MedVision ad

You KNOW you're an economics nerd when.. (1 Viewer)

SomeoneCool

Banned
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
224
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Conspiracy? said:
Or even for that matter, who does it. I swear half the Australian population think the Australian Government is solely responsible for a rise in interest rates.

HELLO, ever heard of the RBA you ignorant morons? "Oh Mr Howard you put interest rates up, you don't care about the minimum wage earners, we won't vote for you". Naive fuckers.
Yeah, but what do you expect when Howard made it sound as if he's the main man behind interest rate flactuations. He's election promises were always "I will decrease interest rates to suit the working population". Fortunately, the Rudd government is a little more knowledgeable and have learned from Howard's mistake. Rudd's governent clearly state that they are not in charge of the interest rate, but the RBA is.
 
Last edited:

gnrlies

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
781
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
conics2008 said:
I think your an economics nerd when you write at the back of every freakin book " I came first in thhe HSC " this is soo sad.. tim dixion is a fag and John O'mahonny is his slut lol... seriously, i have both of their books and at the back it says the same thing lol.. checkk them out lol
He is just sending a signal that he is credible

How is this any different to a shop spending money on an expensive shopfront?
 

gnrlies

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
781
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
SomeoneCool said:
Yeah, but what do you expect when Howard made it sound as if he's the main man behind interest rate flactuations. He's election promises were always "I will decrease interest rates to suit the working population". Fortunately, the Rudd government is a little more knowledgeable and have learned from Howard's mistake. Rudd's governent clearly state that they are not in charge of the interest rate, but the RBA is.
Huh?

When did Howard ever say he would lower interest rates? It was his government that made the bank completely independent in 1996?
 

a.Limjoco

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
63
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
conics2008 said:
I think your an economics nerd when you write at the back of every freakin book " I came first in thhe HSC " this is soo sad.. tim dixion is a fag and John O'mahonny is his slut lol... seriously, i have both of their books and at the back it says the same thing lol.. checkk them out lol
LOL AWESOME!!! nice nice, for some reason i feel better :p
 

BackCountrySnow

Active Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
1,972
Location
1984
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
gnrlies said:
Huh?

When did Howard ever say he would lower interest rates? It was his government that made the bank completely independent in 1996?
He promised they would be at an 'all time low'
 

BackCountrySnow

Active Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
1,972
Location
1984
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Conspiracy? said:
Or even for that matter, who does it. I swear half the Australian population think the Australian Government is solely responsible for a rise in interest rates.

HELLO, ever heard of the RBA you ignorant morons? "Oh Mr Howard you put interest rates up, you don't care about the minimum wage earners, we won't vote for you". Naive fuckers.
I'm quite sure most people know it's the RB that sets interest rates.
Howard's handling of the economy forced the reserve bank to push up interest rates to curb inflation. That's the reason people are fustrated with the Howard government, not because they think the government sets the interest rate.
 

gnrlies

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
781
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
BackCountrySnow said:
He promised they would be at an 'all time low'
When did he ever promise to keep them at an 'all time low'. Show me a quote where he ever said. He in fact NEVER did.
 

gnrlies

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
781
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
BackCountrySnow said:
I'm quite sure most people know it's the RB that sets interest rates.
Howard's handling of the economy forced the reserve bank to push up interest rates to curb inflation. That's the reason people are fustrated with the Howard government, not because they think the government sets the interest rate.
Well in fact it is most likely quite the opposite...

If anything interest rates were too low in the first half of this decade. You will remember when the australian dollar was about 48 cents? this was because our interest rates were very low compared to overseas interest rates. I am not suggesting any of this was Howard's doing because at the end of the day if rates were lower than they should have been this would have been the RBA's fault.

The main howard policy that allowed lower interest rates was fiscal consolidation which meant that we were running surplus budgets (except for 2001) allowing the RBA to lower interest rates to levels lower than they might otherwise have to (remembering that economic growth was still quite strong at this time). When interest rates were extremely low (4.25% in dec 2001 was the lowest cash rate target since the bank began targeting the cash rate); we had a housing boom caused by the availability of credit.

So what is the result of this? well what has happened is that we had this property boom that has increased the wealth effects of individuals (i.e. if you buy a house worth 200 000 and its now worth 400 000 then you now feel more wealthy). Subsequently consumption rose with consumer confidence, and people were buying all sorts of expensive items like plasma tv's new cars etc etc. Perhaps this alone would have been ok, but with the appreciation of the terms of trade we have had a double whammy with the resources boom. This has pushed inflation beyond the comfort zone of the RBA and they have had to restore interest rates to their neutral level (6-7% is a fairly average level of interest rates when comparing levels historically, as well as to other countries). Subsequently the dollar has risen (other countries rates have fallen whilst ours has risen).

Whats wrong with all this? well nothing really. For us to be complaining about a cash rate of 7.25% is a bit absurd considering that the cash rate target has been as high as 17.5% (even higher if you consider earlier figures when they werent targeting the cash rate). The reason why this has become such a political issue is because interest repayments are a higher proportion of income than ever before. The so called 'mortgage stress' has increased. The reason it is higher now is because many people who shouldn't have taken out a mortgage when rates were between 4 and 5% shouldn't have. They quite simply cant afford it. They would be fine if rates were permanantly at 4.25% but not now that they have inevitably increased to 7.25%.

People like to blame the government, but it aint their fault. People must take responsibility for their own decisions. If you over extend yourself, you must take the risks that interest rates will rise and you may have to default on your property. I do think that the banks should take some of the blame as well, as of course banks shouldn't have leant to many of these people, but of course the banks are out to make money. The banks are willing to lower lending criteria standards because it means they can suck more people into a mortgage. They can accept the risk of defaults because they have a diversified portfolio. But it sucks if you are someone who doesn't know their limit.
 

gnrlies

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
781
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
melanieeeee. said:
http://www.alp.org.au/labortv/C5JUN21KKm

EDIT: although he didn't exactly say that he would keep it at an all time low, it is pretty obvious that he implied it.
No, the ALP said he promised to keep interest rates at record lows

John Howard said who do you trust to keep interest rates low.

A fair statement to make considering that the average interest rate over the course of the howard government is significantly lower than interest rates during the alp years.

Their are distinct policy reasons why this is the case. In fact it is these policies that Rudd is now copying (noting that he voted against them when Howard implemented them). This is why Howard emphasized interest rates in the 2004 election (this is the election when that ad was originally from) because it was suggested that Mark Latham would be a reckless spender.
 

melanieeeee.

Banned
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
812
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
gnrlies said:
No, the ALP said he promised to keep interest rates at record lows

John Howard said who do you trust to keep interest rates low.

A fair statement to make considering that the average interest rate over the course of the howard government is significantly lower than interest rates during the alp years.

Their are distinct policy reasons why this is the case. In fact it is these policies that Rudd is now copying (noting that he voted against them when Howard implemented them). This is why Howard emphasized interest rates in the 2004 election (this is the election when that ad was originally from) because it was suggested that Mark Latham would be a reckless spender.
Yes, the interest rates significatly lowered when the Howard Government was elected but John Howard doesn't have direct control over the interest rates. Also even though there was low interest rates with a Howard Government it doesn't necessarily mean that it is all because of him and his low spending. Other factors would have contributed to it to. I find it funny that John Howard takes responsibility when the interest rates are low but not when the interest rates are rising. By saying "who would you trust to keep interest rates low" it does imply that he is going to continue to keep interest rates low. Also the policies that Rudd "copied" from Howard is clearly because he though they were successful so I dont see why it should be a big deal. Mark Lathem =/= Kevin Rudd.

EDIT: you know you are an economics nerd when you write an essay (or a really really long post) on an internet forum and you think someone is actually going to care.
 

gnrlies

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
781
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
melanieeeee. said:
Yes, the interest rates significatly lowered when the Howard Government was elected but John Howard doesn't have direct control over the interest rates. Also even though there was low interest rates with a Howard Government it doesn't necessarily mean that it is all because of him and his low spending. Other factors would have contributed to it to. I find it funny that John Howard takes responsibility when the interest rates are low but not when the interest rates are rising. By saying "who would you trust to keep interest rates low" it does imply that he is going to continue to keep interest rates low. Also the policies that Rudd "copied" from Howard is clearly because he though they were successful so I dont see why it should be a big deal. Mark Lathem =/= Kevin Rudd.

EDIT: you know you are an economics nerd when you write an essay (or a really really long post) on an internet forum and you think someone is actually going to care.

Never did I say, or imply that John Howard set interest rates. It is also true the the whole world has been going through a period of lower inflation. But governments do have an impact on demand pressures. When marginal decisions are made; government spending can be the difference between a rate rise or not. I am not a Howard apologist, but I do believe in small government. Howard made some tough decisions at the beginning of his term with respect to government spending. Whilst the later half of his term was not as prudent; I believe he has always been better than the alternative.

the Labor party was founded on the principles of market intervention and big government. This new 'third way' brand of politics that Rudd is moving forward with; simply doesn't work. Whats going to happen when the roots of the Labor party start coming through? Its good now that we have an inflation problem merely in the sense that its being used as a reason for spending cuts. I welcome this. But of course this is nothing more than what Howard did in his first term. Who says this is going to be an ongoing feature of the Labor government? I doubt it.

No maybe Kevin Rudd isn't Mark Latham but the 2004 election was the context of that campaign. Of course you would trust the coalition more than the ALP with Latham at the wheel. Rudd might not be like Latham, but what about Gillard? she was a factional ally of Latham and is deputy prime minister / aspiring treasurer.

As for the length of my post. If you want to progress a point based on incorrect information dont expect that you wont be pulled up on it.
 

melanieeeee.

Banned
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
812
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
gnrlies said:
Never did I say, or imply that John Howard set interest rates. It is also true the the whole world has been going through a period of lower inflation.
\Nor did I said that you said that John Howard sets interest rates. I was simply making a point.

But governments do have an impact on demand pressures. When marginal decisions are made; government spending can be the difference between a rate rise or not. I am not a Howard apologist, but I do believe in small government. Howard made some decisions at the beginning of his term to make some tough decisions with respect to government spending.
The interest rates started to raise before the 2007 election, that must mean that Howard is spending to much!:eek: /sarcasm
Anyway my point is that whilst it may make the difference, it isn't even close to the extent as some of the other factors.
So what if he has made some tough decisions. So will any PM.

Whilst the later half of his term was not as prudent; I believe he has always been better than the alternative.

And I believe that Rudd is a better alternative than Howard.


the Labor party was founded on the principles of market intervention and big government.
the Labor Party has evolved from what they were founded on into what is currently uses a more decentralized system with some government intervention to balance things out.

This new 'third way' brand of politics that Rudd is moving forward with; simply doesn't work. Whats going to happen when the roots of the Labor party start coming through? Its good now that we have an inflation problem merely in the sense that its being used as a reason for spending cuts. I welcome this. But of course this is nothing more than what Howard did in his first term. Who says this is going to be an ongoing feature of the Labor government? I doubt it.
well if they see the system working, one would think that they would leave it more than they would change it

No maybe Kevin Rudd isn't Mark Latham but the 2004 election was the context of that campaign. Of course you would trust the coalition more than the ALP with Latham at the wheel. Rudd might not be like Latham, but what about Gillard? she was a factional ally of Latham and is deputy prime minister / aspiring treasurer.
Gillard =/= Mark Latham. and also how do you know that Mark Latham was going to spend rediculous amounts of money? you just said that it was 'suggested'

As for the length of my post. If you want to progress a point based on incorrect information dont expect that you wont be pulled up on it.
which part of the information i am presenting is more incorrect that yours. EDIT: or if that is not what you meant, of course you can write heaps of bullshit. people do it all the time.

p.s. i wasn't even refering to your post
 
Last edited:

gnrlies

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
781
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
The interest rates started to raise before the 2007 election, that must mean that Howard is spending to much!:eek: /sarcasm
Anyway my point is that whilst it may make the difference, it isn't even close to the extent as some of the other factors.
So what if he has made some tough decisions. So will any PM.
Gillard =/= Mark Latham. and also how do you know that Mark Latham was going to spend rediculous amounts of money? you just said that it was 'suggested'
If you read my post prior to the one where you gave a link to the ALP website; you will see my analysis of what happened in Australia in the first half of this decade. Howard had a policy of fiscal consolidation. This took pressure off the RBA in terms of rising interest rates. For example: if the government continued to run a deficit budget, or even a balanced on; interest rates would likely have been higher than they were. Fiscal consolidation was a distinctly different policy to that of the ALP at the time (who in fact voted against it) and was one that makes it true to say that interest rates would be lower under a coalition supporting fiscal consolidation, than the ALP who didn't support this policy. Whilst it is unclear what Latham would have done, he is part of the Labor left. The Labor left is not known for their fiscal conservativeness (kind of Whitlamesque). Subsequently it was 'suggested' that fiscal consolidation (and interest rates) were under threat. This was the basis of the campaign. Gillard has the same characteristics that made people concerned of Latham. Shes part of the left, and she has a big wishlist of things she would like to do with any extra money she could get her hands on.

And I believe that Rudd is a better alternative than Howard.
Why? because he has cool glasses? because he is sticking up for 'working families'? I mean there could be a totally logical reason, but certainly I feel the majority of Australians couldn't really give a good reason why they voted for him (maybe this isn't you).

the Labor Party has evolved from what they were founded on into what is currently uses a more decentralized system with some government intervention to balance things out.
Yes this is the third way brand of politics that simply doesn't work. Certainly not in the long run - although I prefer it to outright socialism.

well if they see the system working, one would think that they would leave it more than they would change it
Hah! you are an optimist! Love him or hate him, Howard was a man of principle. He pursued labour market reform until his very political death. He is also a man who believed in small government. Even he succumbed to the temptations of middle class welfare and vote buying. If this type of temptation will get a conservative government; what makes you think this wont happen with a labor government. (noting that just about every long running incumbent government in australian history has succumbed to it).

which part of the information i am presenting is more incorrect that yours. EDIT: or if that is not what you meant, of course you can write heaps of bullshit. people do it all the time.

p.s. i wasn't even refering to your post
I was refering to the ALP ad that your posted as proof that Howard promised to lower interest rates.
 

melanieeeee.

Banned
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
812
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
gnrlies said:
If you read my post prior to the one where you gave a link to the ALP website; you will see my analysis of what happened in Australia in the first half of this decade. Howard had a policy of fiscal consolidation. This took pressure off the RBA in terms of rising interest rates. For example: if the government continued to run a deficit budget, or even a balanced on; interest rates would likely have been higher than they were. Fiscal consolidation was a distinctly different policy to that of the ALP at the time (who in fact voted against it) and was one that makes it true to say that interest rates would be lower under a coalition supporting fiscal consolidation, than the ALP who didn't support this policy. Whilst it is unclear what Latham would have done, he is part of the Labor left. The Labor left is not known for their fiscal conservativeness (kind of Whitlamesque). Subsequently it was 'suggested' that fiscal consolidation (and interest rates) were under threat. This was the basis of the campaign. Gillard has the same characteristics that made people concerned of Latham. Shes part of the left, and she has a big wishlist of things she would like to do with any extra money she could get her hands on.
There is a lot of generalisation there but I will say this: just because one is of a Labor Left doesn't necessarily mean they want the economy to go badly.



Why? because he has cool glasses? because he is sticking up for 'working families'? I mean there could be a totally logical reason, but certainly I feel the majority of Australians couldn't really give a good reason why they voted for him (maybe this isn't you).
well it is kind of compulsary to vote. just as some people who vote for Howard for rediculious reasons as well.



Yes this is the third way brand of politics that simply doesn't work. Certainly not in the long run - although I prefer it to outright socialism.
How won't it work?



Hah! you are an optimist! Love him or hate him, Howard was a man of principle. He pursued labour market reform until his very political death. He is also a man who believed in small government. Even he succumbed to the temptations of middle class welfare and vote buying. If this type of temptation will get a conservative government; what makes you think this wont happen with a labor government. (noting that just about every long running incumbent government in australian history has succumbed to it).
driving future economic prosperity and ensuring fairness for working families is not mutually exclusive. also if that was Rudd's plan won't he have implimented it already. (and if you are talking about this only happening during elections, like you said all government partys will end up doing this anyway)

I was refering to the ALP ad that your posted as proof that Howard promised to lower interest rates.
ok forget that it is an ad, just look at the first part cause you did say you wanted proof that he said/implied that.
 

gnrlies

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
781
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
melanieeeee. said:
There is a lot of generalisation there but I will say this: just because one is of a Labor Left doesn't necessarily mean they want the economy to go badly.
There was no generalisation there. Shes already got about 10 billion dollars worth of things shed want to spend the surplus on once the current situation is over. Communists dont want the economy to go badly but that doesn't mean that communists are good economic planners. Labor (and in particular the left) have a completely different idea for the role of government. Big government VS small government. Small government is synonomous with effective economic managemen, not big government.

well it is kind of compulsary to vote. just as some people who vote for Howard for rediculious reasons as well.
Perhaps, but I suspect that there were many more who voted for rudd for reasons they didn't quite understand. Perhaps the fact that workchoices was one of the major reasons reflects this (as it only affects about 1% of the population in any meaningful way). We should get rid of compulsory voting.


