The Politics Thread 2013

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 18, 2013, 12:01 pm

T_R wrote:
Green eyed Mick wrote: I will give you Ryan but again how does replacing someone from the Left with someone from the right achieve balance?
:shock: You yourself have already told us that human rights is a 'lefty' thing. Please don't pretend that the HRC Board is not drawn from the left side of politics - surely not even you could be that delusional?
Green eyed Mick wrote:As for your political position. Don't **** in my pocket. You might have only voted Liberal once in your life but your support and defense of that side of the political spectrum, combined with the utter contempt you appear to have for anyone and anything on the left is clear as crystal.
No no, the contempt is for you, not 'anyone and anything on the left'. Perhaps your egocentricism makes it difficult for you to differentiate? I'd imagine that's the same reason you seem to think that you, personally, are in precisely the appropriate point in the political spectrum and the rest of the army is out of step. Fact is, I have voted to the left of politics my entire adult life, with one exception, and even there it was far more an issue of loathing of the incompetent than support of the alternative. It takes an amazing leap (to put it generously) to then claim I'm a rusted on Liberal supporter. Perhaps what you mean is that I'm just not left enough , ie fail to exactly subscribe to your own beliefs? As I said, pure egocentricism.
If you have voted Labor at anytime since the 1996 election you have not been voting on the left side of politics. Labor was a centreist party during the Howard years and arguably a centre right party during the Rudd/Gillard years. There is nothing remotely leftist about Labor other than the Trade Union influence and we all know what you think about unions.

FTR I have nothing but contempt for you my friend :roflmao

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 18, 2013, 12:05 pm

Green eyed Mick wrote: If you have voted Labor at anytime since the 1996 election you have not been voting on the left side of politics. Labor was a centreist party during the Howard years and arguably a centre right party during the Rudd/Gillard years. There is nothing remotely leftist about Labor other than the Trade Union influence and we all know what you think about unions.
As I said..."left, but not left enough'. You demand the ideological purity of a maoist, and then wonder why people think you're a slightly unhinged fringe dweller. Accept it, GEM, it's you that has the extreme position that you so like to accuse others of.
Green eyed Mick wrote:FTR I have nothing but contempt for you my friend :roflmao
[Pauses to slash wrists]
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22571
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Northern Raider » December 18, 2013, 12:11 pm

The good old 'same to you' response. Nothing beats it. :thumbsup
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 18, 2013, 12:13 pm

Northern Raider wrote:The good old 'same to you' response. Nothing beats it. :thumbsup
Trumped me again.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22571
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Northern Raider » December 18, 2013, 12:23 pm

T_R wrote:
Northern Raider wrote:The good old 'same to you' response. Nothing beats it. :thumbsup
Trumped me again.
you got pwned
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
Toviii
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10385
Joined: March 10, 2012, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Rapana

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Toviii » December 18, 2013, 1:18 pm

This thread would be nothing without GEM and TR.

Here's a nice recap of the year in politics:
http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/evan- ... lines-year
'I've got 17 blokes in that dressing room that are hurting'

User avatar
Dr Zaius
Laurie Daley
Posts: 19351
Joined: April 15, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Queensland somewhere

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Dr Zaius » December 19, 2013, 5:49 am

So much love in this thread. It warms the cockles.
RIP Greenbits: 2007-2014

Nick
Mal Meninga
Posts: 55313
Joined: January 6, 2005, 7:21 pm
Favourite Player: Jack Wighton
Location: The abyss, ive brought a house in the abyss, im getting mail redirected to the abyss

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Nick » December 19, 2013, 8:43 am

Toviii wrote:This thread would be nothing without GEM and TR.
Are you kidding? They are the only reason to come into this thread.
Image
Image
Raiders member no: 4008
Bay 28, Row JJ, Seat 8

greeneyed wrote:Sheens was brought in to build the Cowboys and Tigers. He did both, bringing one a premiership, despite the many injury ridden years of his key playmaker.
^^^
:lol: !

User avatar
Toviii
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10385
Joined: March 10, 2012, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Rapana

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Toviii » December 19, 2013, 9:04 am

Nick wrote:
Toviii wrote:This thread would be nothing without GEM and TR.
Are you kidding? They are the only reason to come into this thread.
That was what I meant?
'I've got 17 blokes in that dressing room that are hurting'

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » December 19, 2013, 9:18 am

Are you kidding? That's what Nicko meant!
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Toviii
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10385
Joined: March 10, 2012, 8:11 am
Favourite Player: Rapana

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Toviii » December 19, 2013, 9:26 am

I get the feeling I'm battling here :lol:
'I've got 17 blokes in that dressing room that are hurting'

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » December 19, 2013, 9:30 am

I always thought you were a bit of a battler, Toviiiiiii
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 19, 2013, 10:12 am

Toviii wrote:I get the feeling I'm battling here :lol:
Made sense to me.

Anyway. Boats stopped yet?

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 19, 2013, 10:28 am

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal ... 2zkxd.html

Found something. Looks like Tony might be crawling back into bed with the Greens for a second time in as many weeks.

Interesting to see how different all the parties are on parental leave. I might be Bias but I actually think the Greens policy is the best.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 19, 2013, 10:38 am

Green eyed Mick wrote:I might be Bias but I actually think the Greens policy is the best.
:shock: Biased? Nooooooooooooooooooo.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Stuat » December 19, 2013, 11:55 am

Clive's 25k flat rate! Instructive that the Lib policy is by far and away the most generous of all senate parties... The greens get closest, but their policy is still hugely expensive. Budget emergency my ****.

On another note, already hearing of some people "employing" their daughters who are planning on having kids soon on 150k a year...

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 19, 2013, 11:57 am

Stuat wrote:
On another note, already hearing of some people "employing" their daughters who are planning on having kids soon on 150k a year...
That can actually be read a little creepily.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Stuat » December 19, 2013, 12:27 pm

T_R wrote:
Stuat wrote:
On another note, already hearing of some people "employing" their daughters who are planning on having kids soon on 150k a year...
That can actually be read a little creepily.
Hahah! True that

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 19, 2013, 1:28 pm

Stuat wrote:Clive's 25k flat rate! Instructive that the Lib policy is by far and away the most generous of all senate parties... The greens get closest, but their policy is still hugely expensive. Budget emergency my ****.

On another note, already hearing of some people "employing" their daughters who are planning on having kids soon on 150k a year...
It will get rorted like any other piece of middle class welfare but we will get some kind of very generous paid parental leave scheme. And I expect it to get through before the new Senate in July.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » December 19, 2013, 1:32 pm

We were discussing this whole thing at dinner last night. There's no way anybody in my pay bracket should be getting a red cent in handouts from the government.

It's just ludicrous!!
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24597
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Manbush » December 19, 2013, 2:30 pm

The Nickman wrote:We were discussing this whole thing at dinner last night. There's no way anybody in my pay bracket should be getting a red cent in handouts from the government.

It's just ludicrous!!
Agreed, but out of all the options I prefer Labors low flat rate.

With the way our deficit is why the **** are we adding a new upper and middle class welfare payment especially at ludicrous amounts.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Stuat » December 19, 2013, 2:46 pm

Manbush wrote:
The Nickman wrote:We were discussing this whole thing at dinner last night. There's no way anybody in my pay bracket should be getting a red cent in handouts from the government.

It's just ludicrous!!
Agreed, but out of all the options I prefer Labors low flat rate.

With the way our deficit is why the **** are we adding a new upper and middle class welfare payment especially at ludicrous amounts.
Agreed. Labors plan is "stingy" in that it is was designed by economists to get the biggest bang for your buck in terms of productivity gains. So from that perspective, there is no rationale for spending more money, because the productivity gains that you would need to justify the extra spending simply aren't there...

I'm open for PPL being a little more generous (Clive's 25k is probably my favourite), but from an economics point of view, Labors scheme makes the most sense (it's also the cheapest and furthest right of all the policies).

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » December 19, 2013, 3:23 pm

Seriously, too many people are living off handouts from the government. It's ****ing ridiculous!! If we're any chance of ever getting back on track as a country, we need to cut handouts, not give out more!!
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 19, 2013, 3:48 pm

The Nickman wrote:Seriously, too many people are living off handouts from the government. It's ****ing ridiculous!! If we're any chance of ever getting back on track as a country, we need to cut handouts, not give out more!!
What's your take on the Billions in handouts for the Coal and Gas industry?

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » December 19, 2013, 4:34 pm

Green eyed Mick wrote:
The Nickman wrote:Seriously, too many people are living off handouts from the government. It's ****ing ridiculous!! If we're any chance of ever getting back on track as a country, we need to cut handouts, not give out more!!
What's your take on the Billions in handouts for the Coal and Gas industry?
I don't know anything about them.

Please enlighten me.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » December 19, 2013, 4:41 pm

Actually, let me have a go.

I think we need more people working, not less. This is why I think the automotive industry shutting down is simply awful for our country. If the government needs to spend some money to prop up an industry so that more people are working and thus paying tax, then it work twofold - people are being productive, and they're also paying taxes. The absolute worst thing we can have is unemployment continue to rise, as we stop getting more taxes in. People need to be productive, tax-paying members of our society for it all to work.

I'm obviously no economist, but that's how I see things. Not sure what the government is doing for the coal and gas industry, but if they save jobs so that mines don't shut down, and tens of thousands of people (who are on decent salaraies and therefore pay decent taxes) keep their jobs, surely that's a good thing??

We need revenue to get out of this mess. The best way to get revenue is to have people working. The more people work, the less the government has to fork out to support them.

We're in a mighty big hole, and every time something shuts and thousands of people lose their jobs, the bigger the hole gets and the harder it will be to get out of it.

That's just my take anyway. Like I said, I don't understand this stuff as much as you geniuses do. Stuat will shoot my theories to bits in about five seconds (if he can type a thousand words in five seconds)
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Stuat » December 19, 2013, 5:21 pm

Haha! Your not all that wrong Nickman. We'd have different views on where government money to promote growth and industry goes- I'm not sure subsidies, protectionism etc are the best way of fostering it- but in some cases they are legitimately useful (although I'm not a big fan of them in general- a lot of the time they don't work all that well and don't foster the sort of growth that is needed to keep an industry competitive internationally in the long term- however, sometimes they do work pretty effectively)... Personally I'd lean towards tax incentives (mainly for small/start up companies to promote entrepreneurship etc etc), research and money for R and D and commercialisation of research, small grants for emerging industries, education and training to up skill the workforce etc etc...

In the end though, that argument is about bang for your buck in terms of economic growth/economic stability/economic competitiveness/adaptation to changing economies not about government intervention per se. I think we can spend the money we spend on rent seeking/subsidies far more efficiently to promote growth and strengthen the economy- but I don't think we should abandon those schemes entirely, I think we should just be smarter about where they go and how they are spent- I think government has a role to play in fostering business growth.

In the real world, with politics, lag times and general messiness- you can make decent arguments that the Holden subsidies should have been continued for a while, even if I kind of disagreed with them. Communities will be "destroyed" because the car industry is leaving, that's not necessarily a bad thing IF the economy is doing its job to create the new jobs needed etc etc- if it isn't though, then maybe you keep the subsidies until you've got the other stuff up and running and the economy can easily take and better utilise those workers...

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Stuat » December 19, 2013, 5:25 pm

Just for the record, the mining industry gets 4 billion a year in subsidies. Forget the exact break down so this could be wrong but something like 700 million in direct subsidies like the ones the government weren't going to give to Holden, the rest in indirect subsidies like the ones on fuel etc etc

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24597
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Manbush » December 19, 2013, 7:18 pm

On government bail outs I'm against em, only time I might accept it is if the company can prove they will be successful and stand on their own two feet in the not so distant future, Holden had no hope, if a company can't survive then let em die.

The main subsidy that **** me is to the banks and insuring them against hard times, with the amount of profit they make annually shouldn't they be able to protect themselves with the right management.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Stuat » December 19, 2013, 7:50 pm

Manbush wrote:On government bail outs I'm against em, only time I might accept it is if the company can prove they will be successful and stand on their own two feet in the not so distant future, Holden had no hope, if a company can't survive then let em die.

The main subsidy that **** me is to the banks and insuring them against hard times, with the amount of profit they make annually shouldn't they be able to protect themselves with the right management.
The problem with banks failing is they lose lots and lots of people's money which **** lots of **** up. So the government guarantees make sense to a point.

The Glass-Steagall act in the US in the 30' separated commercial banks which held people's money and investment banks. Commercial banks had to hold much more capital and were allowed to take on far less risk, to limit the risk that they would cause another depression/fail and need to be bailed out. A lot of the Glass-Steagall act was watered down/repealed in the 90's which was one of the contributing factors the the GFC and the massive bail outs. If those banks had failed it would have "hurt" the economy far more than giving them a trillion dollars- so once it happened it was to late- you just kind of have to.

Now that's not how it should be, but to avoid that, you need regulations. Arguably, the Glass-Steagall act hadn't kept pace with modern banking anyway and even if it hadn't been repealed, the moral hazard would still have been there and many of those banks could still have legally taken on a load of huge risks and many investment banks were so big they couldn't really be allowed to fail (so they were all working under the assumption that if it went wrong the public would pick up the tab- that's moral hazard).

To avoid that, you want stringent regulations on commercial banks to stop them taking on undue risk. If they are going to have an implicit of explicate government guarantee, you have to legislate against the moral hazard to reduce public risk. Adding to that, there may need to be size restrictions on investment banks to avoid the potential moral hazard of too big to fail (ie if you are big enough, the government can't let you die and will bail you out).

So you can potentially avoid bail outs with sensible regulation. Problem is, that regulation is there to ward against 1 in 50 year events and the likelihood is that over that time, people will forget about why those laws are there and lobby for them to be relaxed so that the banks can take bigger gambles with more risk but more potential reward...

(In terms on banking legislation Australia has been pretty good and didn't reduce regulation all that much- which is one of the reasons our banks sailed through the financial crisis- government hadn't let them take on the risks other countries banks were able to take on)...

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24597
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Manbush » December 19, 2013, 8:02 pm

Stuat with the profits banks make though dont you think they could afford to cover their own asses? It would obviously reduce their profit margin and the worth to shareholders (major hate of mine but that's a different discussion) but why should we cover them when they can afford to themselves with the right management and legislation.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 19, 2013, 8:16 pm

If the government guarantees that a bank won't fail, then it won't. If you follow.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » December 19, 2013, 9:12 pm

The Nickman wrote:I think it's fairly obvious to me that T_R votes Liberal now because he's rich.
T_R wrote:
Michael wrote:Do you think things would be markedly better under a PM other than Rudd?
Actually, I'm beginning to. The more I see of the Rudd government, the flimiser it seems.
Michael wrote:Also, I find it interesting the fuss made by conservatives about the insulation scheme and the unfortunate deaths of those kids. I don't necessarily agree, but I'll concede that an argument could be made that the government's insulation policy at least indirectly caused the deaths of those kids....
I'm waiting for someone to come up with statistics to show that the death rate per million instalations is any more than it has been previously. But whatever the case, the whole matter was handled poorly and is symptomatic of the way the Rudd government does business. This latest 'Super profits tax' or whatever the hell it is is just the latest example of poorly formulated policies implemented by those without the skills to manage, let alone lead.

I won't vote labor at the next election and I'd rather walk over broken glass than vote for Abbot. Who do you vote for...the incompetent or the nasty? I may have to go overseas in October and avoid the whole damn thing.
Home alone for the first time in nearly a decade, I was motivated enough to search and find out when I sold my soul to the devil. May 4, 2010. There you have it. If I wasn't quite prepared to go over to the dark side, I at least walked away from the light.

For the record, I went overseas.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Stuat » December 20, 2013, 7:03 am

Manbush wrote:Stuat with the profits banks make though dont you think they could afford to cover their own asses? It would obviously reduce their profit margin and the worth to shareholders (major hate of mine but that's a different discussion) but why should we cover them when they can afford to themselves with the right management and legislation.
Businesses take on excessive risk and fail all the time- that's just capitalism. Problem with some banks failing is that it **** up lots of stuff. The "guarantee" is there if something goes terribly wrong- to protect everyday citizens from losing their life savings. At least in Australia, it still comes attached to a load of regulations that are designed to mitigate the public risk that the banks that have it will go belly up and need to be bailed out. Those more or less worked during the GFC, we didn't have to bail out our banks and they all sailed through it in fine shape- at least in part because of bank regs.

You could argue those regulations need to be tighter, to further mitigate against the risks on one of the big 4 failing, but say compared to the US, the risk we have exposed ourselves to by guaranteeing (implicit or explicate it doesn't matter much) some banks is much lower.

The fact banks are making profits has little to do with it- it's probably a "good" thing in the big scheme of things. Healthy, profitable banks are less likely to go belly up, further reducing the risks of any guarantee.

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

The Politics Thread

Post by Stuat » December 20, 2013, 8:10 am

Now you've brought up pink batts again TR, the royal commission into pink batts is a massive waste of money.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/20 ... -hysteria/ (note the CSIRO report is no longer available on gov websites- that I can find anyway)

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/07/08/her ... her=mobile

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/03/whe ... important/

Edit- report still exists- just not on government websites http://pbxmastragics.files.wordpress.co ... -batts.pdf

Post Reply