And I'd probably still make more money overseas
-
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?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
How would this work though? Would they stop people with HECS debt's getting work visas in other countries, or stop people with dual citizenship moving away and working elsewhere?
It's kind of an unwieldy, unnecessarily punitive policy that would disadvantage those least powerful for ideological reasons and in practical terms never work.
And now that I've typed all that out and read it back to myself I'm realizing that fuck yeah the LNP might try that.
N7Commander95
Member
Hey guys, I was wondering if I could ask your help.
Im currently writing an essay on the relevance of ANZAC day and the centenary of the battle of Gallipoli.
Do you guys know any good Australian political blogs? Also, what do you guys think the Australian equivalent of a Fox News style news station would be? Cheers!
Im currently writing an essay on the relevance of ANZAC day and the centenary of the battle of Gallipoli.
Do you guys know any good Australian political blogs? Also, what do you guys think the Australian equivalent of a Fox News style news station would be? Cheers!
Something Wonky is an okay podcast. Leans solidly and overbearingly internet-left, but for all that they're alright. Good links on their blog.
I don't think there's a direct through-line to a Fox News style TV station (the major networks are rubbish, but they're independly rubbish; Sky Australia is... not quite as blatently terrible as most of Murdoch's other networks); the real power of the right-wing media lies in Murdoch's newspapers, especially The Australian, the Daily Telegraph, and whatever Melbourne's shit paper is called.
N7Commander95
Member
Thank You!
Hey look, common sense is arising in the Upper House.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-...gulate-universities-looks-set-to-fail/6321384
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-...gulate-universities-looks-set-to-fail/6321384
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
If you're looking for a range of views on ANZAC Day I'd suggest examining the reactions to former Prime Minister Paul Keating's opinions on/refusal to go to Gallipoli. His eulogy to the unknown soldier is one of the nation's most icon speeches on war but his refusal to glorify Gallipoli is hardly well received by the right.
Nonsense. Christopher had to look everywhere to find that money. Down the back of the couch, in the pockets of his weekend shorts, in the glovebox...
Wow, that's an...interesting article.
I still don't know why this line is being touted. How the fuck does deregulating the market have any benefit to students? Why would increased costs (why would universities lower their prices?) help already struggling students?
Really need that why, why, why gif because this whole government keeps me asking that question.
You're basically asking why would increased funding benefit students, which should be obvious. The social catastrophe doesn't occur until they stop being students. This happens because the question "will this benefit me when I'm not being a consumer?" is an unpopular question to ask. Just look at people complaining about prices of things in Australia.
Of course, increased funding could also be achieved by increasing government funding. So again, what is the benefit to this particular scheme for the student? None.
https://vine.co/v/OVhuKiWlqWe
the complete annihilation of sa's economy will be so worth it just to see this chucklefuck lose his seat at the next election
the complete annihilation of sa's economy will be so worth it just to see this chucklefuck lose his seat at the next election
I don't support university deregulation at all but this is terrible logic. If increased government funding can improve service delivery, so can increased private funding. Stop making me argue in favour of stupid bullshit.
If anyone is actually interested in understanding the enemy, here's an article from a vice-chancellor in favour of deregulation: http://theconversation.com/glyn-davis-why-i-support-the-deregulation-of-higher-education-36766
TLDR: We would prefer public funding too, but it's hard to get.
LOL, okay. I never said it was easy to do, just that it would be functionally the same benefit to the student but without the downsides of increasing debt. The benefit of deregulation is that it is easier to sell. That is the only benefit. Given the downsides, increased likelihood of happening is not really a plus.
If you are in favour of public funding for university as that bloke claims to be, favouring a plan that will entrench a lack of public funding is a terrible long term plan. His plan seems to be to give up and accept private funding requirement increases as inevitable. Fuck that. Lots of things are being achieved in countries that run counter to the prevailing trend.
If you give up now, the system will never improve. Saying you support something as horrible to me as fee deregulation because increasing funding is hard (seems to be the majority of his argument) is just pathetic, sorry. He is basically accepting the slow creation of an underclass.
Its very hard to get when the universities themselves cave in and look towards profits over the prospects of their students.
Universities are more interested in 'prestige' then they are their core mission. Teaching.
And what does the article teach us? If at first you dont succeed. Give up. A great lesson from a professor of politics. If politics has taught us anything, its that you give up.
There is no sign that they will do anything with the extra money at all either in a way that will benefit students. Will class sizes fall? Will they hire more professionals? Will they bollocks. Theyll funnel it into pet projects, 'international expansion', newer shinier buildings. Same product, higher price.
