The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Abolishing work choices, the gamble that failed.

Abolishing work choices, the gamble that failed.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
It's been some five odd years since the labor government took an axe to IR and abolished the Howard governments work choices policy, tightened UFD laws, introduced unlawful dismissal (aimed at small businesses) and introduced fair work Australia. Remembering of cause, that those directly effected by WC represented a very small minority, some of which were just happy to have a steady income and a regular job.

Many on low incomes (family people) were quite happy with the arrangement, as the financial gap was plugged somewhat with government assistance, something they wouldn't get if their incomes rose to high.

There is little doubt that the fight against work choices, and the negative campaign run by labor and the unions was the election winner for them

So, given this policy shift caused major disruption to many businesses, at a time when the global economy was showing grave signs of a melt down, I need to ask the supporters of the move, do you honestly think it was worth it, remembering that those directly effected represented a very small minority, many of which were quite happy with their previous arrangement.

But the real issue was that this policy shift saw this incompetent government come to power and literally decimate us in less than six years.

Was it really worth the gamble?

Save a few, but at what cost!
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 9 May 2013 5:26:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rehctub,
You apparently support that discredited neo-liberal philosophy Globalisation, a system favours a race to the bottom for wage earners rather that a system of social justice.

Under such a system young people can stand on their feet for hours at checkouts and serving at table for $9-16 per hour while bean counters qualified in accounting charge out their time at more than $280 per hour, a rate well above the Medicare rebate for a bulk billing doctor. Of course there are also the disgusting CEOs of banks who think they are worth $4,000 per hour.

George Souris reputedly made millions again this week by speculating against a currency move, an occupation that contributes nothing worthwhile to the human race.

In October/November, 1998, the then Governor of the Australian Reserve Bank, Mr Ian Macfarlane, began speaking out against the global financial system. Over the course of several speeches he said, "More and more people are asking whether the international financial system as it has operated for most of the l990s is basically unstable. By now, I think the majority of observers have come to the conclusion that it isn't . . ." "The intellectual underpinning of the free market position . . . - the Efficient Markets Hypothesis - is very weak. In all the exchange rate tests of which I am aware, the hypothesis has been contradicted by facts." "We need to devise a system for maximizing the benefits to be gained from international capital while limiting the risks."
"It is simplistic to insist on the totally free movement of capital in all countries and in all circumstances."

Failure to take note of Macfarlane, and similarly knowledgeable others, including the Canadian, John Ralston Saul, resulted in the Global Financial Crisis.

I suggest you read John Ralston Saul's, "The Collapse of Globalism" subtitled, 'The Reinvention of the World."

The blogs at New Economic Perspectives also might prove enlightening.
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 9 May 2013 9:34:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To clarify my earlier comment I suggest the second paragraph should read;

Under Globalisation and work choices young people can stand on their feet for hours at checkouts or serving at table for $9-16 per hour while bean counters qualified in accounting charge out their time at more than $280 per hour, a rate well above the Medicare rebate for a bulk billing doctor. Of course there are also those with their snouts in the trough at banks who think they are worth as much as $4,000 per hour.
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 9 May 2013 9:42:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your exploitative, socially unjust marxoid ideology (there's some argument by slogans to match your spray) is just a garble of self-contradictions, and I'll prove it.

For starters, if what you're saying is right, why not:
- extend the provisions of WC to all workers in the world? Surely there are many outside Australia in worse conditions on lower pay than in Australia? Aren't they human beings too? If the *real* rationale of your ideology is social justice, then why confine it to Australia?

- abolish private property altogether? You obviously believe that production can be made fairer and more productive by government deciding to arbitrarily violate people's freedoms, take whatever property they want from whoever they want, and give it out to whatever cronies they feel like? But if you shrink from full socialism, then why doesn't your anti-capitalist ideology apply to any remaining individual freedom? Why should any freedom be permitted, since according to your theory, it results in the dreaded inequality?

From your starting point of economic ignorance, and thinking slogans are some kind of substitute for real understanding, you assume a premise that the financial crisis is due to "free markets" without ever reflecting whether or not that is true. According to that theory, the fact that governments claimed and exercised monopoly power to manipulate the supply of money and credit, which they did at all times before and during the GFC, and the fact that the crisis arose in the *financial* sector, is just some kind of strange coincidence. Or you must believe that such manipulations have only positive effects - why?

