|
Synthbuttrange posted:PM Abbott for christmas Hoo boy you better bet Bill Leak will have something to say about that! For the next six weeks.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 00:04 |
|
|
# ? Jun 9, 2024 13:37 |
|
HEY! First post is my spot <> In other shocking news http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-08/politics-live-november-8/8002782 quote:Politics Live: Labor to oppose lifetime ban for refugees http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-08/should-south-australia-be-storing-nuclear-waste-above-ground/8003156 quote:SA nuclear waste dump plans based on questionable assumptions and lacks public support ANALYSIS By Stephen Long Updated about 3 hours ago Is there a single social justice metric we aren't going backwards on? http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/australia-going-backwards-on-disability-employment/8004246 quote:Australia going backwards on disability employment Tuesday 8 November 2016 8:36AM (view full episode) Orange really is the new black. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/skyrocketing-rates-of-female-incarceration/8004172 quote:Skyrocketing rates of female incarceration Tuesday 8 November 2016 8:20AM (view full episode) Lock all them bitches up! And it looks like there is goign to be ANOTHER productivity campaign. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/11/07/dont-wait-productivity-crisis quote:The Productivity Commission has released a discussion paper into increasing Australia's prosperity, while calling for submissions by early December. 7 NOV 2016 - 3:10 PM UPDATED YESTERDAY 3:10 PM Will this report get more or less attention than this one: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-03/productivity-commission-consumers-should-have-more-control-data/7990302 quote:Productivity Commission says consumers should have greater control of their own data By political reporter Uma Patel Posted Thu at 12:15am
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 00:29 |
|
Synthbuttrange posted:PM Abbott for christmas She wants to remove insult and offend and substitute it with "vilify". Need to think more on this to see the true difference.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 00:37 |
|
Lid posted:She wants to remove insult and offend and substitute it with "vilify". Need to think more on this to see the true difference. Does vilify have a special legal meaning?
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 00:54 |
|
IANAL but vilify puts the onus squarely on the author rather than an imaginary "offended/insulted person"vilify posted:speak or write about in an abusively disparaging manner.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 01:03 |
|
yeah, you can (theoretically) vilify someone without offending someone.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 01:27 |
|
aejix posted:Anyone got anything good to read about protectionism? Seen a few posters ITT saying it's bad and I've always been of the opinion that it's actually a good thing but have done very little reading about it It's a broad topic. What did you want to read about? A discussion of the technicalities of free trade and protectionism? Its philosophy? quote:Marx posted:
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:16 |
|
It is when you consider where the tax dollars from your exploitation will go.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:18 |
|
To tax cuts for the rich in your own country instead of somewhere else?
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:22 |
|
How many countries have had protectionist policies and thought supply side made sense?
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:25 |
|
Now we are all colonies for the corporate empire
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:38 |
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:How many countries have had protectionist policies and thought supply side made sense? The US
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:41 |
|
From my one unit of macroeconomics that was tacked into an InfoSys degree I remember that tariffs end up increasing input costs to exports. either directly, or by upwards wage pressure. hence tariffs end up being a tax on exports as well. Also you may be employing more people locally, but what they buy is more expensive. In short, tariffs are inefficient and Australia is a land of contrasts. thankyou.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:42 |
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:How many countries have had protectionist policies and thought supply side made sense? America, for one. Unless it was a rhetorical question?
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:46 |
|
Yeah
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:47 |
|
Capt.Whorebags posted:From my one unit of macroeconomics that was tacked into an InfoSys degree I remember that tariffs end up increasing input costs to exports. either directly, or by upwards wage pressure. hence tariffs end up being a tax on exports as well.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 03:14 |
|
lol for the edi without boobs or cameltoe
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 03:30 |
|
iirc a simple version of the case for removing tariffs is that people can buy imported goods more cheaply, increasing their standard of living, and increased competition encourages people here to specialise where there is competitive advantage meaning they can charge more for their output there's a carve out in standard economics where you can impose barriers against dumping (foreign goods being exported below their cost in their home market) and certain quality controls are a bit of a grey area too
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 03:55 |
|
Cartoon posted:And yet a broad based GST is perfectly AOK. One of the benefits of having some form of broad based consumption tax in our otherwise progressive system is that it will catch people who report allow incomes who splash the cash (wealthy retirees, assorted tax dodgers)
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 04:08 |
|
Birdstrike posted:One of the benefits of having some form of broad based consumption tax in our otherwise progressive system is that it will catch people who report allow incomes who splash the cash (wealthy retirees, assorted tax dodgers)
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 04:14 |
|
Birdstrike posted:iirc a simple version of the case for removing tariffs is that people can buy imported goods more cheaply, increasing their standard of living, and increased competition encourages people here to specialise where there is competitive advantage meaning they can charge more for their output What about tarriffs that account for other factors for the home market costs? If their lack of pay and conditions means they have an unlivable wage, or they routinely burn to death in their OHS nightmare sweatshops can tarrifs account for this to allow Australian companies to compete? Otherwise it just seems like a race to the bottom... I know very little about economics and trade so I'm sorry if this is a dumb or nonsensical question.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 04:18 |
|
hooman posted:What about tarriffs that account for other factors for the home market costs? If their lack of pay and conditions means they have an unlivable wage, or they routinely burn to death in their OHS nightmare sweatshops can tarrifs account for this to allow Australian companies to compete? I mean they could but that's kind of what the standard model is encouraging, as things like liveable wages and working conditions don't really figure.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 04:23 |
|
Cartoon posted:You are joking? Right? I'm not trying to preempt your grand remonstrance why consumption taxes are terrible and in fact I'd like to hear what you have to say. When I was studying tax the effect of the GST was explained as "nobody really understands why it works, but it does." As some form of explanation I have found a relatively simple piece by an actual economist.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 04:33 |
|
hooman posted:What about tarriffs that account for other factors for the home market costs? If their lack of pay and conditions means they have an unlivable wage, or they routinely burn to death in their OHS nightmare sweatshops can tarrifs account for this to allow Australian companies to compete? It gets really murky, what's a real environmental protection and what's a crypto tariff? Australia bans fruit imports from some places on biosecurity grounds, but it's often seen as a form of protectionism by another name. Is preventing poor countries from selling their goods in rich countries going to force them to improve conditions for workers, or prevent the country from ever developing to the point where it can improve conditions for workers? open24hours fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Nov 8, 2016 |
# ? Nov 8, 2016 04:47 |
|
open24hours posted:It gets really murky, what's a real environmental protection and what's a crypto tariff? Australia bans fruit imports from some places on biosecurity grounds, but it's often seen as a form of protectionism by another name. An NZ friend of mine used to point out honey as the classic example of this. There was some disease bees could get from NZ except it wasn't transmissible via honey and Australian bees had it anyway. He died a decade ago so I can't remember the disease, or exactly ask him what it was, sorry.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 05:29 |
|
I wish Peter Duton would just go away
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 05:45 |
|
Gridlocked posted:I wish Peter Duton would get locked in an uncomfortably small box.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 05:46 |
|
Gridlocked posted:I wish Peter Duton would just go away Sendng him to an island and locking him up is the safest option.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 05:51 |
|
hooman posted:What about tarriffs that account for other factors for the home market costs? If their lack of pay and conditions means they have an unlivable wage, or they routinely burn to death in their OHS nightmare sweatshops can tarrifs account for this to allow Australian companies to compete? This is pretty much what is going through my head, thanks for articulating. Labour costs are quite high in aus, plus having comparatively well-functioning approval and regulatory controls that eventually get reflected in your cost of goods - so if another company in another country can get away with paying their workers gently caress all and has juuuust enough internal regulation or self-control to keep the quality of their goods high enough that people will at least keep buying them, how does Australia compete? Just seems like this is inevitably going to lead to erosion of workers rights here? Fake edit: I mean I feel the obvious answer is more investment in the education/research/development of technologies that we then export but it's not hard to see how loving backwards that entire space has been going in this country for at least the last decade. aejix fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Nov 8, 2016 |
# ? Nov 8, 2016 05:55 |
|
New NT tourism slogan:
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 05:57 |
|
aejix posted:This is pretty much what is going through my head, thanks for articulating. Labour costs are quite high in aus, plus having comparatively well-functioning approval and regulatory controls that eventually get reflected in your cost of goods - so if another company in another country can get away with paying their workers gently caress all and has juuuust enough internal regulation or self-control to keep the quality of their goods high enough that people will at least keep buying them, how does Australia compete? Just seems like this is inevitably going to lead to erosion of workers rights here? You a) find other ways to compete other than on price, or b) move to enterprises where you have comparative advantage we've mainly been going for (b) towards mining, agriculture and services. Mining is very capital intensive so it isn't the best generator of employment and it's also dependent on global demand for commodities we have also thrown in a bunch of (c) join that race to the bottom gently caress it
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 06:03 |
|
Birdstrike posted:I'm not trying to preempt your grand remonstrance why consumption taxes are terrible and in fact I'd like to hear what you have to say. quote:The main drawback of consumption taxes is that they hit low-income households hardest, so it is important to complement them with measures such as the GST rebate in order to correct these regressive effects. This is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. The sheer overhead in a GST is an enormous burden on, eventually, 'the investor' and the regressive nature completely fucks over the poor. To the point that even a loving brain dead economist can note it. This then results in placing an additional inefficiency in the whole edifice as the 'poor' (non-investors) have to have their inputs recycled back to them via some massive and cruel bureaucracy and special transfer arrangements for the working poor. Economist like it because 'numbers go big' without in anyway understanding the socio-economic impacts or indeed caring very much about them. Tariffs can and should be used as a sort of naughty tax and if there is enough clout in your economy then using them to push trading partners to equalise their working conditions with your own is an entirely valid strategy. If the nation needs a hand up to develop these industries then what a wonderful opportunity for foreign aid. More over even the strongest advocates for dropping tariffs tend to then skew the free trade by heavily subsidising effected industries. Australia tends not to do this for reasons that probably make sense to a loving economist. Using biosecurity dishonestly is a dog act but there are plenty of examples of where Australia has folded too soon. If the intention was to make the rich stop evading taxes then perhaps a guillotine? Or more practically a luxury tax so all the poo poo rich gently caress wits want to buy has an enormous mark up on it. And guess what? Rich folks will immediately and say it isn't fair. gently caress them.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 06:08 |
|
Cartoon posted:This then results in placing an additional inefficiency in the whole edifice as the 'poor' (non-investors) have to have their inputs recycled back to them via some massive and cruel bureaucracy and special transfer arrangements for the working poor. quote:Or more practically a luxury tax so all the poo poo rich gently caress wits want to buy has an enormous mark up on it.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 06:13 |
|
Cartoon has spent too much time filling out BAS forms. I don't disagree that the administrative burden is a drawback.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 06:19 |
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:You need a transfer system regardless of whether there's a GST or not. It's completely unavoidable unless you want a radically different economic system or you want to kill poor people. A targeted naughty tax rather than a broad based GST, so remarkably different in fact. But I completely concede that where we have gotten to atm as a nation is so very very hosed up that no amount of tinkering around the edges is going to fix anything. The fact that economists have a special class for 'investors' and seek to specially pander to their interests speaks volumes. Choose which vagina to come out of wisely.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 06:25 |
|
woop woop WOOP WOOP Gleeson senate committee report recommendations Recommendation 1 That the Senate disallow the amendment to the Direction or the AttorneyGeneral withdraw it immediately, and that the Guidance Note be revised accordingly. Recommendation 2 That the Attorney-General provide, within three sitting days, an explanation to the Senate responding to the matters raised in this report. Recommendation 3 That the Senate censure the Attorney-General for misleading the parliament and failing to discharge his duties as Attorney-General appropriately. Senate committee chair Louise Pratt, has told the senate that the attorney general is unfit to hold office as she tabled the report into the Justin Gleeson matter. The senate committee report calls for senate to censure Brandis after his failure to consult with the former solicitor general Justin Gleeson on a direction that the SG must gain consent before providing advice to other government departments.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 07:32 |
|
Some guy on the OCAU forums bet $8900 on Trump winning.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 07:44 |
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Some guy on the OCAU forums bet $8900 on Trump winning. Thats an odd amount to bet.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 07:47 |
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Some guy on the OCAU forums bet $8900 on Trump winning. Got a link? Imagine he is panicking right now.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 07:55 |
|
|
# ? Jun 9, 2024 13:37 |
|
KennyTheFish posted:Thats an odd amount to bet. quote:It's a real disease isn't it? http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?p=17364950#post17364950
|
# ? Nov 8, 2016 07:56 |