Boat People (3 Viewers)

[Generator]

Those Asian countries restructured their economies within a different global economic climate and they coupled global expansion with excessive protection till their industries were stable. The current situation is not the same, supercharged.

 

[supercharged]

And what exactly is currently happening with the economies of China and India then, generator?

It's not exactly the same, because they are using outsourcing and foreign investment rather than tariffs to build up their industries, but it shows the mutual benefits of the global economy all the same.

 

[spell check]

immigration laws are protection

they protect workers in australia from having to compete with workers who might come in from less developed countries and work harder for less

 

[Lozacious]

so it is globalisation when an australian company sets up a factory in kenya, and hires kenyan labour because they have no laws protecting themselves from harsh conditions and extremely low pay rates?

but when kenyans come here to work, under the protection of our minimum wage and condition laws (which hopefully will continue to exist), it isn't globalisation?

Sorry, libertarians are all too happy to alow numerous other double standards to exist, so the right have every reason to let this one exist.

 

[supercharged]

immigration laws are protection

they protect workers in australia from having to compete with workers who might come in from less developed countries and work harder for less

OMFG you have NFI.... just like talking to a donkey

Overseas workers who come to Australia (no matter how many) will be paid the exact same rate as Australian workers because that is the law.

If these overseas workers are willing to work harder for less, then companies will automatically start offshoring their production lines to that country in order to lower their costs.

They do NOT come here, that would be pointless.

 

[Generator]

And what exactly is currently happening with the economies of China and India then, generator?

It's not exactly the same, because they are using outsourcing and foreign investment rather than tariffs to build up their industries, but it shows the mutual benefits of the global economy all the same.

You seem to be ignoring the size of each country's population base and that in these cases the economic benefits of economic development aren't as well distributed as was the case in those Asian countries that entered the global market at an earlier date. As spell check has said numerous times, it's benefiting the wealthy and the politically powerful, not all.

 

[spell check]

Sorry, libertarians are all too happy to alow numerous other double standards to exist, so the right have every reason to let this one exist.

so you're admitting the right only believes in globalisation to help the rich get richer, at the expense of the poor

what double standards do libertarians believe in?

 

[spell check]

OMFG you have NFI.... just like talking to a donkey

Overseas workers who come to Australia (no matter how many) will be paid the exact same rate as Australian workers because that is the law.

If these overseas workers are willing to work harder for less, then companies will automatically start offshoring their production lines to that country in order to lower their costs.

They do NOT come here, that would be pointless.

australian workers don't all get paid minimum wage

foreign workers will negotiate deals where they work harder for less

the benefit of foreign workers coming to australia is that whatever they negotiate has a good chance of being far better than the conditions they used to live in. why do you think people say australia is such a great country?

globalisation should work to help the poor, not the rich.

 

[Lozacious]

what double standards do libertarians believe in?

Muslim: "I" didn't fly any plane into a building?
Libertarian: That's ok, you have every right to be here *sad violin music*

Australian: "I" didn't steal any children off aboriginals?
Libertarian: SAY SORRY, Pay compensation, give them land, land rights, positions in parliament, self determination. RAH, RAH.. RAH..! RAHHH! YOU RACIST OMG OMG!

-----

Libertarian: It is totally unacceptable that the US and the west are influencing non-western nations by introducing coca-cola, McDonalds, KFC etc. It is SUCH a detriment to their society.

*a few seconds later*

Libertarian: Foreigners should be able to come to the west and influence it! We are are a... a .... MULTI-CULTURAL NATION! Of course its ok for them to set up their crap here. OF COURSE!

--

Do i need to continue?

 

[spell check]

Muslim: "I" didn't fly any plane into a building?
Libertarian: That's ok, you have every right to be here *sad violin music*

Australian: "I" didn't steal any children off aboriginals?
Libertarian: SAY SORRY, Pay compensation, give them land, land rights, positions in parliament, self determination. RAH, RAH.. RAH..! RAHHH! YOU RACIST OMG OMG!

-----

you really have no idea do you

if i said to you that you are guilty of murder because someone with the same colour hair as you killed someone, you wouldn't appreciate it

the reason people say the government should apologise to aboriginal people for the stolen generation is that the commonwealth government of australia is the same legal entity that is responsible for the stolen generation. they don't want john howard to apologise in his capacity as john howard the person, they want him to apologise as holder of the office of prime minister of australia.

these are two totally different situations.

Libertarian: It is totally unacceptable that the US and the west are influencing non-western nations by introducing coca-cola, McDonalds, KFC etc. It is SUCH a detriment to their society.

*a few seconds later*

Libertarian: Foreigners should be able to come to the west and influence it! We are are a... a .... MULTI-CULTURAL NATION! Of course its ok for them to set up their crap here. OF COURSE!

australia prides itself on being a multi cultural nation, so i don't really see why you have limited that argument to "libertarians"?

i think most 'libertarians' or 'lefties' 'hippies' or whatever else are arguing that coca cola and mcdonalds are a bad thing in themselves, not just because they are western

 

[ihavenothing]

Yeh but if every other bloody western nation prides itself in being "multicultural" whats so unique about Australia now???

 

[Lozacious]

the reason people say the government should apologise to aboriginal people for the stolen generation is that the commonwealth government of australia is the same legal entity that is responsible for the stolen generation. they don't want john howard to apologise in his capacity as john howard the person, they want him to apologise as holder of the office of prime minister of australia.

Well if its good enough for the government today, to stand up and apologise and say "Yes, it was US who stole your children, we apologise for the actions of people many years ago".. Then it's good enough for muslims to get up today, admit to being terrorists, and then apologise... And then they can pay massive reparations to the USA and the victims families, and all the victims of terrorism.. - because that is what the government would have to do if it said sorry to the Aborigines, which is also the only reason the Aboriginals want to hear the magic 'S' word..

(Ps: Saying sorry actually implies that we are sorry. I'm not sorry for the actions of those people many years ago. Not one aboriginal child was actually stolen... Half-cast children were stolen, hence they were as much white as they were black. We owe the Aboriginals no apology.)

The Muslim 'apology' scenario actually makes more sense than the aboriginal one, because at least the muslims are in this era where it is happening. The current government wasn't even born, or were in a pram when it did.

australia prides itself on being a multi cultural nation, so i don't really see why you have limited that argument to "libertarians"?

yes.

i think most 'libertarians' or 'lefties' 'hippies' or whatever else are arguing that coca cola and mcdonalds are a bad thing in themselves, not just because they are western

No, they say that the influence of coca-cola (the brand) on other nations is bad because it detriments their culture.
Yet they won't ever admit to other cultures being detrimental to ours.. Because it's just not possible at all..

 

[spell check]

Well if its good enough for the government today, to stand up and apologise and say "Yes, it was Us who stole your children, we apologise" for the actions of people many years ago.. Then its good enough for muslims to get up, admit to being terrorists, and apologise?

The Muslim one actually makes more sense than the aboriginal one, because at least the muslims are in this era where it is happening. The current government wasn't even born, or were in a pram when it did.

yeah that's a pretty good argument

so like, if a white person kills someone, other white people are responsible. makes sense. what about mixed race though, are they responsible? or only half responsible

i guess when one minister dies or the government changes, all the contracts the previous government entered into end because the people holding those offices are different. that would certainly be efficient.

 

[loquasagacious]

Erawami I would disagree as far as AMs economic stance goes whilst it has alot in common with greens/commies his stance is actually mercantilist/keynsian (as opposed to marxist, itself a variant of mercantilism).

Globalisation erodes state power

This would be true if true globalisation occured, it doesn't so its not. Furthermore two states may be effected in very different ways eg I would not say that the US's power has been eroded by globalisation but perhaps Indonesias has.

Now to weigh in on free markets and immigration.

Supercharged: Immigration restrictions ARE a form of protectionism they preclude the free transfer of labour and hence may cause inefficiency. You deride this argument on the foundation of two incorrect premises. Firstly you say that Australian workers do not compete for jobs with immigrants because of a minimum wage, this is wrong on two counts with a minimum wage we do compete and secondly a minimum wage is in itself an interference in the market and it is untenable to justify further interference on an intereference.

Secondly you argue that we only compete in the sense that companies are willing to offshore. The problem with this argument is that they are willing to offshore only because of the market interventions in my first point (minimum wages and immigration restrictions. Finally moves like this are actually examples of the free flow of capital.

My suggestion to you is that you study economics before pontificating on the subject.

PS: Good to see NCAP reinvigorated.

 

[Lozacious]

yeah that's a pretty good argument

so like, if a white person kills someone, other white people are responsible. makes sense. what about mixed race though, are they responsible? or only half responsible.

so like, if a person 100 years ago, takes a half caste child, the people of today are responsible, and have to apologise to people who don't even deserve to be apologised to. makes sense. What about 1st or 2nd generation Australians in the government. Are they responsible, or only half responsible?

 

[Lozacious]

Erawami I would disagree as far as AMs economic stance goes whilst it has alot in common with greens/commies his stance is actually mercantilist/keynsian (as opposed to marxist, itself a variant of mercantilism).

What do i have in common with the Greens/commies? And i am not Keynsian, it died out in like th 30's or something. Though, he was a homosexual and was very much spure of the moment.

 

[spell check]

so like, if a person 100 years ago, takes a half caste child, the people of today are responsible, and have to apologise to people who don't even deserve to be apologised to. makes sense. What about 1st or 2nd generation Australians in the government. Are they responsible, or only half responsible?

the prime minister should apologise on behalf of the commonwealth government

the commonwealth government of today is the same commonwealth government that has been around since federation and is the same commonwealth government that was responsible for the stolen generation

 

[Lozacious]

the prime minister should apologise on behalf of the commonwealth government

the commonwealth government of today is the same commonwealth government that has been around since federation and is the same commonwealth government that was responsible for the stolen generation

Muslims should apologise for being terrorists, and should pay reparations. If the commonwealth gov. said sorry, they would be expected to cough up a lot of money and land.. Therefore muslims should be expected to cough up money and land for the victims of terrorism.

... exactly, it's never going to happen. So stop expecting white people to do things that no body else would.

 

[erawamai]

If the commonwealth gov. said sorry, they would be expected to cough up a lot of money and land

What exactly do you base that assertion on? The whole compensation and having to give land back assertion.

Sorry what I meant was do you know anything about what native title is, where it exists, how it is extinguished or do you pull everything for your arse?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Well if its good enough for the government today, to stand up and apologise and say "Yes, it was US who stole your children, we apologise for the actions of people many years ago".. Then it's good enough for muslims to get up today, admit to being terrorists, and then apologise...

No, the government is the same Federal body - and the same legal entity. "Muslims" are not a government. "Muslims" are not the same legal entity. "Muslims" are constituted by millions of individuals worldwide. Your analogy is completely flawed.

(Ps: Saying sorry actually implies that we are sorry. I'm not sorry for the actions of those people many years ago. Not one aboriginal child was actually stolen... Half-cast children were stolen, hence they were as much white as they were black. We owe the Aboriginals no apology.)

Your claims here are, again, utterly illogical on a number of levels. Firstly, you make the mistake of believing a human being can be owned. Unless you believe in slavery, humans cannot be owned.

Secondly, you ignore the historical fact that children were taken from their parents. What race they are is entirely irrelevant.

Thirdly, you make the mistake of dividing humanity into to entities capable of ownership -- "black" and "white". You suggest that something can be owned by that entire collective as a race. (Might I add that you group people into extremely generalised categories like this all the time. This is the most fundamental failure of your way of thinking. It completely obfuscates any real discussion of an issue. I am referring here to calling everyone who disagrees with you "left".)

Lastly, even if we go along with your ridiculous argument, your claim that "they were as much white as they were black" does not entitle one of those "joint owners" to take from the other. If you own a bike in joint ownership with a younger brother, you don't have the right to take the bike from him.

The Muslim 'apology' scenario actually makes more sense than the aboriginal one, because at least the muslims are in this era where it is happening. The current government wasn't even born, or were in a pram when it did.

No, the government was there. It's constituents may have changed, but the government was there.