On the other hand, you can't criticise the fact that they entail redistributions to political favourites - that's exactly what you're arguing in favour of.

There's no use blaming "neoliberal" policies if you haven't first eliminated the possibility that the problems you criticize are due to the policies you advocate.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 9 May 2013 10:11:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
Murray Rothbard
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 9 May 2013 10:12:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why don't the checkout people become bean counters then? Why don't they work in banking?

If you were a business owner, foyle and I (as an employee) came up to you with a proposal to make you an extra five million a year profit and for my effort I only asked for one of the five million. Would you take up my offer? Noting that refusal of my offer would loose you a potential four million a year in profits!
Posted by RawMustard, Thursday, 9 May 2013 10:13:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If somebody chooses to work for a certain rate then that in nobody's business other than the worker. If he finds the wage not enough he can ask for more or he can leave. It is that simple.
If somebody finds a way of making money at anothers expense (employee)
then well and good. If the opportunities were not there then the exploiter would not act on them and there would be less work.
This business of "I must get so much and hour to support my life style" is crap.
Lower your sights your expectations are unrealistic or better work harder and get to be the boss.
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Thursday, 9 May 2013 10:45:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If two consenting people want to make a deal between them, who on earth has a right to deny them the freedom to do so?

Further, if their agreement happens to include an element of one person doing some work, an element of the other person giving the first person some money and possibly some other elements, who has a right to box them, calling the one "employer" and the other "employee", given they never sought to have this kind of relationship?

It is non-negotiable that INDIVIDUALS should be able to agree between them on anything they like.

The arguments against WorkChoices involve exploitation by greedy employers in industrial environments - this means that, besides individuals, non-profit organisations, as they operate in a charitable environment rather than in an industrial environment, should also be exempt from IR laws.

What remains is companies and corporations. Indeed, I find no principle or moral requirement to avoid restricting the activities of incorporated bodies: as they voluntarily sought out to be incorporated and recognised by the government, the government in turn MAY in principle ask for certain things in return.

While not immoral as such, I rather stay out of the economic debate whether or not it is also WISE to restrict companies in their employment policies. All I care for, from my side, are the philosophical and moral principles - and restricting individuals in their employment terms is definitely immoral. I will leave the economic discussion for others.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 9 May 2013 12:27:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The sentiment against WorkChoices seems to have been overegged back in 07. It became an election issue funded by the Trade Unions, they turned it into a poisoned chalice just as they intended. If there was any real imbalance it was in the safety net plus some other bits of tweaking.

In the end WorkChoices needs to be measured against the needs of both employers and employees. If there were genuine employee issues they have now been lost in the shift to favor the power base of the Trade Unions. IMHO this is now an overcorrection that needs bringing back into balance.
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 9 May 2013 12:48:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a favor to Rechtub I will only post once in his rant/sorry thread.
Truth is work choices won Rudd his election.
It and nothing else beat J W Howard, without his head snap he would still be in power.
Labor has frittered away its good fortune, and must take much of the blame, as it was in 1975, for the impending defeat.
A quick look at NSW a state Labor fell over its self trying to give Government to conservatives, a task they achieved for about 12 more years, see,s the future of federal Labor.
I know, we all should, Labor is under Dillards miss fits, giving Abbott a mandate,equal to the NSW one given to them.
As workers pain increases, look first to the source of that pain, Dillards dullards.
ONLY THE TRUTH WILL SET THE ALP BACK ON TRACK.
Work choices will play no roll in the coming drubbing.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 9 May 2013 2:20:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

It’s a pity on two counts that you << will only post once in his rant/sorry thread>>

The first pity is that you above all people on OLO are well positioned to contribute. Secondly and noticeably, you failed to address any of the issues at all.

I do agree with you that it is unlikely that the WorkChoices issue will play any significant role in voter sentiment at the next election but you must ask yourself why?

The history, platitudes and Howard references are symptomatic of two things. One, you don’t wish to go there and two you can’t.

I suspect you know that the scare campaign against WC’s cannot be repeated and two, that Bill “Short on everything” hissy fit against the Abbott announcements today, is a repeat of the Union scare tactics leading up to the 2007 election.

Short on everything said so many times that this Abbott policy “would strike terror up the spines of every Australian worker”, one has to wonder if the ALP has learned anything.

It’s not the working people that will be affected by Abbott’s policies; it is the trade union “control” of working peoples pay and conditions. The trade union movement has recently been seen to be more interested in ripping off union membership than Howards WC’s ever did. On that basis they won’t care much what Abbott does because they know they will be better off with Abbott’s policies than being ripped of by their own unions.

The ALP is torn between the elitism of those who have infiltrated the ALP and the unholy union of the very same people who are now both elitist and controlling your beloved unions.

Your and you ilk have lost control of what you created in both the ALP and the unions and now, you want to blame anything, anyone and everything for your ideologically driven incompetence.

Your legacy to the Australian people will be remembered for a very long time. Sadly, it will not be remembered fondly. Please don’t come back to us with more of the same.
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 9 May 2013 4:39:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle, if some young person operated a check out for $9 per hour, which i dont belive happened, chances are, that's all they were worth.

You have to remember, we are talking about a time (sadly less than six years ago) when there were more jobs than workers, and GOOD WORKERS demanded, and received, a premium reward for their skills/efforts.

So the result of labor and the unions fight against WC's, is that that young check out operator, most of which have one eye on face book, or can't help texting, are now on huge money (in comparison) and we, the every day tax payers, are all but broke.

As I said in my opening post, was it really worth the gable, to save just a few, because it is totally undeniable, that had the Howard/Costelo government remained in power, we would be in far better shape than we are today, thanks to labor.

If you don't agree, may I suggest you do some research, it's called PLOITICAL HISTORY.

The sad part is that most every day Australians are going to have to work another ten years or so, just to be in the same position they would have been. Thanks to to labor and the unions, because to go from a surplus AT ANY COST to a deficit of some $17 billion is quite simply economic vandalism.

Belly, no need to tell us your going, because that's your style of late when someone challenges you.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 9 May 2013 6:23:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am surprised that so many people who have commented on this issue show no evidence that they have any understanding of the theory of money.

The reason that the private section of the economy owed so much money at the end of the Howard/Costello era was that that pair believed they were doing the right thing selling assets and balancing the budget.

The Common Good of the general public ended up much poorer that it was when the governments owned on our behalf, Telstra, Which Bank, airports, power generating systems etc. The Future Fund probably has enough money to buy back a small percentage of what was sold off.

A budget outcome should not be the aim. The aim of government should be to minimise the disruptions to society caused by the booms and busts attributable to the rises and collapses in enthusiasms in private behaviour.

I note that no one has argued against my quotes from the speeches of the retired former Governor of the Reserve Bank, Ian Macfarlane.

I suggest some of those making comments read some recent articles at New Economic Perspectives. Better still sign up for their regular excellent blogs. One recent one by Dr Stephanie Kelton, Chair of the Economics Department the University of Missouri, Kansas City is available at ;
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/05/the-laymans-case-against-austerity.html#more-5402
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 9 May 2013 6:57:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I note that no one has argued against my quotes from the speeches of the retired former Governor of the Reserve Bank, Ian Macfarlane."

I've argued against it. I note you have not replied. Care to?

It's no use seeking "new economic perspectives" if you don't understand what you're talking about, and your argument is based on a premise that is, factually speaking, flatly incorrect.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 9 May 2013 7:38:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine K Jardine
I only studied one year of economics when it was a prerequisite , along with Psychology-1, Accounting-1, and a first degree (mine is in science) for a Masters in Business Administration. I was not able to undertake the MBA as, by then, I had a family and was supervising 450 employees in heavy industry. Later that number grew to 2350.

I have my own well thumbed copies of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" (five books) and Keynes "General Theory" and have and have read many other economics works.

I suggest if you want to argue against views expressed by people like Ian Macfarlane you should produce actual quotes by reputable experts in the field.

And, don't both quoting anyone from the Milton Friedman's camp. That work has been thoroughly discredited.

Do you understand what is happening in the USA with Quantitative Easing or why Europe is in such trouble with austerity under a common currency?
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 9 May 2013 10:34:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I suggest if you want to argue against views expressed by people like Ian Macfarlane you should produce actual quotes by reputable experts in the field."

I find that an odd thing to say. Do you accept or reject economic theory on its own merits, or do you just believe views that you don't understand based on what you perceive to be the authoritativeness of the person expressing them? To put it another way, if Macfarlane was wrong, how would you know? Would you have any way of knowing other than by "quotes" by "reputable experts"? What kind of economic theory is that?

I argue against the views of Macfarlane by providing *reasons* that I challenge you to answer.

