The Forum > Article Comments > Many people just don't like Baird's vibe > Comments
Many people just don't like Baird's vibe : Comments
By Peter West, published 7/6/2016But slowly, there's been a realisation in many parts of the community that Baird all the time has had an agenda many don't like.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
-
- All
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 10:18:13 AM
| |
Aidan I also read the SMH and certainly didn't get that impression.
Given that the Labor NSW gov was threatening to amalgamate the councils for same reasons, i.e. inefficiency, infighting and sometimes blatant corruption, and we have had plenty of scandals for the same reasons I would take Baird's word that these are the reasons over your opinion. Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 2:52:40 PM
| |
The Bridge to Nowhere is the Tibby Cotter Bridge, discussed in the article, built by Duncan Gay and his favoured construction firm at man outlandish cost.
Maybe its purpose is to link the parks to a tower block. Once the old avenues of trees are cleared, and the councils pushed out of the way, we expect big numbers of apartment blocks to be built around Randwick. The property developers must be licking their lips. For threats to the parks, see also: http://newslocal.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx Posted by Waverley, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 11:21:57 AM
| |
Sorry, I meant
AN outlandish cost. Bloody auto correct strikes again..... Posted by Waverley, Thursday, 16 June 2016 9:43:28 AM
|
I think the councils are being merged because Baird considered them too obstructive. But I stress this is only an impression gained from reading the SMH. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to hear it.
There are some parts of modern economic theory that are indeed "detailed scientific analysis of economics over more than a century by brilliant mathematicians and economists including many Nobel laureates which has been shown again and again to accurately represent reality". I concur with all those.
But you make it sound like there's a genuine consensus among economists about nearly everything, when in reality there's fierce disagreement about most things.
And most of the time, many economists (indeed most economists, if what we see in the media is a fair representation) make claims based on demonstrably false assumptions, even though they've been shown again and again not to accurately represent reality.
What I claim has every basis in reality, and if you think it has "several examples where it falls down completely" then I suggest you supply a couple and I'll explain why they're not.
________________________________________________________________________________
Waverley,
What, in this context, is the Bridge to Nowhere?