TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- Rudd For Emperor
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

it's not easy balancing an economy. as inflation rises - unemployment drops so keeping them in their respective benchmarks is always going to be tough.

it's hard to give anyone the right answer as both parties have different views and policies so pick which one best suits you.

what about the greens?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic well if the interest rates are going up coz of a strong economy, then i guess he can have it both ways.

no, he cant lather the Lib party up with praise for some things, and then blame some of the other issues on externalities.

quote:

i dunno why people constantly bring it up, yeah he talked a bit of shit, but interest rates aren't the worst of johnnie's crimes

agreed.

quote:

debate something useful, gimme ideas you lazy shits, i need help deciding

how about the fact that those on AWA's have fewer benefits, fewer penalty rates, and lower wages than those on collective agreements?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, he cant lather the Lib party up with praise for some things, and then blame some of the other issues on externalities.

He's a politician, they all do it.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic He's a politician, they all do it.

I'm not a politician...you never know

quote:

Originally posted by Lister Cooray it's not easy balancing an economy. as inflation rises - unemployment drops so keeping them in their respective benchmarks is always going to be tough. it's hard to give anyone the right answer as both parties have different views and policies so pick which one best suits you. what about the greens?

If you do it the way Costello has it is!! to quote what I put elsewhere, Costello " How much money do we need to have a surplus?? Ok, what can we sell that gives us that much?? Let's just throw in a few little taxes here to make our surplus look really good."

They had good surpluses because they taxed us too much. and they are admitting it!! Very generously giving it back. What there's an election on!!. Well I would never have noticed.

Pretty simple really. Sorry Dean!!

I don't think that having 650,000 households suffering from mortgage stress is doing all that well. It's not just a matter of interest rates, most people do know they are set by the RBA but a lot of the loss of housing affordability is due to what this government either has or hasn't done.

quote:

Originally posted by Lister Cooray I would rather stick to someone who is doing well and who has done so for 10 years

And the things that have been done well are?

quote:

Originally posted by Lister Cooray I would rather stick to someone who is doing well and who has done so for 10 years

Piss weak argument.

Did you ever pull your head out of your ass and think about why the liberal party have had success?

Keating lost his position because the economic figures didn't impress people. Naturally, the ignorant Australian public took this on face value and voted in Howard. The reality is, business cycles apply to whole economies too. Smart economic planning involves the planning of recession when it is best for you, because it is going to happen regardless.

I have 100% confidence in Keating's economic management. The problem was that he took one for the team and did the right thing by Australia, but it cost him his position. He underestimated the stupidity of Australians.

Let's look at the three main things Keating did:
1. Floated the Australian dollar
2. Built strong ties with other countries in the asia pacific
3. Removed protectionist barriers (bringing us closer to "free" trade)

All these things had a detrimental effect on the Australian economy in the short term, but obviously no one is smart enough to think that it was done for a reason. They needed to be done. To be part of the modern world, you can't have your currency based on the gold standard or some other stupid base. People also whinged and moaned about the removal of protection; "mum and pop corner shops are being outcompeted by indians!". Absolutely retarded. Incase you didn't know, people are actually embracing free trade. Hell, we have an FTA with America. If anyone is going to swallow our economy, it is them.

What is the biggest source of success for the Liberal party?

THE RESOURCE BOOM.

Guess what that means? Selling Australian resources to foreign countries (floated dollar and removal of protectionist barriers apply here), most of which goes towards asian countries (stronger ties built apply here). People were very critical of Keatings decisions. It looks like he made fools of them.

Would you have rathered Keating's minor recession occurred before or during the resource boom? If you have half a brain, before is the right answer.

What has the Liberal government done?
1. Fucked up public health
2. Fucked up workers rights
3. Given tax cuts to high income earners
4. Trying to fuck up public education (so far largely unsuccessful)

What's the worst thing Liberals have done?

ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED PROPERTY MARKETS.

Of course, this is impossible to prove, but the bubble was supposed to have burst 2 years ago. It hasn't. No doubt Liberal are going to leave Labour in the shit and then blame it on them when everyone is paying twice as much on their mortgages. I'd go as far to say that it would be better for the reputation of the Liberal party NOT to get in this election.

Next problem? Oh..

LETS GET INTO NUCLEAR POWER!

Fantastic idea. Lets just dump all that waste in the middle of Australia and let it degrade for the next... thousand years. The rationalists among you are probably trying to argue that it has a less detrimental impact on the environment than what we do already. This is true, I agree whole heartedly. BUT, it is stupid not to consider the oppourtunity cost; how much money do you think the government can/will put into trying to develop alternative energy sources after they spend all that money on a nuke? I'll tell you now, bringing in nuclear power means no chance of alternative energy. I would rather take the risk.

IMO, Australia needs a Labor government, to reverse all the bullshit the Liberals have done.

