Re: [luv-talk] Libs/Labs and other politics, statistics and myths
Hi Michael, From: "Michael Scott" <luv@inoz.net>
I said I didn't like the Liberal government's policies, yet you use the East-West link against me?
I don't want to use anything "against you". Sorry.
The government has a large debt.
And a T-shirt is a Norwegian jumper. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/government-debt_gov-debt-table-en OECD (developed countries) average 2013: 109.5% Australia: 33.1% Second lowest world-wide behind Luxembourg. Regards Peter
On 06/11/14 15:36, Peter Ross wrote:
Hi Michael,
Second lowest world-wide behind Luxembourg.
for those that can read theage - Luxembourg best money launderer for business http://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/how-a-european-duchy-makes-tax...
On Thu, November 6, 2014 3:36 pm, Peter Ross wrote:
And a T-shirt is a Norwegian jumper.
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/government-debt_gov-debt-table-en
OECD (developed countries) average 2013: 109.5% Australia: 33.1%
Second lowest world-wide behind Luxembourg.
Speaking of Norway, they have the unusual problem that they're too rich - part of that was because they have an equivalent of the mining tax at 78 percent of superprofits. Their public sector has so much money that it's a problem (the OCED link doesn't include that I believe because it's held as a separate trust). "Our biggest challenge is that our oil wealth is so huge we run the risk of wasting it on substandard projects that are not profitable enough." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-08/norway-has-problem-of-too-much-money-a... "Everyone in Norway became a theoretical millionaire on Wednesday, in a milestone for the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund that has ballooned thanks to high oil and gas prices." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-09/all-norwegians-become-millionaire-shar... -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Peter, I said "large", I didn't compare our government's debt with any other country. Regards, Michael On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Peter Ross <Petros.Listig@fdrive.com.au> wrote:
Hi Michael,
From: "Michael Scott" <luv@inoz.net>
I said I didn't like the Liberal government's policies, yet you use the East-West link against me?
I don't want to use anything "against you". Sorry.
The government has a large debt.
And a T-shirt is a Norwegian jumper.
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/government-debt_gov-debt-table-en
OECD (developed countries) average 2013: 109.5% Australia: 33.1%
Second lowest world-wide behind Luxembourg.
Regards Peter
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:22:04 Michael Scott wrote:
I said "large", I didn't compare our government's debt with any other country.
It's really silly to claim that our debt is "large" when it's smaller than most countries. Australia is part of the world economic system, our economy is not like North Korea and can't be considered apart from other countries. Therefore "large" or "small" don't have any real meaning without comparison to other countries, if it's smaller than other countries then it's small. The right wing echo chamber likes to just make things up and repeat them. So saying these things will get people to agree with you among the extreme right wing. But among the majority of the population you really need to be able to support your claims. It's always interesting the way that the right-wing parties get poor people to support policies that are designed to move money from poor people to rich people. Really the only way to measure Liberal success is how much money moves from regular people to multinational corporations and billionaires. Reducing taxes on mining companies while increasing the costs of basic medical services is an example of Liberal success. I don't think anyone on this list is wealthy enough to benefit from Liberal policies. Basically anyone who advocates for Liberal policies is advocating for less money for everyone here and more money for Gina and Clive. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Interesting that YOUR opinion is that of "the majority", Russell. I think you'll probably find that about 50% of the population probably think that government debt is "large". Relative to the way it was left by the coalition government, debt is rather large. Given the various claims of interest payments (increases in debt by interest accruing) I think you could probably say the debt is "large". The left-wing echo chamber is strangely similar to the right-wing in what they repeat, Russell. Now we're getting into right v. left politics? Interesting that the left want the centrelink economy supported while the right want the people who create the wealth (you know, the employers) to be encouraged to increase their wealth by employing people. We can go on and on with the left-right argument, Russell.... I lean both ways depending on the policy. On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:22:04 Michael Scott wrote:
I said "large", I didn't compare our government's debt with any other
country.
It's really silly to claim that our debt is "large" when it's smaller than most countries. Australia is part of the world economic system, our economy is not like North Korea and can't be considered apart from other countries. Therefore "large" or "small" don't have any real meaning without comparison to other countries, if it's smaller than other countries then it's small.
The right wing echo chamber likes to just make things up and repeat them. So saying these things will get people to agree with you among the extreme right wing. But among the majority of the population you really need to be able to support your claims.
It's always interesting the way that the right-wing parties get poor people to support policies that are designed to move money from poor people to rich people.
Really the only way to measure Liberal success is how much money moves from regular people to multinational corporations and billionaires. Reducing taxes on mining companies while increasing the costs of basic medical services is an example of Liberal success.
I don't think anyone on this list is wealthy enough to benefit from Liberal policies. Basically anyone who advocates for Liberal policies is advocating for less money for everyone here and more money for Gina and Clive.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Thu, November 6, 2014 8:29 pm, Michael Scott wrote:
Interesting that YOUR opinion is that of "the majority", Russell. I think you'll probably find that about 50% of the population probably think that government debt is "large".
I have no doubt that sort of number is true. They'd be wrong, but they still think it.
Relative to the way it was left by the coalition government, debt is rather large. Given the various claims of interest payments (increases in debt by interest accruing) I think you could probably say the debt is "large".
Relative to what was left, that would be right; an increase of -3.8% of GDP in 2007-2008 to 13.0% for 2014-15. But that's still an incredibly low figure relative to other OECD countries, and a low figure historically. The argument that we have a large government debt, in political terms, is a flag raised for cuts to government services. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Or the relationship to other OECD countries can be used, in political terms, as a reason not to reduce government debt, or the budget deficit, regardless of the potential danger, should economic conditions deteriorate again. Relative terms can be used differently by both sides of politics, depending on which way you want to look at them. On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Lev Lafayette <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
On Thu, November 6, 2014 8:29 pm, Michael Scott wrote:
Interesting that YOUR opinion is that of "the majority", Russell. I think you'll probably find that about 50% of the population probably think that government debt is "large".
I have no doubt that sort of number is true. They'd be wrong, but they still think it.
Relative to the way it was left by the coalition government, debt is rather large. Given the various claims of interest payments (increases in debt by interest accruing) I think you could probably say the debt is "large".
Relative to what was left, that would be right; an increase of -3.8% of GDP in 2007-2008 to 13.0% for 2014-15.
But that's still an incredibly low figure relative to other OECD countries, and a low figure historically.
The argument that we have a large government debt, in political terms, is a flag raised for cuts to government services.
-- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Fri, November 7, 2014 4:21 am, Michael Scott wrote:
Relative terms can be used differently by both sides of politics, depending on which way you want to look at them.
Absolutely. Thus the importance of reviewing all relative claims in context. Hence I often find references to "national debt" which is indeed large, but includes public and private debt. Sometimes commentators refer to "gross government debt" commonly cited, which doesn't take into account monies owed to the government. A more sophisticated commentator refers to "net government debt", but sometimes without specifying whether this is all public debt by all three sectors of government. Then there are those who will refer to "net Federal government debt", but not adjust it for inflation, i.e., they'll provide nominal rather than real values. Finally, even if all this is done, the reference to "real net Federal government debt" is done without context of overall GDP. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
And your point is? Interesting that you refer, in your second paragraph, "to national debt, which is indeed "large"", compared to what? I used the term "large" and you argued it. Now you use the same term, without reference to anything. I could say a mouse was large. Compared to an elephant it's small. I said our government had a large debt. Compared to "other OECD nations" it's not large. All I said was it's large, and you argued that point. Compared with the USA, our national debt is minuscule, yet you call it "indeed large". On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Lev Lafayette <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
On Fri, November 7, 2014 4:21 am, Michael Scott wrote:
Relative terms can be used differently by both sides of politics, depending on which way you want to look at them.
Absolutely. Thus the importance of reviewing all relative claims in context.
Hence I often find references to "national debt" which is indeed large, but includes public and private debt.
Sometimes commentators refer to "gross government debt" commonly cited, which doesn't take into account monies owed to the government.
A more sophisticated commentator refers to "net government debt", but sometimes without specifying whether this is all public debt by all three sectors of government.
Then there are those who will refer to "net Federal government debt", but not adjust it for inflation, i.e., they'll provide nominal rather than real values.
Finally, even if all this is done, the reference to "real net Federal government debt" is done without context of overall GDP.
-- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Fri, November 7, 2014 8:43 am, Michael Scott wrote:
And your point is?
It was an offer for you to point out which "large" debt you are referring to.
Interesting that you refer, in your second paragraph, "to national debt, which is indeed "large"", compared to what?
All the others which I cited. My apologies for not making that clear.
I could say a mouse was large. Compared to an elephant it's small. I said our government had a large debt. Compared to "other OECD nations" it's not large. All I said was it's large, and you argued that point.
Compared to Australian historical debt levels it's not large either.
Compared with the USA, our national debt is minuscule, yet you call it "indeed large".
Actually, you're completely wrong on that. Australia's net external debt is 95% of GDP, whereas the United State is 106% of GDP. We are not "miniscule" on that ratio. What is relatively miniscule is the Australian Federal government's contribution to debt relative to the national debt as a whole. But rather than rein in a powerful private sector which is responsible for most of our national debt by increasing taxation levels on the highest income groups and companies, the Federal government has decided that cutbacks on scientific research, universities, and the most vulnerable is the way to go. It is fairly clear who they are governing for. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Fri, November 7, 2014 9:09 am, Lev Lafayette wrote:
Compared with the USA, our national debt is minuscule, yet you call it "indeed large".
Actually, you're completely wrong on that. Australia's net external debt is 95% of GDP, whereas the United State is 106% of GDP. We are not "miniscule" on that ratio.
Actually, I've made a mistake there in detail but I'm even more correct in substance; those figures are gross external debt, not net. If one considers net external debt, Australia is at 54% of GDP and the United States is at 27% (both of these is 2013 figures). -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Michael Scott wrote:
I think you'll probably find that about 50% of the population probably think that government debt is "large".
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. --Winston Churchill
On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Michael Scott <luv@inoz.net> wrote:
Interesting that YOUR opinion is that of "the majority", Russell. I think you'll probably find that about 50% of the population probably think that government debt is "large".
I don't claim that my opinion is that of the majority. I merely think that if you show a set of numbers to a random person they won't look at the second smallest number and call it large.
The left-wing echo chamber is strangely similar to the right-wing in what they repeat, Russell.
Not at all. People on the progressive side of politics often search for and cite references for their claims, as Lev is doing in this discussion. But if you don't have evidence then I guess you need an echo-chamber.
Now we're getting into right v. left politics? Interesting that the left want the centrelink economy supported while the right want the people who create the wealth (you know, the employers) to be encouraged to increase their wealth by employing people.
You could read any of the research about a Basic Income. Every time it's tested it gives economic benefits while every test of the "trickle down" theory shows that it doesn't work. When I ran an Internet Cafe some of my customers were on social security. Some of them legitimately had problems finding work and it was quite reasonable for dole payments to go towards Internet use (which even then was almost required to get a job). Some of the customers of my cafe seemed to have no interest in ever being employed, but it was still OK to give them dole payments - it kept them out of crime and the money they spent at my cafe (and other businesses in the area) allowed us to employ people. Michael and Slav, have you ever started a business of your own? It's easy to spout right-wing talking points when you are employed at a major bank that won't be allowed to fail even if it's badly run. It's a very different experience to start your own business and to work for other small businesses.
We can go on and on with the left-right argument, Russell.... I lean both ways depending on the policy.
Please give examples of when you lean to the left. You only get involved in political discussions here to defend the extreme right-wing. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Michael Scott <luv@inoz.net> wrote:
Interesting that YOUR opinion is that of "the majority", Russell. I think you'll probably find that about 50% of the population probably think that government debt is "large".
I don't claim that my opinion is that of the majority. I merely think that if you show a set of numbers to a random person they won't look at the second smallest number and call it large.
All I did was say that the government has a large debt. Whatever percentage of GDP or how it compares to other OECD countries does not change that. If it's in the billions of dollars and costs billions in interest, as a percentage of the government's budget, or our taxes, it is large.
When I ran an Internet Cafe some of my customers were on social security. Some of them legitimately had problems finding work and it was quite reasonable for dole payments to go towards Internet use (which even then was almost required to get a job). Some of the customers of my cafe seemed to have no interest in ever being employed, but it was still OK to give them dole payments - it kept them out of crime and the money they spent at my cafe (and other businesses in the area) allowed us to employ people.
Michael and Slav, have you ever started a business of your own? It's easy to spout right-wing talking points when you are employed at a major bank that won't be allowed to fail even if it's badly run. It's a very different experience to start your own business and to work for other small businesses.
I've only ever worked in small businesses and run my own businesses, apart from a year and a half in the consumer finance industry (of which I couldn't wait to leave).
We can go on and on with the left-right argument, Russell.... I lean both ways depending on the policy.
Please give examples of when you lean to the left. You only get involved in political discussions here to defend the extreme right-wing.
I'd vote Green if their policies only related to their green matters. Unfortunately they don't. They are able to come up with unfunded policies which they never have to justify in practice. I'd vote Labor if they weren't backed by corrupt unions (and I'm not saying all unions are corrupt). I'd vote Liberal if they weren't backed by corrupt big business (and I'm not saying all big business is corrupt). Unfortunately, I've never been in a marginal seat and my vote tends to have little to no affect. This coming state election is the exception. I'd love to see the Napthine government voted out tomorrow, but I dread the alternative. Simply because I cannot stand the absolute lack of regard for the environment. I could say the same for the current federal government. Is that far enough Left for you, Russell?
-- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, Michael Scott <luv@inoz.net> wrote:
All I did was say that the government has a large debt. Whatever percentage of GDP or how it compares to other OECD countries does not change that. If it's in the billions of dollars and costs billions in interest, as a percentage of the government's budget, or our taxes, it is large.
If you just look at absolute numbers then by definition everything that a government does is large. But there is no information content in such an analysis.
We can go on and on with the left-right argument, Russell.... I lean both ways depending on the policy.
Please give examples of when you lean to the left. You only get involved in political discussions here to defend the extreme right-wing.
I'd vote Green if their policies only related to their green matters. Unfortunately they don't. They are able to come up with unfunded policies which they never have to justify in practice.
In terms of being a "left" party the fact that the Greens advocate for protecting the environment isn't at all relevant. There have been lots of right-wing "conservative" parties that want to conserve the environment. In fact a common Godwin violation when discussing politics is to refer to the Nazis supposedly being positive towards the environment. Note I haven't bothered looking at evidence of the Nazi environmental policies as it's just not relevant to modern political discussions.
I'd vote Labor if they weren't backed by corrupt unions (and I'm not saying all unions are corrupt).
I'd vote Liberal if they weren't backed by corrupt big business (and I'm not saying all big business is corrupt).
Unfortunately, I've never been in a marginal seat and my vote tends to have little to no affect. This coming state election is the exception. I'd love to see the Napthine government voted out tomorrow, but I dread the alternative. Simply because I cannot stand the absolute lack of regard for the environment. I could say the same for the current federal government.
You think that Labor is worse for the environment than Liberal?
Is that far enough Left for you, Russell?
It's not Left at all. One modern definition of Left vs Right is about whether the government should provide services for poor people or whether it should just exist to serve the rich. Another definition concerns social issues (and you've clearly stated your position in terms of GLBT rights). It's nice that you want to protect the environment, but you still haven't given an example of an issue where you are on the Left side. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, Michael Scott <luv@inoz.net> wrote:
All I did was say that the government has a large debt. Whatever percentage of GDP or how it compares to other OECD countries does not change that. If it's in the billions of dollars and costs billions in interest, as a percentage of the government's budget, or our taxes, it is large.
If you just look at absolute numbers then by definition everything that a government does is large. But there is no information content in such an analysis.
Again, all I did was say the debt was large. Everybody else tried defining what large meant. Yes, by definition everything the government does is large. The billions of dollars in interest that their debt incurs eats into taxpayer dollars in a large way. That was all I meant when I said it.
I'd vote Green if their policies only related to their green matters. Unfortunately they don't. They are able to come up with unfunded policies which they never have to justify in practice.
In terms of being a "left" party the fact that the Greens advocate for protecting the environment isn't at all relevant. There have been lots of right-wing "conservative" parties that want to conserve the environment. In fact a common Godwin violation when discussing politics is to refer to the Nazis supposedly being positive towards the environment. Note I haven't bothered looking at evidence of the Nazi environmental policies as it's just not relevant to modern political discussions.
The Nazis were in fact called a "Socialist" party.
I'd vote Labor if they weren't backed by corrupt unions (and I'm not saying all unions are corrupt).
I'd vote Liberal if they weren't backed by corrupt big business (and I'm not saying all big business is corrupt).
Unfortunately, I've never been in a marginal seat and my vote tends to have little to no affect. This coming state election is the exception. I'd love to see the Napthine government voted out tomorrow, but I dread the alternative. Simply because I cannot stand the absolute lack of regard for the environment. I could say the same for the current federal government.
You think that Labor is worse for the environment than Liberal?
No, I think the coalition are far worse than Labor. Sorry, I added the environmental bit as an afterthought and it could easily make my statement misunderstood.
Is that far enough Left for you, Russell?
It's not Left at all.
One modern definition of Left vs Right is about whether the government should provide services for poor people or whether it should just exist to serve the rich. Another definition concerns social issues (and you've clearly stated your position in terms of GLBT rights).
No, you've clearly taken my position in terms of GLBT rights and completely and deliberately redefined it to suit your opinion. I will repeat, as a Christian, I cannot support same sex marriage. That is all I've said on GLBT rights and you've taken it as me being homophobic, an emotive term often used by the gay rights brigade to define anyone who doesn't agree with them.
It's nice that you want to protect the environment, but you still haven't given an example of an issue where you are on the Left side.
You've defined your "Left". I've given a brief, general, view of where I
stand. I didn't say I was "Left". You said I only come into these discussions to "defend the extreme right", so please don't put words in my mouth.
-- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Fri, November 7, 2014 5:38 pm, Michael Scott wrote:
The Nazis were in fact called a "Socialist" party.
I would be very surprised if anyone here doesn't already know that, given that it is an abbreviation for "National Socialist". The full name of the party was the National Socialist German Workers' Party. They were right-wing anti-democratic collectivists. BTW, I like to use the term "left" and "right" in terms of what it actually means politically; that is, a relationship towards modern versus traditional societal structures and norms. Both are capable of being liberal, democratic, authoritarian, or dictatorial.
I will repeat, as a Christian, I cannot support same sex marriage.
Then don't have one. And if your church doesn't want one, then they shouldn't have to conduct one either. There are plenty of Christians who *do* want to support same-sex marriage. I can rattle off a list of 20 ministers that I know of from the top of my head who are eagerly waiting for the opportunity to conduct such ceremonies. So "as a Christian" is not a legitimate claim. Because there is no determining factor in Christianity whether it is right or wrong. Even if it is, there is also the matter of secularism. A *secular* Christian would be one who may thoroughly disapprove of various practises as against their denomination, but by the same token also supports a strong separation of church and state. I've encountered many Baptists are particularly like this; personally very conservative, but politically very secular. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev Lafayette wrote:
BTW, I like to use the term "left" and "right" in terms of what it actually means politically; that is, a relationship towards modern versus traditional societal structures and norms.
Wouldn't "progressive" vs. "reactionary" be clearer, then? (Or "conservative" if "reactionary" is too negative.)
On Fri, November 7, 2014 9:17 pm, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Wouldn't "progressive" vs. "reactionary" be clearer, then? (Or "conservative" if "reactionary" is too negative.)
Yes, that can work. If you like from the left-right continuum: Revolutionary --- Reformist --- Conservative --- Reactionary -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Thu, November 6, 2014 4:22 pm, Michael Scott wrote:
I said "large", I didn't compare our government's debt with any other country.
Well given that "large" is a relative term, what is it large relative to? -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
participants (6)
-
Lev Lafayette -
Michael Scott -
Peter Ross -
Russell Coker -
Steve Roylance -
Trent W. Buck