Victorian Liberals want to privatise ABC and SBS
Hi all, This morning I thought it was a joke (I listened to PBS FM and they have the radio festival to attract subscribers - so they want to make up how important they are). Well, the Victorian Liberals really wants to discuss it this weekend: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/state-liberals-propose-priva... The Victorian Liberal Party's state conference this weekend will vote on a motion urging the federal Coalition to make a full-scale ''operational review'' of the ABC and SBS to ''look at the feasibility of partial or full privatisation of both''. I sent my comment to the State Liberals: Well, okay, who needs movies from the rest of the world, news of a world beyond Broadmeadows, programs that are not fit-in between ads, programs that can inspire thinking, intelligent programs about science or history, something kids can watch without getting bombed with ten ads per minutes? Keep your hands off ABC and SBS - the only TV stations worth watching here! Maybe you would like to do the same? I think they get crazier here by the day! http://vic.liberal.org.au/#Contact Regards Peter
ABC look like green left propaganda machine, I'd rather have green left audiences pay for it. -----Original Message----- From: luv-talk-bounces@lists.luv.asn.au [mailto:luv-talk-bounces@lists.luv.asn.au] On Behalf Of Petros Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 4:52 PM To: luv-talk@luv.asn.au Subject: [luv-talk] Victorian Liberals want to privatise ABC and SBS Well, okay, who needs movies from the rest of the world, news of a world beyond Broadmeadows, programs that are not fit-in between ads, programs that can inspire thinking, intelligent programs about science or history, something kids can watch without getting bombed with ten ads per minutes? "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."
Speaking from the other side of the political spectrum (multiple labels are available in this thread), I pay too, but I don't want to. Therefore I will support plans to stop spending on state television and will vote accordingly. The unfortunate bit is that there's little substance to Liberals spending cuts plans. Regards Slav -----Original Message----- From: luv-talk-bounces@lists.luv.asn.au [mailto:luv-talk-bounces@lists.luv.asn.au] On Behalf Of Trent W. Buck Sent: Thursday, 23 May 2013 10:22 AM To: luv-talk@luv.asn.au Subject: Re: [luv-talk] Victorian Liberals want to privatise ABC and SBS Pidgorny, Slav (GEUS) wrote:
ABC look like green left propaganda machine, I'd rather have green left audiences pay for it.
Speaking as a leftist, greenish taxpayer: I do :-) _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:22:29AM +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Pidgorny, Slav (GEUS) wrote:
ABC look like green left propaganda machine, I'd rather have green left audiences pay for it.
Speaking as a leftist, greenish taxpayer: I do :-)
speaking as another greenish, leftish taxpayer, i'm appalled at how right-wing they are (allegedly in a bogus attempt at "balance", but really to service their Liberal Party-stacked board) i gave up on 7.30 Report and Lateline in disgust years ago because they always take politicians - of all sides - at their word, on even the most transparent lies and self-serving prevarications and mind-numbingly tedious repetitions of their inane dog-whistle key phrases. journalists are supposed to ask hard questions and keep battering away at them until they give decent answers, not go soft on them in exchange for interviews and access. a soft interview isn't journalism, it's advertising. let the politicians pay for advertising - with their own money, not taxpayers' - on the commercial channels if they want, but the ABC should refuse to give it to them for free. even so, privatising the ABC (or SBS) would only serve to make them completely worthless rather than mostly. Keep them public and maybe one day they'll grow back the balls that Howard chopped off. One can only hope. in any case, we need at least one TV channel that isn't beholden to the corrupt influence of advertising money. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:22:29AM +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Speaking as a leftist, greenish taxpayer: I do :-)
speaking as another greenish, leftish taxpayer.....
Tovarish! ;-> (Some day, come the Revolution, we'll be able to hold these meetings in public.)
Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:22:29AM +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Speaking as a leftist, greenish taxpayer: I do :-) speaking as another greenish, leftish taxpayer.....
Tovarish! ;->
(Some day, come the Revolution, we'll be able to hold these meetings in public.)
Strawberries and cream for all!
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Petros <Petros.Listig@fdrive.com.au> wrote:
Well, okay, who needs movies from the rest of the world, news of a world beyond Broadmeadows, programs that are not fit-in between ads, programs that can inspire thinking, intelligent programs about science or history, something kids can watch without getting bombed with ten ads per minutes?
Keep your hands off ABC and SBS - the only TV stations worth watching here!