I say it is flatly incorrect to blame the GFC on "free markets" for the reason that governments at all times exercised a monopoly on the supply of money, and were manipulating the price of money at all relevant times for decades before, and at all times during the GFC. What do you say to that?

"And, don't both quoting anyone from the Milton Friedman's camp."

Okay.

"Do you understand what is happening in the USA with Quantitative Easing"

Yes. The Fed is printing money like it's going outa style, pretending to create benefits for society as a whole, while actually looting A (owner/producer of the wealth stolen by government's inflation of the money supply) to satisfy B (pet political favourite).

"or why Europe is in such trouble with austerity under a common currency?"

Please define "such trouble" and "austerity"?

"Failure to take note of Macfarlane, and similarly knowledgeable others, including the Canadian, John Ralston Saul, resulted in the Global Financial Crisis."

Prove it? No appeals to absent authority please.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 9 May 2013 11:42:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is an extract from a comment from a Mr Ross Greenwood

Why the U.S. Was  downgraded:
           
             * U.S. Tax revenue:  $2,170,000,000,000
             * Fed budget:  $3,820,000,000,000
             * New debt: $  1,650,000,000,000
             * National debt:  $14,271,000,000,000
             * Recent budget cuts: $  38,500,000,000
           
             Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household  budget:
           
             * Annual family income:  $21,700
             * Money the family spent:  $38,200
             * New debt on the credit card:  $16,500
             * Outstanding balance on the credit card:  $142,710
             * Total budget cuts:  $385

Now back home, again from RG

The total Government debt will end up  around $200 billion. So here's a very basic calculation.. I  used a home loan calculator to work
it out..... it's that  simple.. $200 billion is $2 hundred thousand  million.

The current 10 year Government bond rate is  4.67 per cent. I worked the loan out over a period of 20  years. Now here's where it gets scary.... Really  scary.

The repayments on $200 billion, come to  more than one and a quarter billion dollars - every  month - for 20  years.
It  works out we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $15.4 billion in interest and  principal every year..
$733 for every man woman and child -  every year. The total interest bill over the 20 years is -  get this - $108 billion.

Remember, this  is a Government, that just 4 years ago, had NO debt! & I DO MEAN “NO DEBT”!!

In fact, it had enough money to create  the Future Fund, to pay the future liabilities of public  servants' superannuation, and it had enough to stick $20  billion into the Building Australia Fund...

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, NOT!

I wish to say a huge thanks to all those labor die hards out there who assisted these fools with their unconditional support.

Take a bow!
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 10 May 2013 6:59:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As it turns out, the world of debt is a lot more complicated than butchers might have us believe.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/03/27/heres-the-real-story-of-australian-debt/
Posted by qanda, Friday, 10 May 2013 7:57:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ wrote-To put it another way, if Macfarlane was wrong, how would you know? Would you have any way of knowing other than by "quotes" by "reputable experts"?

Isn't every article on economic theory the musings of some expert? Whose theories do you follow. I tend to follow Professors Wray, Mitchell, Black , Hudson and a few others and as I said have read Smith and Keynes etc.

JKJ- I say it is flatly incorrect to blame the GFC on "free markets" for the reason that governments at all times exercised a monopoly on the supply of money, and were manipulating the price of money at all relevant times for decades before, and at all times during the GFC. What do you say to that?

I say that Macfarlane was opining that the governments were not adequately regulating the money markets, (read Hume and Smith).

JKJ- "Do you understand what is happening in the USA with Quantitative Easing" -Yes. The Fed is printing money like it's going outa style, pretending to create benefits for society as a whole, while actually looting A (owner/producer of the wealth stolen by government's inflation of the money supply) to satisfy B (pet political favourite).

No. The Fed and Obama are using QE to resuscitate Wall Street, rather than rescue the victims of CDOs and the deliberately created housing bubble (created by the US major banks), a situation I saw likely to develop in 1998 (and wrote to Costello about). American politics is debauched by the lobbyists and the political contributions of the far right.

"or why Europe is in such trouble with austerity under a common currency?"

Have you not read about the problems being experienced by Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain etc.? Do you not understand the difference between a country which has its own sovereign currency and a state which shares a common currency in the way all states of Australia share the $A?

rehctub-- the bond rate was about 3.4% a week ago. The government could cease paying interest (upper crust welfare) on the private banks reserves.
Posted by Foyle, Friday, 10 May 2013 8:08:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW did you hear about the economics professor of the Efficient Market Hypothesis walking with a student on campus?
Student: “Hey look! There’s a $50 bill lying on the ground.”
Professor: (without looking down) “Can’t be.”
Student: “Why not?”
Professor: “Because. If it was, someone would’ve picked it up already.”

* * *

“Isn't every article on economic theory the musings of some expert?”

Whether it is or not, it’s the reasoning and evidence that contain the explaining power, not the authority or status of the expert. If the reasoning is based on factual or logical errors, the authority of the speaker can’t save it.

I follow the Austrian school. Mises showed in his “Theory of Money and Credit” that the so-called business cycle theory is the result of inflating the money supply with money substitutes – exactly what central banks do. He also established a basis for economics in logic based on factual axioms, rather than in the pretensions to empirical science that riddle mainstream economics. Mises also demonstrated in the economic calculation debate that socialism – the public ownership of the means of production – is impossible in theory, let alone in practice.

I'd be interested in your comments on this short summary of Austrian Business Cycle Theory by Murray Rothbard: “Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure”: http://mises.org/tradcycl/econdepr.asp

The Austrians make a thoroughgoing refutation of Keynes, which the Keynesians never answer, because they can’t.

For example, the orthodox explanation of the GFC (and Great Depression) are that they arose spontaneously from free markets, unregulated capitalism. When an Austrian points out that the factual premise is flatly incorrect, the orthodox replies there wasn’t enough regulation.

But hang on. The radical critique is, how do you know it wasn’t from government manipulating the money supply in the first place?

Secondly, to allege that there wasn’t enough regulation, is to assert that government knows how to perform the essential purpose of financial markets. If this were true, then
a) why wouldn’t it be true of all markets?
b) why not abolish private property
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 10 May 2013 9:03:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phew, economics are so complicated! I'm glad I never had to study any of this!

Indeed I have no use for economics when asked such simple questions as:
"why wouldn’t it [regulation] be true of all markets?" or "why not abolish private property?"

All I need to answer those questions is just a small principle, that same principle that allowed Gandhi to defeat the British empire: Non-Violence.

It is simply wrong to restrict others or to take away by force what's theirs - and what's wrong should not be done. You don't need a university degree for that - every boy and girl learns this around the age of 3 when told "It's not nice to hit your friend".
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 10 May 2013 9:41:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hooray Yuyutsu!

Foyle
So there is a fundamental inconsistency at the core of orthodox theory, including new economic perspectives so far as I understand it.

On the one hand they allege that economic recessions arise out of unregulated capitalism, without ever examining the obvious possibility that it arises from government’s abuse of its monopoly powers over money and credit; of which the bank’s abuses are downstream phenomena. (But even if they are autonomous abuses by banks, that disproves the basal orthodox assumption that government has the competence to manage the supply of money and credit.)

On the other hand they allege that the solution is more governmental regulation, without squaring their assumption that the necessary governmental competence, if true, would mean that full socialism is both possible and desirable - without ever acknowledging or answer the economic calculation argument.

As soon as they resile from that conclusion, they are at a loss to explain why the arguments against capitalism don’t apply; or why the arguments against socialism don’t apply. They assert the need to “balance” them; but they can never, as a matter of economic science, identify the alleged balancing point by any rational criterion. All we ever get is appeal to arbitrary opinion and alleged experts; or mere arbitrary power.

Furthermore, the methodology of relying on the authority of “experts” is faulty because the Austrians thesis is that the emperor has no clothes. It is no rebuttal to cite the opinion of high officials pronouncing that the emperor’s new clothes are beautiful.

The problem is precisely whether there is a conflict of interest between government on the one hand, and the people on the other. This needs to be examined in order to resolve the question. But underneath all Keynesian argument, and NEP argument, we get this bald assumption that government is some kind of wise benevolent institution, and ipso facto represents the best interests of the people.

When the orthodox wonder what “we” should do, they always mean THE STATE, thus missing the point.

To Austrians, reliance on illogic invalidates Keynesian & NEP theory.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 10 May 2013 9:51:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Only because Rechtubs written smirk needs addressing I return.
This thread gives evidence that can not be rebutted, Rechtub does not understand politics.
No way either side would claim other than the truth.
Labor is facing defeat for many things, foremost DILLARD and her nigh crawlers supporting her, not the party.
Abbott ., clearly understanding he dare not move too fast, many, like him in his front bench, never liked or supported work choices.
SOME changes are needed, by both sides.
But this thread displays only Rechtub needs assistance in understanding politics.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 10 May 2013 2:03:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly, what's to understand about it, we went from having billions in the bank, with confidence sky high, to owing $200 billion, the place in a mess, and the borders are now open slather, IN LESS THAN SIX YEARS, all thanks to the likes of you, who have offered unconditional support for this incompitent mob, even after being repeatedly warned they were incompitent and would cause great harm.

Your stubbiness to acknowledge that labor is not the only way has helped cause this shocking mess, a mess that ALL AUSTRALIANS will be paying for for years, if not decades.

Well done, because if ruining the country was your primary focus, you, your supporters, your unions and your beloved labor party have succeeded.

The ironic part about it all, is that although you criticize Gillard, and so you should, I will almost guarantee you will still vote labor.

Brain washing can be a terrible thing, especially if you are nieve enough to not know it's happening.

BTW, are you ever going to repond to my reply about the past 6 PM's, or have I cornered you.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 10 May 2013 6:36:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Or did you hear about the three econometricians who went hunting?

The first econometrician shot at a deer, and missed by a metre to the right. The second econometrician shot at it, and missed by a metre to the left. And the third econometrician jumped up and down in glee crying "We got 'im! We got 'im!"

* * *

For an introduction to Austrian theory of money and credit in plain language:

“What Has Government Done to Our Money?” by Murray Rothbard
http://mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf

“The Mystery of Banking” by Murray Rothbard
http://mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 10 May 2013 9:43:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rechtub do you understand?
Is there any chance you actually know.
Your thread, your every liveing thought expressed here , says you do not know.
Targeting workers/wages/all social security/ but quaintly demanding the rich get their share of it! ROTFL!
No one would ever make a claim, based on your posts, that you UNDERSTAND!
Abbott is not faceing a victory because of workers wages and entitlements.
The BETRAYAL of Rudd, Dillards untrust worthiness, the murder of mining tax, the AWFUL policy,s that over shadow the good ones.
OF MOST IMPORTANCE! you and others, look only at the NDIS thread, are making claims for the incomeing government, THAT THEY WILL NEVER MAKE/DO.
After the election, as your dreamed up policy,s never happen, as Australia, unable to take its eyes of Dillards betrayers of my party, for the first time!
*Opens its eyes to just who and what they have elected, we will see disappointment*
But you? convinced Halos will shine on every head, that wages will fall and bosses be able to publicly flog workers?
Rechtub you may even be forced to face your biggest enemy,
*REALITY*a fear full foe for such as you.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 11 May 2013 6:48:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly, as I see it, it's quite simple.

Going back to the early 90's, labor introduced IR reforms that rocked most industries.

We had cases wherepeoplee were sacked for stealing, then compensated and reinstated, simply because they were not told they could not steal.

This happened because of POOR POLICY IMPLIMENTATION from the then labor government. RING A BELL, as the past five years has proven they have not learned from thier mistakes.

So, Howard came along, worked very hard for years to restore business confidence and water down this ridiculous UFD laws, not to mention pay back labor's RECORD DEBT.

THE COUNTRY BOOMED with the result being more choices for work than ever, as there were more jobs than workers, and confidence, in both business and workers was sky high.

Then along came one K Rudd, flanked by Gillard, supported by you (the unions) and they were he'll bent on changing EVERYONE'S arrangements, even if those involved were happy.

And guess what, CONFIDENCE TOOK A HUGE DIVE.

Continued
Posted by rehctub, Saturday, 11 May 2013 7:13:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued by Rehctub, for Belly's sake

No surprises there.

Of cause the likes of you Belly blame the GFC. But that was back in 08, and didn't cause the destruction of live export, (the real effects now sending many broke)or the cash for clunkers, or the border protection fiasco, or the fuel/grocery watch joke, or the other multitude of stuff ups from this incompitent mob, SUPPORTED BY THE LIKES OF YOU.

So, given the mess labor have left us, the full extent of which won't be known until mid month, ANY INCOMING GOVERNMENT will be pushing TISH up hill for some time before ANY REAL PROGRESS can be made towards a recovery.

But at least one thing will get a much needed boost, and that's confidence, as
the coalition has history of restoring comfidence on it's side, unlike your beloved labor have"

BTW, check my post history as far back as 06 and you will see that I warned about this many times over.

