Democracy eh?
-
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
Democracy eh?
Why not?
I need to hear the words from his mouth.
I'm not complaining, just stating a fact.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Well, it was mostly a joke post, but I was talking about OPV in the HoR, which is what the article was referring to.
Elaugaufein
Member
I imagine because it won't get through the Senate before July next year (Labor and Greens have no interest in passing it) and it won't get through after July (the Minor Parties have even less interest in passing it, as opposed to being inconvenient for Labor its outright suicidal for them).
Practically speaking the only way electoral reform will pass is if its something that either Labor finds acceptable or that favours minor parties over Labor (and the Coalition is likely reluctant to accept such a thing because politics is unpredictable and it could be put them in a bad position in future. ).
There are concessions that could be made to get some form of OPV through though (e.g Above the learn OPV with a minimum number of selections, as long as there's a minimum of 3ish Labor will likely pick up one from someone Left leaning merely as a hedging measure if nothing else).
Well apparently Italy held a public funeral for the asylum seekers which drowned on its coasts. Apparently the government immediately deported the survivors and fined them.
After talking to a bunch of people who arrived in Australia by boat and their experiences in immigration detention and their life after the process, I strongly disagree with the argument that Australia treats its refugees badly.
Well, until we decided that offloading them all in PNG was a good idea.
After talking to a bunch of people who arrived in Australia by boat and their experiences in immigration detention and their life after the process, I strongly disagree with the argument that Australia treats its refugees badly.
Well, until we decided that offloading them all in PNG was a good idea.
I didn't read the article. I'm a doofus. But actually I'd support that too and everything else I said still stands.
Also I know this going back a bit in this thread (I must have missed the post because again I'm a doofus) but you seem to know quite a bit about Post-Keynesian economics. I was lucky enough to have one tutor who was a bit heterodox in his views of economics and was wondering (assuming if your not self taught) where you were taught? (Most universities in this country wont teach that).
Fair point.
Shortens appointment as leader is not all bad, now that Tanya Plibersek is deputy leader. She tends to be further to the left then many of her Labor colleagues and doesn't allow herself to suffer idiots. She has spoken out against the War in Iraq, discrimination against same sex couples and even gave Israel a massive serve at one stage.
She is a great leader and progressive thinker. Hopefully she'll keep Shorten grounded in the centre instead of his typical right wing.
She is a great leader and progressive thinker. Hopefully she'll keep Shorten grounded in the centre instead of his typical right wing.
That is admittedly the great redeeming feature of all this. Plibersek will make a great Labor leader one day.
D.Lo
Member
It's just that... the left needs a hero. A centre left fighting personality.
Rudd AND Gillard had that about them in 2006. It was an exciting time, people who you felt you could believe in to start a new era.
Of course they both fucked it up badly (mostly Gillard with the coup), and 2010 was a super depressing election. I disliked both PM candidates. So did most people.
No-one's going to get excited about Shorten. Boring bureaucratic wanker who was also one of the main players in the biggest fuck-up in Labor's modern history (the coup).
As such, I can't see them winning the next election now. Unless Abbott does several very embarrassing things in the months leading up to the next election.
Rudd AND Gillard had that about them in 2006. It was an exciting time, people who you felt you could believe in to start a new era.
Of course they both fucked it up badly (mostly Gillard with the coup), and 2010 was a super depressing election. I disliked both PM candidates. So did most people.
No-one's going to get excited about Shorten. Boring bureaucratic wanker who was also one of the main players in the biggest fuck-up in Labor's modern history (the coup).
As such, I can't see them winning the next election now. Unless Abbott does several very embarrassing things in the months leading up to the next election.
Christ, I don't even think that would do it anymore.
roosters93
Member
They're both things he said during his "campaign". (100% sure on the latter but not the former). The posts about insiders ITT was the first I heard of him moving backwards.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
I apologise if I've given this impression
I am pretty much self taught beyond the basics. Agree with your point about the unis, though Australia does have some pretty prominent heterodox economists. I remember reading it has something to do with the way Keynes was so readily accepted in the country, which created a culture and networks which survived thanks to a few individuals after stagflation reshaped the mainstream decades later.As an aside, my high school economics teacher went to school with Ross Gittins and it seemed like any time he (Gittins) wrote a less mainstream/orthodox article we'd end up getting copies in class. Maybe we were being primed against neoclassical thought.
Likewise.
reptilescorpio
Member
Why does Labor hate women so much
shanshan310
Member
This is so dumb...
homophobe
Box of Bunnies
Banned
Privatise EVERYTHING
But.... theyre gonna get that money back....
Elaugaufein
Member
Shush you. Budged bottom line Sleight of Hand is far more important than trivial things like reality.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
This is so true and so applicable to Australia. I am very thankful we have people who are as honest and smart as Joe Hockey in charge of our economy.
Box of Bunnies
Banned
You think you can trust those poors to pay back the money? No, they'll get a free ride through university then land in some low-paying job so they never have to pay it back. Leeches!
I doubt this'll happen as it'd be complete political suicide for not only a generation of young adults but their parents too. Then again the same goes for AusPost and most regional areas but they'll just continue to vote for the Nationals to rubberstamp the Liberal party's shit-sandwiches anyway~
shanshan310
Member
Forgive me for being ignorant, but what does this mean? If you sell someone's debt can the new owner change the interest rates/payback conditions? Because i'd feel like you couldn't, but if you can't, why would anyone invest in HECS debt?
