|
Rob Filter posted:The greens are a capitalist party. Their policies follow the Keynesian school of economics rather than the Friedman "free market" bullshit, but they are a capitalist party first and foremost. But the existence of stagflation proves Keynes got it wrong. Unless you mean neo-classic economics or Keynes adjusted for stagflation. Also unless the actual policy is to make voting at AGMs compulsory I don't see what that greens policy actually is beyond what there is today. But more important than the 'classic' Freidman vs Keynes debate (which is about whether to restrict monetary policy in the face of recession or expand it) I would have expected the broader inflation target vs short-term social impact debate. EDIT: The Liberal (and indeed ALP) perspective is to allow for expansionary fiscal policy in the face of recession with independent monetary policy designed to achieve an inflation target. So do the Greens want to politicise the RBA and set monetary policy to pursue something other than an inflation target? Hypation fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Jun 10, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Hypation posted:But the existence of stagflation proves Keynes got it wrong. Unless you mean neo-classic economics or Keynes adjusted for stagflation. You really need to stay on track. These kinds of diversions aren't convincing anyone of anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Hypation posted:By red we mean socialist not communist. Alright genius, what do you think the difference between socialism and communism is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Hypation posted:But the existence of stagflation proves Keynes got it wrong. Unless you mean neo-classic economics or Keynes adjusted for stagflation. Your first sentence has a "but" in it. Why? Does Keynesian economics being wrong prove that the greens are a socialist party as opposed to a capitalist one? Two, I agree, that specific line isn't a policy, just a aim. Looking at only that line, both other major parties would agree 100%. This is because both major parties are capitalist parties. As are the greens. Three, the Friedman vs Keynes debate is about more than just how government should respond to recessions, Friedman also was in favor of mass deregulation which is something that Keynesian economics doesn't advocate. Forth, given that you didn't disagree with my core statement that the greens are capitalists, do you now recognize that the greens are not socialists, but capitalists?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Tony Jowns posted:Alright genius, what do you think the difference between socialism and communism is? The ironic answer would be degree. But more specifically: Communism describes a political system encompassing governing an economic system which in turn has specific economic policies. Whereas if those economic policies themselves meet certain criteria they can be called socialist regardless of whether they arise in any particular economic system (capitalist) or political system (democracy). You could say socialist policies are about deploying at least some capital and resources to ensure the welfare of the people as a whole rather than the maximisation of profit. In the socialist state 100% of profits are allocated to social welfare or divided among the workers at a business. The difference between this and communist is that in a communist state the workers would not own the business so there is no surplus allocated to the workers. Additionally in a socialist state it is possible for the free market to dictate the allocation of production whereas in a communist state production is centrally planned. In a socialist state given time and differing abilities and contributions a capitalist class can emerge. This is not possible in a communist state. The central tenant of socialism - from each according to his ability to each according to his contribution; is also ideologically similar to capitalism if the 'ability' to provide capital is recognised as a contribution and you've gone fully capitalist when you recognise that the providers of capital are 'workers' in their own right. Also there is a little socialist in all of us unless you want to move to the extreme forms of tea-party. And you can easily get tea-partiers to admit to being socialists too - just get them to explain utilities, infrastructure and mass transit in non-socialist terms. However those people are certainly not communists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Looks like someone has some reading to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
quote:The owner of two Melbourne restaurants who paid his teenage employees with pizza and soft drink has been fined more than $330,000. I'm sure glad small business always has their employees best interests at heart. I guess if he didn't have to pay penalty rates on the weekend he could have afforded to pay them properly in the first place. Actually I wonder, did they get 1.5x pizza's on Sundays?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
Hypation posted:The central tenant of socialism - from each according to his ability to each according to his contribution That's hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
GoldStandardConure posted:I'm going to have to remember that watermelon line, because its loving incredible. I was originally going to call him a poo poo filled watermelon, but I thought that was a little too mean. I dunno, I think I'm starting to like the fruit themed ideology. What kind of fruit is a Keynesian; a seedless grape? Keynesian adjusted for stagflation; a regular, seeded grape? Analogies, you see...
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Those On My Beet posted:More at : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-10/restaurant-owner-fined-for-paying-wages-in-pizzas-and-soft-drink/5511542 They threw in a garlic bread on weekends.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Those On My Beet posted:More at : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-10/restaurant-owner-fined-for-paying-wages-in-pizzas-and-soft-drink/5511542 I get paid really well for my hospitality job (mostly due to the owners being nice people) and poo poo like this boils my blood. Put his loving head in the town square as a warning to the others. (they should be thankful they even have a job give that job creater an order of australia) i got banned fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
I used to work as a delivery driver for an Australian chain and we'd only get paid per delivery. So in a 4 hour shift, you could spend the whole time helping in the kitchen and make $10 from getting 3 actual delivery orders. One night there weren't any deliveries, so I got paid nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
i got banned posted:I get paid really well for my hospitality job (mostly due to the owners being nice people) and poo poo like this boils my blood. Put his loving head in the town square as a warning to the others. Totally. People like that need to be absolutely crushed, just like their employees would be if they stole that amount of money from the business.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
For anyone who's about to get caught up replying to Hypation, I'd just like to say that even if he doesn't read any of your effortpost, I for one would still appreciate your efforts to properly explain communism vs. socialism. I mean, I think I have a pretty good idea, but it's more from just rebounding against Ayn Rand than from proper rigorous academic study or anything. From what I'm kind of gathering from going cross-eyed at Hypation's post, I think he has them flipped exactly backwards most of the time?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Communism is a theoretical utopia in which everyone gets along and there's no need for frivolities like government and money. Socialism is the transition from whatever was there before to communism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Has the total number of small businesses fined this year for underpaying staff reached even 1% yet? i got banned posted:I get paid really well for my hospitality job (mostly due to the owners being nice people) and poo poo like this boils my blood. Put his loving head in the town square as a warning to the others. Deplorable conduct. He's not really a job creator as his employees are likely all about to be out of a job tomorrow. Likely outcome is that the guy calls in an administrator.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Communism is a subset of socialist societies. Any kind of socialism has workers owning the means of production and therefore their surplus value (eg factories cannot be privately owned). It's not that *waves arms around like hypation (an idiot)* "communism is an extreme form of socialism like obamacare", communism is a particular kind of socialist society without classes or a state. Welfare states are not and have never been socialist states, though they both share an interest for the welfare of the working class (as opposed to radical libertarians).
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Hypation posted:Has the total number of small businesses fined this year for underpaying staff reached even 1% yet? Does that detract from the fact that he didn't pay his staff? At all?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
I always assumed that was why they're called Social Welfare states and not Socialist states. Then again, the similar names tend to confuse people with tiny brains 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
So the Liberals won't discuss removing Geoff Shaw from the chamber until they have the State Budget passed through parliament, even though Labor has confirmed that they were going to pass the Budget no matter what happens to Shaw or the Liberals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
You Am I posted:So the Liberals won't discuss removing Geoff Shaw from the chamber until they have the State Budget passed through parliament, even though Labor has confirmed that they were going to pass the Budget no matter what happens to Shaw or the Liberals. Yeah I was going to keep an eye on that today. 
