The Politics Thread 2021

[The Nickman]

Of course there is influence. I just believe it is far less than Labor would have us believe. The reason I believe this is that in an age of limitless access to partisan media, people are more than at any point in modern history simply consuming media that reconfirms their own views. I used the feeble viewership figures of key Labor bugbear Sky News as an example - no one is watching except a very small core group who are well and truly already in the echo chamber.

Simple.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I mean this sums up my whole argument perfectly. And since the last election, the "unlosable" election where Shorten was soundly thrashed by ScoMo, Labor supporters have used Mudoch as a crutch to excuse the fact their party is utterly directionless, incompetent and toothless.

If I had to pigeonhole myself, I'd call myself a "liberal conservative", which means I'm right of centre economically, but very, very left socially. I firmly believe in a strong economy where the government doesn't own everything, but I'm also a firm champion of equal rights for everybody. In social media "discussions" I have the rare talent that I'm labelled both left AND right by whoever I'm currently arguing with.

But why would I vote for Labor? Their economic mismanagement has stood the test of time, but what do they stand for socially? They didn't even bring in same-sex marriage F F S!! And they had an openly gay cabinet minister who towed the "party line" and said marriage should be a union between man and woman. If Labor were ever going to steal my vote, implementing strong social change is the way to do it and they absolutely **** the bed on that one, allowing the liberals to swoop in and do it (albeit in a roundabout way in order to appease the nut-jobs in their supporter base).

And just going "Durrrr coal bad, close coal mines" ain't gonna do it for me. Enact proper climate change measures, not just ridiculous knee-jerk reactions that endanger people's livelihoods.

Rant over.

Can I just stop you at your “financial mismanagement” point.

Im what ways have Labor mismanaged the countries finances?

Have you ever actually taken stock and looked at the LNPs “management” of public resources in delivering outcomes?

Energy policy = absolute mess (see blowing up of the neg)
Tech/communications = absolute mess (see NBN)
Aged care = absolute mess (see royal commission findings)
Social services = absolute mess (see robodebt)
IR = mess. Wages have stagnated since 2013.

Then you have scandal after scandal which often involve the rorting of public resources for their own political gain.

I mean this sincerely - what is it the LNP have down policy wise to earn a perpetual stint in power?

I have gone to great lengths to explain why the delivery of surpluses is a completely misguided way to measure good financial mgmt. but even if you do use that as a yardstick, have you noticed that the so called “debt” has quadrupled since LNP have been in power?

To be fair, you're of the opinion the Government should just *checks notes* "print more money" to handle all of our financial woes, so I highly doubt you're in a position to argue which political party does a better job managing the economy.

[Mickey_Raider]

The point of contention is whether the funds that have been created are associated with debt (such as a bond) or whether they just appear on the government's account ledger

It is the latter. The funds are essentially created by keystroke and credited to the participating reserve accounts at the RBA.

Then the treasury will hold bond auctions, which effectively function as a “reserve drain” so that the net increase of reserves in the system on account of the aforementioned spending is zero.

[Mickey_Raider]

Of course there is influence. I just believe it is far less than Labor would have us believe. The reason I believe this is that in an age of limitless access to partisan media, people are more than at any point in modern history simply consuming media that reconfirms their own views. I used the feeble viewership figures of key Labor bugbear Sky News as an example - no one is watching except a very small core group who are well and truly already in the echo chamber.

Simple.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I mean this sums up my whole argument perfectly. And since the last election, the "unlosable" election where Shorten was soundly thrashed by ScoMo, Labor supporters have used Mudoch as a crutch to excuse the fact their party is utterly directionless, incompetent and toothless.

If I had to pigeonhole myself, I'd call myself a "liberal conservative", which means I'm right of centre economically, but very, very left socially. I firmly believe in a strong economy where the government doesn't own everything, but I'm also a firm champion of equal rights for everybody. In social media "discussions" I have the rare talent that I'm labelled both left AND right by whoever I'm currently arguing with.

But why would I vote for Labor? Their economic mismanagement has stood the test of time, but what do they stand for socially? They didn't even bring in same-sex marriage F F S!! And they had an openly gay cabinet minister who towed the "party line" and said marriage should be a union between man and woman. If Labor were ever going to steal my vote, implementing strong social change is the way to do it and they absolutely **** the bed on that one, allowing the liberals to swoop in and do it (albeit in a roundabout way in order to appease the nut-jobs in their supporter base).

And just going "Durrrr coal bad, close coal mines" ain't gonna do it for me. Enact proper climate change measures, not just ridiculous knee-jerk reactions that endanger people's livelihoods.

Rant over.

Can I just stop you at your “financial mismanagement” point.

Im what ways have Labor mismanaged the countries finances?

Have you ever actually taken stock and looked at the LNPs “management” of public resources in delivering outcomes?

Energy policy = absolute mess (see blowing up of the neg)
Tech/communications = absolute mess (see NBN)
Aged care = absolute mess (see royal commission findings)
Social services = absolute mess (see robodebt)
IR = mess. Wages have stagnated since 2013.

Then you have scandal after scandal which often involve the rorting of public resources for their own political gain.

I mean this sincerely - what is it the LNP have down policy wise to earn a perpetual stint in power?

I have gone to great lengths to explain why the delivery of surpluses is a completely misguided way to measure good financial mgmt. but even if you do use that as a yardstick, have you noticed that the so called “debt” has quadrupled since LNP have been in power?

To be fair, you're of the opinion the Government should just *checks notes* "print more money" to handle all of our financial woes, so I highly doubt you're in a position to argue which political party does a better job managing the economy.

Lazy and reductionist comment which indicates that your understanding of the topic is clearly quite limited.

[Mickey_Raider]

Not only that but you haven’t even attempted to address any of my points and have essentially resorted to an ad hominem attack.

[greeneyed]

@Botman Completely fallacious comparison.

In the case of the Raiders all people were saying (certainly all I was saying) was that unrecognised bias influences sports umpiring. If your club becomes a “winner” that actually helps a sports club. I’d say the Raiders are approaching a state of neutral with unrecognised bias, given these things take time to change.

In the case of media bias, that doesn’t change one way or other. A political party might be able to make themselves a smaller target I guess. Political media bias has been with us for a very long time. What is concerning about the current media landscape is that biases in what we used to think was “mainstream” are becoming more extreme... and journalistic standards, which ensured material presented was basically factual, are being abandoned. It’s something to be very concerned about.

[Seiffert82]

MMT is clearly one form of economic theory, but to me it completely ignores the most basic of economic principles in that money is just a vehicle to exchange goods and services of equal value.

This last part though is just not correct and completely ignores the theory of chartalism, which to me is fully grounded in reality.

OK, maybe I simplified things a bit there. The history of money, the use of currency to facilitate the exchange goods and services and the various ways currency is now managed and controlled by governments is obviously quite complicated. Money is now used for all sorts of purposes these days, rather than just a thing that evolved from shells and rocks used for bartering, to promissory notes issued by an entity other than a governing authority, to what we see today.

Whether you think money is a government construct to control consumer behaviour, or that it just evolved from bartering as a common currency to facilitate the exchange of goods and services - my point is I believe there are some fundamental economic principles about exchanging tangible goods and services, which money is used to do, that can be completely undermined if a governing entity can just add a number on a general ledger that can then be exchanged for said goods and services.

Which brings us to the inherent value of crypto currencies...but that's a subject for another day.

[Botman]

@Botman Completely fallacious comparison.

Of course you'd think so, to say otherwise would decimate not one but now two long standing gripes you have
The parallels are clear and obvious

The Australian political system is ultimate a zero sum 2 party system. Either ALP wins and LNP loses. Or LNP wins and ALP loses.
LNP have won 6 of the last 8 federal elections. That trend is very reversible if the ALP get their **** together, regardless of what impact Murdoch media does or doesnt have.

It's as simple as that. But whilst the focus is on the boogieman and the failures of the party are written off in name of that boogieman, nothing will change and LNP will continue to dominate the election cycle. I would like to avoid that.

[The Nickman]

To be fair, you're of the opinion the Government should just *checks notes* "print more money" to handle all of our financial woes, so I highly doubt you're in a position to argue which political party does a better job managing the economy.

Lazy and reductionist comment which indicates that your understanding of the topic is clearly quite limited.

I don't need to, I'm not an expert on the topic, so don't see why I'd bother to try and pretend to be.

What I DO know though, is that GE spent his whole life working in economics *EDIT and he systematically took your arguments to pieces for weeks on end, and all you did was respond to gangrenous-levels of scorn in response.

So I'm happy to let the experts lead the discussion as they see fit.

[The Nickman]

@Botman Completely fallacious comparison.

In the case of the Raiders all people were saying (certainly all I was saying) was that unrecognised bias influences sports umpiring. If your club becomes a “winner” that actually helps a sports club. I’d say the Raiders are approaching a state of neutral with unrecognised bias, given these things take time to change.

In the case of media bias, that doesn’t change one way or other. A political party might be able to make themselves a smaller target I guess. Political media bias has been with us for a very long time. What is concerning about the current media landscape is that biases in what we used to think was “mainstream” are becoming more extreme... and journalistic standards, which ensured material presented was basically factual, are being abandoned. It’s something to be very concerned about.

It wasn't just the refs though, you guys blamed the NRL, the judiciary, the draw, the water boys and the pie sellers as all being complicit in their conspiracy to keep the Raiders down, even going on to say the Raiders would never have any sustained success while so many factors were conspiring against them.

Fast forward a few years, and we finally have our **** together off the field and surprise surprise, we're now a competition heavyweight who has had some sustained success and are a very good chance of being in the conversation come grand final time again this season.

Who would've thunk it?

[Mickey_Raider]

To be fair, you're of the opinion the Government should just *checks notes* "print more money" to handle all of our financial woes, so I highly doubt you're in a position to argue which political party does a better job managing the economy.

Lazy and reductionist comment which indicates that your understanding of the topic is clearly quite limited.

I don't need to, I'm not an expert on the topic, so don't see why I'd bother to try and pretend to be.

What I DO know though, is that GE spent his whole life working in economics *EDIT and he systematically took your arguments to pieces for weeks on end, and all you did was respond to gangrenous-levels of scorn in response.

So I'm happy to let the experts lead the discussion as they see fit.

Ok firstly, what scorn? When did I ever use any sort of scorn in my responses? What are you even on about?

And secondly, interesting conclusion that my arguments have been taken to pieces for weeks. Often my assertions never get refuted at all (see my points about sovereign default).

But each to their own. You admitted yourself that you’re not an expert and as someone with qualifications in the area I’m happy that you approve of letting those with an actual understanding continue the debate.

[the bone]

I think we all agree that (i) ALP need to get it together to have a shot at winning, and (ii) the media has some influence on public opinion. We disagree on the extents to which each is a problem, and the influence it has on politics. I don’t think anyone has accused Nickman, Pigman, TR etc as being right wing hacks... if they have, I’m not sure why they would. And at the some time, I’m not sure why we’d be labelled (if not directly, suggestively) left wing radicals.
For me, I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Abbott - the man’s a pig, and I’m a big believer in separation of church and state, so Gillard and Rudd got my vote in 2010 and 2013 respectively. In 2016, the ALP were a disappointment in opposition, and I wasn’t really sure what they stood for, so Turnbull got my vote over Shorten. Then in 2019, I started seeing the LNP shift to the right (similar to, but not to the same extent, as the GOP in the US), so Shorten got my vote over ScoMo.
As for the state level, I’ve never voted for the Labor Party. The LNP has done a great job in NSW from my perspective.

[The Nickman]

I think we all agree that (i) ALP need to get it together to have a shot at winning, and (ii) the media has some influence on public opinion. We disagree on the extents to which each is a problem, and the influence it has on politics. I don’t think anyone has accused Nickman, Pigman, TR etc as being right wing hacks... if they have, I’m not sure why they would. And at the some time, I’m not sure why we’d be labelled (if not directly, suggestively) left wing radicals.
For me, I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Abbott - the man’s a pig, and I’m a big believer in separation of church and state, so Gillard and Rudd got my vote in 2010 and 2013 respectively. In 2016, the ALP were a disappointment in opposition, and I wasn’t really sure what they stood for, so Turnbull got my vote over Shorten. Then in 2019, I started seeing the LNP shift to the right (similar to, but not to the same extent, as the GOP in the US), so Shorten got my vote over ScoMo.
As for the state level, I’ve never voted for the Labor Party. The LNP has done a great job in NSW from my perspective.

That's some amazingly well-balanced discourse, it's refreshing to see.

I have to say I'm similar to you on most things (I obviously don't vote in the NSW state elections though), except I voted for ScoMo instead of Shorten mainly on the Labor Party's genuine lack of climate change policy apart from "Guurrrrr coal bad, shut coal mines". It was easily the biggest mistake they made in that election.

I voted for Abbot over Rudd too, but only because I didn't realise how much of an absolute piece he was. If I had my time again, I probably would've voted Rudd, I certainly would've voted Shorten over Abbot.

[The Nickman]

Saying all that though, Kevin Rudd is an absolute piece too, so it makes it very difficult.

[gerg]

I can't quite keep up. Are we saying that the Murdoch empire has no influence over world politics?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Yes, because people don’t read the paper or watch TV anymore, and there’s social media which has podcasts.

So an old geezer who is extremely wealthy and has a direct telephone line to most world leaders. Has prospective world leaders contact him (grovelling) directly to seek his endorsement. This old guy has no influence?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

No. Because people already only read the papers and TV with the political views they like.

Extremely disingenuous stuff, very unsurprising.
No one has said it has no impact, what has been said is the impact is grossly overstated for reasons we've outlined, the impact is declining at a rapid rate for reasons outlined, what impact exists is certainly not election shifting.

And I myself have said a person who has not voted for LNP in any of the last 3 state or federal elections, someone who wants to see someone else outside of the LNP in power, the so called "murdoch media" problem would rank well outside the top 5 of issues the ALP need to address if they're going to convince the Australian people to give them a power and a long enough rope to achieve. First and foremost, they need to put together a shadow leader, cabinet and policy platform that gives swing voters a reason to vote for them.
Their inability to do that for the vast majority of the last 2 decades has nothing to do with Murdoch and everything to do with the party. The LNP is dealing with god knows how many RAPE accusations and have a MAJOR image and PR problem on their hands right now and even STILL, Albo can't get a **** sound bite out there that stirs any emotion
You just wont win elections with that sort of leader. Simple. It's not as if ScoMo is some incredibly popular and capable leader. If he was running against anyone competent, he'd be on course to get his **** thrown out next election.


Lastly, i want to thank TR and Nickman for their extremely interesting contributions to this thread. I've found their posts very enlightening. Their thoughts mirror the thoughts of people i speak with on a daily basis. They should be commended for their input. As for the rest of you, and as was saying to some mates the other day, which we all agreed on, maybe those who dont see it this way should be more receptive to listening to other peoples views will help you understand how wrong you are.

So as a Labor voter (by your own admission) the sweeping generalisation that has been made in this discussion (and supported by you) - that Labor voters blame election results on the Murdoch empire is actually a generalisation directed at you?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[The Nickman]

Boy, that's a long bow to draw, gerg.

[gerg]

Really? How so?

Talk it out for me.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[greeneyed]

It wasn't just the refs though, you guys blamed the NRL, the judiciary, the draw, the water boys and the pie sellers as all being complicit in their conspiracy to keep the Raiders down, even going on to say the Raiders would never have any sustained success while so many factors were conspiring against them.

Fast forward a few years, and we finally have our **** together off the field and surprise surprise, we're now a competition heavyweight who has had some sustained success and are a very good chance of being in the conversation come grand final time again this season.

Who would've thunk it?

Some of that is obviously completely false. However, there are a range of NRL policies which are the consequence of very conscious decisions on the part of the administration, and which disadvantage our club. Where that is happening, I'll certainly point it out and argue that the NRL should have a level playing field in its policies. Ricky Stuart has told Peter V'landys exactly the same thing, and I'm happy to stand with Ricky on that.

[Seiffert82]

The point of contention is whether the funds that have been created are associated with debt (such as a bond) or whether they just appear on the government's account ledger

It is the latter. The funds are essentially created by keystroke and credited to the participating reserve accounts at the RBA.

Then the treasury will hold bond auctions, which effectively function as a “reserve drain” so that the net increase of reserves in the system on account of the aforementioned spending is zero.

Yeah, so the processes are two separate approaches to monetary policy.

I now understand you're advocating for MMT to be the sensible approach for governments to take. Your original posts on the matter indicated that you thought the MMT approach is effectively what the government is doing already, and that "taxes don't fund government spending".

I just don't agree with that original premise. The government does not run their accounting and monetary system based on MMT, hence the debate. From an accounting perspective, the government raises tax revenue and borrows additional money to fund expenditure. They don't just write off tax receipts and create money out of nothing.

From what I can gather, you prefer the MMT approach and think it makes sense. That's fine. I just think it is too complicated for the general public to understand and therefore lacks adequate transparency.

I also don't understand what the benefits it provides over the existing system. I don't like the fact it allows governments to be seen as never operating a budget deficit... while also risking them undermining the foundations of the economy through bad fiscal policy.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

[Botman]

So as a Labor voter (by your own admission) the sweeping generalisation that has been made in this discussion (and supported by you) - that Labor voters blame election results on the Murdoch empire is actually a generalisation directed at you?

OK firstly, I don't know that i would strictly classify myself as a labor voter, I would probably say I'm a independent voter more than most because I cant really get behind either major, but this being a 2 party system with preferences, there is no escaping reality that when you cast a vote, you're ultimately picking one of the two majors. Or at least that's how i view it. This is ultimate a zero sum game. So my vote is contributing to who wins and who loses. So in that very black and white definition yes, I vote to help ALP win. Not LNP.

To answer the question then, by and large, yes that is what i am saying. "Labor voters" is a royal 'we' situation. And it is a generalisation, not one that applies to everyone but yes, based on my experience, it is a fair generalisation and i think that's been proven here in this thread. Is it directed at me personally? No. Because im the one pushing against that excuse. But Labor voters in general are very much imo, using the Murdoch empire as an excuse for this side of politics failing to overcome the LNP in elections.

This is hitting on the general problem i have with politics and discussing it with some of my friends, and people here.
I know where i sit in the political landscape. But for people like you, and gangers... i have to align perfectly with you views, otherwise im just not on the team... and i just dont think that's good, healthy or reasonable. So i dont care to do it.

[T_R]

Saying all that though, Kevin Rudd is an absolute piece too, so it makes it very difficult.

Here's a confession. Since our Kevin moved full time to Noosa, we socialise in the same circles and have quite a few friends in common. The truth is that I really, really, like him. He's charming, well-read, very down to earth, respectful and intelligent. Whenever I bump into him he's always down for a chat, remembers the kids names and teases my wife for her crappy Chinese.

Dammit, he's actually a very fine fellow.

[zim]

Pretty sure you also called a Biden win too? Got any leads on this weeks powerball mate?

I also called the Brexit result and I called the ScoMo victory and was telling anyone who would listen that Coronarivus looked “pretty serious” when it was still contained within china’s borders in January last year. All to various degrees of ridicule

Just lucky I guess

Slow down slick. Where are those Powerball numbers?

[The Nickman]

Saying all that though, Kevin Rudd is an absolute piece too, so it makes it very difficult.

Here's a confession. Since our Kevin moved full time to Noosa, we socialise in the same circles and have quite a few friends in common. The truth is that I really, really, like him. He's charming, well-read, very down to earth, respectful and intelligent. Whenever I bump into him he's always down for a chat, remembers the kids names and teases my wife for her crappy Chinese.

Dammit, he's actually a very fine fellow.

You've also been known to hang out with me pal, so you're a very poor judge of character

I stand by my original assessment!

[Northern Raider]

Admit to being a bit of a KRudd fan early on. Thought he was one of the more balanced, moderate political leaders I'd seen. Started to come undone afyer the GFC stimulus packages. Conceptually some were very good IMO while others were not. Unfortunately the implementation of the good programs were poor and ultimately failed. His control freak tendencies also didn't help. Then came the stupid mining super-profits tax which all culminated to his approval rating plummeting. His party decided to turf him out (wrongly IMO) and he spent the rest of his time in parliament subversively undermining his own government.

Interestingly the original leadership spill while in power set a whole new precedent in Australian politics. As it now turns out Scomo could be the first PM to complete their elected term since Howard.

[The Nickman]

Admit to being a bit of a KRudd fan early on. Thought he was one of the more balanced, moderate political leaders I'd seen. Started to come undone afyer the GFC stimulus packages. Conceptually some were very good IMO while others were not. Unfortunately the implementation of the good programs were poor and ultimately failed. His control freak tendencies also didn't help. Then came the stupid mining super-profits tax which all culminated to his approval rating plummeting. His party decided to turf him out (wrongly IMO) and he spent the rest of his time in parliament subversively undermining his own government.

Interestingly the original leadership spill while in power set a whole new precedent in Australian politics. As it now turns out Scomo could be the first PM to complete their elected term since Howard.

He certainly will be.

And that mining tax is what ended up being the beginning of the end of the ALP, just like Workchoices did away with the Liberal party.

Like I've said over and over, opposition parties don't win elections, sitting governments lose them.

[Northern Raider]

Admit to being a bit of a KRudd fan early on. Thought he was one of the more balanced, moderate political leaders I'd seen. Started to come undone afyer the GFC stimulus packages. Conceptually some were very good IMO while others were not. Unfortunately the implementation of the good programs were poor and ultimately failed. His control freak tendencies also didn't help. Then came the stupid mining super-profits tax which all culminated to his approval rating plummeting. His party decided to turf him out (wrongly IMO) and he spent the rest of his time in parliament subversively undermining his own government.

Interestingly the original leadership spill while in power set a whole new precedent in Australian politics. As it now turns out Scomo could be the first PM to complete their elected term since Howard.

He certainly will be.

And that mining tax is what ended up being the beginning of the end of the ALP, just like Workchoices did away with the Liberal party.

Like I've said over and over, opposition parties don't win elections, sitting governments lose them.

True, although we've seen a couple of opposition parties get passed the ball with and open tryline and totally Boogs it. E.g Hewson and Shorten.

[gerg]

So as a Labor voter (by your own admission) the sweeping generalisation that has been made in this discussion (and supported by you) - that Labor voters blame election results on the Murdoch empire is actually a generalisation directed at you?

OK firstly, I don't know that i would strictly classify myself as a labor voter, I would probably say I'm a independent voter more than most because I cant really get behind either major, but this being a 2 party system with preferences, there is no escaping reality that when you cast a vote, you're ultimately picking one of the two majors. Or at least that's how i view it. This is ultimate a zero sum game. So my vote is contributing to who wins and who loses. So in that very black and white definition yes, I vote to help ALP win. Not LNP.

To answer the question then, by and large, yes that is what i am saying. "Labor voters" is a royal 'we' situation. And it is a generalisation, not one that applies to everyone but yes, based on my experience, it is a fair generalisation and i think that's been proven here in this thread. Is it directed at me personally? No. Because im the one pushing against that excuse. But Labor voters in general are very much imo, using the Murdoch empire as an excuse for this side of politics failing to overcome the LNP in elections.

This is hitting on the general problem i have with politics and discussing it with some of my friends, and people here.
I know where i sit in the political landscape. But for people like you, and gangers... i have to align perfectly with you views, otherwise im just not on the team... and i just dont think that's good, healthy or reasonable. So i dont care to do it.

It reads like a Trump concession.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Mickey_Raider]

I now understand you're advocating for MMT to be the sensible approach for governments to take. Your original posts on the matter indicated that you thought the MMT approach is effectively what the government is doing already, and that "taxes don't fund government spending".

I just don't agree with that original premise. The government does not run their accounting and monetary system based on MMT, hence the debate. From an accounting perspective, the government raises tax revenue and borrows additional money to fund expenditure. They don't just write off tax receipts and create money out of nothing.

How can you on one hand say that you disagree with the premise and that they don't create money out of nothing even though you conceded that they do yesterday? Phillip Lowe even admits it, regularly.

I also don't understand what the benefits it provides over the existing system.

Let us be perfectly clear. There is no "alternative" system which one switches over to in order to "start doing" MMT.

But I know what you are getting at so let me give you a topical example.

The proposed aged care levy.

The "benefits" of understanding that the constraints on our government spending what is required to address this massive issue isn't some figure on a budget paper, or some national debt figure ("oh no we just broke through the debt ceiling, lets raise it again"); are profound.

It means we stop asking "how are we going to pay for this?", with "how are we going to resource this?" followed by "do we have fiscal space in our economy to accomodate this spending or is this going to cause some inflationary pressures?"

Now, it may be the case in an alternative scenario where our economy is hot, almost everyone is in work and consumer confidence and aggregate demand is high that the government does need to increase taxes in order to create the fiscal space necessary to implement such spending.

However right now, with hundreds of thousands of people unemployed and millions underemployed, there is plenty of space to do this without levying a tax. There is plenty of slack in the economy.

I trust that you can make the distinction that in the alternate scenario above would not be tantamount to saying "we need to levy a tax to pay for the spending".

[Botman]

So as a Labor voter (by your own admission) the sweeping generalisation that has been made in this discussion (and supported by you) - that Labor voters blame election results on the Murdoch empire is actually a generalisation directed at you?

OK firstly, I don't know that i would strictly classify myself as a labor voter, I would probably say I'm a independent voter more than most because I cant really get behind either major, but this being a 2 party system with preferences, there is no escaping reality that when you cast a vote, you're ultimately picking one of the two majors. Or at least that's how i view it. This is ultimate a zero sum game. So my vote is contributing to who wins and who loses. So in that very black and white definition yes, I vote to help ALP win. Not LNP.

To answer the question then, by and large, yes that is what i am saying. "Labor voters" is a royal 'we' situation. And it is a generalisation, not one that applies to everyone but yes, based on my experience, it is a fair generalisation and i think that's been proven here in this thread. Is it directed at me personally? No. Because im the one pushing against that excuse. But Labor voters in general are very much imo, using the Murdoch empire as an excuse for this side of politics failing to overcome the LNP in elections.

This is hitting on the general problem i have with politics and discussing it with some of my friends, and people here.
I know where i sit in the political landscape. But for people like you, and gangers... i have to align perfectly with you views, otherwise im just not on the team... and i just dont think that's good, healthy or reasonable. So i dont care to do it.

It reads like a Trump concession.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I appreciate you taking the time out to absolutely prove my last paragraph was on the money.

[gerg]

So as a Labor voter (by your own admission) the sweeping generalisation that has been made in this discussion (and supported by you) - that Labor voters blame election results on the Murdoch empire is actually a generalisation directed at you?

OK firstly, I don't know that i would strictly classify myself as a labor voter, I would probably say I'm a independent voter more than most because I cant really get behind either major, but this being a 2 party system with preferences, there is no escaping reality that when you cast a vote, you're ultimately picking one of the two majors. Or at least that's how i view it. This is ultimate a zero sum game. So my vote is contributing to who wins and who loses. So in that very black and white definition yes, I vote to help ALP win. Not LNP.

To answer the question then, by and large, yes that is what i am saying. "Labor voters" is a royal 'we' situation. And it is a generalisation, not one that applies to everyone but yes, based on my experience, it is a fair generalisation and i think that's been proven here in this thread. Is it directed at me personally? No. Because im the one pushing against that excuse. But Labor voters in general are very much imo, using the Murdoch empire as an excuse for this side of politics failing to overcome the LNP in elections.

This is hitting on the general problem i have with politics and discussing it with some of my friends, and people here.
I know where i sit in the political landscape. But for people like you, and gangers... i have to align perfectly with you views, otherwise im just not on the team... and i just dont think that's good, healthy or reasonable. So i dont care to do it.

It reads like a Trump concession.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I appreciate you taking the time out to absolutely prove my last paragraph was on the money.

But your last paragraph is nonsense. I don't expect anyone to align with my views and if we're really comparing how engaged any of us are in a particular debate, on any topic on this site - you can hardly take the moral high ground. You're extremely vocal with your opinions on every topic.

Furthermore as I have said before in this thread I have voted Green as often as I have ALP so to suggest I am some staunch ALP voter - as a way of differentiating you from me - with your Murdoch example - is rubbish. So which team is it that I'm expecting you to align with?

Look you supplied the room, the paint and the brush and then proceeded to paint yourself into the corner. I merely stood in the doorway and pointed out how you ended up in the corner. There really is no need to get so upset about this.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Botman]

I’m not remotely upset about anything here
You asked a question
I provided a detailed answer
You went to an ad hominem response because my view on one issue doesn’t align with yours and here we are.

This corner is all yours, I’m afraid

[gangrenous]

You went to an ad hominem response because my view on one issue doesn’t align with yours and here we are.

Hello pot

[Botman]

You went to an ad hominem response because my view on one issue doesn’t align with yours and here we are.

Hello pot

You're welcome to post where i did that on this topic.

[gangrenous]

You were part of a ten post chain that was ridiculing me without understanding what I said or taking a response. I think it was unnecessary personally, you’ll disagree. Such is life.

[Botman]

You were part of a ten post chain that was ridiculing me without understanding what I said or taking a response. I think it was unnecessary personally, you’ll disagree. Such is life.

My only response in that "chain" was this.

If that were the case I would be all in on your side of this.
But its great to know you exclusively appreciate the input from people that absolutely 100% agree with you and dismiss the views of those who dont.

Huh? What echo chamber...

Which was a direct response defending myself and point out the hyprocrisy of you accusing me of being in the echo chamber based on your exact words. If you want to say that "unnecessary personal" and comparable to labelling someone with my posting history on the topic a trumper, than that's fine. But you know better than that. Your half **** attempt to justify that tells the story.

[gangrenous]

Fair point, I’m looking at the combined response from the three of you and as you point out you were pretty limited in yours.

Retracted your honour.