World Politics

[Amsterhammer]

Sorry, short of outliers like Cuba, which is a dictatorship anyway, which left-wing countries lack those elements again? Last time I checked, all social democracies of the left have social hierarchy, some level of social and economic injustice, and offer individuals the opportunity to work themselves up to higher levels of economic success, because all of them are free-market-based economies.

Bear in mind that ACF is very young.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Sorry, short of outliers like Cuba, which is a dictatorship anyway, which left-wing countries lack those elements again? Last time I checked, all social democracies of the left have social hierarchy, some level of social and economic injustice, and offer individuals the opportunity to work themselves up to higher levels of economic success, because all of them are free-market-based economies.

There is a difference between left wing and centre-left, my friend. Might I add that I think many countries in fact don't allow individuals enough opportunity to work themselves up to higher levels of economic success. This is due to too much welfare and too strict IR laws

Amsterhammer, I am confused at why you would say that.

 

[Ferminal]

Where do we find these so called free markets...

 

[auscyclefan94]

Where do we find these so called free markets...

Most countries to differing degrees are free-market economies, which does not mean that there aren't centre-left governments running them.

 

[aphronesis]

Most countries to differing degrees are free-market economies, which does not mean that there aren't centre-left governments running them.

Never mind most, can you name a few?

 

[Ferminal]

Most countries to differing degrees are free-market economies, which does not mean that there aren't centre-left governments running them.

But "free markets" are a theoretical construct, how much economic activity is actually conducted in "free markets"?

 

[VeloCity]

There is a difference between left wing and centre-left, my friend. Might I add that I think many countries in fact don't allow individuals enough opportunity to work themselves up to higher levels of economic success. This is due to too much welfare and too strict IR laws

Again, what countries would those be?

Upward social mobility is actually lower in the US than it is in Europe:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/u...ise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And one of the arguments for why that might be is that Americans are more risk-averse because the lack of a strong and broad social safety net makes the cost of failure so much greater than in other parts of the world - when times are tough, you keep your job (and your health insurance) rather than taking the chance of quitting and looking for a better one. To use a simplistic analogy off the top of my head, if you're a rock climber, are you likely to take more risks if you have a rope tied around your waist that will catch you if you fall (ie a strong social safety net to fall back on) or if you don't?

 

[Echoes]

Conservatism does not oppose free market. Modern day conservatism or neoconservatives support free markets but also support the foundations of society and the traditions that have served society well over hundreds of years.

Impossible to reconcile. Choose one or the other.

Free-market is based on the nomadic predator model, while conservatism is based on the family model and the sedentary producer.

Tory vs Whig.

ANZUS is a war treaty, EU is a parliament for a particular region. Completely different so please come back to planet earth on that point.

Sorry, I'm a Euro and not fully aware of what is going on down under. I must've mixed Anzus with Apec. But since EU and NATO are just the two sides of the same coin, my comparison still holds.

Lol at the second sentence.

Euroscepticism and free markets are not contradictory. You can have free markets but not have a joined parliamentary body and joined currency, both of which have failed dismally. A European Union that has a few countries doling out money to multiple countries who are floundering is not what you would classify has laissez-faire/free market economics. It is largely supporters of the left that are pushing for the EU than those on the right.

Lol. The bailouts are anti-European. The EU Commission is just trying to save the Euro which does not work, by using methods that are against the Maastricht Treaty. And if it does not work, it's because of the laissez-faire policy that has been going on and sunk us since 1992.

Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU:
1. Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on the
movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be
prohibited.
2. Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on payments
between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.

Euroscepticism is more a feature of right-wing politics, even if it traditionally isn't.

QED. Conservative Right-wingers like me. Sovereignty, Independentism (or Nationalism), Protectionism & Welfare State, ...

not be spoon-fed by the state, something that a left winger supports.

Left-wing = Free-Trade. From Adam Smith to Bill Clinton.

Right-winger believe in a "small" state with MAXIMUM efficiency.

Bismarck, Disraeli, De Gaulle are all right-wingers who believe in state interventionism.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Impossible to reconcile. Choose one or the other.

Free-market is based on the nomadic predator model, while conservatism is based on the family model and the sedentary producer.

Tory vs Whig.

There are soooo many parties around the world who would regard themselves, reasonably as well, as being free market yet conservative. A free market is a nomadic predator? If you are too stupid enough to not understand the basic concepts behind it, then yes it is. That doesn't imply that you don't understand what a free market is.

Sorry, I'm a Euro and not fully aware of what is going on down under. I must've mixed Anzus with Apec. But since EU and NATO are just the two sides of the same coin, my comparison still holds.

Lol at the second sentence.

Errr, APEC is just an organisation that advocates free trade. Still different to the EU.

Lol. The bailouts are anti-European. The EU Commission is just trying to save the Euro which does not work, by using methods that are against the Maastricht Treaty. And if it does not work, it's because of the laissez-faire policy that has been going on and sunk us since 1992.

Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU:
1. Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on the
movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be
prohibited.
2. Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on payments
between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.

Again, bailouts are not laissez faire policy. Keynesian style economics is simply not laissez faire either. Stating that free trade under Article 63 is the reason behind the sinking of Europe is nonsensical. You really need to clarify that statement.

QED. Conservative Right-wingers like me. Sovereignty, Independentism (or Nationalism), Protectionism & Welfare State, ...

Left-wing = Free-Trade. From Adam Smith to Bill Clinton.

Right-winger believe in a "small" state with MAXIMUM efficiency.

Bismarck, Disraeli, De Gaulle are all right-wingers who believe in state interventionism.

So you are a right-winger, you support sovereignty and yet you support the EU? Right...

Left wing does not equal support of free trade. That is utter crap. Do socialists and communists support free trade? Of course not. Even more centre left parties are those who want protectionism and want limited free trade. You need to go back to the basic definitions of right wing and left wing. Right wing supports supports social hierarchy and that levels of social and economic inequality are natural. Left wing supports eliminating as much as possible the social inequality and social hierarchy in our society. Of course, these definitions are rather general but someone who supports the free market often will support a right wing philosophy being that you need the different classes for a capitalist economy to operate.

Some of your sentences about how 'right wingers support interventionist policy' and 'welfare state' is beyond baffling. Going on your own definition, how can right wingers support small government with maximum efficiency yet support Keynesian, protectionist and welfare state policies? Welfare is suppose to eliminate social inequality (i.e. it is more linked to the left).

What makes you a conservative? What are your views on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and other social issues?

To be frank, I think debating what someone's economic philosophy on a right-left scale can be too simplistic.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Never mind most, can you name a few?

Australia since the mid-eighties would be regarded as a free market economy although this has gone backwards under Gillard/Rudd. The US would to a certain extent be regarded as a free market although domestic politics somewhat alter that. Even China could be recognised as a free market economy with in recent years, the government opening up it's borders economically with Free Trade agreements with countries like Australia.

The reason why I am apprehensive to state that some countries are outright 'free markets' because there are still some policies in these countries that are protectionist, even though they are largely free market economies.

 

[Alphabet]

How the hell do leftists promote free trade? . Liberals/centre-leftists might, but for the most part, they don't really support it.

Psuedo-leftists like Stalin (who masqueraded as a communist but was in reality a fascist) also believed in maximum efficiency and heavy state control.

 

[auscyclefan94]

How the hell do leftists promote free trade? . Liberals/centre-leftists might, but for the most part, they don't really support it.

Psuedo-leftists like Stalin (who masqueraded as a communist but was in reality a fascist) also believed in maximum efficiency and heavy state control.

I agree but I am going to knit pick and say that you better use a lower case l for liberals and not Liberals which are the centre-right party in Australia, as you would know.

EDIT: ACF being stupid. Ignore above line.

 

[Alphabet]

It was the start of the sentence! It must be capitalised!

 

[auscyclefan94]

It was the start of the sentence! It must be capitalised!

Of course! I take that back! Sorry!

 

[Jalina]

Here's a comparison of the two leaders...

I've only just caught up on this thread and I'm dragging this up as I thought it might be time to balance a few of ACF posts.

ACF, it's interesting that you complain about Gillard when she mentions the fact she's an unmarried, childless women being used against her.. then post something like this.

I'm wondering what the point of showing she doesn't, and Abbott does, have a mortgage? To demonstrate Tony Abbott as more like the average Aussie because he has one?

Gillard doesn't have a mortgage because her house is in the modest working class suburb of Altona.
Abbott lives in an exclusive suburb in Northern Sydney and took out a $700,000+ mortgage against his house to cover expenses and his kids' private school fees after he lost his ministerial salary. Hardly your average Aussie now is he?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...-new-loan-stress/story-e6frgczf-1225883125818


Economics degree in his column, no economics degree in her column. Her law degree isn't worth mentioning??

Needed Greens to win? So what, when was the last time the Libs governed without the Nats?

Bribed Independents? Maybe they found her more credible than the man that would do anything but "sell my ar$e" to form government.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-day-abbott-bared-his-soul-20110827-1jfgv.html

Abbott isn't the messiah you paint him to be, and she isn't the devil. I'm a fan of neither and I'm not going to make a grand prediction about who'll win the next election, but I think the public dislike of Abbott is greater than you seem to think. As long as he is leader, the Libs will have a tough time of it.

 

[Ferminal]

China? It's dominated by SOEs or quasi-SOEs and economic power is concentrated into very few, relatively speaking.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I've only just caught up on this thread and I'm dragging this up as I thought it might be time to balance a few of ACF posts.

Welcome to the discussion.

ACF, it's interesting that you complain about Gillard when she mentions the fact she's an unmarried, childless women being used against her.. then post something like this.

I'm wondering what the point of showing she doesn't, and Abbott does, have a mortgage? To demonstrate Tony Abbott as more like the average Aussie because he has one?

Firstly, the chart is not of my making. Numerous things on it I find out of line. Nonetheless, people often find rude things quite funny and it was posted for a laugh. Gillard's martial status and Abbott having a mortgage does not bother.

Gillard doesn't have a mortgage because her house is in the modest working class suburb of Altona.
Abbott lives in an exclusive suburb in Northern Sydney and took out a $700,000+ mortgage against his house to cover expenses and his kids' private school fees after he lost his ministerial salary. Hardly your average Aussie now is he?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...-new-loan-stress/story-e6frgczf-1225883125818

I am not sure if you live in Melbourne or not, but Altona is a beach side suburb in the West. It is a rather affluent part of the western suburbs in some parts. I do agree that Abbott's house would be more expensive, by and large.

Economics degree in his column, no economics degree in her column. Her law degree isn't worth mentioning??

Needed Greens to win? So what, when was the last time the Libs governed without the Nats?

Bribed Independents? Maybe they found her more credible than the man that would do anything but "sell my ar$e" to form government.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-day-abbott-bared-his-soul-20110827-1jfgv.html

Both have a law degree, so I don't see your point there. The last time the Liberals didn't need to govern with the Nationals was in '96 and they nearly had that opportunity in '04. The alliance with the Nationals is also a formal coalition declared before the election. They are ideologically very close. The Labor Green alliance is not a formal coalition and although both the ALP and Greens are centre-left parties, I wouldn't say that they are ideologically close.It is interesting to read that you trust a man like Tony Windsor who is elected on a conservative platform yet completely rejects those principles in Parliament. He is also someone who complained about the standards of political discussion but then splurts the crap about Abbott selling his ****. It is quite interesting that initially both the Greens and the Independents said that Abbott did not want to give them enough and was rather nonchalant about dealing with the Independents yet now when it suits Windsor, he changes his mind on that. Certainly not trustworthy.

Abbott isn't the messiah you paint him to be, and she isn't the devil. I'm a fan of neither and I'm not going to make a grand prediction about who'll win the next election, but I think the public dislike of Abbott is greater than you seem to think. As long as he is leader, the Libs will have a tough time of it.

You again make the flawed mistake that we live in a Presidential system. We do not. John Howard was not seen as being a charismatic, charming leader, but he won four elections. I personally think that the personal dislike of Abbott is blown out of proportion in the media. They always dislike the guy who is the leader and try to push in the guy who isn't, i.e. Turnbull. You may think that the Libs will have a tough time winning with him yet Abbott's poll numbers have been superb and I mean the poll numbers that actually count, 2PP and primary vote.

btw, I would be happy if this poll eventuated into reality.

http://www.smh.com.au/queensland/treasurer-on-track-to-lose-seat-poll-20130119-2czo4.html

 

[aphronesis]

Australia since the mid-eighties would be regarded as a free market economy although this has gone backwards under Gillard/Rudd. The US would to a certain extent be regarded as a free market although domestic politics somewhat alter that. Even China could be recognised as a free market economy with in recent years, the government opening up it's borders economically with Free Trade agreements with countries like Australia.

The reason why I am apprehensive to state that some countries are outright 'free markets' because there are still some policies in these countries that are protectionist, even though they are largely free market economies.

No doubt. If not most.

On the subject of China, highly selective free trade agreements is the not nearly the same thing as free market. The US/China relationships are hardly what could be considered free market in the traditional (or pretty much any other) sense.

 

[auscyclefan94]

No doubt. If not most.

On the subject of China, highly selective free trade agreements is the not nearly the same thing as free market. The US/China relationships are hardly what could be considered free market in the traditional (or pretty much any other) sense.

On reflection, you are correct. China ca be rather fickle with it's trade agreements.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Which is the reason Chinese economy was able to grow this fast of course.

 

[Ferminal]

Blasphemy! We all know the Thai model to foreign openness is the best, let the money be free!

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Thailand's growth spurt was also initiated by putting limitations on free market and by a partial planned economy.
Developing countries who were forced to open the whole marked due to the Washington Consensus, could never follow Thailand's path.

Of course the Thai also never suffered from colonization like other developing countries did.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Which is the reason Chinese economy was able to grow this fast of course.

They have a very productive labour force due to very liberal IR laws, but that is not necessarily ideal or practical for western countries.

 

[python]

http://travel.yahoo.com/ideas/world-s-happiest-countries-233204795.html

The World's Happiest Countries:

1. Norway
2. Denmark
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. New Zealand
6. Canada
7. Finland
8. The Netherlands
9. Switzerland
10. Ireland

surely it’s much more than about our geog-location, but, curiously the vikings in particular are a happy lot just as the peoples of nordic background in general.

why is that ? Wait, I know…we like our booze and don't feel too guilty about it

 

[auscyclefan94]

Nova for politics - and Trish isn't happy

PM nominates athlete Nova Peris to be the number 1 senate candidate, pushing Trish Crossin out. Seems that the rationale is that she is an Aboriginal.