What the fuck at privatizing the post :/ Also what the fuck at Joe Hockey comparing our economy to the US and justifying acting rashly because 'we can't wait five minutes and OMG debt ceiling'. You've already won the fucking election. Quit the fake budget emergency line already.
It means packaging them as investments for people to "buy", but I don't really get it either. The interest rates are tied to inflation, so why on earth would anyone invest in it.
Elaugaufein
Member
Am I imagining things or is this just more of the "the Left should move to the Right" again ?
Because as far as I can tell that's what its suggesting. The problem with this policy is it has no sane end. If the Left moves Right, the Right also moves Right and the position of compromise moves with it. It's essentially a one way ticket to ending up in the position of the USA where any one who's to the left of Theocratic Fascism is called a Communist.
As much as I may dislike right wing politics they have to be given credit for actually sticking to their values.
shanshan310
Member
Weird. Unless they plan on changing the system that's a terrible deal.
What happens if the student can't pay the loan back? :/
Elaugaufein
Member
Don't be so optimistic they might be favoring charging real (rather than inflationary) interest on Student Loans.
I'm pretty sure they can't just change the terms of all the existing loans. Sure they could do it to future loans, but this is an attempt to get $23b off the books, so their plans obviously involve the existing debt.
Interesting. Totally agree with an English style privatisation of AusPost.
The HECS thing is interesting too. They would probably have to include some sort of guarantee against default.
Or they can go the American route and exclude HECS debt from a bankruptcy meaning you're bound by that debt for life until you pay it off.
The HECS thing is interesting too. They would probably have to include some sort of guarantee against default.
Or they can go the American route and exclude HECS debt from a bankruptcy meaning you're bound by that debt for life until you pay it off.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Maybe the Coalition knows there are some good-hearted members of the private sector who would be willing to take on this debt for the greater good of saving the country from its budget emergency before the inevitable shutdown and debt ceiling crisis emerges.
The amount you pay back is tied to the amount you earn, if your income is below a certain threshold then you are not obliged to pay any HECS debt for that year.
Those are the current rules, doubt that would stay the same (along with the indexation rules) once privatised.
Elaugaufein
Member
Out of interest where do you draw the line at, if anywhere, for the privatization of publicly held services ? From what I remember you think Telstra was handled poorly (rather than being an inherently bad idea).
I guess I should put down my position too, if I'm going to ask you yours: I believe privatization is a bad idea in any institute where the goal is explicitly the benefit of the public (so healthcare, and the distribution networks for most utilities) because in these cases a profit motive causes an additional inefficiency (profit) rather than competition to lower existing ones.
shanshan310
Member
Because that's working so well in the US
I feel kind of weird about our post being privatized. It's a public service, and not a very profitable one either. Plus I have concerns about them firing current staff and hiring cheaper labour.
If they would let the post run on weekends though I might be inclined to change my mind...
As far as privatisation goes, I dislike monopolies more than I dislike public industries. Hence why I didn't like the way Telstra was handled. Telstra knew they had the backing of government behind them if anything went wrong so they could make risky decisions and didn't have to compete properly with Optus and Vodaphone and felt that was incredibly unfair on the other two.
I wouldn't want, for example, for the majority of AusPost to be sold off to a bunch of shareholders and nothing else to change.
What is your position on natural monopolies though? For example, it is really inefficient to have a bunch of different electricity transmission companies competing for the same area. It would be a mess if you allowed companies to dig up the streets to run competing sewer pipes.
I prefer utility over efficiency, but...if there exists a situation where a natural monopoly will form 9 times out of 10 and there's no effective way to break them up or to introduce competition to ensure the integrity of the market than I'd probably prefer it be public.
I fear that if we privatise AusPost badly all it will do is guarantee higher prices without a corresponding increase in service, but I don't think AusPost fits in with the above category of natural monopoly. For example the US has a public postal service, the USPS but customers have so many more companies to chose from, from UPS to FedEx.
Of course a good counter-argument is that Australia is smaller and postal services need an extensive backbone of planes, ships, trucks and cars and postie bikes and that might not be feasible in a country of 20 million as opposed to 320 million...I don't think anyone can answer one way or another whether that'll be the case.
An example of something that I saw while in the US.
I wasn't making that argument, just wondering about your general ideology. Thanks for the answer.
so i reckon what would happen would be: an institution buys the student debt, securitises it, sells to investors and pays a rate above the inflationary tied thing, then institution would effectively be paying net that for raising that capital, which would be less than the cost of raising capital through the traditional methods of issuing debt/stock or doing a loan. everybody wins! and then there would probably be a pretty hip secondary market for these things and everything could blow up aka sub prime!
Of course. I was only trying to explain why I would (generally) be supportive of an AusPost privatisation.
They do. There is a bit of an issue though because only the USPS is allowed to deliver items to your personal mailbox. All other companies are required to deliver items to you door.
People are speculating that the debt will be sold at a discount, which allows for a margin and a rate above inflation. It also makes it pretty obvious what a politically motivated short sighted decision this would be.
I mean that USPS has a charter to deliver all mail all over the place at a minimal price, ie a stampola.
Same goes for Auspost.
Those wouldnt be profitable for a private company without raising the prices quite abit. Its considered a neccessary service.
Fedex also is used by usps for only its higher priorty and more expensive letters/packages.
Same goes for Auspost.
Those wouldnt be profitable for a private company without raising the prices quite abit. Its considered a neccessary service.
Fedex also is used by usps for only its higher priorty and more expensive letters/packages.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked