• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Conservatism and intelligence

Status
Not open for further replies.

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
I think everyone needs to step back a little from the personal comments - getting a little snide in here. Let's keep it above that.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I chortle quietly to myself when "right" voters acclaim their humanist tendencies by saying they support gay marriage, aren't religious, support charities and equal opportunity. You and Joe Mac have both done something similar in this thread. We're virtually brothers Scotty.

I am not 100% sure you are having a dig; if you are:

You don't know me so I'd appreciate if you refrained from commenting on my humanist tendencies. You really have no idea what you are talking about. Apart from insulting me, you have only served to reinforce my view that some of the left like claiming a moral superiority.

If you weren't having a go then - I apologise for the above, brother.
 

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
You ignore the decrease in public debt during the Clinton years.

The first two suggest your theory may not be as clear cut as you suggest and the third blows it out of the water.

If you read back cutter I havent ignored that Clinton was a good manager. But if we are being pedantic about it, public debt actually increased by about 1.5Trillion over Clinton's tenure. See below for my comment a few pages back.

You say that good economic management is not exclusive to conservatives but the only good economic manager from a Labor/democratic party I can think of was the Bill Clinton's Democratic party in the 90's. Can you name another?

But do you really think that's an objective review of the economy throughout Labor's term? Are you suggesting that foriegn investment would be much higher if none of those actions would be taken? Where is the evidence for this?

Most of what you've listed would barely have a measurable effect on investment and economic growth.

If I am being honest I have no direct figures on this, but at my job I am currently working with two very well known Australian organisations who are world leaders in their field. I am helping these two companies relocate overseas (one to the UK and one to Switzerland) because in their own words of "measures put in place by the Labor governement."

I also know from a colleague that BHP have strongly considered relocating to Switzerland since this governement got into power.
 

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
Cheap shot, JM, cut out the personal crap. I realise he's a difficult bastard to argue with but there's no other alternative.


PS. Old buggers like Scarfy and I remember Keating well, some with affection, some not. I reckon history will judge him as a very good Treasurer. Don't forget the silly prick sent his son to SIC.

PPS. Don't belong to any political party. Nor am I an urger for any of 'em.


Lindommer, I think if you read back you will it's Scarfman that needs to pull his head in. I was merely responding to crap like this;

Cutter, I'm not supposed to be here, but do you think Joe is old enough to have heard of Paul Keating? I'd ask him that if I were you.
 

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
Using a generalisation such as you have (ie all liberal governments are bad economic managers and all conservative governments are amazing economic managers) will leave you open to criticism unless you can point to analysis showing this to be the case.

I don't know where you get this from. I have said that there are exceptions to the rule but if you looked at each western country and the economic performance of their Liberal/Labor equivalent governments, the Liberal party comes out ahead as better managers 9 times out of ten. So far I haven't seen anything on the contrary. Apart from the Clinton government, has a Labor equivalent party anywhere ever managed a surplus? It certainly hasn't happened in Australia....
 

Gagger

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
To be honest this whole thread was started to get to this point - it has no other.

I'm thinking it's going beyond it's usefulness - by about 5 pages
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
Hi Gags,

The thread has certainly become personal, and it's pointless to continue. However, I will state for the record, once again, that I started it in completely good faith in an attempt to think about a genuine conundrum.

You can phrase the question as: Why have politics shifted to the right since 1980? or Why do poor people vote conservative?

The discussion at G&GR took a turn towards this problem in the Joolia's Reign thread around about here. The discussion lasted several pages. I started a new thread to isolate the issue. For what it's worth, I thought Bowside's post here was a really clear statement of the issue and I'm glad I heard it.

Scarf.
 

El Jefe

Stan Wickham (3)
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.

Thanks for the mildly condenscending response. It's been a common theme in discourse on the accuracy of political forecasting since the 90s - the old fox vs hedgehog debate. Experts who think in the 'Fox' cognitive style are suspicious of a commitment to any one way of seeing issues, and prefer a loose insight that is nonetheless calibrated from many different perspectives. Hedgehogs work hard to exclude dissonance from their models and prefer to treat events which contradict their expectations as exceptions, and to re-interpret events in such a way as to allocate exceptions to external events. Ideologues from both the left and right are hedgehogs and have been shown repeatedly to be bad at forecasting.

If you are actually interested I suggest starting with Phillip Tetlock "Expert Political Judgment'.
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
So, people who "work hard to exclude dissonance from their models and prefer to treat events which contradict their expectations as exceptions, and to re-interpret events in such a way as to allocate exceptions to external events" are bad at forecasting? That doesn't surprise me.

I've never heard of foxes or hedgehogs (in this context) or Tetlock. I'm not tryng to be an arse (it comes naturally), but can you not see any pertinence in my questions? Tetlock admits as much when he says that the measures are notoriously subjective, and that "there are no control groups in history."
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
Just checked out Tetlock. Damn! I had that idea about 20 years ago. I noticed that the Melbourne (was it?) Economists Survey of CPI showed that actual CPI came in outside of the range of expert opinions about a third of the time. So, equally frustrated with next-day temperature predictions, I was going to cross-apply each prediction by the other and see if economists were better at predicting the weather and vice versa. Oh well, it's not the only awesome-sounding idea I have shelved after sobering up.

But a very quick review of your reference indicates that foxes and hedgehogs do not map simply onto centres and extremes. In one sense, the research is saying what I suggested in my previous post: people who tend to say "however, the matter is more complex than that,"and so on, are most likely to be better judges of . . . well, anything!
 

Bruwheresmycar

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
If I am being honest I have no direct figures on this, but at my job I am currently working with two very well known Australian organisations who are world leaders in their field. I am helping these two companies relocate overseas (one to the UK and one to Switzerland) because in their own words of "measures put in place by the Labor governement."

What measures?

I also know from a colleague that BHP have strongly considered relocating to Switzerland since this governement got into power.

Yeah, I doubt that. For one, they have been planning to move into this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Square_(skyscraper) . 2ndly, they make billions out of Australia, I doubt they will cut or sell any projects here.
 

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
What measures?

Repealing work choices and giving more power back to the powerful unions that their employees are involved in.

Yeah, I doubt that. For one, they have been planning to move into this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Square_(skyscraper) . 2ndly, they make billions out of Australia, I doubt they will cut or sell any projects here.

BHP don't need to cut and sell projects to move the organisation to Switzerland. They are a mining company- they would obviously keep mining in Australia however they would move the corporate side of the organisation overseas. As I said, the idea was only considered and they decided against it, however the fact they would consider such a huge move is testament to poor job being done by the Labor party.

The guy that told me currently sits on the board, so I imagine he knows what he is talking about.

Anyway, through my business (http://www.rochfordcapital.com.au/), I speak to countless company directors about the state of the economy that bring me in to help them manage FX, Interest rate and commodity risk. Inevitably politics come up and can play a large role in future project decisions. I am yet to speak to a business that thinks the current Labor party is helping businesses, with most people very disappointed at what they are doing to the economy. That is what I largely base this view on.

Can I ask what direct or academic (or any specific) experience brings you to your view that the policies we discussed earlier dont have a material effect on the economy? (this isn't having a go at you, I am genuinely interested).
 

Bruwheresmycar

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I am just studdying economics and finance at the moment. And was skeptical of what you are saying because Labor and Liberal are so similar economically, a company claiming to leave Australia due to the government can't really single out one party (well I certainly couldn't say otherwise in an assignment/essay without loads of evidence). If a company leaves Australia and blames 1 policy in particular, maybe they weren't performing very well in the first place and that was just the tipping point?

And what you said is exactly what I'm thinking. BHB moving a few corperate jobs overseas will not be a big deal, and will hardly be the fault of the government. They are becoming a worldwide brand now. If they do follow that idea, they still pay tax in Australia for all the mining they do here, and will still do here. There is really no big significance to the idea of them "moving" overseas.
 

