World Politics

[AndyMMT]

, AndyMMT might also want to read this about your buddy Steve Keen.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...sor-to-face-icac/story-e6frgcjx-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/2013/01/18/the-world-today-on-keen-vs-uws/

 

[AndyMMT]

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

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...-of-neoliberalism-part-i-hayeks-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?

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/10.1111/j.1467-923X.1943.tb01016.x/abstract written in 1943 and possibly the most prescient thing i have ever read

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.

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.

 

[AndyMMT]

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...anced-budgets-lay-the-path-for-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.

 

[AndyMMT]

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/michael-s-lofgren/scientology-for-rednecks_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.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2013/02/power-skill-wealth.html

Finally one from Aus http://barnabyisright.com/2013/02/1...rdability-what-they-said-versus-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?)

 

[Ferminal]

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.

 

[auscyclefan94]

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/2013/01/18/the-world-today-on-keen-vs-uws/

Intresting that you used that particular news source...I wonder who owns that eh? usual rightwing dogwhistle stuff... what next are you going to link me to a fox news article.
Jesus wept just searched for those economists you recommened and hey guess what both write for the australian... you really should start reading something else....is your surname Murdoch?
Ok Ergas isnt even a macro economist... hes a micro economist no wonder, typical nonsense when you try to upscale 1 individuals behavour into an economy, which is essentially what neoclassicals do and why their lovely models then collapse in reality.

You really are pathetic. You didn't even care what Keen did because you are so blinded by his holiness. Typical leftist attitude. 'Rupert Murdoch's paper is just reporting that in some right-wing conspiracy against Steve Keen to bring him down'. Rubbish. I don't just read The Australia. I read multiple other sources as well and it is a sign of how facile you really are if you just argue against what they say because you think Rupert Murdoch has his hand up their backsides telling them what to do.

I am not going to even bother to respond to your other posts after that juvenile, despicable remark.

 

[auscyclefan94]

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.

It is 'mainstream' so it must be right. Well done, you are a great intellectual. Firstly, I reject the premise of your argument and when have taxes and subsidies improved efficiency. If anything, some of the policies that Abbott is employing IS WHAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING. Taxes and subsidies!!! FFS, you have completely wrecked your own argument.

I love digging out this quote from time to time.

"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects." - Margaret Thatcher

She is spot on.

 

[AndyMMT]

You really are pathetic. You didn't even care what Keen did because you are so blinded by his holiness. Typical leftist attitude. 'Rupert Murdoch's paper is just reporting that in some right-wing conspiracy against Steve Keen to bring him down'. Rubbish. I don't just read The Australia. I read multiple other sources as well and it is a sign of how facile you really are if you just argue against what they say because you think Rupert Murdoch has his hand up their backsides telling them what to do.

I am not going to even bother to respond to your other posts after that juvenile, despicable remark.

In just about every post you have insulted me and you call me juvenile? I havent insulted you once, I back up my arguments with source material, I pointed out that there was another side to SK and his dispute with the uni.
Dont respond then really not that bothered, I know exactly what is going in the world and sad to say entirly predictable, tell you what a little bet if your lot get in (which they will) they will start austerity...within 6 months you will be in recession.

You gave me a couple of "economists" which i then bothered to go and read, did you on the links I gave you? no didnt think so. Its called research you might want to try it some time.
As for Murdoch have you heard of the Levinson enquiry over in the UK? so naive

 

[Mad Elephant Man]

It is 'mainstream' so it must be right. Well done, you are a great intellectual. Firstly, I reject the premise of your argument and when have taxes and subsidies improved efficiency. If anything, some of the policies that Abbott is employing IS WHAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING. Taxes and subsidies!!! FFS, you have completely wrecked your own argument.

I love digging out this quote from time to time.

"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects." - Margaret Thatcher

She is spot on.

Nice quote

Is there consensus in the Coalition between the Liberal and National parties?

 

[auscyclefan94]

Nice quote

Is there consensus in the Coalition between the Liberal and National parties?

On Economics? No. Many in the Coalition do and did under the Howard Government practised many Keynesian economics idea, i.e. when certain markets were falling dramatically, the Howard Government on quite a few occasions spent to stimulate those sectors. In some instances it was successful. They were largely a Classical economic party that was very successful.

On Climate change? No either.

I think it is important that there isn't a consensus on many issues because then it isn't just accepted and what we think is true, is challenged.

I do thoroughly enjoy reading quotes from influential people.

 

[auscyclefan94]

In just about every post you have insulted me and you call me juvenile? I havent insulted you once, I back up my arguments with source material, I pointed out that there was another side to SK and his dispute with the uni.
Dont respond then really not that bothered, I know exactly what is going in the world and sad to say entirly predictable, tell you what a little bet if your lot get in (which they will) they will start austerity...within 6 months you will be in recession.

You gave me a couple of "economists" which i then bothered to go and read, did you on the links I gave you? no didnt think so. Its called research you might want to try it some time.
As for Murdoch have you heard of the Levinson enquiry over in the UK? so naive

I didn't insult you. I provided proper debate.

You basically attacked not only me in this post but just attacked others, which was completely irrelevant in trying to prove your point. Why should I even bother debating you?

Intresting that you used that particular news source...I wonder who owns that eh? usual rightwing dogwhistle stuff... what next are you going to link me to a fox news article.
Jesus wept just searched for those economists you recommened and hey guess what both write for the australian... you really should start reading something else....is your surname Murdoch?
Ok Ergas isnt even a macro economist... hes a micro economist no wonder, typical nonsense when you try to upscale 1 individuals behavour into an economy, which is essentially what neoclassicals do and why their lovely models then collapse in reality.

Murdoch this, murdoch that. Right wing dog whistle. We don't even have to go past the head of Treasury in Australia, Ken Henry, to see how Keynesian policy and modelling has failed in the real world. I will more than happily debate you on these topics if you remove the above post. Otherwise, no chance.

On Henry, being an expert on Microeconomics if anything makes his knowledge even more relevant to many aspects of Keynesian V Classical economics debate. Secondly, he is more than qualified to discuss both at length, and does so.

 

[AndyMMT]

I didn't insult you. I provided proper debate.

So juvinile, pathetic, socialist etc is proper debate is it and not insults? Ive removed that in the interest of debate, I request you do the same, leftie i dont mind, socialist i certainly do (I like a mixed economy which immediately would get me kicked out)

We don't even have to go past the head of Treasury in Australia, Ken Henry, to see how Keynesian policy and modelling has failed in the real world. I will more than happily debate you on these topics if you remove the above post. Otherwise, no chance.

On Henry, being an expert on Microeconomics if anything makes his knowledge even more relevant to many aspects of Keynesian V Classical economics debate. Secondly, he is more than qualified to discuss both at length, and does so.

On Henry that would be because he used the Neo-Keynesian synthesis which is basically a little bit of Keynes tacked on to Neoclassical economics, Krugman etc might describe themselves as Keynesians but they are not really. You need to understand the difference between Neo and Post Keynesians its an old argument.

As I mentioned the trouble with neoclassical economics is that they try to model from micro up to macro and there is the problem, its assuming that everyone is rational and markets tend to equilibrium when empirically they do not (we wouldnt have had this financial crisis if that was the case) Its interesting to note who predicted it people like Keen,Hudson on the Post Keynesian side and a couple from Austrian Econ as well.... no neoclassicals did (I suppose you could describe Roubini as neo-classical but its a stretch as he marches to his own drum)

The neoclassicals get the monetary system completely wrong by not putting in banks and debt in their models. They treat Banks as intermederies between saver and borrower but that most certainly is not the case in that it works on money being exogenously created, in actual fact its created endogenously. You wouldnt have seen the Endogenous schools V Krugman debates last year, google Keen v Krugman (started off by Steve and then everyone else waded in) PK got a bit of a kicking and has since changed his tune.

 

[AndyMMT]

As I had to rush that a bit at lunchtime a couple of clarifications.

Neo Keynesians that you have been exposed to are actually left neoclassicals.. Krugman for instance i agree with politically but his economics are not so hot but getting better.

Where I note this "its assuming that everyone is rational and markets tend towards equilibrium" now think that through what they are actually saying is that they can predict the future which is of course ludicrous and a major difference between neoclassical and real Keynesian econ. Keynes himself said "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" Neoclassicals turn economics into astrology.
Look at the concept (this is my fav as its stupid, you will think they same and wont believe me but its what they use) of marginal utility now if you are say earning x amount and eating y amount of baked beans if x rises then y rises because you can afford more... it doesnt take account of that maybe you can afford better you might eat steak instead of more beans (Ok had to simplify this as its a comment on a webpage but essentially the theory)

 

[auscyclefan94]

So juvinile, pathetic, socialist etc is proper debate is it and not insults? Ive removed that in the interest of debate, I request you do the same, leftie i dont mind, socialist i certainly do (I like a mixed economy which immediately would get me kicked out)

I only said those words because you were the one who dragged down the debate in the first place.

On Henry that would be because he used the Neo-Keynesian synthesis which is basically a little bit of Keynes tacked on to Neoclassical economics, Krugman etc might describe themselves as Keynesians but they are not really. You need to understand the difference between Neo and Post Keynesians its an old argument.

As I mentioned the trouble with neoclassical economics is that they try to model from micro up to macro and there is the problem, its assuming that everyone is rational and markets tend to equilibrium when empirically they do not (we wouldnt have had this financial crisis if that was the case) Its interesting to note who predicted it people like Keen,Hudson on the Post Keynesian side and a couple from Austrian Econ as well.... no neoclassicals did (I suppose you could describe Roubini as neo-classical but its a stretch as he marches to his own drum)

The neoclassicals get the monetary system completely wrong by not putting in banks and debt in their models. They treat Banks as intermederies between saver and borrower but that most certainly is not the case in that it works on money being exogenously created, in actual fact its created endogenously. You wouldnt have seen the Endogenous schools V Krugman debates last year, google Keen v Krugman (started off by Steve and then everyone else waded in) PK got a bit of a kicking and has since changed his tune.

Like I said before, I am not going to debate you in full until you delete that past crap but people like Keen actually got many predictions wrong. Ever heard about Keen's bet to walk from Canberra to Mt Kosciousko because of his incorrect predictions on the housing markets.

 

[Ferminal]

It is 'mainstream' so it must be right. Well done, you are a great intellectual. Firstly, I reject the premise of your argument and when have taxes and subsidies improved efficiency. If anything, some of the policies that Abbott is employing IS WHAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING. Taxes and subsidies!!! FFS, you have completely wrecked your own argument.

What are you talking about... it's mainstream because it's taught in every major university around the world. I don't think it's right but every single important person in every developed country does. I doubt TA went to a ****ty university or Cambridge so he would have been taught mainstream economics.

So either:

1) His economics degree is bad because it taught him that taxes can be of benefit (which you believe to be false).

or

2) Taxes are actually useful (which you disagree with).

Therefore you can't hold a position that TA's economics degree is a good thing AND taxes wreck the economy.

The funny thing is if you are against the economics orthodox in thinking that sensibly applied taxes/subsides are needed on rents/externalities you actually need to subscribe to Keen's criticisms of the neoclassical firm.

 

[Cobblestones]

You guts should charge tuition from ACF.

 

[auscyclefan94]

What are you talking about... it's mainstream because it's taught in every major university around the world. I don't think it's right but every single important person in every developed country does. I doubt TA went to a ****ty university or Cambridge so he would have been taught mainstream economics.

So either:

1) His economics degree is bad because it taught him that taxes can be of benefit (which you believe to be false).

or

2) Taxes are actually useful (which you disagree with).

Therefore you can't hold a position that TA's economics degree is a good thing AND taxes wreck the economy.

The funny thing is if you are against the economics orthodox in thinking that sensibly applied taxes/subsides are needed on rents/externalities you actually need to subscribe to Keen's criticisms of the neoclassical firm.

The fundamentals are taught in university but the universities often teach theories and models not just from Keynes, but many other economists. Firstly, taxes are not all bad but I do think they should be lower. Tony would think that as well. Just because I do not think taxes are all bad does not mean they are all good and that they do not do any harm to the economy. Classical economics does not believe all taxes are bad or unnecessary. Please do not put a "/" taxes and subsidies either. That implies they go hand in hand. They do not. Your attacks on Tony Abbott is rather shallow and hypocritical considering that many of his policies would actually support Keynesian economics.

Ferminal, do you support the subsidies of the car manufacturing industry? I should make this clear from the video. I am not completely against welfare. I think the welfare from governments across the world is excessive and I just think the government intervention in these types of issues does not make the problem better, but worse.

 

[auscyclefan94]

You guts should charge tuition from ACF.

I will pay tuition for that if I charge you tuition for English classes.

 

[auscyclefan94]

In other news, Totalitarian lefties are trying to restrict free speech in this country by trying to stop people to listen to Geert Wilders speak. It is rather sad that these people only support free speech when it suits their political agenda. I reject what Wilders says, but stopping people listening to what he has to say is against what ANY democratic nation should and does stand for.

 

[AndyMMT]

Like I said before, I am not going to debate you in full until you delete that past crap but people like Keen actually got many predictions wrong. Ever heard about Keen's bet to walk from Canberra to Mt Kosciousko because of his incorrect predictions on the housing markets.

I did, go and have a look and i said so.
Yes know all about that bet, was a bit silly as he put a date on it but that was the aussie housing market that the government propped up (same in UK propped up by government intervention) look elsewhere particulary the US market. As i said wasnt just Keen,Micheal Hudson, Anne Pettifor as well and even Peter Schiff. If the US money markets hadnt unfrozen just in time the Aussie banks would have been in deep trouble as they fund from there for some reason (possibly not enough Aus government debt to up Tier 1 capital?..not sure, definately talk of it in the FT) would have landed you with USD debts and bang would housing imploded if that had happened... expect that is the cause of the extremely bad Aus NIIP (a much better way of judging a countries position than sov debt to GDP)

Someone here might have a better idea than me with Aussie banks and their funding positions.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I did, go and have a look and i said so.
Yes know all about that bet, was a bit silly as he put a date on it but that was the aussie housing market that the government propped up (same in UK propped up by government intervention) look elsewhere particulary the US market. As i said wasnt just Keen,Micheal Hudson, Anne Pettifor as well and even Peter Schiff. If the US money markets hadnt unfrozen just in time the Aussie banks would have been in deep trouble as they fund from there for some reason (possibly not enough Aus government debt to up Tier 1 capital?..not sure, definately talk of it in the FT) would have landed you with USD debts and bang would housing imploded if that had happened... expect that is the cause of the extremely bad Aus NIIP (a much better way of judging a countries position than sov debt to GDP)

Someone here might have a better idea than me with Aussie banks and their funding positions.

Aussie banks did not go under like the US banks because they were liberally but adequately regulated by the Hawke Government, backin the '80s. The Australian banks did not hand out ridiculous loans to people, contrary to the US. When the US housing markets collapsed and the actual value of assets such as houses collapsed. The banks collapsed as a result of that because people did not have the capacity to pay back such a loan for their houses, whose selling value was well above it's actual value. When they could not pay back their loans, the banks go down the dunny. There are other factor as well involved in that, but Australia's economic polices from Hawke to Howard have been rather neoliberal and even then, Hawke still adequately protected the financial sector.

I will reply to some of your past posts a bit later tonight and tomorrow. I will enjoy discussing these issues with you.

 

[Ferminal]

The fundamentals are taught in university but the universities often teach theories and models not just from Keynes, but many other economists. Firstly, taxes are not all bad but I do think they should be lower. Tony would think that as well. Just because I do not think taxes are all bad does not mean they are all good and that they do not do any harm to the economy. Classical economics does not believe all taxes are bad or unnecessary. Please do not put a "/" taxes and subsidies either. That implies they go hand in hand. They do not. Your attacks on Tony Abbott is rather shallow and hypocritical considering that many of his policies would actually support Keynesian economics.

It's not an attack on TA it's an attack on that stupid poster which said he had an economics degree which is apparently a good thing and that stupid video you posted which said taxes are a bad thing.

A tax on production and a subsidy on production are opposite but use the same mechanism.

You need to understand that these dreaded "Keynesians" you talk about are not actual Keynesians as Andy and I have discussed. They accept Walras/Jevons/Marshall's world and are neoclassicals with sticky wages (putting it simply). A New Keynesian micro textbook is more or less the same as a neoclassical one. So you might be learning "Keynesian" economics but it's actually the proud orthodox tradition. The sal****er/freshwater (I don't even know which one is which ) is more political than theoretical. Compare that to the differences between mainstream economics and Austrians or post-Keynesians.

Ferminal, do you support the subsidies of the car manufacturing industry? I should make this clear from the video. I am not completely against welfare. I think the welfare from governments across the world is excessive and I just think the government intervention in these types of issues does not make the problem better, but worse.

Well I don't know if subsidies in the car industry are the way to go (so I'll say no, to quote Floyd), but I do side with Kaldor's views on the importance of manufacturing. I don't think the world collectively can continue trying to make money out of nothing forever.

 

[movingtarget]

In other news, Totalitarian lefties are trying to restrict free speech in this country by trying to stop people to listen to Geert Wilders speak. It is rather sad that these people only support free speech when it suits their political agenda. I reject what Wilders says, but stopping people listening to what he has to say is against what ANY democratic nation should and does stand for.

It's hilarious hearing some of the Muzzies say that Wilders should not be allowed into the country not to mention the usual bleeding hearts who always think free speech is hate speech if it does not agree with their agenda.

 

[auscyclefan94]

It's not an attack on TA it's an attack on that stupid poster which said he had an economics degree which is apparently a good thing and that stupid video you posted which said taxes are a bad thing.

A tax on production and a subsidy on production are opposite but use the same mechanism.

I posted that ages ago. What relevance is that now? I think having an economics degree is fine. Like I said when I posted that poster, I don't believe all of the things on it are fair. It was more posted as a joke, so sorry if I offended you. The video I posted DOES NOT say that all taxes are bad. It says that many are unnecessary and so is the expenditure associated with them.

You need to understand that these dreaded "Keynesians" you talk about are not actual Keynesians as Andy and I have discussed. They accept Walras/Jevons/Marshall's world and are neoclassicals with sticky wages (putting it simply). A New Keynesian micro textbook is more or less the same as a neoclassical one. So you might be learning "Keynesian" economics but it's actually the proud orthodox tradition. The sal****er/freshwater (I don't even know which one is which ) is more political than theoretical. Compare that to the differences between mainstream economics and Austrians or post-Keynesians.

Fair enough.

Well I don't know if subsidies in the car industry are the way to go (so I'll say no, to quote Floyd), but I do side with Kaldor's views on the importance of manufacturing. I don't think the world collectively can continue trying to make money out of nothing forever.

My personal view of subsidies, especially car subsidies, is that they are trying to keep alive a dead horse. While I do think that the car manufacturing industry is over-regulated and has many unnecessary regulations, I do object to the corporate welfare that is used to prop it up. The fact that governments hand out taxpayers money to an industry that is dying, even with the subsidies, is wrong imo. Clearly not enough people want the cars. I believe that if a business is flailing because people don't want the product, it should not be stopped. Even though the Liberal Party should philosophically not support the car industry subsidies, it, along with the other parties, will continue to prop up this industry.

 

[auscyclefan94]

It's hilarious hearing some of the Muzzies say that Wilders should not be allowed into the country not to mention the usual bleeding hearts who always think free speech is hate speech if it does not agree with their agenda.

Agreed.
I think free speech includes hate speech. I think Wilders should be allowed to say what he truly thinks about Muslims. I find his views hypocritical and quite untrue, but if he is not physically harming them or doing something that is way out of line, then let him say what he likes. When he leaves Australia, all he will be is a distant memory.