-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Here's why liberal got in (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Cyph
- Start date
neo_o said:
Yes yes, no matter how much i dislike the liberals it is completely true that economic management has a role to play in interest rates.
But please, agree with me here, it is fact, you CAN legislate interest rates. And exchange rates for that matter, and almost anything that isn't in the constitution actually.
Some countries DO legislate interest rates (i know it isn't a good example because different countries have different systems of governance, different constitutions (or any other form of supreme law, but the point is still made).
If they decide to set interest rates at 100% (not that they would so) they could. All i want is for people to realise that it isn't necessary that the RBA set the rates, and they can be manipulated manually.
Im not saying that it will, or it is normal.
neo_o
You're going to credit the Liberal with creating the capitalist economic model (high growth, low unemployment, low inflation)? It will only last for so long... we got it from the US, who you reckon are experiencing declines... we will inevitably experience declines too. It has nothing to do with the govt. in power.
re: currency, dude.. Do you not understand supply/demand? Perhaps Australian currency is heavily traded for our high quality meats and agriculutural products due to the land we have compared to other countries, or because other currencies like the US are stronger than the AU dollar and with our share prices being lower than the US generally, there is g reater returns to be gained in cheaper stocks. DEMAND/SUPPLY, that's all there is to the Australian dollar. End of story, stop throwing irrelevent facts in which you don't even back up to make yourself look more credible.
Destroying award wages isn't cool... why would it be cool that people go to work for $10/hour when they are trying to support a family? Take away award wages, you will have to sign enterprise bargaining agreements to get a job... I know of guys who sign them in the same industry as me and get $5.50/hour less than me and it's just not worth working then. Destroying award wages will also reduce the amount of money consumers have to spend since they are now being paid less, slowing growth, upping umeployment levels due to lack of growth.
You're going to credit the Liberal with creating the capitalist economic model (high growth, low unemployment, low inflation)? It will only last for so long... we got it from the US, who you reckon are experiencing declines... we will inevitably experience declines too. It has nothing to do with the govt. in power.
re: currency, dude.. Do you not understand supply/demand? Perhaps Australian currency is heavily traded for our high quality meats and agriculutural products due to the land we have compared to other countries, or because other currencies like the US are stronger than the AU dollar and with our share prices being lower than the US generally, there is g reater returns to be gained in cheaper stocks. DEMAND/SUPPLY, that's all there is to the Australian dollar. End of story, stop throwing irrelevent facts in which you don't even back up to make yourself look more credible.
Destroying award wages isn't cool... why would it be cool that people go to work for $10/hour when they are trying to support a family? Take away award wages, you will have to sign enterprise bargaining agreements to get a job... I know of guys who sign them in the same industry as me and get $5.50/hour less than me and it's just not worth working then. Destroying award wages will also reduce the amount of money consumers have to spend since they are now being paid less, slowing growth, upping umeployment levels due to lack of growth.
MoonlightSonata
Retired
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 3,645
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
Like what Asquithian said, in a time of economic satisfaction I think a lot of Australians adopted sort of a "if it aint broke don't fix it" mentality towards the election.
But there is obviously a difference between 'why Liberal got in' and 'whether they should be in'. Whether people voted on the spurious issue of interest rates, or whether they voted based on more justifiable grounds is really a concern about election strategy and whether you believe in "dirty hands." It is unfortunate that a lot of apathetic voters make decisions on stupid beliefs but in the long run, if you believe the government should be in power, it doesn't make much difference.
I'd hate to advocate an "end justifies the means" approach but it seems like there is little choice in politics.
But there is obviously a difference between 'why Liberal got in' and 'whether they should be in'. Whether people voted on the spurious issue of interest rates, or whether they voted based on more justifiable grounds is really a concern about election strategy and whether you believe in "dirty hands." It is unfortunate that a lot of apathetic voters make decisions on stupid beliefs but in the long run, if you believe the government should be in power, it doesn't make much difference.
I'd hate to advocate an "end justifies the means" approach but it seems like there is little choice in politics.
Whitlamsfan
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 15
Reading the sig on preferences @ BOS. I don't think you can at all claim that all Christians are Right wing (I'll admit both christian parties are) nor can you claim that they are anywhere near right wing as the neo nazis. I realise that space is a concern and that alot of youth have anti christian views but let's be realistic. To quote the Vicar of Dibley "The clergy should keep their communist (left) conks out of politics"
Contrary to what you might think by reading my u/n I hate Gough Whitlam and I think the ALP commited suicide by letting their leader associate so publicly with a flawed icon (SMH 12/10/04). Also I am a liberal supporter and I'll tell you where Labor really lost. Labor lost this election in 2002 when Bob Carr was elected as Premier of NSW. The people of NSW where dissatisfied with Carr's appauling Transport & Health policies and so voted against his party. And Labor also rested after putting Latham in over Crean. The ALP figured "Mark Latham saved (them) from the brink of utter disaster" (Beazley 9/10) and still managed to loose this election by 21 seats and loose control of the senate. I don't want to see what utter disaster is for the ALP (or did we in 1975). Anyway you look at it you have to accept that it will be a very difficult road for the ALP to 2007, you can't say they won't win because last time that was said (in Britain) Labour won in a landslide. But it will be a difficult road.
I have two issues with the ALP at this election:
1. The campaign against Costello was used last election and since they used that campaign we have had 3 labor leaders and Howard is still PM.
2. You can't win the campaign and loose the election. All the election is about is the campaign and therefore if you loose the election you have lost the campaign.
A note for all the labor supporters out there:
"I will accept the will of the Australian People" - Mark Latham (as part of the worst concession speech ever) Now could you all please take your leaders advice and live with it.
Contrary to what you might think by reading my u/n I hate Gough Whitlam and I think the ALP commited suicide by letting their leader associate so publicly with a flawed icon (SMH 12/10/04). Also I am a liberal supporter and I'll tell you where Labor really lost. Labor lost this election in 2002 when Bob Carr was elected as Premier of NSW. The people of NSW where dissatisfied with Carr's appauling Transport & Health policies and so voted against his party. And Labor also rested after putting Latham in over Crean. The ALP figured "Mark Latham saved (them) from the brink of utter disaster" (Beazley 9/10) and still managed to loose this election by 21 seats and loose control of the senate. I don't want to see what utter disaster is for the ALP (or did we in 1975). Anyway you look at it you have to accept that it will be a very difficult road for the ALP to 2007, you can't say they won't win because last time that was said (in Britain) Labour won in a landslide. But it will be a difficult road.
I have two issues with the ALP at this election:
1. The campaign against Costello was used last election and since they used that campaign we have had 3 labor leaders and Howard is still PM.
2. You can't win the campaign and loose the election. All the election is about is the campaign and therefore if you loose the election you have lost the campaign.
A note for all the labor supporters out there:
"I will accept the will of the Australian People" - Mark Latham (as part of the worst concession speech ever) Now could you all please take your leaders advice and live with it.
Allstarrr, I dunno, I can't say I followed the pre-election campaign too closely, I've taken more interest in it after
Interesting article about interest rates/inflation, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/11/1097406503410.html
Interesting article about interest rates/inflation, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/11/1097406503410.html
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
I have not read any of the posts, only the first so sorry if i bring up some old points.
I would like to point out that although alot of the alp supporters like to claim that the australian economy is simply riding the wave of low interest rates globally... this is not always the case.
I have my own graph,
http://nationalforum.com.au/the_domain/archives/ambit_gambit/90 Day Bank Bills.pdf
That graph shows that while under liberal governments our interest rates were about on target with american interest rates, under labor governments they were much HIGHER than the US.
I would like to point out that although alot of the alp supporters like to claim that the australian economy is simply riding the wave of low interest rates globally... this is not always the case.
I have my own graph,
http://nationalforum.com.au/the_domain/archives/ambit_gambit/90 Day Bank Bills.pdf
That graph shows that while under liberal governments our interest rates were about on target with american interest rates, under labor governments they were much HIGHER than the US.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
hhhhhhhhhhhhh
oh yeh the RBA is independent of the government, for the reason that if the govt is able to, they would influence the interest rates prior to the election and make sure the election goes ahead before the adverse effects are felt in the economy.
however, the RBA adjusts interest rates according to the price levels in the economy,. and the price levels can be affected by discretionary fiscal policies (ie. government spending more money or taking more tax)
this means that although the government cannot change the interest rates, their policies can do so indirectly.
having said that, the problem with saying that the interest rates would skyrocket under a labor government, is that the economic policies of both sides aren't really different enough for it to be the single major cause of this rise
however, the RBA adjusts interest rates according to the price levels in the economy,. and the price levels can be affected by discretionary fiscal policies (ie. government spending more money or taking more tax)
this means that although the government cannot change the interest rates, their policies can do so indirectly.
having said that, the problem with saying that the interest rates would skyrocket under a labor government, is that the economic policies of both sides aren't really different enough for it to be the single major cause of this rise
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
election economic policies and REAL economic policies can differ...
