|
You didn't know the correct definition of communism but you're still quite happy to forge on through with the idea of the free market being the most efficient system
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
The crime report in the Mosman Daily is fantastic and I look forward to reading it every week. Even if it's the same thing every time: drunk/speeding drivers on the Warringah Freeway, people refusing to leave the Crows Nest Hotel, and teenagers in a park with "a small amount of marijuana and smoking implements".
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Rob Filter posted:
It really depends on the context. There are some situations where a decentralized system might hold you back and other where it is advantageous. The biggest drawback is that executives are under so little supervision that if one of them decides to go on a power trip and centralize everything so it is all under their command their is little anyone can do to stop them (or even prove it is a bad idea seeing as management generally have a pretty tight grip on information and are selective in what they release).
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Woo special economic zones and dams for Rinehart & Twiggy http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-10/coalition-launches-green-paper-nothern-australia/5512456#.U5a2ybz83vg.twitter
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
Weren't special economic zones thought to be unconstitutional?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
quote:The Shadow Agriculture Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says the green paper could be a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. The party of democratic socialism ladies and gentlemen
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 08:51
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Quantum Mechanic posted: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. ...and the first day of the new Millennium was when? Also how do you pronounce the word controversy? Is it in line with controvert or controversial? English is a living language and when sufficient people 'get it wrong' for long enough it does indeed become right. Also if you can frame the debate so as to make socialism = communism = dystopian realities of Soviet Union then you will likely win more than if you didn't. That's why anyone would do it. You against a $0.05c GP co-payment? Well that must mean you want a Soviet-Style healthcare system. You favour a $0.05c GP co-payment, well that must mean you want a US-Style healthcare system or an extreme form of capitalism. The practical reality is that political debate in Australia that matters (because it is the one that will decide what policies actually get enacted into laws) is about where to strike the balance between liberalism and social welfare. Where that intersects workers rights or even more broadly where a policy in some way effects people who happen to or even could be workers the language of the socialist state or communism get co-opted into the debate by both sides. More extreme forms of capitalism were tried in the beginnings of the industrial revolution as well as post civil war pre Sherman Act USA. It worked from the perspective of building the infrastructure upon which the USA emerged as a superpower but had very negative social consequences. Such as an all time high disparity between worker incomes and their bosses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:The party of democratic socialism ladies and gentlemen Could be worse - could be Adrian Piccoli banning any coloured paper: http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitio...to-insist-that- students-with-irlen-syndrome-who-will-do-the-nsw-hsc-in-2014-use-white-paper-instead-of-coloured-paper-this-is-discriminatory gay picnic defence posted:Weren't special economic zones thought to be unconstitutional? No Australia has a magical provision in its Constitution allowing for the passage of laws with respect to: "The people of any race, It's even called the Race Power. Hypation fucked around with this message at 09:20 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
Hypation posted:...and the first day of the new Millennium was when? Also how do you pronounce the word controversy? Is it in line with controvert or controversial? English is a living language and when sufficient people 'get it wrong' for long enough it does indeed become right. A disparity that reached a peak just prior to the great depression:  Societies trend towards either a police state or a welfare state. I'd prefer the latter than the former, personally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
The only people that don't like the idea of communism or socialism are the kind of people that like to have homeless people around deep down in their subconscious because it makes them feel better about themselves. With housing remaining unaffordable, a diminishing middle class, attacks on workers and the rich getting richer it's hard to look on the bright side sometimes. Which is why I think we should use the rich as live science experiments like in unit 731. Science advances in leaps and bounds and the rich get to do something actually productive in society for a change. It's their own fault for being rich anyway, they could have been poor but chose to be wealthy. i got banned fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
Jonah Galtberg posted:You didn't know the correct definition of communism Yes. I should disclaimer all my posts "I think. I am a political layman." quote:but you're still quite happy to forge on through with the idea of the free market being the most efficient system I used a very poor choice of word with free there. I wrote it as a verb, and stupidly invoked the phrase "free market". I think markets, as a smaller part of a larger economic system, are more efficient than purely centralized economies, such as Friedman "free market"ism and totalitarianism. I make no claims as to it being the best, or even necessary. Markets produce some things people want that governments don't produce. If you either had a government that was excellent at producing things people wanted (I doubt this), or another decentralized way of producing things (seems very possible), you could remove markets. Rob Filter fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
i got banned posted:The only people that don't like the idea of communism or socialism are the kind of people that like to have homeless people around deep down in their subconscious because it makes them feel better about themselves. I am reading the finer points of  here to see if it applies.... seems the Japanese are exempt. So I now propose Hypations law: "As the number of Godwin calls approaches infinity the propensity of a posting toll to use an example of something that is actually a valid comparison to Nazi Germany instead approaches 1". But more interestingly, I am also wondering whether you approve of IG Faben's / Bayer's use of research data obtained under similar circumstances? Or more generally the post-war usage of Dr Menangle's research? Questions which should not provoke a Godwin reply because while there were differences in the exact experiments conducted, their nature, purpose and methods were identical. So you say no? What about the actual Unit 731 decision by MacArthur to keep the research for exclusive use by the USA and grant immunity (necessary in order to keep the existence of the research quiet). Good decision? Would it have mattered if they used different "live science experiment" subjects? I am reminded of the Concentration Camp episode in Band of Bothers titled "Why We Fight". poo poo like this is Why I Post. gently caress you 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
Hypation's law should be: "As the number of times Hypation posts something wrong approaches infinity, the probability of Hypation going off on a entirely unrelated tangent approaches 1"
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 10:10
|
|
|
Hypation posted:gently caress you Please take your own advice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
I struggle to understand what you responding to a troll with a massive unrelated tangent has to do with a Band of Brothers episode. I haven't seen somebody spend so much time posting poo poo that is irrelevant and doesn't make sense since KK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Hypation posted:...and the first day of the new Millennium was when? Also how do you pronounce the word controversy? Is it in line with controvert or controversial? English is a living language and when sufficient people 'get it wrong' for long enough it does indeed become right. Which would be a great argument if these words weren't still used in an academic and official context to actually mean things, and you can cry about "but it's what all my friends think it means" all you want and it won't make you any less pig-ignorant. "Theory" meaning "idea" to the average layperson does not mean that you're not going to be laughed out of any scientific discussion for saying "evolution is only a theory." Do you want to have an actual discussion about these terms as they apply in a political economy context or are you writing an article for the Australian? Hypation posted:Also if you can frame the debate so as to make socialism = communism = dystopian realities of Soviet Union then you will likely win more than if you didn't. That's why anyone would do it. You against a $0.05c GP co-payment? Well that must mean you want a Soviet-Style healthcare system. You favour a $0.05c GP co-payment, well that must mean you want a US-Style healthcare system or an extreme form of capitalism. And, again, are you having an actual discussion here or are you just making GBS threads out NewsCorp-level analysis and running, you intellectual degenerate? Because if you just want to admit that you don't know what you're talking about and are merely valiantly attempting to combat the rising socialist menace using an understanding of complex ideas you may as well cobbled together out of pieces from a Kinder Surprise, then fine, simply admit that now and people on the sidelines can accept sooner rather than later that you aren't worth listening to. Seriously, you've already proven that you're willing to criticise the Greens policy platform without actually knowing or understanding it on the basis of it being "socialist," just admit it and save us all the trouble. Hypation posted:More extreme forms of capitalism were tried in the beginnings of the industrial revolution as well as post civil war pre Sherman Act USA. It worked from the perspective of building the infrastructure upon which the USA emerged as a superpower but had very negative social consequences. Such as an all time high disparity between worker incomes and their bosses. The US has up until roughly the 1980s been a heavily protectionist economy that worked overtime to shield its nascent businesses and industry from competition from outside trade. It would not have been possible to perform any greater legislative protection of an economy than that of the industrialising US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
Seams posted: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. Can they sue? Serious question, can they? It's not like the government can play dumb as they did with the children overboard affair which, despite being a total lie, still helped cement the idea of asylum seekers as "other" in the minds of Australians. In this case, the government knew it was all lies, it has been pointed out that it's all lies, but they're still doing it. Surely someone who's getting hosed over by this will be able to find a lawyer ready to stand up for them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 11:08
|
|
|
I think at this point it would look better for Hypation if he really was IWC
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 11:08
|
|
|
For Victorians - behold the mighty punishment of Geoff Shaw by Denis Napthine after Shaw specifically threatened to support a motion of no confidence against him https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/24206612/shaw-showdown-premier-details-punishment/ Such mighty displays of political might here, Napthine sure knows how to win the hearts and minds of sticking it to people he essentially called a maniac just last week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
He's obviously realised that if he boots Shaw out the ALP have the numbers to walk all over him until the by-election is held.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:He's obviously realised that if he boots Shaw out the ALP have the numbers to walk all over him until the by-election is held. Not really true, the coalition has even numbers if Shaw is expelled which means they just rely on the Speaker's casting vote for everything ever. Not a great look but they could still do whatever they want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:He's obviously realised that if he boots Shaw out the ALP have the numbers to walk all over him until the by-election is held. I think the ALP come out and said that with roughly 5 months until the election they wouldn't bother using their numbers to smack him around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
TheHeadSage posted:I think the ALP come out and said that with roughly 5 months until the election they wouldn't bother using their numbers to smack him around. They even said they'd pass the budget as it is. Napthine doesn't want to risk it either way so he's trying to look for an out. Ten days suspension is apparently that out. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
Lid posted:For Victorians - behold the mighty punishment of Geoff Shaw by Denis Napthine after Shaw specifically threatened to support a motion of no confidence against him I can almost see Naptime whacking Shaw with a piece of limp celery "Bad boy, no being naughty again when in government, now apologise or else!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
Just went to a housing investment seminar (spoiler alert: full of punchable shitheads), and while I have always understood negative gearing and housing concessions to be bullshit, the levels it reaches are just offensive. The figures we went through: House and land cost of 500k at the current rate of 5% adding in 481 a week in interest repayments (no principal) ~3000 in rates per year 1200 in insurance 500 in agents fees to get to a total cost of 601 per week. If you rent it out for 500 a week you are losing 101 bucks a week Deduct 5252 off income tax for shortfall from negative gearing Deduct 4725 in depreciation (2.5% on a 500k property) Deduct 6000 in depreciation on fittings Deduct 3000 for loan establishment deductions This adds up to $118 bucks a week, or in another words, instead of paying $101 bucks a week, you are now receiving $7 Total tax deduction of 18,977, or to put it another way, the same tax paid per year by someone earning around $80,000 What. The actual. gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 12:54
|
|
Zenithe posted:Just went to a housing investment seminar (spoiler alert: full of punchable shitheads), and while I have always understood negative gearing and housing concessions to be bullshit, the levels it reaches are just offensive. Why did you go to this awful place?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
Haters Objector posted:Why did you go to this awful place? Curiosity and nothing else on tonight. Also free beer and subway. It was genuinely interesting, if only to observe the horrible mindset that went on there. It literally started with talk of an ageing population with not enough taxpayers, and then got right to, OK guys, here is how to pay no tax ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
Considering negative gearing costs about $13 billion it would probably be cheaper to scrap it and subsides rents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:What. The actual. gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
Nuclear Spy posted:But..but.. house prices double every 7 years!?! That was covered. Worst case scenario is double every 10 years guys, so chill out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
I need to put an ad in the paper for a property investment seminar and when everyone arrives i lock the doors and give them a presentation on why negative gearing is terrible.Nibbles141 posted:Considering negative gearing costs about $13 billion it would probably be cheaper to scrap it and subsides rents. We could literally build 12 Billion dollars worth of public housing and still be up 1 billion. I would blow Dane Cook fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Jun 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
That's every year too and rising. Zenithe posted:That was covered. Worst case scenario is double every 10 years guys, so chill out. Rising prices mean people have more equity so they can borrow more against what they have and get more. Repeat. It's incredibly beneficial for those playing the musical chairs at the expense of anyone who wants a home to live in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
So I picked a great time to go back to uni. Anyway, can someone explain to me how you go about getting sources for humanities subjects? Like I need to do an essay on what is the most important factor in China's economic rise. What's considered an academic source to use? Are there journal/peer reviewed sources that can be used or is it mostly textbook/books?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 13:24
|
|
EvilElmo posted:So I picked a great time to go back to uni. What Uni are you at and what sort of degree is it? In any case, most Universities have a database of journals and peer reviewed articles that you can use. Other than that, you'd want to find books relating to the subject at the library on campus. Are they drawing a distinction between primary or secondary sources? Is it a research paper or a literature review?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:What Uni are you at and what sort of degree is it? In any case, most Universities have a database of journals and peer reviewed articles that you can use. Other than that, you'd want to find books relating to the subject at the library on campus. Are they drawing a distinction between primary or secondary sources? Is it a research paper or a literature review? Also a good tip is to check the relevant textbook section, see who they cite, find the article(s) cited, read them, read a few of the articles/books THEY cite, repeat ad nauseum until you've got a good understanding / enough references. Your uni should offer sessions which teach you how to use the uni library/online databases (at least my uni does). But probably not this late into semester.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
EvilElmo posted:So I picked a great time to go back to uni. Usually in your first year at Uni, one of your courses is basically how to do this poo poo. If you've gone half a year and still don't know how to do it, you are in the wrong place. EDIT: My question is, have you literally done nothing all semester and are now just realising, "Oh poo poo, I have to do this assessment!" and are scrabbling to finish it at the last minute and essentially just didn't listen or pay any attention at all in any of your lectures or tutes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:
Wow, I had an idea that the housing situation was a big Ponzi scheme but, due to not being likely to ever own a house of my own, I don't understand the details of why. But how does this make any sense? Someone buys an investment, then says to the tax man that their investment has lost $10,000 of its value in a year. Surely the sensible response of the tax man should be "sell that asset of yours because it's poo poo", and not "we're going to reward your terrible financial acumen by allowing you to contribute less to society?". And when they sell the property and it turns out that the value has gone up, are they then required to repay all that tax back because they underestimated their tax burden because the asset didn't actually depreciate in value? And come to think of it, what is the rationalisation for claiming deprecitation against your income anyway? It's an investment, right? So if you spend money on an investment that then decreases in value, that is by definition a bad investment and you are by definition bad at investing and should then divest yourself of that bad investment. If I were to piss away $10,000 at Crown, can I then claim that as a tax deduction because my investment at the blackjack table ended up giving negative returns, or whatever other bullshit finance term it is that bullshit finance people use? Can I negatively gear my craps investment? Rage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
Foundry Dancer posted:Wow, I had an idea that the housing situation was a big Ponzi scheme but, due to not being likely to ever own a house of my own, I don't understand the details of why. But how does this make any sense? Someone buys an investment, then says to the tax man that their investment has lost $10,000 of its value in a year. Surely the sensible response of the tax man should be "sell that asset of yours because it's poo poo", and not "we're going to reward your terrible financial acumen by allowing you to contribute less to society?". And when they sell the property and it turns out that the value has gone up, are they then required to repay all that tax back because they underestimated their tax burden because the asset didn't actually depreciate in value? The supposed rationale for it was that it would keep rents down. Now there are over 1 million people using it, making it political suicide to kill off in one go.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:The supposed rationale for it was that it would keep rents down. Now there are over 1 million people using it, making it political suicide to kill off in one go. Early last year I started working out where the deductions for negative gearing were coming from, the idea being that I could put down the number of people negative gearing per electorate. I got lazy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
The idea is that it encourages investment in that if that investment loses you can claim it meaning people are more likely to invest money rather then hoarding it and keep our economy rolling. In reality it's used as a tax dodge. People would use it gambling in shares to take loses now to minimise tax on the gamble they would come good in the future. Housing takes the gamble away and opened up the scheme to the middle class, boomers who owned their own homes and could easily borrow against them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2014 14:12
|
|