Conservatism and intelligence

[Joe Mac]

It's odd that "free marketers" which would normally be considered socially conservative have such anarchistic tendencies eg deregulation.

Does that not just indicate blind self interest, devoid of any political belief?

deregulation is a very broad term. Some things should be deregulated because they assist in providing economic stability. In others, regulation is essential.

For example in 1983 they floated the Aussie dollar. Prior to this the currency was fixed to the US dollar. Now that it is floating, if our economy is booming we will see a rise in our currency. This will make our exports more expensive and cool the market, assisting in the fight against inflation. However, if we see a large shock to the economy, the AUD drops and our exports become more profitable. This stimulates our economy. This is good policy.

A bad example of deregulation is when the US government repealed the Glass Steagall Act in the nineties. This act was created after the great depression and said that banks needed to decide whether they were investment banks or banks that made their money from savings and loans. This was implemented because the banks risked the nations savings to gamble on the sharemarket and created the great depression. This shows blind self interest and ten years after they changed the law, we went through the GFC for largely the same reason.

A free market is essential in some situations to stop imbalances forming in the economy, but regulation in certain instances can be just as essential.

 

[Scotty]

Free markets always require safety nets. Safety nets come in all different shapes and forms - eg. welfare for the poor, regulations to stop banks screwing the whole economy, media ownership rules. You could consider a countries laws safety nets.

I have no problem with safety nets like this, the issues occur when governments try and force a market or force the companies do business or how people live their lives.

 

[Cutter]

Free markets always require safety nets. Safety nets come in all different shapes and forms - eg. welfare for the poor, regulations to stop banks screwing the whole economy, media ownership rules. You could consider a countries laws safety nets.

I have no problem with safety nets like this, the issues occur when governments try and force a market or force the companies do business or how people live their lives.

So, you like it when governments intervene in a way which you approve, but you don't when they don't?

Government intervention is necessary to ensure fairness to and amongst the current population and future generations. Usually, people are opposed to intervention which they perceive will have a negative impact upon them or limit opportunities. It is rare that someone weighs up whether the total utility of such policies.

The hysterical opposition to the mining tax is a good example. The total utility to Australia for a strong mining tax was positive. The tax was designed to distribute the proceeds from digging up national resources now to current and future generations not just to the shareholders of mining companies. Yet, notwithstanding this, a simple advertising campaign, some political pressure and, hey presto, sensible intervention is shot down.

 

[Joe Mac]

So, you like it when governments intervene in a way which you approve, but you don't when they don't?

Government intervention is necessary to ensure fairness to and amongst the current population and future generations. Usually, people are opposed to intervention which they perceive will have a negative impact upon them or limit opportunities. It is rare that someone weighs up whether the total utility of such policies.

The hysterical opposition to the mining tax is a good example. The total utility to Australia for a strong mining tax was positive. The tax was designed to distribute the proceeds from digging up national resources now to current and future generations not just to the shareholders of mining companies. Yet, notwithstanding this, a simple advertising campaign, some political pressure and, hey presto, sensible intervention is shot down.

I don't think that is what Scotty is saying. He is saying that there should be laws to ensure an even playing field, but that politicians should not go beyond these basic laws by intervening in markets or creating policies that have shown to create economic imbalances.

Unfortunately, politicians have a great track record of overstepping these boundaries and hurting the economy...

 

[Scotty]

Thanks Joe, that is it exactly. I am sure Cutter can see a difference between intervention and safety net, but he chooses to ignore it.

Cutter,

The mining tax is not doing at all what you believe it was designed to do. If it was really designed to 'distribute proceeds from digging up national resource' (which by the way are actually state resources, not national ones), then it would apply to all non-renewables. It doesn't, it instead discriminates against those that are bigger (and more successful) in what they do. It isn't based on a volume or resource dug up (there are already taxes for those), it isn't even based on a profit % of what a company earns - it is solely based on total profit (whether the company earns a 2% profit or a 50% profit that year).

The mining tax distributes a proportion of the profits of the more successful companies. It should even be called a mining tax - just a profits tax for miners.

Check out Kohler's views on it - he doesn't even believe it will end up being revenue positive! It is an example of a tax for tax sake (growing government), rather what should have actually been for.

 

[Cutter]

I know it doesn't work. That is my point. The hysterical opposition ensured that would be the case. As first proposed, it was intended to work in the way I suggested.

 

[Cutter]

More generally, government intervention isn't just about a safety net. It is about engineering society as well. This can range from allowing women and aboriginals to vote, making us wear seatbelts, fencing pools, using less CFCs, reduce carbon emissions, encouraging city living, subsidising industry etc.

We accept these things without question over time but there is always uproar to begin with. Good governments are visionary and don't listen to the noise. Weak governments, like this one, listen to the noise.

 

[Joe Mac]

More generally, government intervention isn't just about a safety net. It is about engineering society as well. This can range from allowing women and aboriginals to vote, making us wear seatbelts, fencing pools, using less CFCs, reduce carbon emissions, encouraging city living, subsidising industry etc.

We accept these things without question over time but there is always uproar to begin with. Good governments are visionary and don't listen to the noise. Weak governments, like this one, listen to the noise.