The biggest problem is that everyone is ignorant and just votes for whoever their parents vote for. Be a big boy/girl and try to educate yourself plz. For the record, I don't think Labor are perfect. In fact, they are far from perfect. However, I see them as the lesser of two evils.

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm Piss weak argument. Did you ever pull your head out of your ass and think about why the liberal party have had success?

Way to get people to read your, actually very well constructed, post!!

quote:

Originally posted by DIDI Way to get people to read your, actually very well constructed, post!!

its unaustralian
what we need is....

I'm waiting for some retard to come in and say...

"Why should half my salary go towards paying for unemployed people? The Liberal party are about MORALS and ETHICS and fairness."

That one always makes me lol.

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm I'm waiting for some retard to come in and say... "Why should half my salary go towards paying for unemployed people? The Liberal party are about MORALS and ETHICS and fairness." That one always makes me lol.

That's one I haven't heard! You shouldn't be giving people bad ideas!

quote:

Originally posted by DIDI That's one I haven't heard!

Alternatives are...

"Why should half my salary be going towards workers comp?"
"Why should half my salary be going towards the health of someone else?"
"Why should half my salary be going towards someone elses education?"
etc.

I'm sure you've heard at least one!

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm Alternatives are... "Why should half my salary be going towards workers comp?" "Why should half my salary be going towards the health of someone else?" "Why should half my salary be going towards someone elses education?" etc. I'm sure you've heard at least one!

Nup!! But I do hear amazingly often ,

I pay my taxes!! Why shouldn't I get my private school fees subsidized, my private health insurance subsidized, my superannuation tax free.!!!

Taxes = compulsory savings

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm Next problem? Oh.. LETS GET INTO NUCLEAR POWER! Fantastic idea. Lets just dump all that waste in the middle of Australia and let it degrade for the next... thousand years. The rationalists among you are probably trying to argue that it has a less detrimental impact on the environment than what we do already. This is true, I agree whole heartedly. BUT, it is stupid not to consider the oppourtunity cost; how much money do you think the government can/will put into trying to develop alternative energy sources after they spend all that money on a nuke? I'll tell you now, bringing in nuclear power means no chance of alternative energy. I would rather take the risk.

Ok, this one I have to pull you up on. Nuclear power is the best possible option. The BEST! Not only is it by far the cleanest source of energy but the safety standards have been immaculate in recent decades. The chances of a nuclear meltdown are next to none and while the waste does need to be dumped somewhere, there is more than enough room in Australia to pick a totally isolated spot where the waste won't affect the environment.

On a nuke? You're a fucking idiot if you think any of that will go toward a nuke. Costs? Do you know that Australia holds the highest percentage of usable uranium in the world and how much demand there is for it? That's a multi billion dollar export industry and also means that the use of it is virtually free for Australia.

No chance of alternative energy? Rubbish. The whole plan by experts is to combine Nuclear energy with clean energy. Imagine if every house had a solar panel to heat water (and a water tank while we're at it) and the rest was supplied by a nuclear reactor? Fantastic! Clean energy, cheaper energy and more reliable energy.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Imagine if every house had a solar panel to heat water

I'll admit, I'm not very educated on the intricacies of nuclear power. But, I am aware that the safety standards are not the issue.

How much does it cost to build a plant? My understanding was that it was significant enough to really pull back on alternative energy plans. Government support for solar panels etc. is already bad enough as it is. We looked into it when we were building our new house and it wasn't viable. How will that improve once the whole budget has gone towards building a nuclear plant?

I'm hanging on to hope that theres another way.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Ok, this one I have to pull you up on. Nuclear power is the best possible option. The BEST! Not only is it by far the cleanest source of energy but the safety standards have been immaculate in recent decades. The chances of a nuclear meltdown are next to none and while the waste does need to be dumped somewhere, there is more than enough room in Australia to pick a totally isolated spot where the waste won't affect the environment. On a nuke? You're a fucking idiot if you think any of that will go toward a nuke. Costs? Do you know that Australia holds the highest percentage of usable uranium in the world and how much demand there is for it? That's a multi billion dollar export industry and also means that the use of it is virtually free for Australia. No chance of alternative energy? Rubbish. The whole plan by experts is to combine Nuclear energy with clean energy. Imagine if every house had a solar panel to heat water (and a water tank while we're at it) and the rest was supplied by a nuclear reactor? Fantastic! Clean energy, cheaper energy and more reliable energy.

Well actually you are a little out of date , Even Howard is backing away from the nuclear option . Aside from possible side effects , it's hideously expensive to set up and that setup is very energy intensive. We couldn't expect anything before 2020 and in that time we could be up and running on mainly solar. Which has none of the adverse problems. See California , solar technology and Australian solar technology , well, it used to be our technology

Germany and China are also using Australian solar technology . We will probably have to buy it back at vastly inflated costs, partly because we haven't ratified Kyoto. People also tend to forget there is an enormous economic component to Kyoto.

Re the water tank thing a little report came out earlier in the year which said the cheapest way to guarantee water was to supply every house with tanks. Instead we have governments spending billions on pipelines and desalination plants, both of which are very environmentally unfriendly.

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm I'll admit, I'm not very educated on the intricacies of nuclear power. But, I am aware that the safety standards are not the issue. How much does it cost to build a plant? My understanding was that it was significant enough to really pull back on alternative energy plans. Government support for solar panels etc. is already bad enough as it is. We looked into it when we were building our new house and it wasn't viable. How will that improve once the whole budget has gone towards building a nuclear plant? I'm hanging on to hope that theres another way.

If you are actually building a house it should cost around 20 grand to set up power to the grid. That seems to be pretty viable. Even if you have already built retrofitting shouldn't be too much of a problem. Educating builders to think outside the square could be a small problem Hang on in for a little longer and the subsidies will be higher, They have actually gone up a fair amount already. Solar technology is going ahead in leaps and bounds at the moment . It will be well ahead of anything that can happen with nuclear.

Btw they were talking about 28 nuclear plants and apparently we could power Australia on a solar plant 50 k square. I think we have that much land spare.

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm I'll admit, I'm not very educated on the intricacies of nuclear power. But, I am aware that the safety standards are not the issue. How much does it cost to build a plant? My understanding was that it was significant enough to really pull back on alternative energy plans. Government support for solar panels etc. is already bad enough as it is. We looked into it when we were building our new house and it wasn't viable. How will that improve once the whole budget has gone towards building a nuclear plant? I'm hanging on to hope that theres another way.

Nuclear power is expensive, yes. Very expensive to setup but in the long run it pays off. Not only environmentally but financially too.

I don't think anyone actually wants 100% nuclear. That's just not do able and afar better option is a combination of nuclear and alternative energy.

The government needs to step in and give big rebates for things such as solar panels and water tanks, though I haven't seen any of the governments commit to it

quote:

Originally posted by DIDI Well actually you are a little out of date , Even Howard is backing away from the nuclear option . Aside from possible side effects , it's hideously expensive to set up and that setup is very energy intensive. We couldn't expect anything before 2020 and in that time we could be up and running on mainly solar. Which has none of the adverse problems. See California , solar technology and Australian solar technology , well, it used to be our technology Germany and China are also using Australian solar technology . We will probably have to buy it back at vastly inflated costs, partly because we haven't ratified Kyoto. People also tend to forget there is an enormous economic component to Kyoto. Re the water tank thing a little report came out earlier in the year which said the cheapest way to guarantee water was to supply every house with tanks. Instead we have governments spending billions on pipelines and desalination plants, both of which are very environmentally unfriendly.

Well it's an issue that's been overshadowed a bit by the election and other things. I think it will come back very quickly once all the rest of this stuff settles down. I don't believe I'm out of date and all and the support for nuclear energy is actually growing amongst the general population once people get educated and actually learn a bit more about it. Expensive yes (as previously mentioned) but definitely worth it in the long run.

Solar technology is a bit fragile but I must admit it does have potential. Nuclear + Solar = Win Win imho but there's a possibility that we may not even need Nuclear at all. The Germans are researching a kilometre high solar power plant. That's right you read right, a kilometre high! Heated air or maybe steam (due to solar panels around the plant) are channeled into the 1km tower and as it rises it drives turbines. This seems a way off though and building a kilometre high building poses problems in itself. Structural viability, safety concerns over terrorism, need for proper materials, etc.

The watertanks are a no brainer. The government already gives a rebate on them but it's too little. They should give a much bigger rebate and make it compulsory for all new homes to have one, while giving existing homes a deadline of like 2012 to install one.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz The government already gives a rebate on them but it's too little. They should give a much bigger rebate and make it compulsory for all new homes to have one, while giving existing homes a deadline of like 2012 to install one.

In SA we already have to have a small tank for toilets + garden stuff. It's probably just a state level thing though... we're f*cked for water lol.

At least your government seems to be doing something right.

In NSW, not only are we also fucked for water, but we're royally fucked for State government. I mean ROYALLY FUCKED

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm Hell, we have an FTA with America.

yes
but we ended up becoming another american state.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Nuclear power is expensive, yes. Very expensive to setup but in the long run it pays off. Not only environmentally but financially too.

um, isn't nuclear power expensive across the board? as in, the running costs of a plant? i saw figures bandied around a couple of years ago that suggested the price of electricity would be 400% ?

quote:

Originally posted by DIDI Btw they were talking about 28 nuclear plants and apparently we could power Australia on a solar plant 50 k square. I think we have that much land spare.

people fucking whinge about having to drive past wind turbines, what makes you think they would want a 50k square solar panel? no matter where it is?

quote:

Originally posted by Philby people fucking whinge about having to drive past wind turbines, what makes you think they would want a 50k square solar panel? no matter where it is?

It would be an array and there are not that many people driving around in the middle of the outback. It would certainly be better than driving pass a nuclear power station!

btw I've never understood the whingers re wind turbines , I think they look amazing!!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.