2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Rudd? (1 Viewer)

[volition]

What Labor is proposing is in no way impossible as some people have made out. Denmark, which has similar demographics to Australia and most other western countries (aging, fattening population), and is capable of paying entirely for university for those who deserve it, according to merit.

My argument against government funded universities is not based on whether it is capable or not, rather, it is against the principle that some people should be made to pay for other people's education. Also, education in a true free market would be cheaper and better than it currently is. Under the current system, it is impossible to know if the current solution is optimal, because it is coerced.

I, like Triangulum, am of the belief that if someone is smart enough, that should be the sole consideration in awarding them a university place, not the size of their parent's wallet. Those of you that think otherwise, I ask, would you still think that way if you were poor?

Yes, I would think the exact same way no matter how rich or poor I was. How rich/poor one individual is, changes nothing about what the optimal solution is.

University is different however - if all the courses cost you $5 a year, I'm sure there wouldn't be much argument against having entirely DFEE, but in reality they are obviously not.

So your argument is that you feel that university education is cheaper when the government provides it? The government is not able to 'make something of value from nothing', it is only able to redistribute. If its value creation you're looking for, then you should be leaving the profit motive to work its magic.

eg. when TVs came out, would you argue that the government needed to run out and make them available to everyone? No, over time, they became cheaper and practically every family was able to get one. It may offend your sensibilities that only the rich can afford new things when they first come out, but this is actually necessary for the market to work out how it can produce this stuff for the masses. Government control over education is not only a poor solution, its part of the problem. The longer we try to coerce a solution, the more we're losing in potential growth down the track.

It may not be the case that university education is necessary, what if it were the case that most people were able to just get on the job training? But since the govt coerces university funding, it changes our incentives. People then decide to go to uni where they might not have otherwise. Firms might start to view university degrees as a requirement, when they might not have otherwise. The point I'm making is, when you coerce a solution, you have no way of knowing if it really is the optimal one. If we let others trade voluntarily, soon enough the market would find a way to bring education to the masses cheaply, but govt is only slowing this process by forcing everyone to pay for a 'one size fits all' solution, stifling innovation.

so thus should be given according to merit, as everyone deserves a fair go and this is what egalitarian societies do (very foreign ideas they are right?).

You're morally posturing your way onto the higher ground, and disregarding the fact that you want "ordinary joe" to pay for all this against his will. If he wanted to voluntarily pay for our university education, he would do it yeah? So why does he need to be made to do it via govt force?

What if "ordinary joe" would rather not go to university, feeling he can make more money by just joining the workforce? He's still forced to pay for the university education of other people. What an "egalitarian" way to do things. Make the ones who don't benefit pay. Surely you don't consider this giving "ordinary joe" a fair go?

 

[volition]

What do you suggest? Complete privatisation of Universities, and scrapping government involvement (including CSP)?

Yeah pretty much.

If not, why should "Ordinary Joe" have to pay taxes that go towards education of "Young People"? If he has no children, he is getting no benefit from the Education System ---> no kids to be taught, and he isn't getting educated again and again.

errr dude I'm asking you why he should be made to.

The whole point is, he shouldn't be made to pay against his will.

 

[LCollins]

My argument against government funded universities is not based on whether it is capable or not, rather, it is against the principle that some people should be made to pay for other people's education. Also, education in a true free market would be cheaper and better than it currently is. Under the current system, it is impossible to know if the current solution is optimal, because it is coerced.

This was not a comment against you personally, but those who may have suggested the solution proposed by Labor is impossible. I can understand why you may say it would be cheaper, but you have not explained 'better' (if you mean better quality or better availability, that is easily arguable to the contrary).

Yes, I would think the exact same way no matter how rich or poor I was. How rich/poor one individual is, changes nothing about what the optimal solution is.

It may change your opinion on the topic from 'market forces should rule all' to 'human beings have a right to opportunity regardless of family wealth'. It seems to me its a sad fact about humans that the more we drive for wealth, the less concerned we become about others.

So your argument is that you feel that university education is cheaper when the government provides it? The government is not able to 'make something of value from nothing', it is only able to redistribute. If its value creation you're looking for, then you should be leaving the profit motive to work its magic.

No I wasn't at all. I was replying to your suggestion that if University is important and should thus be run by governments, that the same should go for food.

eg. when TVs came out, would you argue that the government needed to run out and make them available to everyone? No, over time, they became cheaper and practically every family was able to get one. It may offend your sensibilities that only the rich can afford new things when they first come out, but this is actually necessary for the market to work out how it can produce this stuff for the masses. Government control over education is not only a poor solution, its part of the problem. The longer we try to coerce a solution, the more we're losing in potential growth down the track.

To that I say education and TVs are completely different (much like education and lobsters). Education is important, and unlike TVs, everyone deserves one regardless of the wealth of the family. This 'losing potential growth' argument may be true, but what about the economic benefits to having an intelligent nation? They are just as immeasurable as this lost potential growth.

It may not be the case that university education is necessary, what if it were the case that most people were able to just get on the job training? But since the govt coerces university funding, it changes our incentives. People then decide to go to uni where they might not have otherwise. Firms might start to view university degrees as a requirement, when they might not have otherwise. The point I'm making is, when you coerce a solution, you have no way of knowing if it really is the optimal one. If we let others trade voluntarily, soon enough the market would find a way to bring education to the masses cheaply, but govt is only slowing this process by forcing everyone to pay for uni.

The market does not have the capabilities to think long term however. What may be the 'optimal solution' now is not necessarily the best one eg. the evironment - it may be cheapest to run through the worlds forests with a chainsaw, but this fails to take into account the problems faced when we don't have any oxygen to breathe. This is similar to education, what may be optimal to the market may not be the best solution. You may be able to get the most cost effective solution with a completely privatised system, but other factors such as having numerically superior numbers of those people with the minimum in quality of education may be more important for the long term.

You're morally posturing your way onto the higher ground, and disregarding the fact that you want "ordinary joe" to pay for all this against his will. If he wanted to voluntarily pay for our university education, he would do it yeah? So why does he need to be made to do it via govt force?

What if "ordinary joe" would rather not go to university, feeling he can make more money by just joining the workforce? He's still forced to pay for the university education of other people. What an "egalitarian" way to do things. Make the ones who don't benefit pay. Surely you don't consider this giving "ordinary joe" a fair go?

Ordinary Joe cannot see any further than his own short term interests. When he's confronted with a decision in the here and now, it may not be in the long term interests of the many or even for himself. As education is a long term investment, and the yields are unpredictable, it is necessary for the government to control it, for the greatest benefit to the greatest number.

 

[volition]

Intesting. Any particular reason? I know that I'd be fucked over.

Because integrity is partly about knowing when you "shouldn't be getting something for free" at the cost to everyone else.

I use government funded stuff basically because I know that govt will take a lot more from me than I will get from it. But that doesn't change what the best solution would actually be: anarcho-capitalism.

I can understand why you may say it would be cheaper, but you have not explained 'better' (if you mean better quality or better availability, that is easily arguable to the contrary).

Better by whatever metric the consumers prefer, since by definition in a free market you only buy something if you like it more than what you're giving up to get it. This is not true under the current system where people are coerced into paying whether they think its a good service or not, and whether they use it or not.

This 'losing potential growth' argument may be true, but what about the economic benefits to having an intelligent nation? They are just as immeasurable as this lost potential growth.

If education is better under a free market, then its perfectly consistent for me to think that the nation would be more intelligent anyway.

The market does not have the capabilities to think long term however. What may be the 'optimal solution' now is not necessarily the best one eg. the evironment - it may be cheapest to run through the worlds forests with a chainsaw, but this fails to take into account the problems faced when we don't have any oxygen to breathe.

First of all, the government by democracy is not a mechanism that can even determine what the best policy is, it is a mechanism to determine what the most popular policy is.

Secondly, private ownership is actually more inclined to be thinking about the long term, because the ownership lasts longer. When pollies get into parliament, they'll generally only be there for 3 years, and the longest never stay longer than 10-15 yrs ish. On the other hand, when you buy property, you presumably own that forever, so the way you treat it will be fundamentally different. It's funny you bring up the logging example because this is actually an example of where a private owner who bought it would actually be inclined to replant trees and cut them in a more sustainable manner to keep the value up for the long term. On the other hand, when a govt just gives a company "logging rights" it can basically do a "fly by night" job, take the trees and leave!

yes, you're correct about how the optimal solution now may not be the right one in the future, but once again its markets that are better accustomed to this dynamic change. The optimal solution is everchanging, as people buy and sell stuff. On the other hand, the government lacks this ability to dynamically change and innovate. (because it has less incentive to be smart with money, just like how you wouldn't bother to change the oil on a rental car)

As education is a long term investment, and the yields are unpredictable, it is necessary for the government to control it, for the greatest benefit to the greatest number.

Who gets to decide what the greatest benefit to the greatest number is? Not that any one person/political party could know it anyway....

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I'm fairly certain that thing about students working multiple jobs to support their uni degrees is about DFEE places...