I hardly think those examples are engineering society, they are common sense.

The big problem with the left is that they think they can "Engineer society" which is what creates the societal imbalances in the first place. This leads me back to the original point of the complexity and uncertainty the tax systems labor are trying to implement and the detrimental effects they have on Australian businesses and international businesses considering investment in Australia. The reality is that if public servants spent less time trying to interfere in industries and more time running the country like a business that competes in a global market place (which we are doing more and more every year) everyone in the country would be better off.

 

[Scarfman]

Run the country like a business? That goes straight to my "shit I've heard recently" list.

Is there a way we can make money out of defence? Only invade profitable countries?

(Actually, that might be the U.S. does it, so why not?)

 

[Joe Mac]

Run the country like a business? That goes straight to my "shit I've heard recently" list.

Is there a way we can make money out of defence? Only invade profitable countries?

(Actually, that might be the U.S. does it, so why not?)

So you are saying that companies like Lockeed Martin should just give away their fighter planes for free? Do you have a moral issue with a company that develops military hardware being Australian?

How you take this obscure and singular point from my statement would have to be in my shit I have heard recently list too, if I had one...

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I know it doesn't work. That is my point. The hysterical opposition ensured that would be the case. As first proposed, it was intended to work in the way I suggested.

'
Exactly, the people who were complaining the original tax was unfair are now saying it's not going to do it's job because it doesn't apply to the whole industry.

"Labor is trying to destroy the mining industry, this tax is too much, ect..."
"OK, we'll apply it to companies that wont be harmed in any way"
"OMG how is this tax forfilling it's purpose if it doesn't apply industry wide.....vote liberal"

Typical of the political debate in this country right now.

 

[Joe Mac]

Run the country like a business? That goes straight to my "shit I've heard recently" list.

Is there a way we can make money out of defence? Only invade profitable countries?

(Actually, that might be the U.S. does it, so why not?)

If you read the previous comments, my point is that the government would do a better job of providing prosperity for its people if it spent its time establishing how we can attract investment, jobs and industry to our shores instead of trying to engineer society. The credit crisis in Europe has been caused by socialist governments spending well beyond their means until they are now effectively bankrupt. If they had a better concept of business and ran the economy to be profitable, they wouldn't be in this situation and their people would be a lot better off. Like any business there are costs to ensure its viability. For a business, it might be significant investment in technology and security to ensure hackers cannot destroy the business. For a country it would be an investment in defence. So what are you trying to get at with your defence comment?

 

[El Jefe]

I can't speak to the intelligence side of the equation but I've done quite a lot of work on predictions and forecasting. It is clear that people who view the world through any sort of ideological prism (be that right or left wing) are notoriously bad at making accurate predictions about anything. The more fervent their ideological belief, the less accurate they become.

 

[Scarfman]

Joe Mac - again you pick Europe and miss the U.S.

And you've completely missed my point about defence.

I give up, mate.

 

[Scarfman]

I can't speak to the intelligence side of the equation but I've done quite a lot of work on predictions and forecasting. It is clear that people who view the world through any sort of ideological prism (be that right or left wing) are notoriously bad at making accurate predictions about anything. The more fervent their ideological belief, the less accurate they become.

Who is to decide how fervent an ideological belief is? And how to measure its fervency? And how to measure prediction success? This sounds like extremly unlikely research, although if you've got it, go ahead and share.

 

[Scotty]

Joe Mac - again you pick Europe and miss the U.S.

And you've completely missed my point about defence.

I give up, mate.

And you expect people to engage and treat you seriously when you constantly denigrate them? Wake up Russ.

 

[Scotty]

Who is to decide how fervent an ideological belief is? And how to measure its fervency? And how to measure prediction success? This sounds like extremly unlikely research, although if you've got it, go ahead and share.

Do you disagree with what he is saying? Ie the more of a fundamentalist you are the less likely you are to judge with perspective?

Not sure if I should bother though - I suspect you either have me on ignore or have decide not to respond to people that show you up.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Do you disagree with what he is saying? Ie the more of a fundamentalist you are the less likely you are to judge with perspective?

Not sure if I should bother though - I suspect you either have me on ignore or have decide not to respond to people that show you up.

You seem to be implying that fundamentalists judge things with perspective.

That's an odd hook to hang your argument on.

 

[Scotty]

No the opposite. The more fundamentalist you are the less likely you are to have perspective.

 

[Scarfman]

Scotty - you're not on ignore. But I've made my position clear about your politics enough times. Believe it or not, I regularly engage with people from across the political spectrum. And it might also surprise you that my political beliefs lie a long way from liberal-left-wing-academic orthodoxy. But when someone like Joe Mac forgets everything me and Cutter said to him 2 pages back I'm likely to think it's not worth arguing with him.

This politics board, for me, swings between being worth contributing to, and not. It's unfortunate for me that you are the most frequent poster to the site, because it makes every issue a battle to convince you of something that you will never be convinced of. For example, The Boss makes a wildly unlikely claim, I call him on it, and you have to chip in multiple posts that contribute zero.

Anyway, the definition of madness is trying the same thing over and over expecting a different result, so I might take a break for a bit.