird said:
Is that all? Boo-urns! Next time say something crazy like if the government taxes carbon emissions then there will be an incentive for the government to ensure that those emissions aren't reduced so obviously a carbon tax can't work.
Click to expand...

Sigh....

Fine...

What we should do is grant each individual in society 10 free carbon credits...who can then negotiate and sell those to others. No other carbon credits except those given out for free are given. That way emitters have to source carbon credits far and wide in order to produce electricity. It will also ensure that there is a multiplicity of smaller providers, also increasing competition in the marketplace and cheaper electricity. It's also a robin hood scheme as every citizen benefits...so lefties will love it. Everyone wins.

It'll also give the normal citizen a bit of negotiating power with the electrical companies. Or...if we take the cynical point of view, people will just end up selling their carbon credits en bulk to carbon credit barons who then hold the energy companies ransom. Think of the possibilities!!!!
 
D

Dryk

Member
In the Libertarian utopia there are so many competing electrical networks the wires blot out the sun :p

A More Normal Bird said:
That article only says 30m; could be wrong here I'm not sure either would be sufficient to cover an entire street from a single node.
Click to expand...
Right I got the old standard, which is 1 gigabit over 70m and due to go commerical in 2015 with the new standard with is 10 gigabits over 30m.
 
H

hidys

Member
Arksy said:
Sigh....

Fine...

What we should do is grant each individual in society 10 free carbon credits...who can then negotiate and sell those to others. No other carbon credits except those given out for free are given. That way emitters have to source carbon credits far and wide in order to produce electricity. It will also ensure that there is a multiplicity of smaller providers, also increasing competition in the marketplace and cheaper electricity. It's also a robin hood scheme as every citizen benefits...so lefties will love it. Everyone wins.

It'll also give the normal citizen a bit of negotiating power with the electrical companies. Or...if we take the cynical point of view, people will just end up selling their carbon credits en bulk to carbon credit barons who then hold the energy companies ransom. Think of the possibilities!!!!
Click to expand...

I suspect you are only being half serious, but I'm going to tell you why you are wrong anyway (I'm a nice guy, what can I say).

Basically you would be issuing deflationary credits, which people would have every incentive to hold on to them rather than trade them.

The only way this would work is if the big bad gov'ment came in and ensured there was always a healthy circulation of credits at any point, according to certain emissions targets. This would be done by printing more when people are hoarding credits, or by buying up when too many are circulating.

Without this factor the whole scheme would go into recession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Graven |OT| A heretic priest killing hexed creatures
4
983
mansoor1980 replied
What actually happened to Warren Ellis?
14
2K
CGNoire replied
NEOGAF - A Data-Driven View Pt. 3: Communities Section
Social Community
10
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
23K
Elysium44 replied
Forza Horizon 5 |OT| Are you a Mexican, or a Mexican't?
|OT| 42 43 44 45 46
2K
211K
MagnetoWasRight replied
Top Bottom