Universities are more interested in 'prestige' then they are their core mission. Teaching.
And what does the article teach us? If at first you dont succeed. Give up. A great lesson from a professor of politics. If politics has taught us anything, its that you give up.
There is no sign that they will do anything with the extra money at all either in a way that will benefit students. Will class sizes fall? Will they hire more professionals? Will they bollocks. Theyll funnel it into pet projects, 'international expansion', newer shinier buildings. Same product, higher price.
Okay.
So what was with the terrible logic statement, since that's the logic and opinions that informed the statement quoted.
Yes, in the short term it is of benefit to the student to see more funding from any source at all over no increase at all. But in the long term there is bugger all overall benefit. So we are back at ' there is no benefit to this plan from the students point of view' other than increased likelihood of happening.
I can get subjective criticism of my position or my assumptions, I don't get your response. Sorry.
shanshan310
Member
Wow, screw whoever wrote that article. They seem to have the inability to grasp that Keating respects the soldiers but hates the war. That seems fair, especially given the horrible fate of his uncle at Sandakan.
As a side note, the obsession with Gallipoli really frustrates me. As Keating rightly says it was hardly our finest hour.
Well that and research...
Your initial statement said that because the government could increase funding, there was no benefit from increased private funding. Now you're saying that there is some benefit, but that is outweighed by something much worse. If your initial statement was intended to express that, it was poorly worded.
One of the great failings of society is that it's often cheaper and more effective to spend money looking like you're doing something rather than actually doing that thing.
I've always wanted to know this too. I know most of the higher ranking staff in Infrastructure Engineering (or whatever that department is called these days at Melbourne Uni) don't really give a shit about coursework students and are far more focused on research, office politics, and funding for their pet projects.
Having done subjects at both RMIT and Melbourne University, RMIT staff definitely puts more effort in actually helping coursework students out in a sensible amount of time. At the very least they respond to your emails rather than trash and ignore them.
CrankyKong
Member
I hope abbott and hockey stay until 2016.
This country deserves to have its head held under water for the full three years.
This country deserves to have its head held under water for the full three years.
The country maybe... the people in it, I don't know about that.
For that to happen the Australian people would have to suffer massively. Homeless funding is already on the brink of drying up with no real specifics on when it would ever come back, meaning there is going to be far less help to those needing it. If uni deregulation fees creep in you'll see the unemployment figure rise as people struggle to keep up with their debts that they'll be shackled with until 70.
Right now we are looking at a government squandering what should have been the best time to place proper taxes and shift to green energy. Instead we have old dinosaurs claiming global warming isn't real, women's rights are a laugh and science is old news.
Fuck this country.
shanshan310
Member
How can one man be so wrong about so many things he's supposed to know about?
And yeah the comments about labor were pretty funny. Especially when he accidentally said he'd stolen Keating's idea to let people use super to buy a house.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc9NRwp6fiI
Joke has been beaten to death by this point, but Pyne is basically enacting Clarke and Dawe sketches.
Joke has been beaten to death by this point, but Pyne is basically enacting Clarke and Dawe sketches.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking our offshore prison camps weren't harsh enough. You were thinking that untrained guards should be able to apply as much force as they deem necessary to "maintain order" and they would be protected by law as long as the use of force was in "good faith." Luckily Peter Dutton agrees: https://newmatilda.com/2015/03/15/p...uch-inhumane-degrading-treatment-never-enough
Peter Martin defends the idea of dipping into super to pay for a house: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/dipping-into-super-for-a-house-is-a-good-idea-20150316-143ush.html
He's basically saying that eliminating negative gearing is a better way of keeping prices from blowing out than denying access to super. That's a fair point. Though it seems unlikely to happen, I think I could support access to super for houses in exchange for removing (or limiting) negative gearing.
He's basically saying that eliminating negative gearing is a better way of keeping prices from blowing out than denying access to super. That's a fair point. Though it seems unlikely to happen, I think I could support access to super for houses in exchange for removing (or limiting) negative gearing.
And it's still only the second creepiest TV breakdown of the last 24 hours
Elaugaufein
Member
I can see this argument, the problem isn't really the money in housing as such, its that the incentives are to gamble on existing housing stock rather than building new stock, which increases demand without increasing supply and thus drives prices up. I'm still not sure its a good idea though, because if we actually set housing policy to actually increase supply then the value of housing will decrease (meaning that the money taken from super to invest in a house is decreasing in value). Which is pretty much the problem thats caused our housing bubble forever, our land is dramatically overpriced but there's so much invested in it that no government wants to pop the bubble.