If you like them so much, why don't you want to directly pay for them? Who cares about TV, I get my "intelligent programs about science or history" and the rest through other media, that I pay for. Don't see why I also have to pay for stuff that's of no use to me. Of course this would never fly in Australia, the baby boomers and the Gen X are still tied to being spoon-fed programs in a linear fashion through "the magic box". They'll all be up in arms trying to save their beloved ABC and SBS, continuing to siphon down the drain hundreds of millions of dollars every year that could otherwise be put to good use. Cheers -- Aryan
If TV was all that the ABC and SBS are, you may have a point. I don't agree with everything that all of their presenters say. I'm on the right of centre politically and economically, so please don't say I'm a leftie, but I cringe at the alternative radio stations. At least I can intellectually disagree with the ABC presenters. They have a website which is probably second to none for news. They have radio and television stations and their radio stations are also varied. They may well be on the left of centre, but at least those left of centre offer an intelligent, if biased, argument. And Petro is correct that you wouldn't get the quality of television without the ABC. Then there's SBS. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Aryan Ameri <info@ameri.me> wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Petros <Petros.Listig@fdrive.com.au>wrote:
Well, okay, who needs movies from the rest of the world, news of a world beyond Broadmeadows, programs that are not fit-in between ads, programs that can inspire thinking, intelligent programs about science or history, something kids can watch without getting bombed with ten ads per minutes?
Keep your hands off ABC and SBS - the only TV stations worth watching here!
If you like them so much, why don't you want to directly pay for them?
Who cares about TV, I get my "intelligent programs about science or history" and the rest through other media, that I pay for. Don't see why I also have to pay for stuff that's of no use to me.
Of course this would never fly in Australia, the baby boomers and the Gen X are still tied to being spoon-fed programs in a linear fashion through "the magic box". They'll all be up in arms trying to save their beloved ABC and SBS, continuing to siphon down the drain hundreds of millions of dollars every year that could otherwise be put to good use.
Cheers -- Aryan
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Michael Scott <luv@inoz.net> wrote:
They have radio and television stations and their radio stations are also varied.
They may well be on the left of centre, but at least those left of centre offer an intelligent, if biased, argument.
I have zero interest in any argument about whether ABC/SBS are left or right. Frankly, I don't care. They can be outright Fascist or Communist and I still wouldn't care. The ABC and SBS produce nothing that is of interest to me. I get my news from Reuters and Quartz and NY Times and Atlantic and the Economist and a few other sources. They all have websites that give me "world news" that I care about. Reuters and Quartz are free and ad-supported and I pay for NY Times and Economist monthly. There is no shortage of quality news sources on the web, free or paid. I get my TV by paying $8 for netflix, which gets me all the TV shows and movies that I could ever want to watch. And when I want "intelligent documentaries", I go to the Smithsonian, or watch some TED Talks. Now my taste is my own and not everyone shares my taste, but in this modern world there is this thing called the Internet, which amazingly has something for everyone, whatever their taste! The "public broadcaster" argument used to be valid when the BBC and ABC and the likes initially started, but the nature of broadcast has changed and there is no justification for their subsidised existence anymore. Just my 2 cents of course. -- Aryan
On Wed, 22 May 2013, Aryan Ameri <info@ameri.me> wrote:
The ABC and SBS produce nothing that is of interest to me.
There are many government funded organisations that do nothing of interest to me. But that is not relevant to the issue of whether they should be funded. The relevant issues are whether they provide benefits to large portions of the population, to people who are missing out in other ways, and whether they generally do enough good to be worth the price. The ABC and the SBS drive the local film industry which gives significant economic benefits to Australia. The ABC provides a lot of educational children's content which would either be entirely missing if there was only commercial TV or would have grossly excessive commercials which distract from the point of the programs and make parents want to avoid them. The SBS caters to minority groups that don't have their interests represented well in other areas - for example a significant fraction of Melbourne's population is of Greek ancestry but only the SBS provides shows in Greek on free TV.
I get my news from Reuters and Quartz and NY Times and Atlantic and the Economist and a few other sources. They all have websites that give me "world news" that I care about. Reuters and Quartz are free and ad-supported and I pay for NY Times and Economist monthly. There is no shortage of quality news sources on the web, free or paid.
There is also no shortage of people who don't want their news on the web, such as most elderly people. There are even LUV members who don't want to own a smart-phone - we had a discussion about this at the last Beginner's SIG meeting!
I get my TV by paying $8 for netflix, which gets me all the TV shows and movies that I could ever want to watch. And when I want "intelligent documentaries", I go to the Smithsonian, or watch some TED Talks.
http://www.si.edu/ I've just quickly browsed the above site and didn't see the documentaries, could you please point me to them. I agree that TED talks are great and there are also a lot of good educational shows on Youtube, sites such as topdocumentaryfilms.com and others. But I think that TV still has a lot to offer. For example we had a discussion on the LUV lists recently about someone who couldn't download a DVD image because of their remote location. Anyone who can't download a DVD image once every year when a new Linux distribution is released certainly can't spend 30 minutes a day watching TV shows downloaded from the Internet!
Now my taste is my own and not everyone shares my taste, but in this modern world there is this thing called the Internet, which amazingly has something for everyone, whatever their taste! The "public broadcaster" argument used to be valid when the BBC and ABC and the likes initially started, but the nature of broadcast has changed and there is no justification for their subsidised existence anymore.
Of course the ABC provides a lot of content on the Internet. We have had a discussion on the LUV lists about the python-iview program which is unfortunately not being supported due to stupid ABC lawyers but which however still works really well. SBS also provides a similar service to ABC iView, I hope it works well because I just missed Mythbusters... When the ABC iView service gets more viewers than free to air TV and when almost all the population has the ability to download large video files then I think we can have a discussion about cancelling the ABC and SBS free to air services. But until the NBN roll-out is complete I don't think we should even discuss it. Also given that the Liberal party wants to cancel the NBN I don't think that they are in a position to withdraw funding from the ABC or the SBS. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
Also given that the Liberal party wants to cancel the NBN I don't think that they are in a position to withdraw funding from the ABC or the SBS.
Perhaps they are still sore about http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3713148.htm http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2013/02/21/3695094.htm
The SBS caters to minority groups that don't have their interests represented well in other areas - for example a significant fraction of Melbourne's population is of Greek ancestry but only the SBS provides shows in Greek on free TV.
SBS (and 3ZZZ) also provide radio "in your language". What I watch & hear is rarely something I would go looking for, so I appreciate someone curating it for me. Cf. when I walk into the Indian grocer's, I have no idea which bollywood films are worth watching, so I skip them all and what I end up seeing is Yet Another Superhero Film III that my brother bittorrented. ABC obviously provides Classic FM and Triple J, as well as these, though I mostly only listen to Classic FM (and its community counterpart, 3MBS). curl -s http://media.on.net/radio/playlist.list | grep ABC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3ZZZ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3MBS Wandering further off-topic, Unless the Federal Government commits to giving digital community radio a future in the upcoming budget, vital digital community radio stations will be switched off. http://committocommunityradio.org.au/
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:09:09PM +1000, Aryan Ameri wrote:
I have zero interest in any argument about whether ABC/SBS are left or right. Frankly, I don't care. They can be outright Fascist or Communist and I still wouldn't care.
The ABC and SBS produce nothing that is of interest to me.
The Womens' Hospital does nothing for me. abolish it and sell off the land cheap to a developer to build expensive inner-city apartments. same for the Childrens' Hospital. I'm likely to die before i ever need a nursing home, so get rid of them too. the trouble with anarcho-capitalist (or "libertarian" as americans misuse the term) arguments like yours is that they're the product of selfish pricks with a shrug fetish. governments exist for a lot more then just protecting the property and privileges of the ruling classes - otherwise WTF should we tolerate them? there have been several successful revolutions to prove that point...but Atlas can pout and sulk all he likes and not achieve a thing. OTOH, I could do without government subsidy of logging companies that cost far more every year than the industry is actually worth - both in timber, in exports and in jobs. it would be much cheaper to directly employ the logging workers to look after the forests than subsidise logging companies to destroy them. or the hundreds of millions of dollars in electricity and other subsidies to the Alcoa aluminium smelter. That's also a net loss to victoria and to australia - costs us far more than it's worth. a negative return or a lack of return is acceptable for a non-profit exercise like the ABC but completely unacceptable for ventures that are supposed to make a profit. the grand prix is another huge loss for Victoria every year (and an annoyingly loud and irritating one that brings drunk and other dangerous drivers from all over the world) if cost cutting is necessary, there's far lower hanging fruit than the ABC. start with the corporate welfare before cutting useful services. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #67: descramble code needed from software company
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
governments exist for a lot more then just protecting the property and privileges of the ruling classes - otherwise WTF should we tolerate them? there have been several successful revolutions to prove that point...but Atlas can pout and sulk all he likes and not achieve a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_rand#Early_life Surprisingly Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum wasn't smart enough to work this out even though she lived through it. Tzarist Russia wasn't a pleasant place for the poor people and the result was a violent revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edward_Hickman#Ayn_Rand.27s_The_Little_... Of course someone who idolised one of the most awful people of the 1920's obviously had some psychological problems. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:09:09PM +1000, Aryan Ameri wrote:
I have zero interest in any argument about whether ABC/SBS are left or right. Frankly, I don't care. They can be outright Fascist or Communist and I still wouldn't care.
The ABC and SBS produce nothing that is of interest to me.
The Womens' Hospital does nothing for me. abolish it and sell off the land cheap to a developer to build expensive inner-city apartments.
same for the Childrens' Hospital.
I know this was meant to disparage my comments, but you really actually hit the nail on the head. I would LOVE for some high-rise apartments to be built at the location of the Women's hospital (Children's is fine as well, but a bit further out, the Women's would be great). As far as I'm concerned, the government has no business building and operating anything that a private business could profitably do, and hospitals fall right into that category. Not only would that high-rise apartment be great, it would also fix our broken health care system! I'll go back to my cave now and let the leftie/greenies flame me! :-) -- Aryan
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Aryan Ameri <info@ameri.me> wrote:
I know this was meant to disparage my comments, but you really actually hit the nail on the head. I would LOVE for some high-rise apartments to be built at the location of the Women's hospital (Children's is fine as well, but a bit further out, the Women's would be great).
Although most people don't realise until it's too late there are significant benefits in living and working near a hospital. Having a major hospital in a central location for every major urban area is a good planning idea.
As far as I'm concerned, the government has no business building and operating anything that a private business could profitably do, and hospitals fall right into that category. Not only would that high-rise apartment be great, it would also fix our broken health care system!
That's an extreme libertarian idea. A more sensible approach is to start by having the government run all natural monopolies. When a private business has no competition then the result is always bad for the consumer. So we start by having the government run all roads, water supply, sewer systems, electricity supply, and phone lines. Then we need to have the government operate projects which involve large-scale investment for the public benefit such as medical research. If all medical research was directly run by government agencies then we'd get a lot more research into unprofitable but important issues such as the increasing number of diseases that are resistant to all anti-biotics. By many measures the most broken health-care system in the world is in the US, it's also the most privatised. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On May 23, 2013 10:19 PM, "Russell Coker" <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Aryan Ameri <info@ameri.me> wrote:
I know this was meant to disparage my comments, but you really actually
hit
the nail on the head. I would LOVE for some high-rise apartments to be built at the location of the Women's hospital (Children's is fine as well, but a bit further out, the Women's would be great).
Although most people don't realise until it's too late there are significant benefits in living and working near a hospital.
Well I live 3 minutes walking distance from the Children's hospital, and it provides no benefits to me! But it was the Women's that we were originally talking about, and as it has even a better location, I would be EXTREMELY in favour of building a high-rise apartment in its place. I mean think about it, right at the corner of Grattan st... Walking distance to Uni and Vic market, and 5 minutes to the city? Such a waste of prime real estate really...
Having a major hospital in a central >location for every major urban area is a >good planning idea.
Funny... that's exactly what the Mayor of Havana told me in my briefing tour. You should see how well it's working there... -- AA
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Aryan Ameri <info@ameri.me> wrote:
Although most people don't realise until it's too late there are significant benefits in living and working near a hospital.
Well I live 3 minutes walking distance from the Children's hospital, and it provides no benefits to me!
The Children's hospital has an emergency department. I presume that if a case is particularly severe an ambulance will deliver an adult there instead of driving further to a different hospital.
But it was the Women's that we were originally talking about, and as it has even a better location, I would be EXTREMELY in favour of building a high-rise apartment in its place. I mean think about it, right at the corner of Grattan st... Walking distance to Uni and Vic market, and 5 minutes to the city? Such a waste of prime real estate really...
Libertarians are supposed to be heartless, but you are getting quite extreme here. Is there no woman at all who you care about?
Having a major hospital in a central location for every major urban area is a good planning idea.
Funny... that's exactly what the Mayor of Havana told me in my briefing tour. You should see how well it's working there...
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/37629 According to Mike Moore and all the statistical analysis it's working quite well. See the above URL for a summary of "Sicko". https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html If you look at the CIA world fact book you'll see that Cuba and the US are very comparable in terms of life expectancy while Australia is far ahead. I think it's really impressive that Cuba does so well given that US sanctions prevent the sale of medical supplies and the training of medical staff. Cuba suffers from crippling economic sanctions from US government because they are petulant about their failed invasion - and generally about the fact that Cuban citizens got a say in choosing their own government (yes a violent revolution is a way for people to choose their own government). In spite of this Cuba is competing well with the US and I think we should look carefully at their example for ideas that are worth copying. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
If you look at the CIA world fact book you'll see that Cuba and the US are very comparable in terms of life expectancy while Australia is far ahead. I think it's really impressive that Cuba does so well given that US sanctions prevent the sale of medical supplies and the training of medical staff.
Cuba suffers from crippling economic sanctions from US government because they are petulant about their failed invasion - and generally about the fact that Cuban citizens got a say in choosing their own government (yes a violent revolution is a way for people to choose their own government).
I've been trying to get over to Cuba for a tourist visit for quite a few decades, and think it is more than likely to finally happen within the next couple of years. (Throough the dark years of the Ronald Reagan presidency and a bit beyond, the USA government actively attempted to prevent US citizens from going there with a few exceptions such as athletes and artists. Reagan's contribution: a Treasury Department regulation asserting that US citizens spending their -own- money in Cuba violated the embargo legislation. This, in turn, was a conservative workaround to counteract Jimmy Carter's order that US passports cease being marked as 'not valid to visit' a list of countries the State Department disliked.) Many of the harsher measures against political dissent have started to be eased under Raul Castro's direction, and it's contining to be an interesting place.
Having a major hospital in a central >location for every major urban area is a >good planning idea.
Funny... that's exactly what the Mayor of Havana told me in my briefing tour. You should see how well it's working there...
Lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America (4.76/1000)? Actually change that, it's the lowest in North and South America (Canada's (4.78), the United States (5.9). (CIA World Factbook, 2012) Third highest life expectancy in Latin America (78.29 years), and comparable with the United States (78.57) and Canada (80.50). (World Health Organisation, 2011) Highest number of physicians per capita in the world (6.7 per 1000)? (United States, 2.4, Canada 2.1) (World Bank, 2012) Not bad for a country that has a GDP per capita of a mere $10,200 USD. When ranked according to HDI, Cuba was 51st out of 182 with an HDI of 0.863. Its GDP per capita only places it 95th. It's important for an economy to have wealth resources. It's also very important to work out how they are allocated. None of this, of course, should be seen a defense of the Cuban political or economic system. It is an indication however that *some* things work very well with public expenditure and public planning. *Much* of health is an example. *Much* of town planning is another. And, to get this back on topic, *some* of the mass media is as well. -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Fri, 24 May 2013, "Lev Lafayette" <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
Lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America (4.76/1000)? Actually change that, it's the lowest in North and South America (Canada's (4.78), the United States (5.9).
http://tinyurl.com/nt64sdp Sociological Images has an interesting article about this. On the up-side it shows that the US is doing better than the Czech Republic, Albania, Uruguay, and Mexico. :-#
None of this, of course, should be seen a defense of the Cuban political or economic system. It is an indication however that *some* things work very well with public expenditure and public planning. *Much* of health is an example. *Much* of town planning is another.
The Cuban political and economic system seems to be better than anything that the US government would prefer them to have. Look at all the examples of South American governments that received support from the US government. Most Americans do the whole red-scare thing to avoid thinking about the issues related to government. They prefer religious faith in their government to thinking about ways of improving it. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Hi, On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Aryan Ameri <info@ameri.me> wrote:
On May 23, 2013 10:19 PM, "Russell Coker" <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Aryan Ameri <info@ameri.me> wrote:
I know this was meant to disparage my comments, but you really
actually hit
the nail on the head. I would LOVE for some high-rise apartments to be built at the location of the Women's hospital (Children's is fine as well, but a bit further out, the Women's would be great).
Although most people don't realise until it's too late there are significant benefits in living and working near a hospital.
Well I live 3 minutes walking distance from the Children's hospital, and it provides no benefits to me!
...*chortle*
But it was the Women's that we were originally talking about, and as it has even a better location, I would be EXTREMELY in favour of building a high-rise apartment in its place. I mean think about it, right at the corner of Grattan st... Walking distance to Uni and Vic market, and 5 minutes to the city? Such a waste of prime real estate really...
....*chuckle*
Having a major hospital in a central >location for every major urban area is a >good planning idea.
Funny... that's exactly what the Mayor of Havana told me in my briefing tour. You should see how well it's working there...
--
....*guffaw* Man you crack me up..... tks for the laffs. BW
AA
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
As far as I'm concerned, the government has no business building and operating anything that a private business could profitably do, and hospitals fall right into that category. Not only would that high-rise apartment be great, it would also fix our broken health care system!