Basically the liberals have history on their side, historically labor has been the government of higher interest rates... because generally they do spend more, Latham might have been different but i don't think voters were willing to risk it in a time of prosperity.
Basically the liberals have history on their side, historically labor has been the government of higher interest rates... because generally they do spend more, Latham might have been different but i don't think voters were willing to risk it in a time of prosperity.
Ziff
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,366
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
History only works when you look at it holistically and take into account other things that were happening at the time. I mean I could say that Howard's record on the economy is appalling because when he was treasurer under Fraiser we had 10%+ rates and no economic reform.Not-That-Bright said:
Contextualise it and a totally different story emerges, same applies for Labor.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Labor just so happens to be the unlucky government that always has the high interest rates
Under Fraiser we had interest rates which matched the pattern of the US, so perhaps it could be seen that they weren't that bad, while the interest rates under hawke/keating were much higher..
I know we have to take into account other factors, but i'd see the US as a benchmark of international factors..
Under Fraiser we had interest rates which matched the pattern of the US, so perhaps it could be seen that they weren't that bad, while the interest rates under hawke/keating were much higher..
I know we have to take into account other factors, but i'd see the US as a benchmark of international factors..
Did anyone catch the 7:30 report the other night? Kerry O'Brien practically accused the govt. of only spending big gobs of money in election years...
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1219499.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1219499.htm
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Anyway.. back to labor.
I think they really need to distance themselves from the greens, the greens voters and labor voters.. are kinda one in the same, and aligning themselves with the greens they're simply distancing themselves from the swing voters so it's not a very good idea.
Other than that tho.. I think they're fine, they SHOULD have focused more on the war in iraq... however for some weird reason they chose not to (probably because latham said he was going to pull troops out, which most voters disagreed with).
I honestly think the problem labor has is that they don't take howard seriously enough, every election they've allowed him to announce policy without attacking it, because THEY see it as stupid, they don't even wish to attempt to debate it because they feel it's obvious that it's wrong...
I think they really need to distance themselves from the greens, the greens voters and labor voters.. are kinda one in the same, and aligning themselves with the greens they're simply distancing themselves from the swing voters so it's not a very good idea.
Other than that tho.. I think they're fine, they SHOULD have focused more on the war in iraq... however for some weird reason they chose not to (probably because latham said he was going to pull troops out, which most voters disagreed with).
I honestly think the problem labor has is that they don't take howard seriously enough, every election they've allowed him to announce policy without attacking it, because THEY see it as stupid, they don't even wish to attempt to debate it because they feel it's obvious that it's wrong...
hiphophorray123
Banned
stagflation is occuring???? if that was the case wouldn't it be big economics news, since that is a rare occurence, happened once in the 70's and once the 90's.neo_o said:
haven't heard anything bout stagflation occuring in our economy
neo o
it's coming to me...
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,294
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
*adds to ignore list*hiphophorray123 said:
btw, stagflation is bad.
Low inflation and unemployment are good and are what we are experiencing currently.
Stagflation means high unemployment and high inflation.
I'll let you join the dots.
ChrisE
Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2004
- Messages
- 372
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
i think we should look at the mess the labour party is in now and thank our lucky stars they didnt get voted in. they have lost confidence in their leader and picking up the pieces of what was eventually a disasterous campaign despite what it looked like on the surface. it was an election run on many state issues like health and education which for nsw are poor and guess who is in charge there, the ALP.
im sure in three years time they will become a viable alternative government as latham has his heart in the right place he just needs the right people around him and the experience of what will be four years in opposition to be the next pm.
im sure in three years time they will become a viable alternative government as latham has his heart in the right place he just needs the right people around him and the experience of what will be four years in opposition to be the next pm.
Jezzabelle
Member
yeh L-A-B-O-RAsquithian said: