Tony Abbott - Do you want him as PM? (1 Viewer)

[Lentern]

That graph is what the treasury produced to show correlation.

When you employ people to take on suboptimal tasks you briefly mask a bunch of numbers which make your government look bad, but you delay the ability of the real economy to recover and rehire because you're snatching most of the cream off the unemployed labour pool.

No, I truly don't know what to say its not like there's a mistake in the rationale there that can be corrected its just all wrong. It labours completely under the delusion that a government created job isn't a real job with real worth that produces real capital and creates real wealth. That's wrong, it's a lie.

If you really wanted to stimulate employment you'd offer something like an exemption or reduction in payroll tax for all companies, everywhere, for 6 months to a year (if that comes out of the states' pockets, then reimburse them).

The federal government has no control over payroll taxes but at any rate an underfunded, ineffective government will only worsen employment.

 

[withoutaface]

No, I truly don't know what to say its not like there's a mistake in the rationale there that can be corrected its just all wrong. It labours completely under the delusion that a government created job isn't a real job with real worth that produces real capital and creates real wealth. That's wrong, it's a lie.


The federal government has no control over payroll taxes but at any rate an underfunded, ineffective government will only worsen employment.

I'm not saying it's not a real job, I'm saying that in the context of stimulus created jobs they're generally:
1. Short term, and after this the employees have to go on to find work in private sectors of the economy anyway.
2. In sectors of the economy where we've 'picked winners' (which historically the government isn't so great at). Most recent example is that the insulation scheme: the govt decided that installing insulation was the most effective way to tackle global warming, over say investing more in renewables research, constructing nuclear plants, or the like. Here, also, it's easy to see that the insulation wasn't creating anywhere near as much real worth for home owners as the government was paying for the insulation itself, so that's a deadweight loss.

 

[Slidey]

I'm not saying it's not a real job, I'm saying that in the context of stimulus created jobs they're generally:
1. Short term, and after this the employees have to go on to find work in private sectors of the economy anyway.

These employees already work in the private sector as they're essentially contractors. Certainly they're not public sector employees.

2. In sectors of the economy where we've 'picked winners' (which historically the government isn't so great at). Most recent example is that the insulation scheme: the govt decided that installing insulation was the most effective way to tackle global warming, over say investing more in renewables research, constructing nuclear plants, or the like. Here, also, it's easy to see that the insulation wasn't creating anywhere near as much real worth for home owners as the government was paying for the insulation itself, so that's a deadweight loss.

It's no loss if you acknowledge climate change.

 

[Lentern]

I'm not saying it's not a real job, I'm saying that in the context of stimulus created jobs they're generally:
1. Short term, and after this the employees have to go on to find work in private sectors of the economy anyway.
2. In sectors of the economy where we've 'picked winners' (which historically the government isn't so great at). Most recent example is that the insulation scheme: the govt decided that installing insulation was the most effective way to tackle global warming, over say investing more in renewables research, constructing nuclear plants, or the like. Here, also, it's easy to see that the insulation wasn't creating anywhere near as much real worth for home owners as the government was paying for the insulation itself, so that's a deadweight loss.

The short term employment is mostly by choice, when demand for labour grows the government shuffles away because people like you are always so happy when they cut a tax. It isn't some cycle of government employment collapsing and the market swooping in to save the day, in fact its more the inverse.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. I'm not sure the government decided it was the most effective but the most politically doable. Bare in mind would you that Kevin Rudd isn't a died in wool Keynesianist he is first and foremost a politician and where opinion polls were concerned giving away insulation packages(which is what your saying really, no return its just a gift) was probably gonna boost his polling a bit more than breaking another election promise and building nuclear power plants. That isn't a fault of the left or of Keynes thats a fault of short term populism which I certainly disapprove of. Not so much the politicians but the people who reward them for it with votes.

 

[withoutaface]

These employees already work in the private sector as they're essentially contractors. Certainly they're not public sector employees.



It's no loss if you acknowledge climate change.

A sector which is entirely funded by government money is not an organic private industry, stop being pedantic.

We've been through this. It is a deadweight loss because subsidising one or more ways around an externality is inefficient compared to punishing the externality itself. Ergo if you bump up the price of coal, you watch and see if people insulate their homes themselves, go with renewables or just decrease their energy use.

 

[Lauchlan]

Yes well I hate that you feel the need to create more threads for when there are half a dozen threads which your original point could have fit into quite neatly.

its just easier keeping separate threads. i disagree that it would be 'neat'.

i think its more important that the posts reflect the SPECIFIC point of the thread (or threads).

