Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[TillLindemann]

It actually is. This comment kills me as well. Now we provide handouts so the locals get to live near the river or something.

The world has gone crazy.

Protectionist policies never ever ever work. They screw over everyone else.

Capitalism is subject to booms and busts and businesses going under and businesses starting up. It's not societies job to manage these issues.

The opposite of protectionism (neoliberalism, globalised free trade etc) doesn't work in isolation either, you need a bit of both. Laissez faire free trade is all well and good in theory but as we have seen when pandemic/war/natural disaster strike you see how fragile that is - there are industries that are critical to the nation and we can't just let them fail. But I agree we can't just live on the credit card, our debt is an issue.

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

The opposite of protectionism (neoliberalism, globalised free trade etc) doesn't work in isolation either, you need a bit of both. Laissez faire free trade is all well and good in theory but as we have seen when pandemic/war/natural disaster strike you see how fragile that is - there are industries that are critical to the nation and we can't just let them fail. But I agree we can't just live on the credit card, our debt is an issue.

Is this a justification for "too big to fail?"😏

 

[TillLindemann]

I would have thought it would be beneficial to stop businesses from going belly up so they can continue to trade and support their employees and suppliers so less people are looking for welfare.

Especially when so many of those businesses were only doing what they were told, for the 'greater good' of society. Huge multinationals like Amazon thrived as a result of the pandemic while many small businesses were forced to close, I think support is warranted.

 

[TillLindemann]

Is this a justification for "too big to fail?"😏

No not at all. I am talking about industries, rather than specific businesses, and my sympathy lies primarily with smaller family businesses.
A nation I think requires a certain level of self-sufficiency in specific areas - e.g. food production, manufacturing, transport - and I think some degree of public backing of these is rewarded in spades.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Especially when so many of those businesses were only doing what they were told, for the 'greater good' of society. Huge multinationals like Amazon thrived as a result of the pandemic while many small businesses were forced to close, I think support is warranted.

Absolutely. It makes sense that if you are going to provide support, it should be to try and maintain/improve productivity and keep people employed as opposed to just doling out welfare. That's not me saying welfare is useless, but if you're going to assist people with money, productivity being a byproduct of that assistance is a much better outcome than just allowing people to exist on welfare because it is not going to be an amazing amount of money that allow people to spend on anything outside of the bare essentials (food, utilities, mortgage/rent.)

 

[earl]

You want me to explain to you how prosperous primary producer and tourism industries will positively affect the country?
You are definitely jealous that you had to keep working whilst others got job keeper payments. I’m sure you’ve been raging about it in your little echo chambers online whilst you are supposed to be working from home, all the while, not giving two shits that some peoples million dollar operations are now worth just a fraction of that, when they had no say in that outcome.
People outside of your little communities are looking at you and asking what are you even arguing about? You have no clue, just an inner city snob with his melon firmly entrenched in his backside, who is upset over nothing.

Mate - you've lost it. I'm none of those things you state. I just want our country to be run with a fiscally responsible government.

Guess you think differently which is cool.

 

[earl]

I would have thought it would be beneficial to stop businesses from going belly up so they can continue to trade and support their employees and suppliers so less people are looking for welfare.

Not really. The cost of propping up businesses can be absolutely horrendous. Think of the car industry.

It ends up a massive transfer of wealth from the whole of Australia to whoever receives those benefits.

In general it's a very very bad idea.

 

[earl]

But I agree we can't just live on the credit card, our debt is an issue.

This is the point.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Not really. The cost of propping up businesses can be absolutely horrendous. Think of the car industry.

It ends up a massive transfer of wealth from the whole of Australia to whoever receives those benefits.

In general it's a very very bad idea.

Yes, the car industry in Australia was once four large, foreign owned, companies. Stryker is talking about primary produce and tourism. Those two industries are made up of thousands of smaller Australian owned businesses who would who have thousands more suppliers (many also small businesses,) and would be recirculating money through the economy. They would employ scores more again.

The alternative is that you let those people lose their businesses and if they don't do something drastic like kill themselves, they end up relying on the state via welfare anyway where they are not being productive.

Either way you are footing the bill. You're either giving a little to help keep people employed and contribute to the economy and generate income, or you're letting these businesses collapse en masse, end up with tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands out of work, and they are all drawing welfare but not contributing to the economy via employement, and probably getting less overall to put food on the table and pay the bills.

Or are you advocating for zero assistance and allowing hundreds of thousands to potentially wind up homeless? If so, that's an abhorrent POV.

 

[TrueTiger]

It was unbelievable to see that when the pandemic was in full swing,the many small cafes restaurants ,pubs and clubs had to shutdown for the greater good...however Coles woolies bunnings were all right to go...
I know people who are still reeling from the shutdowns and some of them cant afford to have some of their employees back...
But then again we needed food etc so its suitable that the govt supports those smaller businesses and their workers....

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Mate - you've lost it. I'm none of those things you state. I just want our country to be run with a fiscally responsible government.

Guess you think differently which is cool.

So do I, I also don't want to become a third world shithole where if you lose your job, you lose your home and are left to starve and beg in the street or are left to resort to crime.

 

[earl]

So do I, I also don't want to become a third world shithole where if you lose your job, you lose your home and are left to starve and beg in the street or are left to resort to crime.

I totally agree. I'm completely pro social security. The social security system should be good enough so that it provides a basic standard of living.

 

[Pascoes_barber]

Because austerity measures have worked so well in the UK...

Shaking my head.

 

[earl]

Or are you advocating for zero assistance and allowing hundreds of thousands to potentially wind up homeless?

These are two completely separate issues.

1. Supporting unprofitable businesses. This is not the right way forward.
2. People becoming homeless. This is a completely different issue but social security is there to support difficult situations.

Sure you can prop up unprofitable businesses for a period of time but when does that end. My take is that it ends now. If you disagree cool.

There are limited funds and we cannot continue to run massive deficits. All we are doing is passing the buck down the line.

 

[earl]

Because austerity measures have worked so well in the UK...

Communism and protectionist policies have worked so well over history haven't they.

I think you are making my point here. The government cannot continue to run massive deficits going forward. The payback cost is going to hurt. It has to be paid at some point. Kicking the can down the road isn't the right way forward.

That is what the austerity measures are doing. It sucks.

If you change your perspective a bit you'll realize you can't help everyone. It's a matter of focus.

 

[Yossarian]

There is no ideological bent. It doesn't exist. I'm voting Labor.

I believe that we have a massive massive debt and we have a tonne of things we have to pay for. Something has to give.

It's not about remunerating people for the work they do. They are already getting paid. It's about paying them more and something else has to give.

Money has to go to defense. Money has to go towards clean energy. Money has to go to education, healthcare and infrastructure.

We have inflation right now. We have houses that are extremely expensive.

Giving out more money under this scenario for people doing the same work is absolute madness.

Sure there may be some extreme situations that require and increase in salary but this should be minimized. I can only think of aged care and potentially nurses.

I suggest anyone stating anything differently is interested in their back pocket only.

I have no problems with increasing the minimum wage because I want to help the disadvantaged.

It’s been pointed out to you that APS wages are a very small part of the Australian economy. Expecting APS staff to wear the wider debt is moronic and unfair. By your ridiculous logic there would have been a few years of pay increases in the 90s/00s otherwise they’d be getting the same pay they got in 1965.

I just don’t think you understand the outcomes of cutting APS wages. Firstly stifling public sector wages has a negative effect on private sector wages. Secondly making the APS3 staffer on 80k default on their mortgage or make them unable to pay their rent so you can make some dopey ideological point is ridiculous. Thirdly the APS becomes unattractive to jobseekers and unable to attract talent. No doubt your viewpoint of the average public servant is some pen pusher rather than the person processing VA payments, arranging emergency social security payments, processing visas or stopping drugs getting into the country. If you want those to fall apart stop giving them productivity increases because you have some warped idea of how budget deficits operate.

Frankly you’re talking rubbish.

 

[Yossarian]

I think his last sentence is fair enough. You're right, his money, his choice..... but why should the government ( taxpayers ) ( us ) give him any more? Just because he wants it? I'm all for helping the disadvantaged but if he's worked his whole life and has nothing to show for it, that's on him.

Well not entirely because someone his age probably didn’t get superannuation until relatively late on. I think you have to divorce his personal situation from the bigger issue of pensions. The unwritten social contract up until the 80s was probably you work and pay your taxes and get a decent pension. Being able to save a large amount of money to avoid relying on the pension was probably beyond almost all Australians of his vantage. But really we’re talking disposable income and whether pensioners can expect disposable income after they meet their expenses. If you suppose they do, how they spend it is up to them.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Firstly you don't sound very ignorant here.

I basically agree with you but I think you are providing a black and white argument. We need to spend more on defense because we have some autocratic countries namely Russia and China that are pushing their boundaries. You need some deterrence.

I don't believe you can put money into tourism and exports. Those industries need to be able to compete without being propped up. If they can't compete (which they can) then they should go bust.

Propping up industries is just giving hand outs to specific groups of people and to me it's wrong.

A mixed economy does require plenty of spending via the government (our taxes) though. We need to spend on stuff that the free market doesn't provide. A social net for disadvantaged. Health care. Education. Infrastructure and defense.

It's not about putting money into the industry, moreso targeted and particularly international campaigns to attract visitors.

When done well it can bring in tourist numbers two fold and better, with the Paul Hogan one a great example and increased numbers across the board from average programs the norm. The want to host international events and local finals are other examples on bringing tourist spending, along with our WT playing our home match in Brisbane this weekend along with all NRL matches.

Conversely, on the true political front and yet another example of his failures. The Morrison led campaign when head of tourism did not garner additional dollars from it's targeted nations and from memory it was worse overall.

 

[earl]

Expecting APS staff to wear the wider debt is moronic and unfair

I'm not expecting that at all. I'm expecting the government to work out how they are going to move towards a budget surplus.

You guys aren't getting it but it's cool.

Everyone has some cause or reason for increased spending. We need to decrease spending. Where is that coming from ?

The APS deserve a wage increase of 20%, we need more international ads, we need clean energy, we need better health care, we need better education, we should be giving more money to the Ukraine, the pension needs to be increased.

Tell me what is coming out of the budget. Where are we saving money ?

 

[Cobarcats]

The only way to properly defend a country with a shoreline such as ours is re-arm the public….but I digress….

Yeh that will work 😀

I've always thought that more can be done to improve our road network, particularly servicing rural and remote area of Australia.
Two reasons,
one to help our famers who do it tough and making sure their farms has great access which can only improve their livelihood, also ensures we get food right across the nation in times of floods etc, and
secondly to help decentralize our cities.
Decentralization of highly populated cities may not be a significant problem now but it will be in the future and then it will be a nightnare to fix.
I don't know why more crown land sell offs occur to promote people living in the country.
15yrs ago we bought a fully serviced block in Wondai which was affordable crown land and we were going to build on it however I took ill and we sold it 4 years after purchase and made a sizeable profit.
The idea of promoting Wondai worked with an influx of interstate buyers moving in.
Just a thought for our future as our politicians think mostly whats best for their term in office, well it seems that way.