- Apr 10, 2008
no but you claimed that she did spend $10billion dollars without any evidence except from what you considered an educated guessgnrlies said:Ok Ok Ok... I got it wrong after all. Secrety Julia Gillard is an economic conservative and is going to cut taxes, and lower expenditure for all.... Unlikely. Your issue with $10bn is besides the point. The fact is that she isn't an economic conservative and she has some grand plans that she has articulated numerous times. As I said if you have a look at the budget papers you will find that $10bn is a very minute amount. In fact it represents less than 1% of GDP. It would be highly improbable that spending will go up by less than 1% let alone this figure being innacurate. But as I said this is besides the point. Her plans for childcare alone are likely to cost a few billion dollars.
the fact that it isn't an academic piece of writing is besides the point. its the reasons behind the fact that you aren't allowed to reference wiki.HELLO! this isn't a formal piece of academic writing. If its such a big deal go and read the citations listed within the text article. I would recommend anything by the Austrian or Chicago schools of economics when it comes to this.
No the wikipedia quote didn't describe why it wouldn't work but it refers to other texts that will (which is precisely why your statement was foolish because the wiki quotation did nothing other than refer to other works!). The critique is that there is no such thing as a mix between free markets and intervention. If you believe free markets work, then you should also believe that free markets will always produce the best results. If you dont believe in this then why on earth would you utilise free market policies? if you do believe in this then why would you intervene in markets? this is the central critique progressed by its opponents. Free market capitalism is a pure theory that need not be compromised. If you compromise it, you worsen the outcomes. Third way politics is an inconsistent approach that does nothing other than appease competing political interests. It doesn't produce effective outcomes.
And first of all you were the one that mentioned the third party thing. why the hell would you mention it if it doesn't exist. yes i see the critique is that but what has that got to do with the third party failing which is what you quoted me for. and just because it is a critique doesn't mean that it is necessarily true. it is just one perspective
firstly you can't see into the future even though you would like to think so. you are basically assuming that it will happen when this may not necessarily be true??? why is it bad? havent we just been debating this whole issue since the beginning?
Rudd will do it. He's already done it. He couldn't even stand solid to political pressure when it came to the one of carers and seniors bonus. I will reserve judgement until a few budgets have gone by, but the signs arent promising. But thats to be expected. No Labor government in history has ever had the ethos of "small government" in mind.
secondly, you just said all governments waste money, so why should it be particularly bad if Rudd does it?
and what you have studies labour markets? that is the current system. don't you know that collective enterprise bargaining agreements are more of a deregulated system than regulated?also with the AWA's the majority of people are aware that it does not produce positive outcomes for employees but rather the opposite.I know you are only studying year 12 economics so I wont expect you to have studied labour markets; but labour market deregulation produces positive outcomes for both employees and employers.
AHAHAHAHAHAH. dont crack me up!As for AWA's - these agreements actually enhance the protection of employees. We've always had individual contracts but these have been common law arrangements which means that if you have an issue with the agreement, or your employer, you have to pay a bloody lawyer to help you out. How is that a better alternative to an AWA that allows you to fall under the formal industrial relations system and give you the formal rights of concilliation and arbitration?
[FONT="][/FONT]At the time the OEA revealed that 100 per cent of AWAs cut at least one so called ‘protected award condition’ and:
• 64 per cent cut annual leave loading;
• 63 per cent cut penalty rates;
• 52 per cent cut shift work loadings;
• 51 per cent cut overtime loadings;
why do you think employees rally to have the AWA's stopped? oh yeah it must be because they are protected more
so in your opinion its better that employers exploit workers? yeah that will really be a better option to improve distribute of income.As for wages, how does it improve the distribution of income if we artificially inflate wages such that we have unemployment as those with low skills are too expensive to be hired by employers?
do you understand what a collective enterprise barganing agreement is? i assume you do. so you would understand that there is still a bargaining process involve.
if a company needs to hire people they will if they don't they wont. we arn't a third world country. people shouldn't have to choose from being exploited to being unemployed. do you know how low a minimum wage is? especially for low skilled staff? my friends mum that lives of minimum wage and i can tell you that she is having difficulty paying the rent, let alone providing for her family. the fact that we have a standard minimum wage is because the living standards in Australia is relavely high compared to other counties and this is because of these minimum wages. also the cost of living in Australia is relatively high compared to those third world countries which have low minimum wages or no minimum wages at all.there are in fact a lot of jobless people out there who would have jobs if employers could pay them the appropriate rate for a given job. Personally I do not advocate for the removal of minimum wages (although many do) but I do believe that our minimum wage is far too high. We have the highest minimum wage in the world.
also i will say this again we currently have COLLECTIVE ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS. i hope you do know what that means.Whilst workchoices itself didn't entail lowering or removing minimum wages - it did allow employers to negotiate a contract that that made it feasible to employ people that they otherwise couldn't.