World Politics - Page 1293 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12921  
Old 02-17-13, 06:27
auscyclefan94's Avatar
auscyclefan94 auscyclefan94 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SafeBet View Post
Entering election week in Italy, and as always it's not looking good.
Is Berlusconi a chance to get back in?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggercuz View Post
second post ever after reading the forum for the last few years and one thing i must say, ACF94 is probably the most intelligent poster here, never biased to BMC or Cadel, and never gets worked up over anything.
Reply With Quote
  #12922  
Old 02-17-13, 06:50
auscyclefan94's Avatar
auscyclefan94 auscyclefan94 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyMMT View Post
Complete propaganda, Keynes says nothing about government looking over your shoulder why do you people keep repeating that canard? can you not read, you might want to go and read him and maybe you will understand. Keynes was actually a capitalist but what he was talking about was smoothing the cycles and the only ones who can do that is the government as capitalism is very unstable (your free market delusions do not work in practice, there has never been or will ever be a free market as it immediately heads towards monopolies so you need the government to intervene to stop that therefore its not a free market). Keynes was a realist and not a deluded nutter like Hayek.
The size of government is purely a political decision and frankly always makes me laugh when you lot go on about size of "government" you include everyone who works for the state..honestly school crossing guards are looking over your shoulder? personally i thank them as they look out for my kid crossing the road. You might wanna be a bit less paranoid.
It is not propaganda, it is fact. Keynes says a lot about government interference in the market. Keynesian economics is based on demand-side economics, meaning that the Government stimulates the economy through the Government spending and giving money out to the people to spend. Keynes believes that market outcomes often do not lead to the best outcomes and the Government has to interfere. Kenyes does believe in markets but with government regulation and control. Often those who follow the Keynes theories believe in too much regulation and control which strangles the private sector. Capitalism is unstable, because it allows people to live freely and make choices for oneself. It allows business and the private sector to grow much stronger, employ more people who have real jobs, not those where industries are subsidised by the Government, another feature of Keynesian economics. Hayek is not a nutter at all. Hayek is someone who believes in supply-side economics where getting rid all of the complex regulation, lifting productivity and cutting public sector funding is the best way to stimulate the economy. Businesses should not be propped up on the back of tax payers, which is why I am against corporate welfare. Just like the size of government, I believe it should be small as possible because those jobs are propped up by taxpayers. Ultimately the more public sector jobs, means more money taken away from taxpayers' disposable income which is what could and would be used to help the private sector, which generates real jobs. Corporate welfare and stimulus spending all distort the market decreasing competition, not lifting it.

Quote:
On the matter of redistribution it is for societies benefit that too much income inequality is not good and in the last 20 years that income inequality has got completely and utterly out of hand, it actually stops any social movement. Go and look at 2 of the worst offenders for income inequality which are the UK & US and then have a look at how bad social movement is in those countries, if you are poor you are almost definately going to die poor however hard you work of course there are exceptions but its rare.
Does the lovely Gina Reinhardt really need GBP 46 billion in personal wealth? (you know the 46 billion she worked hard for...oh wait sorry I mean inherited) noone but the very extreme left think there is ever going to be no inequality but you think that centre left (that is the real centre left not the sad excuse for labour/democratic parties that we have) thinks it can be done but you dont bother going to check as you are too busy listening to dog whistle articles in the MSM.
Again, neoliberalism or classical liberalism economics which has been employed all over the world over the past 30-40 years has seen great rises in the standard of living for societies because there is less welfare and less protectionism and more open markets, where people are employed by businesses and are able to stand on their own two feet. It seems that you want socialism which creates one main under class with most having the basic items but rewards the lazy. If that means having more inequality in a society, then so be it. I don't believe taking off one person to make another person rich is a great way.

Your attack on Gina Rinehart shows how uninformed you are about this topic. Hancock Prospecting was a dying business that was going broke. Gina Rinehart only inherited a very small fraction of her wealth from her father. In 2006 her net wealth was only $1.8billion. In 2012, it is $29.17 billion. I say good on her and it is clear that she didn't just inherit that money. I think she is a great Australian. Another socialist trait which you seem to uphold is hating the rich, wealthy and successful. It is rather sad, really.
Quote:
(snip)

Oh and FYI you aussies do have a couple of excellent economists that you might bother to read Steve Keen and the founder of this very site Bill Mitchell.
Keen is another man stuck in Keynesian mush. You should read some other Australian economists such as Judith Sloan or Henry Ergas.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggercuz View Post
second post ever after reading the forum for the last few years and one thing i must say, ACF94 is probably the most intelligent poster here, never biased to BMC or Cadel, and never gets worked up over anything.
Reply With Quote
  #12923  
Old 02-17-13, 10:29
auscyclefan94's Avatar
auscyclefan94 auscyclefan94 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,881
Default

Just a summary of all the polls that have come out quite recently, including tonight.

JWS Research: Coalition 54.8% ALP 45.2%
Essential: Coalition 55 ALP 45
Newspoll: Coalition 56 ALP 44
Nielsen: Coalition 56 ALP 44
Galaxy: Coalition 54 ALP 46
Roy Morgan: Coalition 56 ALP 44

Gillard will be gone in 3 weeks.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggercuz View Post
second post ever after reading the forum for the last few years and one thing i must say, ACF94 is probably the most intelligent poster here, never biased to BMC or Cadel, and never gets worked up over anything.
Reply With Quote
  #12924  
Old 02-17-13, 11:02
Alphabet's Avatar
Alphabet Alphabet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The yard
Posts: 807
Default

Hey ACF, what are the preferred leader polls looking like?

From memory, ever since last year (or possibly even earlier) Labor have been massacred in the two-party preferred polls but Gillard usually did okay in the polls that pitted her against Abbott.
Reply With Quote
  #12925  
Old 02-17-13, 11:23
auscyclefan94's Avatar
auscyclefan94 auscyclefan94 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,881
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alphabet View Post
Hey ACF, what are the preferred leader polls looking like?

From memory, ever since last year (or possibly even earlier) Labor have been massacred in the two-party preferred polls but Gillard usually did okay in the polls that pitted her against Abbott.
Labor came back in most polls late last year, even in the 2pp stakes, They have gone back big time this year. I usually don't look at the preferred leader polls but they have come back a bit for Abbott.


btw, AndyMMT might also want to read this about your buddy Steve Keen.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/high...-1226557089580
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggercuz View Post
second post ever after reading the forum for the last few years and one thing i must say, ACF94 is probably the most intelligent poster here, never biased to BMC or Cadel, and never gets worked up over anything.
Reply With Quote
  #12926  
Old 02-17-13, 12:46
AndyMMT AndyMMT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 84
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by auscyclefan94 View Post
, AndyMMT might also want to read this about your buddy Steve Keen.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/high...-1226557089580
I didnt even need to click on that story as i know exactly what that is about. Total scumbaggery by the university, I dont suppose you are aware of the backstory and part of an ongoing dispute? http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2...n-keen-vs-uws/

Last edited by AndyMMT; 02-18-13 at 13:02.
Reply With Quote
  #12927  
Old 02-17-13, 13:51
AndyMMT AndyMMT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 84
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by auscyclefan94 View Post
It is not propaganda, it is fact. Keynes says a lot about government interference in the market. Keynesian economics is based on demand-side economics, meaning that the Government stimulates the economy through the Government spending and giving money out to the people to spend. Keynes believes that market outcomes often do not lead to the best outcomes and the Government has to interfere. Kenyes does believe in markets but with government regulation and control. Often those who follow the Keynes theories believe in too much regulation and control which strangles the private sector. Capitalism is unstable, because it allows people to live freely and make choices for oneself. It allows business and the private sector to grow much stronger, employ more people who have real jobs, not those where industries are subsidised by the Government, another feature of Keynesian economics.
Without demand there is no economy, capitalism requires people to buy things and without government "interference" in the economy you end up with a massive bust, you know like right now.
Seems to me that you are making a says law argument which has been totally discredited... supply does not equal demand.
Freedom from government is not freedom from pollution its freedom to pollute



Quote:
Hayek is not a nutter at all. Hayek is someone who believes in supply-side economics where getting rid all of the complex regulation, lifting productivity and cutting public sector funding is the best way to stimulate the economy. Businesses should not be propped up on the back of tax payers, which is why I am against corporate welfare. Just like the size of government, I believe it should be small as possible because those jobs are propped up by taxpayers. Ultimately the more public sector jobs, means more money taken away from taxpayers' disposable income which is what could and would be used to help the private sector, which generates real jobs. Corporate welfare and stimulus spending all distort the market decreasing competition, not lifting it.
Hayek was a total nutter http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/...-delusion.html (and i happen to know that there is more to come out on Hayek)
You assume taxes fund government when in fact they do not per se (a fiat currency remember...your gold standard thinking is wrong). Cutting government spending is actually harmful for the economy when you are running a current account deficit. Would you like me to go through the sector balances for you?



Quote:
Again, neoliberalism or classical liberalism economics which has been employed all over the world over the past 30-40 years has seen great rises in the standard of living for societies because there is less welfare and less protectionism and more open markets, where people are employed by businesses and are able to stand on their own two feet. It seems that you want socialism which creates one main under class with most having the basic items but rewards the lazy. If that means having more inequality in a society, then so be it. I don't believe taking off one person to make another person rich is a great way.
See what i mean about propaganda you have bought it hook line and sinker which is why we have this massive bust now, if you are seriously trying to suggest everything is rosy you might want to look outside, look around the world, look at unemployment.. think you need a bit of Kalecki http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...016.x/abstract written in 1943 and possibly the most prescient thing i have ever read

Quote:
Your attack on Gina Rinehart shows how uninformed you are about this topic. Hancock Prospecting was a dying business that was going broke. Gina Rinehart only inherited a very small fraction of her wealth from her father. In 2006 her net wealth was only $1.8billion. In 2012, it is $29.17 billion. I say good on her and it is clear that she didn't just inherit that money. I think she is a great Australian.
Thank you for proving my point on income capture btw.
If you consider someone who ends up in court against her kids great then not really much hope for Australia
Seems she was rather lucky that the resource boom started around the time she inherited it. Still perhaps she wasnt out drinking and partying which was the route to her success or so she says apparently when attacking people.

Quote:
Another socialist trait which you seem to uphold is hating the rich, wealthy and successful. It is rather sad, really.
What is sad is you chucking around words that you do not understand. Socialism is the state taking over the means of production. I am Keynesian it is not the same thing. I certainly do not hate the rich i was quite clear that extreme income inequality/unearned income is a problem, at no point did i ever suggest that means everyone earns the same (only the extreme left think that) The only laziness i can see is your attempt at trying to suggest i am socialist/communist.
Reply With Quote
  #12928  
Old 02-17-13, 14:35
AndyMMT AndyMMT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 84
Default

Oh ACF nearly forgot no doubt that you will be calling for a balanced budget by government be careful what you wish for
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/...socialism.html

I dont know how old you are, guessing mid 20s so you have probably not been exposed to anything else but the neoliberal garbage. Funny thing is that i used to believe it as well (im now late 40s,manager at an SME) and was a good little tory voter thinking the free market was the cure to all our ills but 2008 changed everything as that was not supposed to happen all the mainstream economists and politicians were left scratching their heads. Thanks to the internet you can now get away from the MSM and its rubbish...all it takes is some reading and it shows that the emperor really does have no clothes... there really is not much difference between the mainstream parties they all go with the neoliberal theologies which is what it is really just a religion.

Last edited by AndyMMT; 02-17-13 at 15:17.
Reply With Quote
  #12929  
Old 02-17-13, 22:41
AndyMMT AndyMMT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 84
Default

Here is one for you ACF as i suggested that right wing politics were like a religion...lets make that a cult http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae...b_2707087.html

Good luck with your free markets and governments getting out the way... what could go wrong? Enron,Lehman and sub prime, horsemeat scandel in europe...oh and cycling a free market means you can use what drugs you like after all its self regulating..that will work.

Here is another one that has attracted my attention in last couple of hours..you see i am a bit better read than just one newspaper. So you better back up your "facts" with a cross section
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad....ll-wealth.html

Finally one from Aus http://barnabyisright.com/2013/02/18...-what-they-did (incidentally this one i got from Steve Keen.... why did i know that backstory, its because i know him, hes a member of some groups that I am also a member of)

I have given you enough reading for a few days... if you do not read anything else read the Kalecki paper I linked too. educate yourself (and dont give me the usual right wing bs by linking to those, i know them and i have read them... I have read Hayeks road to serfdom..have you?)

Last edited by AndyMMT; 02-17-13 at 23:24.
Reply With Quote
  #12930  
Old 02-18-13, 00:54
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by auscyclefan94 View Post
No, not all. Many of those who teach economics at unis seem to be in love with Keynes and therefore think that Government looking over the shoulder of every citizen is the best way, interrupting their lives and redistributing their money for them.
Mainstream economic thinking uses taxes/subsidies to (put it in two words) improve efficiency. I'm sure wherever TA got his economics degree he was taught this.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.