Should 2 time Loser KIM BEAZLEY be new Labour Leader?? (1 Viewer)

[firehose]

Beazley should be leader but only coz there's no good alternative

 

[dawma88]

kevin rudd

beazly is not up to the job. he will probably go down to mr. coward easily.

i think the best man to the lead the party is kevin rudd cos he pretty samrt and has the best speeches within the labour party or even the parliament house. thats just my opionion....anyone else agrees with me??

 

[Lhyviathan]

I agree Mr Rudd is very capable, but I still feel that he should wait a couple more years...

Similarly, it would have been in Latham's best interests to have had a couple more years under his belt (ignoring the fact that he has an illness) before he tacked the mighty task of dethroning Howard...

 

[RIZAL]

Spatial patterns? wewt? lol?

Interest rates are determined by inflation, which is partially influenced by government spending. Even though the RBA sets interest rates they can raise interest rates in response to large amounts of spending by governments which will cause inflation (you suggest excess spending in the next quote incidentally). Labor's labour market reforms and crazy policies would have resulted in an increase in spending and thus inflation and thus interest rates. But this is all academic since all the Liberal advertisements did was compare the interest rates under past Labor governments to the interest rates under the Liberal government.

Interest rates are determined by inflation?

I think you'll find that the two major determinants of real interest rates are the real returns on alternative assets and the EXPECTED rate of inflation.

Or were you talking about nominal interest rates? :rollseyes:

 

[neo o]

Interest rates are determined by inflation?

I think you'll find that the two major determinants of real interest rates are the real returns on alternative assets and the EXPECTED rate of inflation.

Call the internet police! A mistake! Though, I'm surprised that you could pick up on something that for the sake of my argument was basically correct, and you missed someone defining interest rates as being determined by "spatial urbanisation". :uhhuh:

 

[RIZAL]

Spatial patterns? wewt? lol?

Labor's labour market reforms and crazy policies would have resulted in an increase in spending and thus inflation and thus interest rates. But this is all academic since all the Liberal advertisements did was compare the interest rates under past Labor governments to the interest rates under the Liberal government.

This is just airy fairy. You can't just assume a chain of causation like that. Whether an increase in govt spending increases inflation depends on a variety of variables i.e. whether the economy is at full employment and the levels of consumer confidence.

And under interest rate TARGETING, you basically cannot say that anything will lead to a definite change in interest rates.

So before you knock Labor's economic policy, get the basics down pat.

 

[neo o]

This is just airy fairy. You can't just assume a chain of causation like that. Whether an increase in govt spending increases inflation depends on a variety of variables i.e. whether the economy is at full employment and the levels of consumer confidence.

Interest rates are determined by inflation, which is partially influenced by government spending.

It's very easy to quote half of what someone says then try to make an argument from it.

And under interest rate TARGETING, you basically cannot say that anything will lead to a definite change in interest rates.

Again with the mincing of words. You're being about as constructive as the people who flame over spelling mistakes. Underlying inflation, inflation targetting etc are all hardly relevant in a simple explanation of how inflation is determined for someone who obviously doesnt know.

 

[RIZAL]

This is where you pwned yourself:

Labor's labour market reforms and crazy policies would have resulted in an increase in spending and thus inflation and thus interest rates.

Tell me how you can assume this chain of causation.

 

[blackfriday]

something in our econ textbooks tell us that rubbish right?

 

[Scanorama]

Not really, but again, he is still better than Jonh Howard and the Liberals.

 

[miaomiao]

The UN? No, two security council members chose to act in their own financial interest however.

Please elaborate as I was unaware of this?

Hans Blix believed Sadaam destroyed them, in this case we have a choice. People make choices all the time.

Thats right people do make choices, neo. But Hans Blix said that Saddam had destroyed the weapons meaning they were NOT THERE. Howard and bush told us in no uncertain terms that they were, remember?

And as I pointed out before, if they were WMD in Iraq i'm sure you'd happily sledge Howard for acting irresponsibly by not taking action.

No. I'd be thankful that the government of my country hadn't been somewhat responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of innocent iraqis but as we all know this government is. i opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning just as many Australians did even assuming weapons did exist. But seeing as no evidence of weapons existed this was a hard and unreasonable thing to assume in the first place.

I never said it was there, I never said it wasn't there though.

This is a ridiculous line of argument which I won't bother responding to

Firstly, since you haven't said anything about paid suicide bombers, acts of violence and racial hatred against Kurds, continual support of terrorist groups etc I assume that you conceed those points.

yeah i do. And just like the UN I don't think these points justify the invasion of another country.

Actually heaps of missile shells were found being sent out of Iraq as scrap, some sarin was found as well.

Still proving shit all and not a justification for invasion.

Under the Whitlam government we had improper appointments (Junie Morosi etc), the Loans Scandal, horribly high inflation, closures of Australian businesses since he revoked protection.

Under Whitlam we had free universities (which if you ask me is enough to make all the points you raised miniscule and irrelevant), an end to the white Australia policy and Native title legislation. I guess a big fat wallet is all some people think about though.

Oh and Keating thought Australia was, and i quote, the "arse end of the world", unlike Howard, who loves our country, has a deep seated sense of patriotism and isn't an arrogant prat who thinks he's superior to the people who gave him power in the first place.

So what if keating thought Australia was the arse end of the world. He was a scholar and a brilliant, witty, talented man which is more than i can say for the dull pipsqueak your siding with. Keating was commited to reconciliation, he beleived Australia needed to improve relations with Asia. He was an engaging, intellegent and bright speaker. People were just threatened by him because his intellegence made them feel inferior and so they labelled him arrogant. As for howard being patriotic- its that kind of jingoistic patriotism that makes me feel even more disgusted by him and ashamed to be Australian.

Please feel free to explain to me how you've come to the conclusion that Howard is a "racist, fear inspiring bigot".

I have come to the conclusion that Howard is a racist, fear inspiring bigot from my observations of this government's polocies on immigration and indigenous affairs (the continuation of mandatory detention, the closure of ATSIC, the refusal to apologise to indigenous Australians), negative comments made in parliament about asian immigration before he was elected prime minister and the various fear campaigns(about interest rates, about terrorism, about immigration) which he has inflicted on us to gain re election time and time again.

 

[blackfriday]

my, my, my you really are an angry person but lots of what you said is correct. but keating's arrogance is the main reason why john howard has been so successful in recent years. he thought we were all idiots and treated us like so and the australian public felt this couldn't go unpunished. no we have got to this situation because it is no longer about the best leader, but how well you can discredit your opponents.

 

[Skillo]

How many recessions has Labor had in comparison to Liberal?

If you were one of the thousands of people who were gulliable enough to actually believe the 2004election economy blackmail performed by the liberal government, then you're not smart or well informed enough to vote.

 

[Raiks]

Not really, but again, he is still better than Jonh Howard and the Liberals.

I was going to argue but then looked who posted... and just decided to let that comment slide.

 

[Xayma]

Under Whitlam we had free universities (which if you ask me is enough to make all the points you raised miniscule and irrelevant), an end to the white Australia policy and Native title legislation. I guess a big fat wallet is all some people think about though

Oh noes. HECS will be raised, it's the end of the world, dear lord all university are raising HECS, it is all Howards fault.

Free university isn't the most important issue, the main issue is getting low interest loans to cover the cost of university.

Even paying full fee isn't much when you compare the increase in income made from getting the university degree in the first place. Cheap university is over rated. If cheap loans can be acquired then it is no problem.

But people want free university so they have better jobs later in life and get hundreds of thousands more over their life time but are unwilling to pay for this education. Instead they want part of it to be saddled by those who don't go to university.

 

[beccaxx]

i say giv beazley one more go.

at least the party had a bit more stability under his leadership.

 

[Raiks]

Oh noes. HECS will be raised, it's the end of the world, dear lord all university are raising HECS, it is all Howards fault.

Free university isn't the most important issue, the main issue is getting low interest loans to cover the cost of university.

Even paying full fee isn't much when you compare the increase in income made from getting the university degree in the first place. Cheap university is over rated. If cheap loans can be acquired then it is no problem.

But people want free university so they have better jobs later in life and get hundreds of thousands more over their life time but are unwilling to pay for this education. Instead they want part of it to be saddled by those who don't go to university.

Can I ask what is so bad about HECS??? People make it sound like it deprives people of the chance of going. You don't start paying HECS back until you start earning money and then its just like an extra bit of take meaning that you don't even miss it. And why shouldn't I pay for my university degree, I chose to do it and it will eventually lead to me being better qualified and theoretically earning more in the job I want to be in. In my opinion, those who want free education are just tight arse stingy fuckers who want everything but refuse to give anything back.

If most people wanted free education, would they stop trying to reduce the amount of tax they pay each financial year so it helps the government afford it all? of course not because they're grabby fuckers.

 

[miaomiao]

Can I ask what is so bad about HECS??? People make it sound like it deprives people of the chance of going. You don't start paying HECS back until you start earning money and then its just like an extra bit of take meaning that you don't even miss it.

HECS is only one of the side effects of there not being enough funding for universites. Some others include rundown facilities and the need to have more full fee and overseas full fee paying students instead of local ones to pay for the ruuning of the uni. If the government funded our unis adequately, there wouldn't be a need for overseas full fee paying students (and hence more places for local students and lower HECS), better facilities, better pay for university staff.

But this government doesn't value education, at least not for the poor.

And why shouldn't I pay for my university degree, I chose to do it and it will eventually lead to me being better qualified and theoretically earning more in the job I want to be in. In my opinion, those who want free education are just tight arse stingy fuckers who want everything but refuse to give anything back.

You seem to think that people go to uni with the soul aim of making big bucks when they get out. This may be true for you but for some others university is more about getting an education, learning, thinking and hopefully improving society with the knowledge that they gain.

Why shouldn't the government pay for what will ultimately benefit society? Because the Liberal party isn't interested in those kinds of 'progressive' ideas.

Why shouldn't the government pay for the education of the society which votes for it? Because John Howard wants to keep society uneducated and dumb so that he will continue to be re elected.

If you pay HECS upfront, you pay less than those who pay it back when they leave uni meaning that people with rich parents who can afford to do this get a better deal. TALK ABOUT THE RICH GETTING RICHER AND THE POOR GETTING POORER! Have you ever even thought about the obvious inequality of full fee UAI cutoffs versus HECS cutoffs? This inequality which benefits those who can afford such hefty fees is a result of LACK OF FUNDING.

If most people wanted free education, would they stop trying to reduce the amount of tax they pay each financial year so it helps the government afford it all? of course not because they're grabby fuckers.

I know of many families that would gladly like to see their Tax spent on higher education instead of funding the invasion of Iraq and detention centres in the middle of the desert. There are some Australians who realise that a budget surplus isn't the great economic acheivement Howard makes it out to be and that it is only a result of his refusal to fund national institutions such as universities... the money is there Raiks, that isn't the issue.

 

[Xayma]

If you pay HECS upfront, you pay less than those who pay it back when they leave uni meaning that people with rich parents who can afford to do this get a better deal. TALK ABOUT THE RICH GETTING RICHER AND THE POOR GETTING POORER! Have you ever even thought about the obvious inequality of full fee UAI cutoffs versus HECS cutoffs? This inequality which benefits those who can afford such hefty fees is a result of LACK OF FUNDING.

Well if you didn't offer a discount to pay upfront why would anyone?

It's better for the government to get some money now.

You can take up to $50 000 in FEE-HELP.

 

[ur_inner_child]

yeah i agree with miaomiao...

Raiks, you're right about uni go-ers theoretically earning more

B Music (composition) for me will NOT guarantee "big bucks" or food on the table. I'll be relying on a second "career path" most of the time to do so.

I'm not really complaining about that because I choose to do that degree anyway so no, i won't be earning as much as you hot shot confident people think I, or yourselves, will be earning.

Besides, after uni, it doesnt guarantee financial success, so hush hush.

I know you're merely pointing out that you should give for what you receive, which i totally understand, but yeah. Theoretically people with degrees should be earning more after, but that is hell not the case.