How won't it work?
Easily.

driving future economic prosperity and ensuring fairness for working families is not mutually exclusive. also if that was Rudd's plan won't he have implimented it already. (and if you are talking about this only happening during elections, like you said all government partys will end up doing this anyway)
I would argue that they are mutually exclusive. I will make no bones about it; I am a libertarian. Go and read free to choose by milton friedman to find out why it is silly to suggest that you are helping the worst off in society by allowing governments to intervene on their behalf.

Hes not ramping up spending because he is in his first term. Fast forward a few years:

Rudd's honeymoon finishes, people stop seeing him with rose coloured glasses and start critically evaluating his prime ministership (which so far has been full of nothing but symbolism based around the news cycle). Other people within the party start pursuing certain policy directions that arent popular with the public. Tough decisions need to be made in times of adversity. Popularity declines, people get bored of Rudd, Labor falls in the polls. Malcolm Turnbull is leader of the opposition, has a higher preferred prime minister rating than Rudd, the Labor party panics. What do they do? The budget before the election they spend up big. Promise this, promise that, givea bonus here, a bonus there etc etc etc.

Sound familiar? this is basically what happens to all political parties. Only problem is that with a labor government increasing spending is not seen as a contradiction of party values.

So how can this NOT happen.


ok forget that it is an ad, just look at the first part cause you did say you wanted proof that he said/implied that.
look at the first part of what?
 

melanieeeee.

Banned
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
812
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
gnrlies said:
There was no generalisation there. Shes already got about 10 billion dollars worth of things shed want to spend the surplus on once the current situation is over. Communists dont want the economy to go badly but that doesn't mean that communists are good economic planners. Labor (and in particular the left) have a completely different idea for the role of government. Big government VS small government. Small government is synonomous with effective economic managemen, not big government.
where does it say she already got 10 billion dollars worth of things she wants to spend?



Perhaps, but I suspect that there were many more who voted for rudd for reasons they didn't quite understand. Perhaps the fact that workchoices was one of the major reasons reflects this (as it only affects about 1% of the population in any meaningful way). We should get rid of compulsory voting.
yeah that has worked for America so well!




explain how...



I would argue that they are mutually exclusive. I will make no bones about it; I am a libertarian. Go and read free to choose by milton friedman to find out why it is silly to suggest that you are helping the worst off in society by allowing governments to intervene on their behalf.

Hes not ramping up spending because he is in his first term. Fast forward a few years:

Rudd's honeymoon finishes, people stop seeing him with rose coloured glasses and start critically evaluating his prime ministership (which so far has been full of nothing but symbolism based around the news cycle). Other people within the party start pursuing certain policy directions that arent popular with the public. Tough decisions need to be made in times of adversity. Popularity declines, people get bored of Rudd, Labor falls in the polls. Malcolm Turnbull is leader of the opposition, has a higher preferred prime minister rating than Rudd, the Labor party panics. What do they do? The budget before the election they spend up big. Promise this, promise that, givea bonus here, a bonus there etc etc etc.

Sound familiar? this is basically what happens to all political parties. Only problem is that with a labor government increasing spending is not seen as a contradiction of party values.

So how can this NOT happen.




look at the first part of what?
government intervention is necessary at times in order to create a system that is fair. not necessarily equal but fair. also i guess we will just have to see but saying that he will is only speculation. i think you dont give Rudd enough credit.
 

gnrlies

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
781
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
melanieeeee. said:
where does it say she already got 10 billion dollars worth of things she wants to spend?
Havent you been listening to her and her colleagues spout off about all these things they want to do? These things cost money. 10 billion is an arbitrary number but it it would be in the ballpark of the costs of some of these things.

yeah that has worked for America so well!
Australia is one of the only countries in the world to have compulsory voting. Interestingly Italy and Belgium are the only other OECD nations that have compulsory voting. Do you think our democracy is any better than in Germany, or the UK??? As for the USA; how has this not worked over there? The definitial of democracy is that you allow your people to choose who they want as their leaders. If you are indifferent - you dont vote at all. In Australia, how do people who are indifferent vote? they cant so they do a donkey vote. Why should force these people to vote? Better yet, why should we fine them if they dont vote?

explain how...
Instead I will post something from Wikipedia for you as you could really write a book on why it doesn't work. I wont do this, but I will give you a taste of some of the arguements and you can follow them up at your own leisure.

In the 1920s, Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian School economist and classical liberal thinker, accused the "middle way" of mixing capitalism and socialism. In his book Liberalism Mises wrote, "There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way."[29] Advocates of laissez-faire capitalism continue to be staunch opponents of a mixed economy, the "third way." In 1990, after the fall of his country's communist government, Czechoslovakia's finance minister, Václav Klaus, declared, "We want a market economy without any adjectives. Any compromises with that will only fuzzy up the problems we have. To pursue a so-called Third Way is foolish. We had our experience with this in the 1960s when we looked for a socialism with a human face. It did not work, and we must be explicit that we are not aiming for a more efficient version of a system that has failed. The market is indivisible; it cannot be an instrument the hands of central planners."[30] More recently, a critic of capitalist-socialist hybridization wrote, "Third-Way economics is merely another political trial balloon. The politicians are still simply trying to twist fattened, round socialism into a lean, square, free-market hole, mainly to solicit our vote."[31]

Third way is sometimes described as an idea of former social-democrats which replaces socialism with capitalism and a minimum of socialism, and a strategy to bring the social-democratic parties back to power where they have lost elections. For example, Slavoj Zizek argues that the notion of the Third Way emerged as the only alternative to the victorious global capitalism and its notion of liberal democracy when the Second Way crumbled.[32] Critics argue that third way politicians are in favour of ideas and policies that ultimately serve the interests of corporate power and the wealthy at the expense of the working class and the poor. Some also classify the Third Way as neosocialism or "neoliberalism with a social touch".[33][34] In many western nations where social democratic or "socialist" parties have adopted centrist or third way policies or have been seen by some as doing so, many new leftwing parties have been able to attract voters disillusioned with the traditional left. These include The Left Party of Germany (formerly the Party of Democratic Socialism), the Left Party of Sweden, the Socialist Party of Ireland and Sinn Fein, The Respect Party of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Socialist Party, the Citizen and Republican Movement and the Communist Party of France and the United Left of Spain to name a few.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)#Criticism
government intervention is necessary at times in order to create a system that is fair. not necessarily equal but fair. also i guess we will just have to see but saying that he will is only speculation. i think you dont give Rudd enough credit.

You say this with such certainty! As I said - I am a libertarian so I completely disagree with what you are saying with respect to government needing to intervene. Governments are needed to define and enforce property rights and provide certain public goods that are needed, and that cannot be provided by the private sector. The only form of intervention that I accept is the type that achieves an important short term goal where the government may be able to achieve it better through regulation than by allowing the market to solve the problem (e.g. if global warming is a problem, then the market is not adjusting quickly enough so intervention in markets may be required).

As for Rudd

Other than beginning his process of dismantling workchoices (which was not a step in the right direction - no pun intended); Rudd has done nothing. Absolutely nothing. He has done nothing but symbolic gestures and media management. Hopefully this wont be true when he is given more time (he's got at least 2.5 years to impress); but at the moment he has done nothing that I can judge him on. This is not a good sign. A new government should have a vision. Their first 12 months should be their most active and ambitious. I dont see either from Rudd. I dont discredit the man so much as I discredit the party. I would rather have Rudd leading the Labor party than any alternative person. But just because Rudd is leader doesn't mean he can do what he wants. There will come a time when his party starts making demands. I think Rudd will likely be the Labor equivalent of Malcolm Fraser.
 

gnrlies

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
781
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
BackCountrySnow said:
lol, communists??
just because they're a tad left wing??
I didn't call them communists, I merely said that communists desire a prosperous economy but that doesn't mean that their central planning will achieve it.

In the same way as I wish to win my game of football on the weekend, but that doesnt garuntee my success if im using a completely incorrect set of tactics.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top