Look up "positive externalities". -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 09:01:17PM +1000, Aryan Ameri wrote:
I know this was meant to disparage my comments, but you really actually hit the nail on the head. I would LOVE for some high-rise apartments to be built at the location of the Women's hospital (Children's is fine as well, but a bit further out, the Women's would be great).
somehow, that doesn't surprise me at all.
As far as I'm concerned, the government has no business building and operating anything that a private business could profitably do,
i've heard this said so many times as if it's an indisputable fact, but it's not - it's just anarcho-capitalist theology. provide evidence and reasoned argument to back up your dogma. a saner alternative view is that if private business can not compete against socialised or non-profit services then they should find something more profitable to do. profit is an inherent inefficiency, one that is acceptable for many things (especially where there is significant *real* competition to offset that ineffeciency or for luxuries and frivolous things), but is completely unacceptable for either natural monopolies (like water, gas, electricity, and wired telecommmunications supply) or essential services like public transport (also a natural monopoly) and hospitals. and, as for building such things - that's always going to be a function of government because business never plans 10 or 20 or 50 years into the future. it wasn't the private sector that built the utility services or the public transport network, or the phone network. that was *all* publicly built. privatisation of these services in the 80s and 90s was theft. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #78: Yes, yes, its called a design limitation
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 09:01:17PM +1000, Aryan Ameri wrote:
I know this was meant to disparage my comments, but you really actually hit the nail on the head. I would LOVE for some high-rise apartments to be built at the location of the Women's hospital (Children's is fine as well, but a bit further out, the Women's would be great). somehow, that doesn't surprise me at all.
As far as I'm concerned, the government has no business building and operating anything that a private business could profitably do, i've heard this said so many times as if it's an indisputable fact, but it's not - it's just anarcho-capitalist theology.
provide evidence and reasoned argument to back up your dogma. Yes indeed; but perhaps the problem is deeper than choice of political ideology; I would contend that : 1/ " Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand " is not just invisible but non-existent, and belief in it is a pathetic, irresponsible delusion. 2/ a science of economics in the sense of an objectively falsifiable collection of hypotheses concerning the exchange of goods, services and money is possible, necessary and urgently needed. For a fuller development of this idea see: The Invisible-hand, Market-failure and a Science of Economics https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0aOfcVEMVoKMzVjZjYyYzktNmJiMC00MzMyLWI3OTI...
regards Rohan McLeod
Yes indeed; but perhaps the problem is deeper than choice of political ideology; I would contend that : 1/ " Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand " is not just invisible but non-existent, and belief in it is a pathetic, irresponsible delusion.
All that Adam Smith's invisible hand means is that there is such a thing as aggregate economic activity by which subjective activity can lead to positive externalities, "frequently ... more effectually". that those who claim to be acting for the public interest intentionally. Seeming that I believe that Adam Smith's actual use of the "invisible hand" (from Wealth of Nations, Book 2, Chapter 2) is actually correct, I must be engaging in a "pathetic, irresponsible[,] delusion". -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev Lafayette wrote:
Yes indeed; but perhaps the problem is deeper than choice of political ideology; I would contend that : 1/ " Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand " is not just invisible but non-existent, and belief in it is a pathetic, irresponsible delusion. All that Adam Smith's invisible hand means is that there is such a thing as aggregate economic activity by which subjective activity can lead to positive externalities, Well reading 'subjective' as 'individual' which is what I think you intend; the mute words are 'can'; which could mean 'has on one occasion' and 'positive' which is a value judgement.
I doubt very much that was what Adam Smith or free-market enthusiasts intend; which would be more like 'must' or 'usually'.
"frequently ... more effectually". that those who claim to be acting for the public interest intentionally.
Seeming that I believe that Adam Smith's actual use of the "invisible hand" (from Wealth of Nations, Book 2, Chapter 2) is actually correct, I must be engaging in a "pathetic, irresponsible[,] delusion". if by " invisible hand is meant that there is such a thing as aggregate economic activity, by which INDIVIDUAL activity USUALLY leads to positive externalities," then his usage is correct; if he or anyone else believes this then they are : "engaging in a pathetic, irresponsible, delusion". As one theoretical-physicist's eloquent denigration of a theory went; " it's not even wrong"
regards Rohan
Rohan,
I doubt very much that was what Adam Smith or free-market enthusiasts intend; which would be more like 'must' or 'usually'.