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
I am just studdying economics and finance at the moment. And was skeptical of what you are saying because Labor and Liberal are so similar economically, a company claiming to leave Australia due to the government can't really single out one party (well I certainly couldn't say otherwise in an assignment/essay without loads of evidence). If a company leaves Australia and blames 1 policy in particular, maybe they weren't performing very well in the first place and that was just the tipping point?

And what you said is exactly what I'm thinking. BHB moving a few corperate jobs overseas will not be a big deal, and will hardly be the fault of the government. They are becoming a worldwide brand now. If they do follow that idea, they still pay tax in Australia for all the mining they do here, and will still do here. There is really no big significance to the idea of them "moving" overseas.

It's a bit bigger than that with companies like BHP. If they move their headquarters to Switzerland, relocate all key operations over there, you are still looking at tens of thousand of jobs- a lot of them high paying roles. They would likely still keep the new Perth digs but move from Melbourne altogether...

You are also seeing a lot of their projects being shelfed at the moment due to commodity pricing uncertainty. If prices continue to decline, then they will focus investment on places with a lower cost base until prices again reach levels high enough to make it worth continuing/starting operations. Having policies like the carbon tax and mining tax simply add more uncertainty to the viability of Australian projects relative to places like Mongolia or Brazil. If prices continue to fall then no these taxes wont be the biggest reason why they choose to shelf these projects, but they might be a big contributing factor. Based on current forecasts of iron ore prices that's not a great thing.

The businesses relocating are doing very well. One of them is one of our few globally recognised brands and market leaders in their field that manufacture from Australia. Unfortunately recent examples of other Australian companies, like Qantas and the problems they have had with unions, has prompted them to move the entire business away and preempt a similar problem.

Again, it is very sad to hear and it may not have been completely unavoidable with Australia in such a state of dutch disease. But in a time that is so difficult for so many industries, the lack of accomodative policies of this governemnt to businesses is why most businesses are angry at this government.
 

Bruwheresmycar

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
It's not that you don't have a point, I just prefer to look at the big picture rather than the minor problems of individual businesses when reviewing the government's performance, or the national economy. There are downsides to the mining tax, but there are downsides with every tax. The point is that the pro's outweight the cons. The profits BHP are making are crazy, as commodity prices have been rising over the long term, their tax-rates haven't risen nearly as much. It ended up creating a kind-of 2 speed economy. We could be taxing them loads more and they'd be fine, but the government chose to cave in and make all sorts of deals/concessions.

Didn't BHP agree to the mining tax anyway? I don't know what the fuss is about. If I were them I'd take this deal as well, in 5-10 years time they will be making shitloads once again. Commodity prices will continue to rise and their tax rates will remain steady.
 

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
It's not that you don't have a point, I just prefer to look at the big picture rather than the minor problems of individual businesses when reviewing the government's performance, or the national economy. There are downsides to the mining tax, but there are downsides with every tax. The point is that the pro's outweight the cons. The profits BHP are making are crazy, as commodity prices have been rising over the long term, their tax-rates haven't risen nearly as much. It ended up creating a kind-of 2 speed economy. We could be taxing them loads more and they'd be fine, but the government chose to cave in and make all sorts of deals/concessions.

Didn't BHP agree to the mining tax anyway? I don't know what the fuss is about. If I were them I'd take this deal as well, in 5-10 years time they will be making shitloads once again. Commodity prices will continue to rise and their tax rates will remain steady.

Repealing work choices has far reaching issues for the Australian economy that aren't exactly easy to measure. The many businesses I speak to are extremely careful in hiring staff now that it is harder to rid of them if there was a downturn in the economy. This means companies aren't as profitable and effiicient as they could be and means less jobs and less tax revenue. The power of the unions involved in the Labor party is a key reason why I think that the Liberal party are better economic managers, but I don't want to go back into that big argument here...

The problem with the Carbon tax and the mining tax is not that they are a tax, but that there are already so many taxes, duties, royalties etc in this economy. The system is too complex and needs to be simplified. I read somewhere there is somewhere between 100-150 taxes, levies etc in our economy. Add that to the uncertainty that they might be ripped up at the next election and you have an incredibly complex and uncertain place to invest.
 

Bruwheresmycar

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
That's not a good argument against introducing a new tax though. The system is complex, but that's why we have accountants and tax consultants. We should be trying to simplify the system where it can be, but most of those taxes are themselves convering loopholes. The fact is, some businesses will look for any way possible to avoid paying a particular tax, and then complain when the government introduces a new tax to stop them trying to cheat the system. (not talking about any tax in particular here, just generally).

The idea of a carbon tax is the capitalist/right wing way of tackling our co2 emissions. All we ever hear is how great the capitalist system is, but whenever we attempt to do something using these "free market" mechanisms, people complain that it's complicating the tax system. But that "problem" in my eyes is just a by-product of how our society operates.

Same goes for the mining tax. The industry is growing incredibly large/very fast and the state government's just sit there watching. So when the federal government steps in and attempts to at least ensure the industry doesn't speed way ahead of the rest of the economy, and are at least being taxed fairly. Suddenly, the government shouldn't be allowed to do it's job because we don't want to give businesses any "uncertainty" or "complexity" to deal with.

Anyway I will stop now because I'm going way off topic. The point is, Liberal will have the same duty when they get back in power and will take action where it's needed just like Labor have been doing. They agreed to the emission targets just like Labor, and they know it's not healthy to let the mining industry speed way ahead of the general economy as commodity prices double/triple/quadruple into the future. I don't know what massive differences businesses are expecting when they get back into power. Maybe the ability to fire employees with slightly less complications will stop hoards of businesses going offshore? We'll have to wait and see. Anyway, I actually enjoyed discussing this. Have a good day.
 

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
That's not a good argument against introducing a new tax though. The system is complex, but that's why we have accountants and tax consultants. We should be trying to simplify the system where it can be, but most of those taxes are themselves convering loopholes. The fact is, some businesses will look for any way possible to avoid paying a particular tax, and then complain when the government introduces a new tax to stop them trying to cheat the system. (not talking about any tax in particular here, just generally).

The idea of a carbon tax is the capitalist/right wing way of tackling our co2 emissions. All we ever hear is how great the capitalist system is, but whenever we attempt to do something using these "free market" mechanisms, people complain that it's complicating the tax system. But that "problem" in my eyes is just a by-product of how our society operates.

Same goes for the mining tax. The industry is growing incredibly large/very fast and the state government's just sit there watching. So when the federal government steps in and attempts to at least ensure the industry doesn't speed way ahead of the rest of the economy, and are at least being taxed fairly. Suddenly, the government shouldn't be allowed to do it's job because we don't want to give businesses any "uncertainty" or "complexity" to deal with.

Anyway I will stop now because I'm going way off topic. The point is, Liberal will have the same duty when they get back in power and will take action where it's needed just like Labor have been doing. They agreed to the emission targets just like Labor, and they know it's not healthy to let the mining industry speed way ahead of the general economy as commodity prices double/triple/quadruple into the future. I don't know what massive differences businesses are expecting when they get back into power. Maybe the ability to fire employees with slightly less complications will stop hoards of businesses going offshore? We'll have to wait and see. Anyway, I actually enjoyed discussing this. Have a good day.

You are wrong on this Bru. The tax report released in 2010 and commissioned by the Labour government outlined they ditch all of these complex taxes and royalites for blanket type taxes. The current system of various levies is not only confusing but discriminates against new ventures making them more risky- this deters invesment unless there is a really high return. With decreasing prices in commodities this system is really going to hit new projects hard.

The complexities are quite avoidable, as are most of loopholes. Have a look at that report from 2010 if you can find it anywhere and you will see that hardle any of the recommendations have been implemented and had they been done, the government would be receiving more tax revenues, companies would be spending less money trying to work out whether to enter into new projects and more businesses would likely relocate here to take advantage of our timezone with Asia.

Its easy to say that's why we have accountants but when you leave uni and try and start some business for yourself, you will likely change your tune. Being a person that part-owns a business I can tell you that tax complexities and constant fees to accountants really eats into the profitability of a business and the viability to invest in potential projects. Its unneccessary!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top