Do you deny these hardworking individuals the right to a place at University?

No, I deny them a DFEE place and instead offer them a CSP place. Of course, they have to compete for that place via their brains, rather than by their wallets. And before you bring up any ideas about the UAI system being faulty and disadvantageous to some students, I agree, it is faulty. Entry to uni should be based on a whole number of different entry schemes, which wouldn't include ability to pay ones way into education.

 

[volition]

A degree through a CSP isn't free. You pay it back post-degree. Why those paying upfront be the only ones to get a spot, when everyone chasing a degree pays in some form or another?

Well those other people are still subsidising it, cos DFEE normally costs more than CSP. The 'true' cost is somewhere between the two i think.

And not just that, those other people who had to pay for our uni degrees, don't get the money back, because we only pay the money back to the govt. If it really was just a 'loan' of that nature, then those people would get the money back for themselves.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

You're psychotic

 

[LCollins]

Because integrity is partly about knowing when you "shouldn't be getting something for free" at the cost to everyone else.

I'm curious, should we be getting the emergency services for free? A defence force for free? My point is, education, like those other services, is something we should be getting for 'free' (hey its not even technically free, seeing as we do pay taxes). Everyone benefits from education, both directly and indirectly. Someone who is educated/more skilled is more likely to have job and thus contribute to the economy, less likely to steal and commit other crimes and less likely to be dependant on welfare. Just because all of these are not measurable in dollars and cents does not mean that do not exist (eg. the environment and the benefits it provides).

I use government funded stuff basically because I know that govt will take a lot more from me than I will get from it. But that doesn't change what the best solution would actually be: anarcho-capitalism.

The dollar and cents argument goes here as well. Eg. Say you are female citizen which the police force prevents you from getting raped, what is the benefit to you in dollars and cents?

Better by whatever metric the consumers prefer, since by definition in a free market you only buy something if you like it more than what you're giving up to get it. This is not true under the current system where people are coerced into paying whether they think its a good service or not, and whether they use it or not.

Well its very hard for average Joe to know whats good and whats not, until after he goes through the system. A government is best able to ensure that minimum standards are maintained, so a degree you come out of uni with is something that will get you employed.

If education is better under a free market, then its perfectly consistent for me to think that the nation would be more intelligent anyway.

First of all, the government by democracy is not a mechanism that can even determine what the best policy is, it is a mechanism to determine what the most popular policy is.

Democracy, for all its faults, works better than any other system currently known to man (has any country ever 'evolved' out of a democratic system?). Anarcho-capitalism does not determine the best policy either, it determines the 'optimal solution' (which you agree with later as not necessarily being the best). Its sort of ironic that the more educated a population becomes, the better the policies will become - another argument to providing education for the masses, rather than the rich.

Secondly, private ownership is actually more inclined to be thinking about the long term, because the ownership lasts longer. When pollies get into parliament, they'll generally only be there for 3 years, and the longest never stay longer than 10-15 yrs ish. On the other hand, when you buy property, you presumably own that forever, so the way you treat it will be fundamentally different. It's funny you bring up the logging example because this is actually an example of where a private owner who bought it would actually be inclined to replant trees and cut them in a more sustainable manner to keep the value up for the long term. On the other hand, when a govt just gives a company "logging rights" it can basically do a "fly by night" job, take the trees and leave!

Well I presume anarcho-capitalism includes public ownership, in which I disagree - company directors do more short term thinking then politicians. This is because share price is a measure of their performance and that changes by the minute. At most, they're concentrating on the next AGM in which they have to argue for an extra few million in their salaries. Regardless of the public ownership idea, what you mean by long term, still only includes the profit motive. A long term (lifetime) profit solution is not necessarily the best - it most probably will fail to take into account the impact on other factors, eg. environment, society. For example, casino owners, upon building such a thing, do not care about the affects of the casino on crime or addictive gamblers, even though that crime may result in the theft from the casino or deterred visitors.

As to your example of logging, that is a failure in the government into conditions attached to the logging permit. Say if it had attached to the permit, 'any tree cut down must be replaced' or 'property will be inspected upon departure to ensure unnecessary environmental damage does not occur', then a person only owning the property for one harvest will be forced to look after it (otherwise the fly-by-night situation you suggested would occur) - which would not occur if the profit motive was the owners only motive in owning the property.

yes, you're correct about how the optimal solution now may not be the right one in the future, but once again its markets that are better accustomed to this dynamic change. The optimal solution is everchanging, as people buy and sell stuff. On the other hand, the government lacks this ability to dynamically change and innovate. (because it has less incentive to be smart with money, just like how you wouldn't bother to change the oil on a rental car)

The government can be motivated to change, just by different forces (ie. people rather than profit). As you just agreed with, even if the market does constantly adjust to find optimal solution, it may not be the best solution. That changing the oil on a rental car is a good example. Say your 1 of 50 people who use that car, and you just so happen to be in possession of it when its critical that it has an oil change. Not very fair that you have to fork out the full cost, when you really should be only paying 1/50th of the cost. A government distributes some costs and benefits across the many, with many of the costs and benefits immeseaurable.

Who gets to decide what the greatest benefit to the greatest number is? Not that any one person/political party could know it anyway....

The idea in democracy is that you vote for whoever you think is best to do this. One thing I've noticed this election campaign is there seems to be a much higher proportion of idiots outside parliament than inside (this is not an attack on you - just a general statement).

 

[jb_nc]

But that doesn't change what the best solution would actually be: anarcho-capitalism.

lol

 

[volition]

LCollins, something that will answer much of what you wrote in one:

You mention "not paying the full cost of something" and so on, I understand this criticism, which is why under anarcho-capitalism, insurance will play a MUCH greater role than it does now. Many risks will simply be mitigated via insurance.

Usually with insurance, its cheaper to stop the payout from occurring, so instead of actually just "allowing the bad thing to happen", eg insurance companies would actively try to prevent fire happening instead of just making a payout after there's been a fire. For an example, the recent californian fires, AIG were actually paid to insure some of the houses, so they wanted to go and spray some crap on the houses or something to make em more fire resistant. Now of course, the govt being the meddler it is, wanted to stop them doing that, not sure why tho :S Anyway, the existence of the govt precludes such insurance agencies coming up now.

Anarcho-capitalism does not determine the best policy either, it determines the 'optimal solution' (which you agree with later as not necessarily being the best).

Yes, I don't claim that anarcho-capitalism is utopian in any way, I just claim that it is better than the current system of governments.

company directors do more short term thinking then politicians. This is because share price is a measure of their performance and that changes by the minute. At most, they're concentrating on the next AGM in which they have to argue for an extra few million in their salaries. Regardless of the public ownership idea, what you mean by long term, still only includes the profit motive. A long term (lifetime) profit solution is not necessarily the best - it most probably will fail to take into account the impact on other factors, eg. environment, society. For example, casino owners, upon building such a thing, do not care about the affects of the casino on crime or addictive gamblers, even though that crime may result in the theft from the casino or deterred visitors.

Ok the thing with company directors is an interesting point, but I have a possible explanation for this too. The fact that we have compulsory super means those funds have more money to invest with, and they're continually chasing returns yeah? Even though they have more money than what people 'wanted to put in'. Couple this with govt monopoly over currency creating boom/bust cycles, and it adds to the volatility of markets.

How does this impact on directors? Instead of shareholders themselves looking for long term gains, more of them are looking for short term gains (because theres more coerced funds, especially from uneducated investors floating around in the stock markets). Which in turn pushes CEOs to go for the short term gains, because thats what shareholders are more inclined to vote for now, because of their higher time preference.

In any case, CEOs have a reputation to protect, and under market anarchism things would be different. In fact, corporations as they exist now may not be the same under anarcho-capitalism. So its unfair to ask me to defend the current crop of businesses, many of the current businesses are in the ear of govt officials, or getting special benefits/corporate welfare, other special regulations that help some businesses more than others etc.

The idea in democracy is that you vote for whoever you think is best to do this.

What is it about a policy chosen by 51% of people that makes it better than one chosen by 49% of people? or even one by 99% over the 1%?

lol

 

[volition]

How many billions in tax-cuts were promised by both Parties?

Roughly $34 billion iirc. That's only a cut in future taxation, and obviously if the government is still funding universities.... ordinary joe is still paying for our uni degrees.

 

[LCollins]

LCollins, something that will answer much of what you wrote in one:

You mention "not paying the full cost of something" and so on, I understand this criticism, which is why under anarcho-capitalism, insurance will play a MUCH greater role than it does now. Many risks will simply be mitigated via insurance.

Usually with insurance, its cheaper to stop the payout from occurring, so instead of actually just "allowing the bad thing to happen", eg insurance companies would actively try to prevent fire happening instead of just making a payout after there's been a fire. For an example, the recent californian fires, AIG were actually paid to insure some of the houses, so they wanted to go and spray some crap on the houses or something to make em more fire resistant. Now of course, the govt being the meddler it is, wanted to stop them doing that, not sure why tho :S Anyway, the existence of the govt precludes such insurance agencies coming up now.

Its a nice idea but simply it would not work completely left to market forces. One of the arguments against telstra becoming privatised was the availability of rural services. One such example was that in the bush, a telephone booth would not be economical to provide, but it is completely necessary on that (say) 1 day in the year in which an emergency may occur. You cannot seriously suggest that an insurance company would provide phones to an area on the off chance that they might be needed for an emergency. A government would.

Ok the thing with company directors is an interesting point, but I have a possible explanation for this too. The fact that we have compulsory super means those funds have more money to invest with, and they're continually chasing returns yeah? Even though they have more money than what people 'wanted to put in'. Couple this with govt monopoly over currency creating boom/bust cycles, and it adds to the volatility of markets.

How does this impact on directors? Instead of shareholders themselves looking for long term gains, more of them are looking for short term gains (because theres more coerced funds, especially from uneducated investors floating around in the stock markets). Which in turn pushes CEOs to go for the short term gains, because thats what shareholders are more inclined to vote for now, because of their higher time preference.

In any case, CEOs have a reputation to protect, and under market anarchism things would be different. In fact, corporations as they exist now may not be the same under anarcho-capitalism. So its unfair to ask me to defend the current crop of businesses, many of the current businesses are in the ear of govt officials, or getting special benefits/corporate welfare, other special regulations that help some businesses more than others etc.

Hmm I think I understand but I'm not sure - maybe make that point slower and clearer?

What is it about a policy chosen by 51% of people that makes it better than one chosen by 49% of people? or even one by 99% over the 1%?

When a policy is more popular than another, what is meant that that policy has more people that perceive (this is where I presume you have difficulty with democracy - what people think is better is not necessarily the best, will answer below) its in their best interests as opposed to the opposite (personally I think people should vote for the common good rather than their own, and some will). Whilst most people are idiots, the idea is that politicians, who ideally are more intelligent than the people, can implement the will of most of the people, thus satisfy the interests of as many people as possible in the best way they can. If it is not the best way, or the values of the people change, the politicians will either have to change to suit or they will suffer on election day. Through a constant refinement process, the system progresses. That is why the way chosen by the majority is the better way, as it satisfies as many of the people as possible.

This makes it better than a dictator system - which tends to result in those that have power wanting to keep it, despite what is in the best interests of the many, people can always place above what is in their perceived best interests above all else.

Now to the 'perceive' part. People as a whole are idiots, yes. But democracy works cause people know what sucks, if something ends up worse for them, they do know about it, and in many cases (as we're seeing with WorkChoices) no amount of ifs, buts, maybes or propoganda can change they're mind once it goes to far (and both sides of politics will try and sway people of course). Politicians need to have the interest of doing as well as they can in their policies, otherwise they will suffer at the hands of the people. Sometimes they may put their own interest above the national interest, and most of the time they get away with it, but ultimately if they screw up too much, they get the boot.

Under anarcho-capitalism, what is to stop a rich person buying their way into power and then subjecting everyone into a dictatorship?

 

[volition]

LCollins, I feel that I'm derailing the thread just a teensy bit. So I'll respond to you via PM.

 

[Triangulum]

A poll in North Sydney says the electorate 2PP is 50-50. (That's Joe Hockey's seat where he's being challenged by Mike Bailey.)

 

[Triangulum]

that poll is bullshit.

Probably, yeah. Although there have been occasional rumblings all year about the possibility of North Sydney falling.

 

[atreus]

did anyone see the john howard n peter costello interview on today tonight?

they must be really desperate to go on tt and be interviewed by anna coren. they sound and act (very creepily) like a married couple.
they just sat there worrying and then warning everyone that if they vote for labor they will not only lose their jobs and their house, but they will die shortly after.

 

[Iron]

I didnt even catch the Rudd on Rove action.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

A poll in North Sydney says the electorate 2PP is 50-50. (That's Joe Hockey's seat where he's being challenged by Mike Bailey.)

It surprises me that Hockey's volunteering to be on Channel 7's little election night presentation given this. I imagine that most people in marginal seats wouldn't want to be on national TV for hours at a time as their seat is lost. Doubt that applies to Plibersek who's the other sitting guest.

 

[Rafy]

Newspoll - 54/46 TPP

Primaries: ALP 46 (down 2), Coalition 41 (up 1)

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Hahahaha. Has anyone compared the Liberal and Labor websites yet? If I wasn't so obviously inclined to vote for the Labor party anyway, I think that looking at the Liberal website would push me over.