I am in the position that I've read Adam Smith's major works. Unfortunately he is usually misunderstood equally by both his detractors and his alleged advocates. Here is what the section of the Wealth of Nations actually says, in context. It is the *only* reference in that vast text to "an Invisible Hand". "But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it." He is essentially making it quite clear that those who actually engage in productive work for a living for their apparently own interest (e.g., the baker, the shopkeeper, the cobbler) actually produces more public wealth than those who claim to be working for the public interest (e.g., the monarchy, the politicians, the priesthood), primarily by the exchange of goods and services in trade. The words I used before are accurate. The term is "frequently". Not "must" or "usually". Regards, -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Rohan McLeod wrote:
2/ a science of economics in the sense of an objectively falsifiable collection of hypotheses concerning the exchange of goods, services and money is possible, necessary and urgently needed.
Yeah, that one hurt my brain. The message I got from the Wikipedia article I was reading (not today, so I don't remember which one) was that their position boiled down to "we believe math isn't applicable to economics, so instead we just hope REALLY HARD our theories work".
Trent W. Buck wrote:
Rohan McLeod wrote:
2/ a science of economics in the sense of an objectively falsifiable collection of hypotheses concerning the exchange of goods, services and money is possible, necessary and urgently needed. Yeah, that one hurt my brain. Be gentle with your brain ! In a quiet moment explore the questions : Does factual evidence 'verify' a scientific theory in the same way that it can falsify that theory ? What set of facts are actually relevant to falsifying a scientific theory? Is a scientific fact necessarily quantitative ? ie Is " All bats are placental mammals " a scientifically valid hypothesis ? What do we actually mean by a scientific fact ?
The message I got from the Wikipedia article I was reading (not today, so I don't remember which one) was that their position boiled down to "we believe math isn't applicable to economics, Well a refreshing change from the econometrics point of view ! so instead we just hope REALLY HARD our theories work". Which sounds like they hope their theories are consistent with the observed facts (ie accurate); but I suspect they merely mean they hope their policy outcomes are popular ! It's important to remember technology has existed for > 2000 years, but science for only 400.
regards Rohan McLeod
On Wed, 22 May 2013, Petros <Petros.Listig@fdrive.com.au> wrote:
This morning I thought it was a joke (I listened to PBS FM and they have the radio festival to attract subscribers - so they want to make up how important they are).
Well, the Victorian Liberals really wants to discuss it this weekend:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/state-liberals-propose-priv atising-abc-sbs-20130521-2jz5d.html
The Victorian Liberal Party's state conference this weekend will vote on a motion urging the federal Coalition to make a full-scale ''operational review'' of the ABC and SBS to ''look at the feasibility of partial or full privatisation of both''.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/the-boys-who-cried-fox/ The problem is that some bad memes from the US are infecting Australian political discussion. One meme is that the media is biased towards left-wing ideas. The above article has some interesting background information on this. The fact that Fox News gets accused of a left-wing bias is proof that such bias claims are not based in reality. I doubt that this crazy plan by the Victorian Liberal party will get far. Not because the Liberals are afraid to do crazy things (they want to cancel the NBN after most of the money has been paid but before the benefits are obtained), but because it would hurt too many people. One thing to note about the ABC is that it has the best content for young kids. As the Liberal party is trying to project an image of supporting families it would be a real vote loser to cancel Play School or cause Sesame Street to go off free TV. In regard to the SBS the policies of both major parties in regard to the treatment of illegal immigrants are disgusting. If on top of that one party was to cease funding for TV shows about other cultures then it would become more obviously racist.
I sent my comment to the State Liberals:
Well, okay, who needs movies from the rest of the world, news of a world beyond Broadmeadows, programs that are not fit-in between ads, programs that can inspire thinking, intelligent programs about science or history, something kids can watch without getting bombed with ten ads per minutes?
That's probably not the best argument. The Liberal party wants Australia to be a stupid country with lots of people competing for minimum wage jobs. They don't want a well educated population.
Keep your hands off ABC and SBS - the only TV stations worth watching here!
Maybe you would like to do the same? I think they get crazier here by the day!
Well if the Liberal party starts following the example of the US Republican party then it won't be a totally bad thing. The Tea Party in the US is doing a lot of good in getting Democrats elected and even more importantly in preventing elected Republicans from effectively passing any legislation. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/the-boys-who-cried-fox/
The problem is that some bad memes from the US are infecting Australian political discussion. One meme is that the media is biased towards left-wing ideas. The above article has some interesting background information on this. The fact that Fox News gets accused of a left-wing bias is proof that such bias claims are not based in reality.
