The Abbott Government

[Julia]

+1 to above. Same goes for the Greens but we expect it from them. Labor are even refusing to pass budget measures that they themselves proposed when they were in government. All purely political.

 

[noco]

Labor, when in Government, enacted a fiscal and social agenda that they felt was best for the country.
History tells us that fiscally we were falling further in debt and their social programes were going to put further pressure on the budget.
They were subsequently voted out and the LNP voted into office.

Now when the elected government wishes to enact a fiscal and social agenda, Labor are being bloody minded and trying to ensure the fiscal situation isn't improved.

It does nothing other than support my belief that generally they are only in politcs for their own ends.

Whether you agree or dissagree with the LNP policies, they are at least prepared to make unpopular decissions that they feel will improve our economy.
The decissions they make may well cost them the next electon, however they are prepared to make that call, unlike what Labor did.

Therefore getting back to me, why am I complaining more about the opposition?

Labors blocking of any form of fiscal reform IMO, will end up in a drop in the standard of living for everyone in Australia.
We can only have a strong welfare and social system, when we have a strong economy.
What they are doing is continuing with their economic vandalism.

So untill they start and act in a mature manner, that reflects a genuine concern for Australia's wellbeing, they won't be getting my support.

I know I keep harping on it, but the majority of the Green/Labor democratic socialist do belong to the Fabian Society which is an off shoot of Communism...they are using the Labor Party name as a front for their ideology which is all about central control......As we all know Communism is a movement or political party advocating communism.....a social system based on common ownership of property and central control of industry, mining, agriculture and finance.

Fabians do not believe in free enterprise and profit is a dirty word, hence the reason why they keep using the propaganda that the minerals belong to the citizens of Australia and should therefore reap a large part of their profits. FGS Australia is already reaping some of the profits through royalties and taxes, so why apply a useless Mining tax which has cost more than it has gained.

The Green/Labor party do not want to see the Coalition succeed in bringing our finances under control......they also know damn well the longer they keep hurting people for the hard decisions that have to made by the coalition to sort out Labor's economic incompetency, the better chance they think they have in getting back into power.......God help this Country if the Green/Labor Fabian socialist ever get back again.

 

[luutzu]

...
.
We can only have a strong welfare and social system, when we have a strong economy.
...
.

That's not really true.

From the lectures I saw from Robert Reiche (former US Secretary of Labor under Clinton) and Robert Johnson (one of the guys directly working with Soros to break the British pound in 1992) among others... what they argued was that it is the middle class (i think they're just being polite, they really meant the working class, the middle are the doctors and executives)...

anyway, a strong economy first need a well to do middle class; that it is when the working class have money to spend that demand is driven up; when demand is up, businesses (investors) will then invest, thus creating jobs, the multiplier effect etc. and that lead to a strong economy.

The argument that a strong economy is needed to fund welfare and social policies is having things backward. That kind of trickle down economy does not work... and Reiche argued that the main reason the real economic recovery since the GFC is... meh... is because the middle class are too poor in the US, too broke and needing to work too many hours. With little income to spend, demand is low... and giving tax cuts to corporations and the rich so they could then invest is just bad economic policy. That is, what investor would spend money on new machineries or new jobs when there's no demand?

So when Abbott increase costs of university, cut funding to TAFE, make it harder for kids to get some welfare help... only the well to do would want to go to uni, most would go into some unskill labour, some might turn to crime for a quick fix that might lead to prison etc... and then we complain about not having enough skilled engineers and manufacturing to build submarines and trains and infrastructure.

From Reiche... he said that what Franklin Roosevelt did that saved capitalism and bring the US out of the Great Depression was two things, and only one of it is learnt and implemented by Obama, and it appear the same with Abbott.

The first thing is FDR and the US spend, a lot... not just during WW2 - which they have to and found such investments save the economy... but also spend after WW2. For instance, lending to Europe to rebuild under the Marshall Plan, the US Highway system etc.

The second important thing was to introduction of social programmes through the New Deal - Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage (i think), financial system reforms, public education, permit unionisation etc. These ensure social security, lift most people out of poverty, give them a decent wage for their work... From these policies, the average folks are not broken from illness, can work and have money to spend, increasing demand etc.

What Obama did was the first very well... saved the world from financial collapse... but then the poor and the broke are forgotten and left to struggle.

I mean, as an investor, why would you invest your money to make anyone rich? If you see a slagging economy with little demand, with little cash out there to pay for things, you'd be crazy to invest and build new factories or new businesses and hire people. You'd be looking overseas.

 

[sptrawler]

That's not really true.

From the lectures I saw from Robert Reiche (former US Secretary of Labor under Clinton) and Robert Johnson (one of the guys directly working with Soros to break the British pound in 1992) among others... what they argued was that it is the middle class (i think they're just being polite, they really meant the working class, the middle are the doctors and executives)...

anyway, a strong economy first need a well to do middle class; that it is when the working class have money to spend that demand is driven up; when demand is up, businesses (investors) will then invest, thus creating jobs, the multiplier effect etc. and that lead to a strong economy.

The argument that a strong economy is needed to fund welfare and social policies is having things backward. That kind of trickle down economy does not work... and Reiche argued that the main reason the real economic recovery since the GFC is... meh... is because the middle class are too poor in the US, too broke and needing to work too many hours. With little income to spend, demand is low... and giving tax cuts to corporations and the rich so they could then invest is just bad economic policy. That is, what investor would spend money on new machineries or new jobs when there's no demand?

So when Abbott increase costs of university, cut funding to TAFE, make it harder for kids to get some welfare help... only the well to do would want to go to uni, most would go into some unskill labour, some might turn to crime for a quick fix that might lead to prison etc... and then we complain about not having enough skilled engineers and manufacturing to build submarines and trains and infrastructure.

From Reiche... he said that what Franklin Roosevelt did that saved capitalism and bring the US out of the Great Depression was two things, and only one of it is learnt and implemented by Obama, and it appear the same with Abbott.

The first thing is FDR and the US spend, a lot... not just during WW2 - which they have to and found such investments save the economy... but also spend after WW2. For instance, lending to Europe to rebuild under the Marshall Plan, the US Highway system etc.

The second important thing was to introduction of social programmes through the New Deal - Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage (i think), financial system reforms, public education, permit unionisation etc. These ensure social security, lift most people out of poverty, give them a decent wage for their work... From these policies, the average folks are not broken from illness, can work and have money to spend, increasing demand etc.

What Obama did was the first very well... saved the world from financial collapse... but then the poor and the broke are forgotten and left to struggle.

I mean, as an investor, why would you invest your money to make anyone rich? If you see a slagging economy with little demand, with little cash out there to pay for things, you'd be crazy to invest and build new factories or new businesses and hire people. You'd be looking overseas.

Quite a meandering patchwork there.
Getting to what Roosevelt did to save capaitalism.
The first, spending a lot of money, we have done that. Unfortunatelly it hasn't produced any jobs.
The second thing he did, you say, was introduce medicare, minimum wage, social welfare and public education. We have all that, but we are finding it difficult to pay for.

You say, 'why would you invest or build new factories, when we have a lagging economy and little demand, you would look overseas'.

I say why would you build new factories, when we have 30% corporate tax(NZ has 22%) and our minimum wage is one of the highest in the developed world, add to that one of the highest cost for energy in the first world.
I can't think why you would build a factory here, maybe you can give me a reason.

I hope you're right and we don't need a strong economy to fund a strong welfare system.

 

[sptrawler]

That's not really true.

So when Abbott increase costs of university, cut funding to TAFE, make it harder for kids to get some welfare help... only the well to do would want to go to uni, most would go into some unskill labour, some might turn to crime for a quick fix that might lead to prison etc... and then we complain about not having enough skilled engineers and manufacturing to build submarines and trains and infrastructure.

.

I thought this part of your post really deserves an answer on its merit.

What has university funding got to do with welfare?

When I was at school in the 70's you were tested at year 10, then year 12 and only the top 5% or so of students went to uni.
Subsidising that number isn't an issue, even in 1989 only 10% of students went to uni.

Now nearly 50% go.


http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/a-matter-of-degrees-20130530-2neo9.html



Guess what, they aren't all doing engineering, now they have degrees for everything from doctors to surfing.

I guess, if we just keep funding everything and increasing taxes to pay for it, all will be fine.

Sounds like the magic roundabout to me.

 

[luutzu]

I thought this part of your post really deserves an answer on its merit.

What has university funding got to do with welfare?

When I was at school in the 70's you were tested at year 10, then year 12 and only the top 5% or so of students went to uni.
Subsidising that number isn't an issue, even in 1989 only 10% of students went to uni.

Now nearly 50% go.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/a-matter-of-degrees-20130530-2neo9.html

Guess what, they aren't all doing engineering, now they have degrees for everything from doctors to surfing.

I guess, if we just keep funding everything and increasing taxes to pay for it, all will be fine.

Sounds like the magic roundabout to me.

How are most people lifted out of poverty, or lifted into the middle class as they say? Without a trust fund or winning the lotto, most do it through higher education. Now and then you have successful business people, entrepreneurs, who never made it pass year 10, but by far most do well when they have a tertiary qualification.

What does education have to do with welfare?
For one, when you're educated, you can hold down a job... less chance of unemployment.

Two, you might learn a thing or two, maybe gain some skills, do some thinking and get some innovation going... Or education is just a waste of time and money?

Cutting tax to the rich and international corporations hoping that they'd then spend that tax savings to create jobs, trickling it down... that is pretty stupid. It's better if you've got a skilled workforce, ones with money to spend... and if businesses don't want to invest here to try and sell something to meet that demand, then they can go elsewhere.

 

[luutzu]

Quite a meandering patchwork there.
Getting to what Roosevelt did to save capaitalism.
The first, spending a lot of money, we have done that. Unfortunatelly it hasn't produced any jobs.
The second thing he did, you say, was introduce medicare, minimum wage, social welfare and public education. We have all that, but we are finding it difficult to pay for.

You say, 'why would you invest or build new factories, when we have a lagging economy and little demand, you would look overseas'.

I say why would you build new factories, when we have 30% corporate tax(NZ has 22%) and our minimum wage is one of the highest in the developed world, add to that one of the highest cost for energy in the first world.
I can't think why you would build a factory here, maybe you can give me a reason.

I hope you're right and we don't need a strong economy to fund a strong welfare system.

You would invest, be that build new factories or start a new business, anywhere where are there strong demand, where you have people who can buy stuff from you. In other words, you start a business because you can make money with it. Low tax rate or low minimum wages plays almost no role in your calculation when the result of that is a non-bankrupt, richer market to sell your goods and services to.

It was Chris Hedge or Robert Reiche who cited Ford... he introduced a very high, for his time, minimum wage to his workers. It wasn't done out of charity... he did it because he employs so many people, he know that other manufacturers will follow or lose their skilled labourers... and in them raising the minimum wages, the American public earns more, become richer, and can afford more of his Model T.

Ford Motor sold many times more cars soon after that wage hike he started.

So the idea that taxes must be kept ever lower, social safety nets be defunded, the poor and unskilled ought to get off their lazy bums and work two or three jobs. That's a dumb policy brought to our dumb and weak politicians courtesy of corporations and wealthy donors. The only competitiveness in all these is one gov't competing with another gov't to give more tax cuts and more incentives.

Those social programmes FDR introduced was during the great depression, when the country was going to war against Germany and Japan. If they could afford those measures then, and we can't afford it now... we either have no will or wrong sets of policies.

There's only so much social programmes you can cut before there's an uprising. The people is the water that lifts and carries the ship of state, drain that water and that ship ain't going anywhere but upside down. That or tell the rich to all go to the sides and trickle down their wealth, see if that is enough or they'd be too embarrassed and go where the demands and the monies are.

 

[sptrawler]

How are most people lifted out of poverty, or lifted into the middle class as they say? Without a trust fund or winning the lotto, most do it through higher education. Now and then you have successful business people, entrepreneurs, who never made it pass year 10, but by far most do well when they have a tertiary qualification.

What does education have to do with welfare?
For one, when you're educated, you can hold down a job... less chance of unemployment.

Two, you might learn a thing or two, maybe gain some skills, do some thinking and get some innovation going... Or education is just a waste of time and money?

Cutting tax to the rich and international corporations hoping that they'd then spend that tax savings to create jobs, trickling it down... that is pretty stupid. It's better if you've got a skilled workforce, ones with money to spend... and if businesses don't want to invest here to try and sell something to meet that demand, then they can go elsewhere.

So when these companies go elsewhere, where do the uni graduates get work?

Most people are lifted from poverty by having a job, whether that be a council worker or an engineer.

We now have a situation where 50% of students are going to uni, where do you find employment for them, there hasn't been a proportional increase in professional jobs.

Meanwhile the cost of funding their degrees has skyrocketed, it would be nice to have free everything, but that doesn't work. No one is saying they have to pay it up front, only when they earn over a certain amount.

It is a bit like my daughter, she has physical dissabilities and is deaf, if she was on unemployment or dissability benefits she would qualify for hearing aids/ moulds and audioligist would be free.
Because she works and earns $40,000, she has to pay $4,000 for inferior aids, is that fair?
When someone who gets a degree and can earn a lot more than her, gets a much bigger subsidy ?

I'm not saying one is right or wrong, but there are a lot of inequities in our system, funny that the ones with the loudest voices get the most sympathy.

 

[orr]

I say why would you build new factories, when we have 30% corporate tax(NZ has 22%) and our minimum wage is one of the highest in the developed world, add to that one of the highest cost for energy in the first world.
I can't think why you would build a factory here, maybe you can give me a reason.

If I lived in a country where the government changed a policy of No tax on my Imported Diesel fuel to one where diesel fuel was taxed, but where plentifully available domestic Natual Gas could be used as an alternative and would remain untaxed for purposes where untaxed diesel was currently being used. I'd invest in companies involved in suppling the necessary components to unable the change-over.

But we currently have a of Government of dolts, supported only by the dimmer bulbs of the electorate, trumpeted by demagogues and fools of the media, incapable of creative thinking, captured by later day reactionary 'commissars' of industry to the great detriment of the broader population.

Take a look at what good policy can do ;

http://www.inverelltimes.com.au/sto...grant-for-world-leading-business-in-inverell/

and weep................

 

[sptrawler]

If I lived in a country where the government changed a policy of No tax on my Imported Diesel fuel to one where diesel fuel was taxed, but where plentifully available domestic Natual Gas could be used as an alternative and would remain untaxed for purposes where untaxed diesel was currently being used. I'd invest in companies involved in suppling the necessary components to unable the change-over.

But we currently have a of Government of dolts, supported only by the dimmer bulbs of the electorate, trumpeted by demagogues and fools of the media, incapable of creative thinking, captured by later day reactionary 'commissars' of industry to the great detriment of the broader population.

Take a look at what good policy can do ;

http://www.inverelltimes.com.au/sto...grant-for-world-leading-business-in-inverell/

and weep................

That's great.
I think however, we have had a Government of dolts for several years.

 

[luutzu]

So when these companies go elsewhere, where do the uni graduates get work?

Most people are lifted from poverty by having a job, whether that be a council worker or an engineer.

We now have a situation where 50% of students are going to uni, where do you find employment for them, there hasn't been a proportional increase in professional jobs.

Meanwhile the cost of funding their degrees has skyrocketed, it would be nice to have free everything, but that doesn't work. No one is saying they have to pay it up front, only when they earn over a certain amount.

It is a bit like my daughter, she has physical dissabilities and is deaf, if she was on unemployment or dissability benefits she would qualify for hearing aids/ moulds and audioligist would be free.
Because she works and earns $40,000, she has to pay $4,000 for inferior aids, is that fair?
When someone who gets a degree and can earn a lot more than her, gets a much bigger subsidy ?

I'm not saying one is right or wrong, but there are a lot of inequities in our system, funny that the ones with the loudest voices get the most sympathy.

I'm not saying the current system in Australia is perfect and shouldn't be changed or made fairer, but it seem that we're heading in the direction of the US's Reaganomics of cutting taxes up top and let the poor to fend for themselves - to starve them to make them stronger; cut their wages so they work harder and make the corporations richer which in turn lead to... to same real wages and more efficiency but same wages and tax haven and loopholes.

I don't think uni should be free... the current system is fine by me. But to make it more expensive? Why? Education is pretty much a fixed cost enterprise with very little variable costs involved. That is, costs the same if 20 or 30 students are in the same class... so raising fees is not done for costs/economic reasons, done so more towers and grander buildings can be named after them.

I don't think it's those who speak the loudest, it's often those to speak the softest but whose words have the ears of the powers that be.

I've seen a few economists and historians and I agree with them that wealth from society never comes from the rich, it comes from the masses. The rich, be that corporations or the upper crust... they have spend all they every spend, create as much wealth or jobs as they see is needed. So it is only when the masses have more cash to increase demand that the then rich start to create jobs and "build wealth"... and often, the masses get to do that because gov't policies give them the opportunities and the means to do it... either from education and training, from funding research and development in the sciences, from funding infrastructure programmes that employs them, from social safety nets that mean they won't have to sell their house and be in debt for the rest of life if they have a serious illness.

 

[Smurf1976]

add to that one of the highest cost for energy in the first world

This and other problems we have today in Australia an be easily explained in one word or two, depending on how you choose to write it.

Neoliberal or neo-liberal.

Those who have forced such failed policies really ought to be locked up I think. Half a human lifetime of messing about and we've gutted our major industries, sent energy costs through the roof and so on.

We need a new way forward. Someone to vote for who isn't pushing this failed neo-liberal rubbish and who isn't Green either. Someone to cut out the cancer that is financialisation and focus on actually growing the beans, rather than trading each of the diminishing number of beans 5000 times over and pretending that doing so is somehow creating real wealth.

So far as politics is concerned, credit where it's due. The predecessors of the Greens understood exactly where we were headed and did so at least as far back as the early 1980's. They knew full well that Australian industry was doomed back then whereas nobody else really "got it" that the game had changed radically circa 1970 and that it was only a matter of time until the factories etc shut down. To what extent that is simply an understanding of something beyond their control, and to what extent the Greens might be involved in the cause as such, I won't claim to know. But they did "get it" a quarter century before most did.

 

[sptrawler]

I'm not saying the current system in Australia is perfect and shouldn't be changed or made fairer, but it seem that we're heading in the direction of the US's Reaganomics of cutting taxes up top and let the poor to fend for themselves - to starve them to make them stronger; cut their wages so they work harder and make the corporations richer which in turn lead to... to same real wages and more efficiency but same wages and tax haven and loopholes.

I don't think uni should be free... the current system is fine by me. But to make it more expensive? Why? Education is pretty much a fixed cost enterprise with very little variable costs involved. That is, costs the same if 20 or 30 students are in the same class... so raising fees is not done for costs/economic reasons, done so more towers and grander buildings can be named after them.

I don't think it's those who speak the loudest, it's often those to speak the softest but whose words have the ears of the powers that be.

I've seen a few economists and historians and I agree with them that wealth from society never comes from the rich, it comes from the masses. The rich, be that corporations or the upper crust... they have spend all they every spend, create as much wealth or jobs as they see is needed. So it is only when the masses have more cash to increase demand that the then rich start to create jobs and "build wealth"... and often, the masses get to do that because gov't policies give them the opportunities and the means to do it... either from education and training, from funding research and development in the sciences, from funding infrastructure programmes that employs them, from social safety nets that mean they won't have to sell their house and be in debt for the rest of life if they have a serious illness.

As the article said, in the late 1980's 200,000 students went to uni, now 1,000,000 go to uni. The cost to supply the teachers, courses, materials etc must have increased exponentially. Not to mention the increase in classrooms and universities.
I suppose it just depends where the Government of the day wants to spend the revenue, either taxes increase or spending decreases.
There will always be winners and losers, everyone has their own priorities, dependent on their circumstances.

 

[sptrawler]

This and other problems we have today in Australia an be easily explained in one word or two, depending on how you choose to write it.

Neoliberal or neo-liberal.

Those who have forced such failed policies really ought to be locked up I think. Half a human lifetime of messing about and we've gutted our major industries, sent energy costs through the roof and so on.

We need a new way forward. Someone to vote for who isn't pushing this failed neo-liberal rubbish and who isn't Green either. Someone to cut out the cancer that is financialisation and focus on actually growing the beans, rather than trading each of the diminishing number of beans 5000 times over and pretending that doing so is somehow creating real wealth.

So far as politics is concerned, credit where it's due. The predecessors of the Greens understood exactly where we were headed and did so at least as far back as the early 1980's. They knew full well that Australian industry was doomed back then whereas nobody else really "got it" that the game had changed radically circa 1970 and that it was only a matter of time until the factories etc shut down. To what extent that is simply an understanding of something beyond their control, and to what extent the Greens might be involved in the cause as such, I won't claim to know. But they did "get it" a quarter century before most did.

You're right smurph, I don't see any easy way out of the current situation, my feeling is it will get a lot worse before it gets better.

 

[Tisme]

The predecessors of the Greens understood exactly where we were headed and did so at least as far back as the early 1980's. They knew full well that Australian industry was doomed back then whereas nobody else really "got it" that the game had changed radically circa 1970 and that it was only a matter of time until the factories etc shut down.

I don't know why anyone wouldn't know the shift was on in the 1970 away from primary and secondary industry to tertiary (service based). Health, community svs, property and business svs were all predicted to rise at a faster rate than the secondary (esp the manufacturing) sector. There was plenty of published modelling done in the sixties, especially post sheep's back and pig iron policies of Bob Menzies.

 

[Julia]

How are most people lifted out of poverty, or lifted into the middle class as they say? Without a trust fund or winning the lotto, most do it through higher education.

Right. That will be why we have so many people with PhD's driving taxis or drawing unemployment benefits.

Education is important for everyone to a certain level. But if you expect the taxpaying public to subsidise your ongoing tertiary education, then you should have some expectation of being able to get a job at the conclusion of that education.

If you pursue many years of higher education in obscure fields, then I don't see why the labourer on the average wage should be expected to continue supporting you.

 

[drsmith]

As the article said, in the late 1980's 200,000 students went to uni, now 1,000,000 go to uni.

I wonder how many pass.

My first physics lecture in first year is something that stands out in my memory. The lecturer came in to a theatre packed with all seating occupied, students sitting in the isles and standing at the back. The lecturer started by telling everyone to look to the person on their left and then to the person on their right. He then pronounced "only one in the three of you will pass first year science" and proceeded with the lecture.

There was no one sitting in the isles or standing up the back for his second lecture.

This was in the mid 80's. In that same lecture, he also described mathematics as the language of science. IIRC, about one third passed the first year calculus course that year.

 

[luutzu]

Right. That will be why we have so many people with PhD's driving taxis or drawing unemployment benefits.

Education is important for everyone to a certain level. But if you expect the taxpaying public to subsidise your ongoing tertiary education, then you should have some expectation of being able to get a job at the conclusion of that education.

If you pursue many years of higher education in obscure fields, then I don't see why the labourer on the average wage should be expected to continue supporting you.

HECS and HELP are not subsidies, they're more like loans. And it's often a great investment for gov't.

 

[Tisme]

Why is the Abbott Govt wasting monies on an ETS review when there is no ETS, nor will there be under the LNP.

More fiscal irresponsibility by the govt with more taxpayer money being wasted with nothing to show for it.

It's almost like we are being run by girlyboys who can't negotiate without selling the family silver at a discount.

 

[Smurf1976]

I don't know why anyone wouldn't know the shift was on in the 1970 away from primary and secondary industry to tertiary (service based).

Popular opinion remained firmly in favour of primary and secondary industry into early this century, indeed it still seems to be that way in some parts of the country today.

There's no long term future in mining iron ore and gas in WA and it will inevitably go the same way as heavy manufacturing and timber did in Tasmania. It wasn't the Greens who really killed anything in the island state, at most they just accelerated by a decade at most something that was inevitable anyway.

Like most, I didn't see it at the time. How was tourism going to replace heavy industry in an economic sense? I mean really? What I and most others failed to grasp at the time is that there was really no choice in the matter since the death knell had already sounded for manufacturing and the energy and other industries that supported it.

Looking at the national level, there's the occasional exception but in general every significant manufacturing industry that we ever had is either already shut or not worth further investment into, thus leading to inevitable closure once machinery wears out, becomes outdated etc.

I won't claim to know how it's really going to work when basically every physical object is imported and all we produce is services. But that's exactly where we're heading, the only question being how long it takes to really get there at the national level. But get there we will, those paying attention will have noticed the writing on the wall for the mining industry some time ago - ultimately it's heading the same way as manufacturing although it will take a while to get there.