No More Nationals! :d (1 Viewer)

[The Brucemaster]

I've gone off the subject of welfare, slightly changed my argument to encompass something I have explicit proof of, and that is your support of protectionism.

Right so because you cant actually argue against my point you're going to ignore it?
Solid.

*points to near unanimous agreement among economists on the effects of protectionism.

I was more referring to the lack of clarity (from my perspective) as to your argument in this case.

Free trade is defined as the absence of any protection, while protectionism is defined as the presence of any, and while you support any protection, you're charging consumers unfairly high rates, and allowing protected industries to bludge off other people's money.

Your language fails to adequately describe the situation objectively:
A) define unfairly high rates?
B) If we are to implement total free trade then is australia's comparative advantage going to be enough to offset the losses created by sending markets overseas?
C) How do protected industries "bludge off other people's money?"

I'll phrase it out as a logically closed deduction, shall I?
P = the set of people sending out country down the shithole.
Q = the set of ways that our country is being sent down the shithole.
R = the set of instances where people bludge off others' money.

Premise 1, taken from your own argument, states that R is a subset of Q, and as such membership of R implies membership of Q.
It is also trivial that if someone supports anything from set Q, then they are part of set P.
Now, premise 2 states that protectionism is a member of set R, and thus from premise 1, of set Q.
Premise 3 states that you support protectionism, and hence support something from set Q.
Hence by the second trivial deduction you are part of set P.

The conclusion follows completely from the premises, which are what you should be attacking if you wish to destablise my argument rather than making baseless attacks that my conclusion is 'outrageous'.

Yes, that is perfectly logical and your conclusion is completely accurate.


Although your premises in the first place dont actually describe my argument and in fact are irrelevant to the original statement.

A) I was simply referring to the attitude indicated by bractune in his statement earlier and how it was conducive to the decline of the nation.

B) You seem to have applied your own political ideas to this statement and seem to think that i am implying an idea about welfare dependency/some other form of dependency.

C) Even if this were true you have already stated that you dont wish to argue about welfare, despite its aforementioned relevance (albeit perceived on your part) to the debate.

D) Protectionism has nothing to do with this save your prejudiced and in fact rather despicable insult earlier as to my (perceived) political ideals.

E) You have simply applied your political ideals to this situation by turning this in to a debate on protectionism v. free trade. By virtue of that, you have therefore simply dismissed my arguments simply because they do not agree with yours. I would suggest that you not act with such a closed mind, it is detrimental to progress.

F) Of course, you are no doubt going to ignore my advice seeing as i am a welfare/protectionist loving commie who doesnt agree with you, which of course means i am wrong.

 

[withoutaface]

Right so because you cant actually argue against my point you're going to ignore it?
Solid.

You've brought up welfare in response to a post where I was clearly talking about protectionism, so it's only fair that it be ignored because it was irrelevant to the discussion.

Your language fails to adequately describe the situation objectively:
A) define unfairly high rates?

Rates above what they'd pay in open competition.

B) If we are to implement total free trade then is australia's comparative advantage going to be enough to offset the losses created by sending markets overseas?

Yes, because currency changes to offset it even if we are worse at everything than everyone else. The only instance where free trade would not cause a benefit would be where we were exactly as good at everything as our overseas competitors, in which case nothing would change.

C) How do protected industries "bludge off other people's money?

Because they are:
a) receiving subsidies from the government.
b) having competitors knocked out, and thus having their profits inflated to above what they deserve.

 

[Comrade nathan]

So you know what you can do? Get some money together go over to PNG of your own accord and walk the Kokoda trail.

Your a wanker.

Anyway if the Nationals are absorbed into the Liberals, will the Liberals gain the trust of the Nationals' voting base?

 

[The Brucemaster]

I love how you only argue the parts of my post that are relevant to your argument and not in fact relevant to the original issue.

Just to illustrate:

Says the welfare and trade barrier loving communist.

and then

You've brought up welfare in response to a post where I was clearly talking about protectionism, so it's only fair that it be ignored because it was irrelevant to the discussion

Good day

 

[Iron]

Anyway if the Nationals are absorbed into the Liberals, will the Liberals gain the trust of the Nationals' voting base?

Their problem is that their base is increasingly insignificant. Whenever electorate boundaries are changed, it tends to be to the Nat's detriment (Richmond being the best eg)

The last federal election was actually the first time that both the Libs and Nats shared the same H.Q and ran a wholly joint campaign. The Nats even managed to score a swing of .7% (thanks to OneNat. death)

To quote Keating, "...that vile constituency, the National Party, did nothing else but get its hands on the public purse." Which is like, so true. They stay alive based on incumbency (offering rural roads/crooked trade deals) and minority Lib preferences.
N.B the Julian defection. The Nats are a spent force. Rural seats dont really matter anymore, let alone exist

 

[Rafy]

Vaile sacks Nationals federal president
May 31, 2006 - 9:00AM

Nationals leader Mark Vaile has sacked federal party president David Russell, according to a leading party senator.

"I think Mark yesterday, showed tremendous strength in sacking his president," Nationals senator Ron Boswell told reporters.

Mr Russell was sacked for his role in a proposed merger of the Nationals and Liberals in Queensland.

He said Mr Vaile's move showed leadership.

"That's the sort of leadership the National party wants and Mark has displayed that and I think that's going to be welcomed out there in rural Australia," Senator Boswell said.

He said Mr Vaile now needed to quit his trade portfolio and focus on healing the party.

"The job is national leader, his electorate is far-flung Australia and he needs time to go around it," Senator Boswell said.

"Personally, I don't pick the portfolios and that's a matter for Mark but my suggestion to him is `we need you around'".

Senator Boswell said the merger proposal was dead.

"It was never going to get up once the prime minister put the kiss of death on it," he said.

AAP/SMH

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...deral-president/2006/05/31/1148956379628.html


Unfortunately, i agree with Boswell, this idea is dead.

 

[Jameswilmot2000]

N.B the Julian defection. The Nats are a spent force. Rural seats dont really matter anymore, let alone exist

us poor rurals ...

 

[Rafy]

Federal veto sinks Libs-Nats merger
May 31, 2006 - 8:52PM

The Nationals' leader Lawrence Springborg and Liberal leader Bob Quinn emerged from a meeting tonight in the south-east Queensland town of Kingaroy to tell journalists they could not go ahead with the merger.

The two leaders said without the support of Prime Minister John Howard and his deputy Mark Vaile, the plan could not proceed.

Mr Springborg said he was disappointed the merger was off.[...]
SMH

.