'After all, reality has a well-known liberal bias.' -- Stephen Colbert (US political satirist)[1] The notion of the mainstream press being biased towards the left wing was debunked thoroughly more than a decade aga, and nobody in the USA takes that claim seriously outside diehard Faux News wingnuts. The tiny grain of truth behind that 1980s claim is that working reporters tend to skew liberal in their personal views, but the larger point is that the people who fund their pay cheques (management) skew heavily to the right, and the coverage follows the Golden Rule. (He who has the gold, makes the rules.) Said Faux News wingnuts are quite worried, by the way. They're increasingly outvoted and are being reduced to a core of retiree old guys with pasty faces. FWIW, when Gingrich accuses Faux News of slanting its coverage to favour the less conservative candidate, and when far-right pundits Floyd and Mary Beth Brown quote unspecified, unnamed 'activists' as charging that Faux News is 'morphing into just another liberal-leaning voice', what they really mean is that founder Roger Ailes created Faux News as an unofficial political advocacy arm for the Republican National Committee. Hence, it agitates for candidates deemed electable, which Santorum and Gingrich most definitely were not. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents'_Association_Dinner -- Cheers, Actually, time flies hate a banana. Rick Moen -- Micah Joel rick@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80)
..
The notion of the mainstream press being biased towards the left wing was debunked thoroughly more than a decade aga, and nobody in the USA takes that claim seriously outside diehard Faux News wingnuts. The tiny grain of truth behind that 1980s claim is that working reporters tend to skew liberal in their personal views, but the larger point is that the people who fund their pay cheques (management) skew heavily to the right, and the coverage follows the Golden Rule. (He who has the gold, makes the rules.)
Pretty much on the ball. Of course, in this discussion what is often forgotten is that the ABC actually slightly favours the Coalition. Report here: http://www.theage.com.au/business/study-finds-abc-bias-leans-towards-coaliti... Full article here: http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/MediaSlant.pdf -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:13:42AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Said Faux News wingnuts are quite worried, by the way. They're increasingly outvoted and are being reduced to a core of retiree old guys with pasty faces.
sometimes you say the nicest things. you've made my day. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
This morning I thought it was a joke (I listened to PBS FM and they have the radio festival to attract subscribers - so they want to make up how important they are).
Well, the Victorian Liberals really wants to discuss it this weekend:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/state-liberals-propose-priva...
The Victorian Liberal Party's state conference this weekend will vote on a motion urging the federal Coalition to make a full-scale ''operational review'' of the ABC and SBS to ''look at the feasibility of partial or full privatisation of both''.
I am concerned with the suggestion that the ABC/SBS be privitised. An statutory independent public media provides for a positive externality. Just as mass literacy provides a social benefit in addition to the private benefit, a quality public media provides the benefit of more informed public. More to the point, I am very concerned of the potential debasement of the formation of public opinion. Rupert Murdoch recently indicated that he hoped people had "tuned out" of political discussion. His media is quite well known for providing very low, sensationalist standards which disinforms. This has a significant social cost (we may recall how The Australian beat the drum hard for the invasion of Iraq). Murdoch has made no secret of his intense dislike of public broadcasters, as they have the capital ability to provide news content free of charge and to pay reporters and journalists who are relatively independent. It was not that long ago that he made it quite clear that he wanted them sold off for this very reason. It was unfair competition for his "paywall" approach. The same reasoning applies on why Murdoch opposes a FTTP NBN. The idea that people can have television on demand is bad enough; the idea that they could be effective content-producers themselves is completely destructive his monopolistic intention. All the best, -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On 22/05/2013 4:51 PM, Petros wrote:
This morning I thought it was a joke (I listened to PBS FM and they have the radio festival to attract subscribers - so they want to make up how important they are).
Hands off the ABC and SBS -- whilst they quite often actually do present a great deal of bias towards the coalition, time and time again, I still want them to exist. Most of the presenters are very well paid and it is often the very well off that lobby for coalition policies as they do. I also hate it when they claim to be non-commercial, they are very commercial, just in different ways. Heck if the weren't commercial then that python iview situation wouldn't be a problem. I hope one day the ABC will right [no pun intended, they are very much "right(wing)" now from what I hear and see] itself, but I don't hold my breath, still I want them to exist. Cheers A.
seen just now on slashdot. http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2013/06/11/ert-greek-state-tv-radio-is-dead-a-blac... http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/greek-government-to-suspend-state... craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
participants (12)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Aryan Ameri -
Brent Wallis -
Craig Sanders -
Lev Lafayette -
Michael Scott -
Petros -
Pidgorny, Slav (GEUS) -
Rick Moen -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck