2010 Federal Election

[SmellyTerror]

I think any person who considers them self a socialist democrat (AKA Labor Party supporter) cannot by definition be objective. Social democracy flies in the face of human nature itself; it has never worked successfully as a system, ever, without the the influence of the capitalistic spirit to prop it up.

One need only look to any purportedly successful socialist state to see that it is the profit motive at the root of its success, AKA capitalism. Social democracy has always spoilt the work of the producers by elevating the non-producers. Social democracy has only ever placated the producers via political spin, warts and all "no-frills" analysis will always see socialist ideology on the outer

By any objective measure, this is counter-productive, ergo for social democrats, objectivity must be supplanted by ideology.

(My bolds).

Wayne, all due respect (which is a lot), but you seem to think Social Democracy rejects capitalism. It doesn't.

Social democracy is NOT democractic socialism, and it's sure as hell not communism (which you seem to be arguing against). I know it's very "People's Front of Judea", but it's a split off from the left movement that the Bolshies hate more than they hate pretty much anyone. You could ask a commie what they think of the Labor party, but you'd need to be ready to wipe off the spit afterwards.

Early social democracy (like, a hundred years ago) was based on the idea of evolution-to-communism, but it's not been like that in my lifetime. They explicitly embrace capitalism now, which is why the commies hate 'em so much.

I'd say that the social democratic institution of universal health care is a good example of an objectively successful policy outcome that is directly within social democracy's sphere (CHRIST I wish I could write less like a wanker. It's a bloody curse).

 

[wayneL]

(My bolds).

Wayne, all due respect (which is a lot), but you seem to think Social Democracy rejects capitalism. It doesn't.

Social democracy is NOT democractic socialism, and it's sure as hell not communism (which you seem to be arguing against). I know it's very "People's Front of Judea", but it's a split off from the left movement that the Bolshies hate more than they hate pretty much anyone. You could ask a commie what they think of the Labor party, but you'd need to be ready to wipe off the spit afterwards.

Early social democracy (like, a hundred years ago) was based on the idea of evolution-to-communism, but it's not been like that in my lifetime. They explicitly embrace capitalism now, which is why the commies hate 'em so much.

It only means that the socialists have embraced pragmatism, the end game is still the same. Of course in the meantime it exposes a cognitive dissonance as is obvious in the Wikipedia article on SD, evidenced by these two concurrent statements:

The chief goal of modern social democracy is to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social democracy while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, rather than creating an alternative socialist economic system.[3]
Social democracy supports gradualism; the belief that gradual democratic reforms to capitalist economies will eventually succeed in creating a socialist economy,[4]

 

[Calliope]

You seem to be having a good go at proving me wrong, though.

You make it easy, when your political views are based on hate. I guess you hate 60% of those who voted in the above poll.

... whose nutty views I in no way endorse, but who at least seems to hate many of the people and things I hate)

 

[noco]

The Labor Party dirty tricks campaign is exposed in the Courier Mail today and how Labor Party MP'S are brainwashed into what they have to say in unison. I wonder if Kevvie leaked it.
That's our new Prime Minister mirroring Kevin Rudd's propaganda to control the Labor Party puppets. Julia Gillard is becoming a gang of one with it's all me, I and my.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...orward-in-unison/story-fn5z3z83-1225897283027

 

[Calliope]

The Labor Party dirty tricks campaign is exposed in the Courier Mail today and how Labor Party MP'S are brainwashed into what they have to say in unison. I wonder if Kevvie leaked it.
That's our new Prime Minister mirroring Kevin Rudd's propaganda to control the Labor Party puppets. Julia Gillard is becoming a gang of one with it's all me, I and my.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...orward-in-unison/story-fn5z3z83-1225897283027

When asked about this by Madonna King on ABC AM this morning Gillard deflected the question as nonsense with her usual throaty chuckle.

The truth is, noco, Labor has to have a cheat sheet. There is no future for any of their politicians (or any socialists) who try to think for themselves. Even BIG SISTER has to toe the line. She dutifully quotes the cheat sheet every day.