 

[Lentern]

its just easier keeping separate threads. i disagree that it would be 'neat'.

i think its more important that the posts reflect the SPECIFIC point of the thread (or threads).

Yes I see how silly of me, whether or not Tony Abbott would be a good prime minister clearly falls outside of the parameters of "Australian politics." Likewise anyone who thinks a comment Abbott made about climate change at a school might fit within a thread about Abbotts credentials as an alternative prime minister, are nuts! I have been one of the few who has not yet rudely dismissed you because, simply put, new guys can blunder a bit when they're trying to find the feet but when you go round criticizing people for discussing the economic merits of a major policy which Abbott voted against and Rudd introduced, God help us.

 

[slugboy]

government policies that intervene in the economy don't help it out of recessions

so yes leave it to reallocate by itself

u know the reason we have capitalism is because its famous for efficiently allocating resources to where there is demand. if u think one of the fundamental principles of capitalism doesn't work than go live in a country where the government is responsible the distribution of resources. eg poverty stricken North Korea

and "not affected at all by the GFC" china

 

[scuba_steve2121]

and "not affected at all by the GFC" china

china was affected by the GFC just not as much as western countries because their supply and demand are largely unaffected because its for the most part a socialist country.

 

[Lauchlan]

Yes I see how silly of me, whether or not Tony Abbott would be a good prime minister clearly falls outside of the parameters of "Australian politics." Likewise anyone who thinks a comment Abbott made about climate change at a school might fit within a thread about Abbotts credentials as an alternative prime minister, are nuts! I have been one of the few who has not yet rudely dismissed you because, simply put, new guys can blunder a bit when they're trying to find the feet but when you go round criticizing people for discussing the economic merits of a major policy which Abbott voted against and Rudd introduced, God help us.

i dont necessarily think that every aspect of australian politics would be able to be 'neatly' put into the 'australian politics' thread. its just my preference to separate issues like that.

never would i base my political opinion on one comment of bad judgement. i can and will, however, make criticisms or supported judgements relevent to the thread. i urge you to do the same (regardless of opinion) but please lets not turn the entire thread into an economic discussion - which is why i made the thread about a specific person in australian politics.

im not saying no more economics, but i am saying lets open up the debate a little wider.

 

[Jazuzi]

economics = everything

 

[slugboy]

china was affected by the GFC just not as much as western countries because their supply and demand are largely unaffected because its for the most part a socialist country.

no, its because the government ACTUALLY KEPT AN EYE ON THE STOCK MARKET etc. !

 

[slugboy]

economics = everything

care to explain why???

 

[Lauchlan]

care to explain why???

+1

and his explanation is most likely to be 'because it is'

 

[yoddle]

What about that time Tony Abbott performed absolutely terribly in an interview with Kezza O'Brien, e.g. on the 7.30 Report just now. I think that cemented his place in the "never will be PM" category, unless a child abuse scandal in the ranks of the Labor front bench is uncovered, or something of that ilk.

 

[Garygaz]

What about that time Tony Abbott performed absolutely terribly in an interview with Kezza O'Brien, e.g. on the 7.30 Report just now. I think that cemented his place in the "never will be PM" category, unless a child abuse scandal in the ranks of the Labor front bench is uncovered, or something of that ilk.

considering 730 report doesn't get viewed by many at all, was it so bad that it will have a flood on effect to the news tomorrow night? any examples?

 

[Rafy]

"Sometimes in the heat of discussion you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark.

"The statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth are those carefully prepared, scripted remarks.



Oh dear.

 

[runoutofsleep]

this is great news rafy relax

now people can be absolutely clear about which policies prime minister abbott will be implementing and which policies are just sunday morning spitballing

great news

 

[pman]

considering 730 report doesn't get viewed by many at all, was it so bad that it will have a flood on effect to the news tomorrow night? any examples?

its all over the news this morning...thing is, Krudd has made worse mistakes and been praised for them (apologizing to the aboriginals, signing kyoto etc)...the abos's are demading compensation now..the reason howard never apologized, kyoto is a badly worded treaty that charges the producer, not the user meaning we can no longer compete against countries that haven't ratified kyoto ina global market when selling coal etc

 

[Riet]

china was affected by the GFC just not as much as western countries because their supply and demand are largely unaffected because its for the most part a socialist country.

that's bullshit, their growth slowed massively, just that because it was at such a high rate before it remained positive. China is hugely dependent on exports, more so than even Germany. Lack of western demand results in a large slowing of their growth.