Australian government extending age for "crackdown" on DSP recipients

[SilverbladeTE]

It's not been "Left" for a while, they sold out too
As noted before, 2003, UK Labour Party conference part funded by...UnumProvident!
Keir hardy must be rolling in his grave *spits in disgust*

 

[Sean]

It's not been "Left" for a while, they sold out too
As noted before, 2003, UK Labour Party conference part funded by…UnumProvident!

Yes. It is more than a little bizarre to hear people complain about the 'socialist' Labor/Labour parties. They are no such thing. They are centrist or even slightly right these days, with policies that make many conservative governments of the past look positively communist. The conservatives in the Anglosphere have moved firmly to the radical right over the last 2 decades, and seem hell bent on going even further.

 

[heapsreal]

[It's not been "Left" for a while, they sold out too
As noted before, 2003, UK Labour Party conference part funded by…UnumProvident!]

Yes. It is more than a little bizarre to hear people complain about the 'socialist' Labor/Labour parties. They are no such thing. They are centrist or even slightly right these days, with policies that make many conservative governments of the past look positively communist. The conservatives in the Anglosphere have moved firmly to the radical right over the last 2 decades, and seem hell bent on going even further.

there connection to the greens party which is full of communists that push them to the socialist side of things, labor party were being led around by the greens party when they were in power.

Its a different labor party to what was around in the 1980s. The current labor party are trying too hard to make everyone happy and blowing their budget which they kept promising that they wouldnt be in a budget deficit.

The $1 billion a month interest bill that labor have left us could go along way to sorting alot of current issues australia have. But labor deny that $1 billion a month isnt an issue, even though they kept promising all the time that they wouldnt be in a budget deficit. One months worth of interest would well and truly set up cfs/me research for a long time.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

"Greens = commies", eh?
Greens have tons of damn good points, we are turning our world into a toilet bowel and we'll soon choke to death on it.
And we cannot sustain our insane system, all this talk of increasing economic output every year of say 3 or more percent...
Earth calling assholes who failed maths at school who are obviously on power in Parliament!
We live on a FINITE world, it's impossible to keep on expanding exponentially, we're already using way more resources than can be sustained. Collapse is *inevitable*

Again, I live next to 2nd most polluted site in Europe, only one worse is iirc, in Czechoslovakia?

always worth reposting this video

 

[heapsreal]

My views of the greens changed greatly after reading about Peter singer and how his philosophies have played a major impact in the Australian greens party. His views make him nothing but a sick bastard but the greens worship him like some kind of God. I once thought the greens were about environmental issues until I decided to look into it further.

they change many of their views like they change their underwear and have plenty of ideas, most totally unrealistic. even if a good idea is brought up by the govt, the will cut their nose off to spite their face.

We are lucky we have a choice at election time.

heaven help us if the philosophies of Singer ever run this country.

 

[alex3619]

And we cannot sustain our insane system, all this talk of increasing economic output every year of say 3 or more percent...

We live on a FINITE world, it's impossible to keep on expanding exponentially, we're already using way more resources than can be sustained. Collapse is *inevitable*

Any percent growth is unsustainable in the very long term. Three percent gives a resource usage doubling, presuming resource use also grows at 3%, of about 20 years. Every twenty years the world has to find twice as much in resources. No guesses for where that is going.

However one of the counter arguments is that there are plenty of resources for a long time. Even with steep growth I think this is true. What this counter argument ignores though is two issues. First, the infrastructure needed to get those resources can take as long as twenty years to put into place per project. Second, the cost goes up. Now the economically asstute will say something like that just means the market will adjust the price. Things will be more expensive but it will all work out. The problems with this are that it could be such a steep rise that it will collapse growth anyway, and the real killer - measuring increased cost in terms of money is limited. It needs to be measured in terms of resources. If any industry reaches a point where resource costs exceed or even equal resource gain, its over.

Now growth in an information economy, without commensurate resource utilization, that might be sustainable much longer. Pity the tech needed to do that is not so sustainable, at least currently.

 

[alex3619]

The Greens here and the Greens elsewhere may not be at all the same. It pays to clarify which party is being discussed.

 

[MeSci]

The Greens here and the Greens elsewhere may not be at all the same. It pays to clarify which party is being discussed.

I just had a look at the Australian Greens policies and they seem much the same as those of the UK Greens (of which I am a committed long-term member).

They have a strong emphasis on social justice, including health and welfare services that are not dependent on income, and care and support for disabled people and their carers.

They are also strong on encouraging and supporting small businesses.

There are a few communists in both, no doubt, but I can assure you that the UK Greens are far from being 'full of them'. Quite a lot of socialists, but that is basically about equality and fairness.

I used to be very pro national ownership of everything, but have changed my mind to some extent, having seen from both the outside and the inside how entrenched and complacent attitudes can become in such vast and unwieldy organisations. I think it is the size of organisations that is often the problem, whether it be the private or public sector. People lose sight of the purpose of their organisations and their part in it, and don't feel any commitment to it.

Small is beautiful, and that is very much a Green philosophy.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

yeah, the government MUST control certain vital parts of society: power, water, food, standards (hey without a set measurement system we couldn't have a technological society!) etc
But, yes, "Big" groups, any kind, become horrible monstrosities.
Control though doesn't have to mean ghastly state monopolies.
Issue of true national security, certain things *must* be tightly prevented from screwing up or society can suffer disaster. But how to do that best?

I prefer small regional blocks
(letting foreign companies own your power companies, or letting anyone foreign or domestic groups gobble such up and thus have a monopoly over your citizens, is a recipe for disaster...)
but you also must force, by law, and scrupulous oversight that these bodies work together when it's of national interest, with severe penalties if they do not.
Company A screwing Company B over petty issues, could cause power blackouts, for example, that can kill people.
Scumbags who do that need jailed.


I'm all for *small* business, trade's natural and when personal it can be fun!
Big Business like Big Government gets too far away from the "sharp end" or a from getting a "kick up the balls" when they do wrong and so they get arrogant, cold, out of touch and make a mess.

true story
UK's car manufacturing got nationalized in the 70s
now everyone thinks it's purely because it was "nationalized/socialist" they became absolutely horrendous, our cars in 1970s were dangerous ugly trash heaps (one nearly killed my mother as she drove in it, pile of damn crap!)
well the bureaucracy etc didn't help, but part of what really screwed the pooch was, they amalgamated several very fiercely competitive companies into the nationalized body, and they hated each other, so they went out of their way to screw each other over, so, they actually sabotaged the design and parts of the damn cars, people died because of this and it's been swept under the carpet.
One group would try and stop the other getting their engines, or making them not run well etc.

Unbelievably petty spiteful criminal lunacy :/
not because they had been "private companies" no, not complaining about "business", I'm pointing out way people are such ratbags in their own little groups, hating the "other", fighting to the death over ludicrous things
Rather than work together even though they hadn't wanted to be joined, they still screwed their old rivals, and brought their own jobs crashing down in the end.
jeesh
classic Human behaviour, alas.


Heapsrela
I don't know enough about him, whether the claims he's being misrepresented or not are true and what he's really like, etc. Not someone I know of.

 

[Snow Leopard]

I think it is the size of organisations that is often the problem, whether it be the private or public sector. People lose sight of the purpose of their organisations and their part in it, and don't feel any commitment to it.

It is very easy to lose a sense of commitment to an organisation when:

(a) you are not able to speak publicly about any opinions you have about the organisation
(b) you views on how things are run at your level and how things could be improved are systematically ignored by the bosses of your boss.
(c) you are expected to do more and more work, while the workforce is shrinking and you are not being paid any more.

This has much to do with how the organisation is run and their policies, rather than whether the organisation is publicly or privately owned.

 

[heapsreal]

I don't want to go into it here but say it left it's mark on me. Search Peter singers connection to the greens and how his philosophies have played a big part in the Australian greens party. There are some of his philosophies that are just wrong.

 

[Bob]

I agree that the size of an organisation has little to do with how an organization is run. I think it's all about the mind-set and capability of the people who run an organisation, whatever is size. It's also about ethics, training and funding etc. I've worked in plenty of unpleasant small organisations, including working directly for a small business owner who enjoyed demoralizing his few employees, and another owner who was just insensitive to his staff. And I've worked for good large organizations who treated their staff with respect and good working conditions, as well as unpleasant large organizations.

In terms of whether nationalised organisations work well or not, I believe it all boils down to funding and political will. Unfortunately, economically profitable nationalised organisations generally have their profits siphoned off by governments, and economically non-profitable ones (i.e. nationalised health services) are generally underfunded and starved of cash by successive governments, so that they are chronically underinvested in.

 

[alex3619]

Yes. It is more than a little bizarre to hear people complain about the 'socialist' Labor/Labour parties. They are no such thing. They are centrist or even slightly right these days, with policies that make many conservative governments of the past look positively communist. The conservatives in the Anglosphere have moved firmly to the radical right over the last 2 decades, and seem hell bent on going even further.

I think it helps to distinguish between political parties social policies and economic policies. Socially our Labor party is still very much left, though there are signs that is shifting too. What has happened, since Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, is that economic policy has shifted to what we consider far right. This is economic rationalism - though I think its called other things in the UK and US, which escape me at the moment, which may or may not be Thatcherism and Reagonism (my memory is fubar, I could be wrong).

 

[alex3619]

In terms of whether nationalised organisations work well or not, I believe it all boils down to funding and political will. Unfortunately, economically profitable nationalised organisations generally have their profits siphoned off by governments, and economically non-profitable ones (i.e. nationalised health services) are generally underfunded and starved of cash by successive governments, so that they are chronically underinvested in.

I think it goes to good governance. Good governance requires accountability and transparency. If either or both of these do not exist, then the state organization will tend toward corruption and inefficiency over time. The UK has some of the most secretive bureaucracy in the world ... worse than China according to some. That is a recipe for failure in the long term, despite even the best intentions of workers.

Insular private companies are also a problem. There is only one corrective mechanism for companies that fail to adapt - financial ruin and closure. Most companies go this way in time. What I see, and I have not made a close analysis of this, is that companies that survive long term meddle in politics, promoting policies that suit them. In other words, they corrupt the function of government.

Polical parties are in a similar situation. The corrective mechanism is an election. Yet its a blunt instrument, and is largely useless when both (and its often two) major parties want the same outcome.

There are insufficient checks and balances in most companies, private or state, and in government. Some of that is good, as otherwise the system becomes micromanaged and fails anyway. However it leads to unintentional corruption, which for private companies often leads to financial failure if the government does not bail them out. For state owned companies however they often exist cushioned by the state ... they are protected. That is a problem.

The only answer, in my view, is full transparency and accountability. There have to be corrective mechanisms. The news media used to do some of this, but its like the news media is now news MEdia. Its severely disabled with bizarre cognitive issues.

To me there is one possible test for whether or not a company should be state or privately owned. Can the company be allowed to fail? If the answer is yes, privatize it. If the answer is no, nationalize it. There should be no private organization that cannot be allowed to fail. There should be no state organization that is not transparent and accountable.

 

[Sean]

there connection to the greens party which is full of communists that push them to the socialist side of things, labor party were being led around by the greens party when they were in power.

The Australian voters almost always choose a parliament that requires negotiation with minor parties, typically in the Senate, and often in the Reps. It is the default setting in Australian politics. In effect the LNP Coalition, being comprised of two distinct parties, has been a minority government nearly every time they have held office federally.

Abbott said clearly that under no circumstances would he negotiate with minority parties. Except all the times he has so far, and will continue doing so, including with those filthy commie Greens, if he wants to get any legislation through. Just like every Prime Minister before him has had to do, and which he knew full well was almost certainly how it would be for him too.

The core of democracy is compromise.

Its a different labor party to what was around in the 1980s.

And the current 'Liberals' should be sued for false advertising.

The current labor party are trying too hard to make everyone happy and blowing their budget which they kept promising that they wouldnt be in a budget deficit.

I can only quote our current Treasurer, in his 2012 Budget reply:

"….we will achieve a surplus in our first year in office and we will achieve a surplus for every year of our first term."

You're right, it is a moronic thing to promise.

The $1 billion a month interest bill that labor have left us could go along way to sorting alot of current issues australia have. But labor deny that $1 billion a month isnt an issue, even though they kept promising all the time that they wouldnt be in a budget deficit. One months worth of interest would well and truly set up cfs/me research for a long time.

As would axing this government's ludicrously generous Paid Parental Leave scheme, not going to another pointless war in the Middle East, chasing corporate tax avoiders for their due share, and removing the diesel fuel price subsidy, etc. Should easily free up at least a couple billion a month in total. But I don't see any of that happening.

You must also be over the moon about the fact that since taking office the Abbott government have doubled the deficit, increased net government debt by 20% ($43 billion), gross debt by 20% ($56 billion), and have the interest bill on it currently running around $1.2 billion a month (nearly double what it was when Labor left office, which was $700 million, not $1 billion). If they keep borrowing at the rate they have since the start of this financial year they will double net government debt by the end of next year.

(You remember Norway? Their smart harvesting and management of their resource wealth gives them a net debt of -200%. That's negative 200%. Only other developed economy to come through the global financial crisis more or less unscathed. Bloody socialists, what would they know?)

The previous Labor government got a triple A credit rating from all three of the main international credit rating agencies, at the same time, and for the first time ever for Australia, and big ticks from a whole lot of other people who know their stuff about economics, including Nobel prize winners. They had one of the lowest government debts in the OECD (about 12% of GDP). Unemployment, interest rates, inflation, growth rates, and a whole range of other measures were okay or better, and enabled Australia to continue its run of unbroken economic growth out to 23 years. All done in the middle of a major global financial crisis, and taking us to the top of economic performers in the world. I'll take more of that kind of economic incompetence any day.

The three main economic claims used by the current government to win office were that: 1) we have a budget emergency, and 2) a debt crisis, and 3) the carbon tax was ruining the economy. None of which have stood up to the slightest scrutiny, before or after the election.

"There's no crisis at all in the Australian economy," the current treasurer said in New Zealand on 26 July this year, finally agreeing with senior Australian economists, though it would have been nice of him to also acknowledge that fact to us back home, and apologise for being such a dishonest fear-mongering shit.

You're right, it's a disgrace. There actually wasn't a budget deficit and debt emergency, and no crisis in our economy, when this government took office. But there sure will be now, and an accompanying social one as well (which the government was warned would happen).

 

[Sean]

P.S. If you want to see the real debt problem for Australia, look at the private debt. Outweighs government debt by an order of magnitude or so, with about 3/4 of that private debt coming from the household sector, meaning mortgages due to high house prices.

 

[Snow Leopard]

I don't want to go into it here but say it left it's mark on me. Search Peter singers connection to the greens and how his philosophies have played a big part in the Australian greens party. There are some of his philosophies that are just wrong.

Like the historical philosophers (such as Plato), Singer does not put forth philosophy that we are somehow supposed to simply accept as true due to his argument, but rather he is explicitly questioning many of our norms and showing that alternative rationale and philosophies can stand up in a similar way.

I am however curious as to which particular of his philosophies you think have played a big part in guiding Australian Greens policy, and why you disagree with them.

 

[alex3619]

Some of Singer's philosophy, and I have not studied the details so may be missing out on a lot, I agree with, and much I disagree with - intensely.

Singer applies a simple rubric to his philosophy, that of maximizing people's benefits and minimizing harms as a whole, that is on balance. So harms can be justified when there is sufficient benefit.

This leads to such conclusions as it should be legal to euthanize disabled newborns. Or disabled old people, or just the severely disabled, so long as disability accompanies severe dementia - to the point where the person is not at home, so to speak. He is however pro-choice in euthanasia for the really sick. He also things our financial system is unethical, etc. etc. His views are from a utilitarian perspective, which is expanded on topic by topic over his career.

Now while I disagree with how what I know of his views are presented, in reality much of this already occurs - what follows is what I see, I do not know if Singer would agree with me. Health care is denied many people, for example, because its to the benefit of society, or the insurance industry, or the general public. This would be fine in his view if the cost were high. On the other hand, if the cost were low and the benefit to patients were high, it would be reprehensible to deny medical care.

Singer is vegan because, and I run the risk of oversimplifying here, animal pain is just as real as human pain.

Singer also seems to think that wealth distribution is inequitable. Its important to note here that he says this within a capitalist framework, not a communist one, at least as far as I am aware. I might make somewhat similar arguments, and possibly cite similar solutions, but the underlying reasons (premises) would be different from Singer.

I have never really followed Singer's philosophy, so I could be misinterpreting him. I think his philosophy is often dangerous, but while I disagree with his reasons, I would not like to argue he is wrong on every point.

Why Singer may appeal to extremist elements, and induce even loathing in conservative elements, is in my limited opinion most likely to do with emotional issues, and not philosophical issues. Killing Alzheimer patients? Killing disabled newborns? Simplistic redistribution of wealth from rich to poor? Not eating meat, ever, because animals can be harmed? We can easily get lost in the emotions, and lose sight of the fundamental issues.

I wish we could get aware from raising and slaughtering animals. I do however think we do better with meat in our diet. Yet does this human need over-ride animal need? Yet we also have to consider that without this need 99% of these food animal species will die out ... we wont have room for them in our world, except maybe as pets or in zoos.

Its the philosophy I most strongly object to. I think utilitarian arguments, while having some merits, are very subject to abuse. I think they can be used to justify what I would consider evil, and label it good.

Having said all that I am not sure that Singer, who was once a candidate for the Greens, has that huge a following in the Greens. I am equally not sure he doesn't.

 

[JAM]

Thats fine and that would be great but we still need to be recognised as being a serious illness.

Im not saying dont pay researcher, pay them every cent they deserve, but there is just know money given to cfsme research or very very little compared to other illnesses.

You left off my socialist job which was run much better under a non govt body. Now the system i work for just gets abused because its supposedly free and costing tax payers millions more than it use to. Probably the reason for my views. I think there is a happy medium somewhere but any political view taken to extreme is going to cause alot of problems.

So your argument against a government run social program is that it would work better than a non-government run social program?
I agree that more $ needs to go to research for our disease, the money is there, it is just that most of it is going to tax breaks for the very wealthy and wars.

 

[Sean]

Luxembourg leaks: how harmful tax competition leads to profit shifting

Hundreds of advance tax agreements between Luxembourg and more than 300 taxpayers were leaked and published by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists last week.

https://theconversation.com/luxembo...ax-competition-leads-to-profit-shifting-33940

Follow the money.