hambeet fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
I did keep an eye on it and it was a farce. The Speaker let Napthine not answer any direct questions and the government Dixed their way through PR for their law and order platform. Literally nothing in it. The only question worth asking politically is why the hell are they so reluctant to name details of what Shaw wanted? Surely Shaw is just going to up and tell everyone what Napthine clearly doesn't want to expose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Naptime has gone very quiet on the subject of the judge that Shaw wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Everyone I know who works in nice hipster cafes have absolutely awful and super illegal working conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:For anyone who's about to get caught up replying to Hypation, I'd just like to say that even if he doesn't read any of your effortpost, I for one would still appreciate your efforts to properly explain communism vs. socialism. Let's give this a go. Socialism describes any economic system where the "means of production" are owned by "The workers". The means of production defined as "Stuff that isn't people, that makes goods", like factories, commercial buildings, and Patents, but not the actual goods produced themselves like Televisions, residential homes, or food. "The workers" defined as either the laborers actually using that specific means of production to do their job, or everyone equally, with laborers paying money to the state for use of the means of production. Communism is a socialist economic system where the state owns the means of production, and everyone "owns" the state through voting in a representational democracy or another democratic system. Communism is also centrally planned, the state makes almost all economic decisions. State's often claim to be communist while actually being totalitarian. China, for instance, is not socialist or communist because a small group of officials runs the state, and the state controls all the means of production. The people don't control the state and therefore they don't own the means of production. I dislike communism as a economic system because I think decentralized planning (an example of which is free markets) is really useful for some parts of the economy and communist countries don't have decentralized planning. I also dislike it because historically countries that try to become communist actually turn totalitarian. Rob Filter fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
I want a comparison between small businesses underpaying workers and either indigenous child abuse rates or refugee terrorism rates and use it as a reason to send all these petite bourgoise to our literal gulag archipelago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
What judicial appointment could Shaw want? Anyone in the Victorian legal scene want to narrow it down for me?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Captain Pissweak posted:Does that detract from the fact that he didn't pay his staff? It was a weak troll, comparing crooked business owners to welfare bludgers 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Rob Filter posted:Communism is a socialist economic system where the state owns the means of production, and everyone "owns" the state through voting in a representational democracy or another democratic system. Communism is also centrally planned, the state makes almost all economic decisions. Not really correct. Communism is supposed to be stateless. You're right that the major manifestation of "Communist" nations has been centrally-planned state capitalist systems, but that's not what Communism is supposed to be. Technically the USSR never went past the "transition" period of Marxist-Leninist Communism - the move to Communism was first supposed to be activated by a vanguard party introducing a "dictatorship of the proletariat." However, instead of the transition continuing, we saw the growth of a political class to replace the capital class. Rob Filter posted:I dislike communism as a economic system because I think decentralized planning (an example of which is free markets) is really useful for some parts of the economy and communist countries don't have decentralized planning. I also dislike it because historically countries that try to become communist actually turn totalitarian. Decentralised economics and markets are not actually as efficient as they're held up to be. It's very telling that modern capitalist firms act as miniature (or not-so-miniature) command economies. The primary issue with Soviet firms was not their productivity or efficiency, it was political issues around what to do with failing firms and the redistribution of surplus capital. Honestly the major economic issue with the Soviet Union was that it industrialised in less than a generation. You had people who up until the Bolsheviks had been feudal serfs who were expected to cope socially and emotionally with competing with an advanced nation like the United States, which at that point had been industrialised for over a hundred years. The USSR advanced, in some ways, beyond its own ability to cope with advancement. Capitalist market economies cannot, nearly by definition, industrialise beyond the aggregate ability of their populace to cope, since the process is slow and gradual.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 07:16
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Based on traditional Marxist doctrine the USSR never got to a stage where it could transition to communism because capitalism is meant as a stage to set up a super abundant society(this doesn't work with limitless demand such as life prolonging health care, the older a person gets the more resources they take to keep alive etc)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Not really correct. Communism is supposed to be stateless. You're right that the major manifestation of "Communist" nations has been centrally-planned state capitalist systems, but that's not what Communism is supposed to be. Funny you should mention the bit about modern firms acting as miniature command economies. The ones that seem the most resilient to environmental pressures are the ones that speed up the flow of information within them (both formally and informally), so they can respond to said pressures quickly and make proper strategic decisions. You can also just see the types of people who seek leadership of such firms to be the ones who would seek to be duke, king or equivalent during the feudal eras of human society. The modern company is the only kingdom left to build.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Palmersaurus posted:I used to work as a delivery driver for an Australian chain and we'd only get paid per delivery.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Communism is a theoretical utopia in which everyone gets along and there's no need for frivolities like government and money. Socialism is the transition from whatever was there before to communism. This is an example of why one would adopt a socialist state not what the difference is between it and a communist state except to as imply there is no money or government in a communist state. Also your definition of communism depends on adopting the Marxian hypothetical rather than the dystopian reality of the socialist state that communism really delivered. For this reason moderates and the right are happy to call socialists communists. Even within socialists there are significant differences between the forms of property ownership from complete state ownership through to John Stuart Mill (regarded as a reformed capitalist / socialist) allowing private ownership deployed for the benefit of society. But a better comprehensive comparison and contrast is here: http://asianhistory.about.com/od/governmentandlaw/f/Difference-Between-Communism-And-Socialism.htm http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-socialism-and-communism.htm http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Captain Pissweak posted:Does that detract from the fact that he didn't pay his staff? Not even one 1% hence the first line of my post. Jumpingmanjim posted:What judicial appointment could Shaw want? Anyone in the Victorian legal scene want to narrow it down for me? My read was he wanted someone other than him appointed to the Judiciary. You Am I posted:So the Liberals won't discuss removing Geoff Shaw from the chamber until they have the State Budget passed through parliament, even though Labor has confirmed that they were going to pass the Budget no matter what happens to Shaw or the Liberals. This is unacceptably hosed up. Politics over policy. Also its amazing how the Privileges committee managed to vote down party lines. I thought they were not meant to caucus on privilege matters. If they are then they ought not to be. Besides the Liberals are smarter than to believe an ALP promise to pass a budget. Tokamak posted:It was a weak troll, comparing crooked business owners to welfare bludgers Has anyone seen the last 20 pages of this thread. I don't
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Hypation posted:Also your definition of communism depends on adopting the Marxian hypothetical rather than the dystopian reality of the socialist state that communism really delivered. For this reason moderates and the right are happy to call socialists communists. They can call them whatever they want, that doesn't make it accurate. [EDIT: There has never been a modern communist state, and there probably never will be.] open24hours fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
hi auspol thread this is a reminder that the bipartisan NT intervention, begun under Howard and supported by Rudd and Gillard was based on a bedrock of lies and has been an unmitigated disaster which has not only failed to stop the supposed 'problems' it was launched to fix, but has made life appreciably worse for an already disenfranchised and vulnerable group of people who are largely ignored and isolated, thanks in part to the very lies which launched the intervention in the first place. peace. https://newmatilda.com/2014/06/10/without-back-story-qa-bombshell-goes-begging
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Hypation posted:Also your definition of communism depends on adopting the Marxian hypothetical rather than the dystopian reality of the socialist state that communism really delivered. Something capitalists are more than happy to do when it comes to singing the praises of liberal market democracy and ignoring environmental, economic and financial disasters propagated by unregulated capitalism. Seriously, liberals will descend into "no true capitalism" at least as if not more readily than socialists do. Hypation posted:For this reason moderates and the right are happy to call socialists communists. Moderates and the right are frequently happy to be wrong about all sorts of things so yeah I can't see why they'd stop when attempting to discuss systems about which they know almost literally nothing, kind of like you are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
Hypation posted:
Yeah i Know that but who does he want and where?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Not really correct. Communism is supposed to be stateless. You're right that the major manifestation of "Communist" nations has been centrally-planned state capitalist systems, but that's not what Communism is supposed to be. Yep, just did a bit of refreshing reading, my definition of communism was wrong. Everyone carry on. quote:Decentralised economics and markets are not actually as efficient as they're held up to be. It's very telling that modern capitalist firms act as miniature (or not-so-miniature) command economies. I'd argue that modern capitalist firms are inefficient because they act like miniature command economies. Well, there is tons of other stuff to, but excessive centralization is also a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 08:18
|
|