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...-politics-live#block-550793a4e4b0cf99c981c65b
I continue to shake my head at this idiocy.
I continue to shake my head at this idiocy.
Sure, but when we're talking about a residence and not an investment, the value is not in the market value but in the utility. To be rent free in retirement seems valuable, regardless of how much the house is worth at the end of it.
manipulate
Member
yo, that pyne clip
Elaugaufein
Member
In the case of super though, I don't think the value of housing is purely utility (or can reasonably be represented by utility). Super matures when you retire, in the absence of sources of income (be it part time employment (so not really "retirement") or accumulated wealth (not exactly available to large chunks of the population)) that means it has to be able to pay for the rest of your life. At the age it becomes available is likely to include things like hospitalization and eventually, some form of supervised care (whether in home or nursing homes or retirement estates). That means that the value of housing is actually somewhere between its utility (in "early" retirement) and its market value (in "later" retirement). Given the current drive to push retirement further back (to save on pension costs), its going to get stacked towards the latter. So the market value of housing in the context of super is actually important.
This is particularly true for that group most likely to have to sell their house to fund this stuff (those without significant wealth i.e. poor people), which are also the people most likely to have to take advantage of this to get into the housing market.
Basically assuming utility as the value of housing for the purposes of housing is likely to screw poor people in retirement. Though it might be argued that the utility of having the house before retirement makes up for it, particularly given that poor people are also the group least likely to live long enough to need supervised care. And saying that makes me feel like an absolute tool, we really shouldn't be relying on the poor health outcomes of the poor to deal with policies that put them in a poor financial situation in later life.
LOL, it may have been. I thought it would be obvious what I meant. In the sum, there is no benefit.
Anyway, good opinion piece I think:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-16/parker-uni-deregulation-ideological-motives-laid-bare/6323014
That's the worst one of those ever.... did Scott come up with it during lunch?
Data retention is fine. It just needs proper safe guards. Warrants for access to information... etc...
Also, that isn't his job, his job isn't to blindly oppose things, that is what Abbot did, and look at him now.
Data retention is fine. It just needs proper safe guards. Warrants for access to information... etc...
Also, that isn't his job, his job isn't to blindly oppose things, that is what Abbot did, and look at him now.
Bah, his job is to provide some of the checks on power and hold the government of the day accountable and force them to justify legislation. His job is to represent the people. He isn't doing it.
The labor party clearly agrees with the data retention.
He is representing the people as he sees it, to the labor party this is a sensible measure to counter threats to the public and make life easier for law enforcement.
Also they don't want to be cornered on 'national security'. This clearly isn't a big deal to the public too.
Elaugaufein
Member
Except that in countries where this has been tried its actual outcome in clearing cases has been within the bounds of statistical noise. So in so far as carrying out either of those goals its something of a failure. Whereas in the area of allowing the conduct of LOVEINT and similar its been a success. That's not exactly what I call a rousing recommendation.
Admittedly demonstrating success for things like this is incredibly hard statistically because the things they are (procl)aimed to address are incredibly unlikely in the first place , so the error margins are huge. The number of serious terror attacks per year in Australia is approximately 0 , with a margin of error of 2 over the last decade or so. Which means you've have to significantly increase the number of serious terror attacks to be able to prove anything even theoretically (you can't thwart an attack that isn't happening).
Admittedly demonstrating success for things like this is incredibly hard statistically because the things they are (procl)aimed to address are incredibly unlikely in the first place , so the error margins are huge. The number of serious terror attacks per year in Australia is approximately 0 , with a margin of error of 2 over the last decade or so. Which means you've have to significantly increase the number of serious terror attacks to be able to prove anything even theoretically (you can't thwart an attack that isn't happening).
Candescence
Member
Data retention is pointless, is actually not very useful for law enforcement (and in some cases actually detrimental to law enforcement due to the sheer volume of information merely making a larger haystack) and easily circumvented. The only thing it does is breach privacy.
Seriously, mass digital surveillance is useless. Actual criminals and terrorists will use much more secure means of communication, if not avoid the internet and phones altogether. There are terrorists in the Middle East who get cheap SIM cards for the express purpose of making a call in the middle of nowhere and then dispose of it immediately after.
Seriously, mass digital surveillance is useless. Actual criminals and terrorists will use much more secure means of communication, if not avoid the internet and phones altogether. There are terrorists in the Middle East who get cheap SIM cards for the express purpose of making a call in the middle of nowhere and then dispose of it immediately after.
Even if the party agrees with it, this legislation is technologically flawed. It is bad legislation even if you agree with the aim.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked