This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Where in the hell is Australia heading?

Jump to new
noco said:
With the damage Australia has inherited in the past twelve months, can anyone imagine what Australia will be like in another two years?
Click to expand...

Yep!
We are all going to be riding pushbikes like in Holland.
However it will be Bob Browns policy to have a compulsory battery to be charged on the journey. The battery will be then used to put lights on when we get home.
I will have a bit of of a problem stocking up from Dan Murphys as it 68 klms away.
joea
 

Jeez joe, better start making your own home brew. We can't have you polluting the air on the way to Dan Murphys, unless of course you ride your push bike or ride a horse.
 
Very interesting thread.

I'm quite proud to say I like the Greens and am quite supportive of just about all of their policies, save for asylum seekers. That being said, the immigration policies perpetuated by the Liberals (and ALP) are many times worse, and have migrant workers from all over come to Australia, only to dump them on the taxpayers once the mining boom ends.

I dislike both of the main parties equally much, and in particular would attribute all of these problems to both of them:

noco said:
The lies, the deception and spin.
The slow reduction in freedom of speech.
Media control.
Click to expand...


I have to say that both ALP/Libs are equally worthless and without any integrity, corrupt and are unwilling to do anything to further Australia and people's lives. Both lack substance in terms of policy and reform, and both do whatever they can to get votes instead of thinking for the long-term.

The one exception to this is the NBN which is probably the best thing in my view (and I do come from a technical background) which has come out of the main parties in a long time, however it is not being managed very well at all. In reality the government is concerned more about making it appear good rather than making it good, and throws scary amounts of money at anyone who complains.


I think it really depends on left vs right wing leaning. I like aspects from both, but more so the left. Abbott for instance I think is a terrible leader, but if Turnbull took the leadership, I would probably vote libs and greens.

Overall at the moment I am concerned with the short-sightedness of our main parties, and the complacency of the average voters as to how many risks face Australia in the next 10-30 years and the lack of sustainability considerations in every legislative action made by our government. Ie. What happens with millions of migrant workers brought in by the mining boom goes bust? We cannot afford to fund welfare for all of them or any significant proportion of them, and preferably none of them. I have never heard any party suggest how we are going to deal with this inevitable problem.
 
It comes down to the normal cycle of self correction in the economy.

The excesses have grown so massive that, sadly, the only real cure is one almighty recession complete with 2 million unemployed. After that, you won't see too much of this nonsense for quite a few years until once again it heads in the same direction.

It could be argued that Australia having not had a recession for close to two decades is what has allowed the current situation to arise. A great many voters today, have no memory of truly hard economic times. There wouldn't be many people voting at the last election who lived in a house where everyone had lost their job, and a lot of younger people would have no concept of such a situation. Those who are a bit older will remember all too well what I'm talking about and yes, I do see an outcome like that as being the only thing that will end the current waste.

The great irony of all this is how central to it all the carbon tax has become. If we'd put the money that has been wasted into actually building a (publicly owned) clean energy system then we would not only have no need to worry about carbon, we'd have created a far bigger economic boost (the money would have been spent locally rather than on imports) and set the country up well for years to come given that such schemes cost little to operate once built.
 

I thoroughly agree with this, but the problem is that this is a "Big Government" type of thing which many people would opposite.

From what I gather of the replies to this thread, it seems to me that many people would consider such a project a waste of taxpayers money?
 

True, and I also agree.
 
In principle I agree with your comments, but:

The Snowy Hydro scheme, built in the 1950's - 1970's, is still of ongoing benefit to the nation. Those not yet born when it was completed gain benefits as will their children. It is an asset of ongoing use and value.

The "stimulus spending" on plasma TV's, dodgy insulation and unnecessary halls for schools that already had them is already over in terms of delivering any benefits. 50 years from now, nobody will even remember that it happened.

Whether or not it is worth spending my tax dollars to build a non-coal energy system, I think it would be hard to argue with the point that it would certainly be of more use in the long term than what has actually been done with that same money (ie thrown away).

The same could be said of roads, rail, ports, water and so on. Whether or not we ought to be spending on those things, it would at least be of some benefit to be upgrading suburban rail in Sydney and Melbourne, interstate rail / roads, ports etc. In contrast, there's essentially zero lasting benefit from what was actually done with the money.

The money's been spent and we've got nothing to show for it. It's hard to imagine a worse possible outcome really.
 
sails said:
LOL Todster - you want to escape? I thought you liked this government...
Click to expand...

How could anyone like this current lot?
I hate the Libs more thats all.
Close your eyes Trainspotter can't you see me in a loincloth fashioned from a couple of old car chammys faning you as laybabout the pool producing endless cold Bintangs and some stodgy nasi on the side.
 

Have to agree with you smurf, it has the makings of the biggest fall we have seen for a long time.
 
Ach, you could be living in the US, Europe, or UK.

F that, we are heading fine.
 

I'm sorry, l totally disagree with you.

1) Lets put business out of business.....Have you seen what the "Greens" are doing for Sydney's Marrickville Council??
The Greens-dominated Marrickville Council's policy of boycotting Israeli goods

2) If we had the Libs policy still going, we wouldn't have 'boat people' issues (or much less).


Can l ask you two questions?
1) Are you currently at university?
2) Are you under 35?
 

millons of migran tworkers? are you for real
 
DB008 said:
1) Lets put business out of business.....Have you seen what the "Greens" are doing for Sydney's Marrickville Council??
Click to expand...

Not to get into international issues, but I don't particularly care for that affair in the Marrickville Council. I think it is a bit strange they are approaching matters of foreign policy at the lowest level of government so to say, however I am more interested in their actions at the federal level.

In regards to putting business out of business, I look at it from the perspective that;
- It's important to understand that some business is doing more harm than good for us and the world in the long-term from an environmental standpoint (and others for other reasons), and as such to people who care about long-term standing issues, it is responsible to shut down such businesses and even industries if need be.

- Typically it is possible at least to some significant extent replace these businesses with "green" businesses and achieve near neutral employment outcome.


To me this is a matter of doing what is best in terms of the next 50 and 100 years. It is simply not possible to not make the significant changes we need to make in our society and economy (this goes for all countries), and still achieve reasonable environmental outcomes without putting quite a few businesses out of work. This is harsh sure, but it is a necessary sacrifice.

One really good example of this (this doesn't apply to Australia unfortunately, but the concept is the same in any country) is replacing the uranium nuclear industry with thorium nuclear - which is much safer, cleaner and arguably all-around better. Unfortunately since the nuclear industry is a reasonably big industry with lots of money and employs many people, while doing a lot of lobbying (and god knows how much bribery), politicians in heavy nuclear-using countries aren't willing to do anything proactive to move forward with technology.

The same can be said about any mainstream party like ALP and Libs (Nats, etc). They seem entirely without substance when it comes to change and progress.


The free market has done us well, but it is only concerned with very short-term profits, it is completely unconcerned with the long-term survival and prosperity of the human race. This is where governments need to step in hard.

DB008 said:
2) If we had the Libs policy still going, we wouldn't have 'boat people' issues (or much less).
Click to expand...

Sure that is good, but at the same time record number of migrants came in under the Howard Libs government and put enormous strain on our tiny infrastructure. I am not a supporter of this nor the "Big Australia" policy I'm afraid. Before any new immigrants come in, we need to build several new planned cities, connected to major ones by high-speed rail. I would love it that there was a requirement to build one for every one million people extra added to the population.

DB008 said:
Can l ask you two questions?
1) Are you currently at university?
2) Are you under 35?
Click to expand...

1. Graduated last year
2. Yes


I tend to find that younger people put significantly more emphasis on long-term environmental issues, since we are the ones who will have to deal with them long after the older generations have passed away or no longer care


breaker said:
millons of migran tworkers? are you for real
Click to expand...

Yes. I don't mean just people who come in to work in mines, but the people who come in to service them - and the people who come in to service them, etc. Someone needs to build new infrastructure, someone needs to work in the shops to cater for a larger population, etc.

This is very unsustainable, especially when it all relies on the mining boom.
 
trainspotter said:
Batam, Indonesia. 1 hour ferry ride from Slingapore.
Click to expand...

never been there would be worried about drugs being planted on me
must go and have a look ,ya reckon its really better,I would like to get lost up in the cape somewhere
 
 
Starcraftmazter said:
I tend to find that younger people put significantly more emphasis on long-term environmental issues, since we are the ones who will have to deal with them long after the older generations have passed away or no longer care
Click to expand...

I find that younger people tend to put significantly more emphasis on what they have been indoctrinated in, have expended considerable emotional and financial investment in these views.

Climate change for example: It is very difficult for them to realize that the planet does not need saving (from anthropogenic climate change at least) after they have devoted the first part of their lives to that belief. (Although it is interesting that most are content to preach about the evils of co2 and not actually do anything about it in their own lifestyles)

Older people tend to be more circumspect, willing to listen to pros and cons and come to an "on balance" view.

There are the short term profiteers who disregard the future, but in my experience these come from every age group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...