 

[Logique]

Stokholm has a more expensive cost of living than New York - some model!
Implications for Australia - better become a 'Working Family' real quick if this is the future. Latch fast onto the public social democrat teat. Bills..electric, gas, water...away we go.

From: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Europe/Sweden-POLITICS-GOVERNMENT-AND-TAXATION.html
Like its Nordic neighbors Norway and Denmark, Sweden is a constitutional monarchy.
Legislative power is vested in a unicameral parliament (Riksdag) with 349 seats whose members are elected for 4-year terms on a proportional basis by universal suffrage. After elections in September 1998, the seats were distributed as follows: Social Democrats (131), Moderates (82), the Left Party (43), Christian Democrats (42), the Center Party (18), the Liberal Party (17), and the Greens (16).

The Social Democratic Party, which had been Sweden's ruling party since World War II, regained office in the 1994 elections. With its traditional ties to the trade-union movement, it has made reducing unemployment a top priority, and stands for a strong public sector . Blue-collar workers and public-sector employees form its base. The conservative Moderate Party demands minimum involvement by the government, lower taxes, public assistance for private industry and business, and a strong defense. The Left Party has socialist and communist traditions and normally supports the Social Democratic government, but it opposes EU membership fearing that European integration and regulations would jeopardize benefits for Swedish workers. The Christian Democratic Party supports a traditional values-based government, is strongly anti-abortion, and pleads for greater support for families in order to fight youth problems, alcoholism, and crime. It demands more aid to developing countries and a more liberal immigration policy.

From: http://www.numbeo.com/LivingCost/co...=Sweden&city1=Melbourne&city2=StockholmRecent Recent Comparisons : Cost of Living Index:
Stockholm is 20.59% more expensive than Melbourne

 

[derty]

Both sides have cheat sheets, they both have talking points, they both are masters of spin and they both all try to follow the party line. Every now and then some idiot has a brain fart and heads off on a tangent and causes his/her party some grief, but by in large it is a tightly coordinated and constructed effort.

It is amusing the number of thin brained, mono-optical pundits. The poo is stinky on both sides (very stinky)

 

[Logique]

The article by Michael Kroger is something I've thought for a while.

Labor rarely hangs onto Left faction PMs for long. They are useful at times for getting through elections, read Rudd and Gillard. But the model in NSW has been that the Right, with the complicity of trade unions, elects Premiers, i.e. voters don't get a look in.

And the NSW model has come to Canberra, as the Rudd sacking showed.

Gillard needs to look over her shoulder if the polls turn bad. It will be Bill Shorten, just a matter of when. It would be an achievement for Gillard if she were still there to lead Labor to the next election.

 

[Calliope]

Julia Gillard now appears to be the victim of a systematic attempt from within her own party to blow her campaign out of the water. Labor strategists must be terrified about what more there is to come. This introduces total unpredictability, and gives the opposition windfall ammunition.

There is much speculation as to where the leaks are coming from. Laurie Oaks says they are coming from "close to home."

My guess is that the source is Tim Mathieson. Tim is a drifter and the last thing he wants is to be constantly under the spotlight and to be trotted out as resident gigolo on formal occasions at the Lodge.

He had a good thing going back in Altona where he could live in the shadows and also get a bit on the side when Julia was away. She's probably thinking of dumping him any way. He doesn't fit her plans.

Julia praying in Brisbane yesterday that there will be no more leaks.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/sabotage-and-there-may-be-more-to-come-20100727-10uc0.html

 

[noco]

There is much speculation as to where the leaks are coming from. Laurie Oaks says they are coming from "close to home."

My guess is that the source is Tim Mathieson. Tim is a drifter and the last thing he wants is to be constantly under the spotlight and to be trotted out as resident gigolo on formal occasions at the Lodge.

He had a good thing going back in Altona where he could live in the shadows and also get a bit on the side when Julia was away. She's probably thinking of dumping him any way. He doesn't fit her plans.

Julia praying in Brisbane yesterday that there will be no more leaks.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/sabotage-and-there-may-be-more-to-come-20100727-10uc0.html

It would appear there is enough venom in the Labor Party to implode the Party apart and it is just not wishfull thinking.
If Gillard does win this election she will no doubt have a divided party and that will not be good for this country.
It is very evident from events of the past couple of days there is a lot of resentment over the political assassination of Rudd.
The next poll should show Gillard well behind. Could be the beginning of the end for Julia.

 

[Calliope]

It would appear there is enough venom in the Labor Party to implode the Party apart and it is just not wishfull thinking.
If Gillard does win this election she will no doubt have a divided party and that will not be good for this country.
It is very evident from events of the past couple of days there is a lot of resentment over the political assassination of Rudd.
The next poll should show Gillard well behind. Could be the beginning of the end for Julia.

Noco, if Rudd is behind the leaks it would be the greatest service he has done for his country.

 

[Calliope]

What a hypocrite. This is the woman who was prepared to waste billions on BER and other stupidities, and still hasn't admitted her to her complete lack of fiscal ability.

Gillard puts best gloss on ugly Labor leak...but questions remain

Julia Gillard has made an impressive effort to turn a sudden new Labor campaign liability into an asset, but big questions remain.

Facing the damaging revelation that she opposed key Labor welfare reforms on political grounds, she asserted that she was merely being tough-minded with public moneys.

Instead of the emerging impression that she is a flinty and ruthless political operator, Gillard sought to create the picture of a rigorous fiscal conservative.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-elect...stions-remain-20100728-10v43.html?autostart=1

 

[IFocus]

What a hypocrite. This is the woman who was prepared to waste billions on BER and other stupidities, and still hasn't admitted her to her complete lack of fiscal ability.

You must have missed this the other night?

Nobel Prize winning economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz speaks with Kerry O'Brien.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2965891.htm?layout=popup

KERRY O'BRIEN: I'm not sure how much you know about Australia's stimulus packages in response to the crisis, but to the extent that you do, how did the quality of Australia's stimulus compare with that in the US and elsewhere, in terms of its effectiveness?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I did actually study quite a bit the Australian package, and my impression was that it was the best - one of the best-designed of all the advanced industrial countries. When the crisis struck, you have to understand no-one was sure how deep, how long it would be. There was that moment of panic. Rightfully so, because the whole financial system was on the verge of collapse. In that context, what you need to act is decisively. If you don't act decisively, you could get the collapse. It's a one-sided risk.

KERRY O'BRIEN: There's been a lot of criticism of waste in the way some of Australia's stimulus money was spent. Is it inevitable if you're going to spend a great deal of government money quickly that there will be some waste and can you ever justify wasting taxpayers' money?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: If you hadn't spent the money, there would have been waste. The waste would have been the fact that the economy would have been weak, there would have been a gap between what the economy could have produced and what it actually produced - that's waste. You would have had high unemployment, you would have had capital assets not fully utilised - that's waste. So your choice was one form of waste verses another form of waste. And so it's a judgment of what is the way to minimise the waste. No perfection here. And what your government did was exactly right. So, Australia had the shortest and shallowest of the downturns of the advanced industrial countries. And, ah, your recovery actually preceded the - in some sense, China. So there was a sense in which you can't just say Australia recovered because of China. Your preventive action, you might say pre-emptive action, prevented the downturn while things got turned around in Asia, and they still have not gotten turned around in Europe and America.

 

[wayneL]

You must have missed this the other night?

Nobel Prize winning economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz speaks with Kerry O'Brien.

After recent awarding of the NP (need we look any further than Al Bore?), I would assign no credibility whatsoever to Nobel Laureates... most particularly in the field of economics (and of course peace).

Stiglitz is a socialist and Keynesian which of course will win him fans amongst the cognitively dissonant Laborites and short termists, but amongst those concerned with long term economic health of western economies, he is regarded as a clown.

My personal opinion of him is even worse.

 

[Ageo]

After recent awarding of the NP (need we look any further than Al Bore?), I would assign no credibility whatsoever to Nobel Laureates... most particularly in the field of economics (and of course peace).

Stiglitz is a socialist and Keynesian which of course will win him fans amongst the cognitively dissonant Laborites and short termists, but amongst those concerned with long term economic health of western economies, he is regarded as a clown.

My personal opinion of him is even worse.

Couldnt agree more!

 

[IFocus]

After recent awarding of the NP (need we look any further than Al Bore?), I would assign no credibility whatsoever to Nobel Laureates... most particularly in the field of economics (and of course peace).

Stiglitz is a socialist and Keynesian which of course will win him fans amongst the cognitively dissonant Laborites and short termists, but amongst those concerned with long term economic health of western economies, he is regarded as a clown.

My personal opinion of him is even worse.

Don't hold an opinion on the man but his CV here for those interested seems rather extensive.

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/Stiglitz_CV.pdf


His point on waste is worth reading

 

[Julia]

What a hypocrite. This is the woman who was prepared to waste billions on BER and other stupidities, and still hasn't admitted her to her complete lack of fiscal ability.

Gillard puts best gloss on ugly Labor leak...but questions remain



http://www.smh.com.au/federal-elect...stions-remain-20100728-10v43.html?autostart=1

To Kerry O'Brien's credit, he gave Wayne Swan a pretty hard time over the Rudd Factor this evening, his very questions making it entirely obvious that popular consensus had Mr Rudd as the leaker.

 

[Timmy]

Don't hold an opinion on the man but his CV here for those interested seems rather extensive.

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/Stiglitz_CV.pdf


His point on waste is worth reading

Thanks IFocus.
I haven't (as yet) had time to look through his CV in much detail. Appears that he is close to the trenches of real-world policy formulation and implementation processes; might account for his differing views from those who take a more ideological view from the 'ivory-towers'?

 

[Logique]

As a completely unbiased and non-partisan broadcaster, Kerry O'Brien must have seen that other completely unbiased and non-partisan ABC broadcaster, Tony Jones, in action with George Monbiot on climate change.

Because we've had something similar here, with O'Brien and Stiglitz on fiscal stimulus. In a court room it would be called 'leading the witness', but Stiglitz seemed all too willing.

Here's the guy who didn't make it onto the 7:30 Report, and as you read what he said, it may give you a clue as to why:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...-edge-of-ruin-20100725-10qeu.html?autostart=1

When the emails started going out that Niall Ferguson was coming to Australia to deliver a big address in Sydney on Wednesday, tickets to the dinner sold out quickly. Many more people want to attend than could be accommodated.

Ferguson is not just a superstar within the international intellectual elite; the theme of his speech is sweeping in its scale and implications

....''We are watching the disintegration of Europe,'' he said. Observing this process is like watching ''a fascinating real-time train wreck''.

....Krugman is an advocate of classic Keynesian stimulus by big government to ride out the downturn. But Ferguson believes we have passed the point where deeply indebted governments can rely on yet more stimulus. He wants a gradual deflating of the debt balloon and more expansive monetary policy. He worries more about deflation than inflation.

...Having come to Australia, Fergusion is taking pleasure at being in an English-speaking country where the economy is sound and the mood is optimistic.

''You have a fantastic opportunity to do things that other Anglo-Saxon countries can only dream of. You should be setting up a sovereign wealth fund like Norway,'' he says. This would serve as a buffer to the inevitable downturn in the global commodities market and any stumbles by China. ''You had the golden opportunity, but it was frittered away in a pseudo-Keynesian spending binge.''

So much for Kevin Rudd's and Julia Gillard's claim to have saved Australia from the global economic crisis. The world's most famous economic historian has just given them an F.

Not sure what he thinks the Future Fund is, but you get the general idea. Mind you the Future Fund is fairly narrowly targeted to public servant superannuation.

 

[Calliope]

Stiglitz is a socialist and Keynesian which of course will win him fans amongst the cognitively dissonant Laborites and short termists, but amongst those concerned with long term economic health of western economies, he is regarded as a clown.

My personal opinion of him is even worse.

It became obvious that Stiglitz was a biased clown when O'Brien was so obviously pleased with him.

Rudd saving the country from the GFC is now part of Labor folklore, and will soon go into school history books, along with all their other propaganda.