I also warned about Qld Labor, again fell on deaf ears.

Perhaps if you created jobs, instead of saving them, often at any cost, it would be YOU that would have a better understanding of just how the wheels turn, or more so, what actually makes them turn.

So by all means, go ahead and bond with your failing minority of LABOR LOVERS, vote for your beloved labor, but just remember, the definition of insanity, is doing the same thing again and expecting a different result.
Posted by rehctub, Saturday, 11 May 2013 7:16:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly, he's right. You blame Gillard, but what you're not appreciating is that it's Gillard's *ideas* that are causing her to engage in this kind of destructive, wasteful, stupid behaviour.

The idea that human society is some kind of class war; the idea that employment is intrinsically exploitative; the idea that by entering into voluntary transactions people are being "targeted" i.e. shot at; the idea that employers would "publicly flog" employees, the idea that the State should have unlimited power to take property from anyone and give it out to anyone else; these are classic Labor ideas that motivate Labor's stupid behaviour.

And do you know where these ideas come from, at fifth hand? Karl Marx. Whether you realise it or not, you're channelling Karl Marx, and by supporting anyone spouting this hateful anti-social illogical nonsense, you're causing the government to make the working class MUCH WORSE OFF, because that's who they're taking billions from to pay for their destructive, wasteful, stupid schemes.

One scheme alone. Kevin Rudd wasted $450 million on one single stupid carbon scheme. An idea that he was going to control the temperature of the globe in 500 years time by capturing and storing a harmless odourless element that is the basis of all life. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

$450 million. Think how many working people had to work how much to pay that. Think what that could have done if left in the hands of its owners. Think how much better they could have spent it: on housing, food, education, health care, the needy, the environment, communications; all the things that the stupidity of Labor voters think can only be done by the government.

It's no excuse to say the Liberals are equally stupid or immoral. Even if they are, that's a reason for you to stop dragging the centre of gravity in that direction!
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 11 May 2013 12:10:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ,

For the last 800,000 years, your "harmless odorless element" appears to have remained within fairly narrow constraints - until post Industrial Revolution times.

I suspect there's a reason for that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2013/may/10/climate-warming-gas-carbon-dioxide-levels-interactive?CMP=twt_gu
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 11 May 2013 12:33:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, whether climate change is real, or not, is erelivent to this thread, but the fact remains, Australia gong it alone is utterly stupid, especially given our VERY SMALL (in comparison) population.

Companhaigen was proof enough of that, as it was yet another failed quest, a quest to be first cab off the rank.

Who can ever forget the $58 per bowl of soup, served to the entourage of support crew that attended AT OUR EXPENSE.

The whole problem is that we are now paying for the stuff ups and gross waste that is the legacy of labor and, if not for the support from their die hard supporters, it is undeniable that we would be in far better shape than we are now, thanks to these clowns and their supporters.
Posted by rehctub, Saturday, 11 May 2013 12:53:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not only that, rehctub, but it's irrelevant as well......

...as is your bowl of soup observation.

Happy days......
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 11 May 2013 1:08:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

Oh a link to the Guardian - must be more of your idea of "science".

But stop pretending to be interested in reason. You know you aren't, and so do I.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 11 May 2013 3:15:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JKJ,

You're such a card.

I s'pose this doesn't pass for science either:

http://researchmatters.noaa.gov/news/Pages/CarbonDioxideatMaunaLoareaches400ppm.aspx

(at least not in the denialosphere)
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 11 May 2013 3:30:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rechtub it is my turn to say thank you!
Your contributions after my last post did our standing work!
In proving my point you know very little about politics.
IR, work choices, will play no roll, not even a Micro one, in the election.
Regards and thanks again.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 11 May 2013 3:37:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
....IR, work choices, will play no roll, not even a Micro one, in the election.

Isn't that funny Belly, it makes one wonder why labor made such a huge deal out of the recent announcement from the libs on their IR policy.

Care to explain why they made such a big deal if it is not going to be an issue come september,

Especially given you are so highly informed ?

Or will you avoid this challenge as well?
Posted by rehctub, Saturday, 11 May 2013 6:58:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot
You know that you're not interested in the science; posting links is all you've got; you're only interested in your ideology of enriching the powerful at the expense of ordinary people. Ho hum, same old same old.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 12 May 2013 10:56:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy