The Politics Thread 2022

[gangrenous]

In your example you’re talking about shuffling money around to minimise tax paid, but not how that motivated a reduction in earning in the first place.

Liberals go down again in Victoria. At what point will they get the message that what they stand for now is ****, and getting **** as the demographics shift?

[papabear]

Ok so my main point is that making the system flatter will see less of a shuffle and more tax paid.

Thats where I was going.

I am not sure what you want me to say everyone is different - but the amount of tax I pay directly effects my motivation in terms of quotes / jobs etc I am sure there are many like me and many who will just earn what they can, I think thats something we could talk in circles for, for a very long time.

[Dr Zaius]

So ScoMo censured. I'm not familiar with the term, but I suppose that means that he has been a very naughty boy. So going back to my question earlier in this thread, is he the most self-serving PM that we have ever had?

[Mickey_Raider]

He is a complete f-wit.

Credit to Bridget Archer for making a stand.

Pity more of her colleagues didn’t follow suit.

I would have thought actual conservatives would be appalled at actions which undermine successful Westminster democratic institutions.

I think many of the LNP will regret the photo taken of them all lining up to shake his hand after his pathetic non-apology in parliament in defence of his actions.

[Botman]

So ScoMo censured. I'm not familiar with the term, but I suppose that means that he has been a very naughty boy. So going back to my question earlier in this thread, is he the most self-serving PM that we have ever had?

As far as i can tell, censuring is not a lot more than a very public, official government "tsk, tsk"
But yeah self-serving is probably the most accurate description of his tenure. Pretty wild ****.

[Northern Raider]

So ScoMo censured. I'm not familiar with the term, but I suppose that means that he has been a very naughty boy. So going back to my question earlier in this thread, is he the most self-serving PM that we have ever had?

As far as i can tell, censuring is not a lot more than a very public, official government "tsk, tsk"
But yeah self-serving is probably the most accurate description of his tenure. Pretty wild ****.

Appears that censuring is officially recognising him as being a naughty boy. Seems a bit pointless really and little more than political pointscoring. Don't think it really achieves anything.

[Boomercm]

If that’s true I think our only difference is that I do think that it should become exponentially more difficult to build wealth. I think there’s levels of wealth which if you want to keep growing beyond that there should become increasingly diminishing returns, and that leads to a better society.

Could not disagree more. Why would you disincentivize the most successful operators. Lets say someone creates a tech business and sells it for 1 billion (or 10, whatever). Once you cap the earnings above that where is the incentive for someone to be aspirational? Why would they then go on and try and achieve something even bigger?

Most of them currently invest heavily in speculative and future science/tech, ideas that are incredibly low probability outcomes but for potentially huge payoffs (for them, and society). No government since the moon landing has shown that sort of aspirational and entrepreneurial spirit. And no government would do it as efficiently.

I'd much rather the capital and power in the hands of entrepreneurs. This is how you get electric cars, personal computers, medicines, mass produced Covid vaccines in 6 months, and so on.

I'm certainly not saying that Governments don't have important roles. They need to redistribute some money to make sure everyone has a basic standard of living. And they need to care for our vulnerable. And they need to regulate industries and markets, especially to break up monopolies and concentrations of power. None of this equates to capping someone's level of wealth/aspiration.

[gerg]

So ScoMo censured. I'm not familiar with the term, but I suppose that means that he has been a very naughty boy. So going back to my question earlier in this thread, is he the most self-serving PM that we have ever had?

As far as i can tell, censuring is not a lot more than a very public, official government "tsk, tsk"
But yeah self-serving is probably the most accurate description of his tenure. Pretty wild ****.

Appears that censuring is officially recognising him as being a naughty boy. Seems a bit pointless really and little more than political pointscoring. Don't think it really achieves anything.

Absolutely a political stunt. They have been tried before and failed because of numbers, but as noted this is significant because a Lib crossed the floor.

[Dr Zaius]

He is a complete f-wit.

Credit to Bridget Archer for making a stand.

Pity more of her colleagues didn’t follow suit.

I would have thought actual conservatives would be appalled at actions which undermine successful Westminster democratic institutions.

I think many of the LNP will regret the photo taken of them all lining up to shake his hand after his pathetic non-apology in parliament in defence of his actions.

He is. He really, truly is.

[gangrenous]

If that’s true I think our only difference is that I do think that it should become exponentially more difficult to build wealth. I think there’s levels of wealth which if you want to keep growing beyond that there should become increasingly diminishing returns, and that leads to a better society.

Could not disagree more. Why would you disincentivize the most successful operators. Lets say someone creates a tech business and sells it for 1 billion (or 10, whatever). Once you cap the earnings above that where is the incentive for someone to be aspirational? Why would they then go on and try and achieve something even bigger?

Most of them currently invest heavily in speculative and future science/tech, ideas that are incredibly low probability outcomes but for potentially huge payoffs (for them, and society). No government since the moon landing has shown that sort of aspirational and entrepreneurial spirit. And no government would do it as efficiently.

I'd much rather the capital and power in the hands of entrepreneurs. This is how you get electric cars, personal computers, medicines, mass produced Covid vaccines in 6 months, and so on.

I'm certainly not saying that Governments don't have important roles. They need to redistribute some money to make sure everyone has a basic standard of living. And they need to care for our vulnerable. And they need to regulate industries and markets, especially to break up monopolies and concentrations of power. None of this equates to capping someone's level of wealth/aspiration.

Could not disagree more with you.

- What value is it to Musk whether he has 1 billion or 10 billion dollars? I’d argue virtually zero. What value does that 9 billion have invested in the community?

- Would billionaires really stop trying to make new companies and more money even with diminishing returns? Is that their primary motivator once already wealthy?

- Are the wealthy really brilliant fonts of wisdom and nous? (See Musk purchasing Twitter)

- I think you’d find most low probability, blue sky research is done in public institutions. Private industry might be good at taking it to production once ready, but the vaccines you cite owe their origins to decades of public research.

[Boomercm]

If that’s true I think our only difference is that I do think that it should become exponentially more difficult to build wealth. I think there’s levels of wealth which if you want to keep growing beyond that there should become increasingly diminishing returns, and that leads to a better society.

Could not disagree more. Why would you disincentivize the most successful operators. Lets say someone creates a tech business and sells it for 1 billion (or 10, whatever). Once you cap the earnings above that where is the incentive for someone to be aspirational? Why would they then go on and try and achieve something even bigger?

Most of them currently invest heavily in speculative and future science/tech, ideas that are incredibly low probability outcomes but for potentially huge payoffs (for them, and society). No government since the moon landing has shown that sort of aspirational and entrepreneurial spirit. And no government would do it as efficiently.

I'd much rather the capital and power in the hands of entrepreneurs. This is how you get electric cars, personal computers, medicines, mass produced Covid vaccines in 6 months, and so on.

I'm certainly not saying that Governments don't have important roles. They need to redistribute some money to make sure everyone has a basic standard of living. And they need to care for our vulnerable. And they need to regulate industries and markets, especially to break up monopolies and concentrations of power. None of this equates to capping someone's level of wealth/aspiration.

Could not disagree more with you.

- What value is it to Musk whether he has 1 billion or 10 billion dollars? I’d argue virtually zero. What value does that 9 billion have invested in the community?

- Would billionaires really stop trying to make new companies and more money even with diminishing returns? Is that their primary motivator once already wealthy?

- Are the wealthy really brilliant fonts of wisdom and nous? (See Musk purchasing Twitter)

- I think you’d find very most low probability, blue sky research is done in public institutions. Private industry might be good at taking it to production once ready, but the vaccines you cite owe their origins to decades of public research.

Differences of opinion are what makes society tick.

I would be curious to know whether your view is formed 'philosophically', or whether you have worked both in a public institution (or publicly funded institution) and in private industry?

I could not possibly hold your view having had the exposure I have had to both.

And you may have been right about blue sky 50 years ago, but this is not the case now. While there are still some very good researchers at public institutions, there is a growing ratio of half baked researchers pushing out papers for papers sake (or worse, in completely half baked fields. Look up the fun story of the “The Conceptual ***** as a Social Construct”.

That blue sky space is now taken up predominantly by private equity funds from very wealthy folk. AI research among the most important. These are not usually wealth by inheritance folk but wealth by creation. And I am totally ok with that.

I can see no scenario where concentrating more money and power in political circles is a good idea. Imagine what happens if the US government buys Twitter, for example. One step closer to china (I don't really care who owns it, but it shouldn't be politicians).

[gangrenous]

I would be curious to know whether your view is formed 'philosophically', or whether you have worked both in a public institution (or publicly funded institution) and in private industry?

I could not possibly hold your view having had the exposure I have had to both.

I have.

And you may have been right about blue sky 50 years ago, but this is not the case now. While there are still some very good researchers at public institutions, there is a growing ratio of half baked researchers pushing out papers for papers sake (or worse, in completely half baked fields. Look up the fun story of the “The Conceptual ***** as a Social Construct”.

Rubbish. While paper pushing is an issue, there’s no way you’re convincing me blue sky research is happening more in private institutions than public.

That blue sky space is now taken up predominantly by private equity funds from very wealthy folk. AI research among the most important. These are not usually wealth by inheritance folk but wealth by creation. And I am totally ok with that.

AI research performed in private institutions is not blue sky. Some application of the tech is clear in most cases, even if all future applications are not known.

I can see no scenario where concentrating more money and power in political circles is a good idea. Imagine what happens if the US government buys Twitter, for example. One step closer to china (I don't really care who owns it, but it shouldn't be politicians).

Odd tangent. No one’s advocating for governments to buy Twitter?

[Boomercm]

Rubbish. While paper pushing is an issue, there’s no way you’re convincing me blue sky research is happening more in private institutions than public.

If you're definition of blue sky is verbose word salad on gender and social issues, then you are probably spot on.

In meaningful pursuits, private equity is providing much of the seed money. Even when the research is done in public institutions. A great example is the Psychedelic research in mental health. Governments (after banning it for 50 years) are back on board now, but only after private equity has seeded it and created the momentum.

Public grant money is heavily biased toward well established labs and paradigms. And rubbish.

Odd tangent. No one’s advocating for governments to buy Twitter?

No, but you and Papa are advocating a huge centralization of money and power within governments. If you uber tax all the very rich people where does it go? Who controls the $?

A good way for you to think about the dangers of your proposal is this: you are stripping trillions of dollars from the best entrepreneurs and handing it to people like Donald Trump and Morrison to redistribute. Now I know you think your team is heaps better than the others. But honestly, they're not. And even if they are they only hold power for one half of the time.

You always should want money/power distributed as diversely as possible. The government/s have more than enough already.

[gangrenous]

If you're definition of blue sky is verbose word salad on gender and social issues, then you are probably spot on.

You should probably look up a definition of it.

In meaningful pursuits, private equity is providing much of the seed money. Even when the research is done in public institutions. A great example is the Psychedelic research in mental health. Governments (after banning it for 50 years) are back on board now, but only after private equity has seeded it and created the momentum.

You sound like Manbush when he laments lack of investment in his favourite recreational drugs.

Public grant money is heavily biased toward well established labs and paradigms. And rubbish.

Yeah, let me guess. Spending all that money on Climate Change research which is all make believe amirite?

No, but you and Papa are advocating a huge centralization of money and power within governments. If you uber tax all the very rich people where does it go? Who controls the $?

A good way for you to think about the dangers of your proposal is this: you are stripping trillions of dollars from the best entrepreneurs and handing it to people like Donald Trump and Morrison to redistribute. Now I know you think your team is heaps better than the others. But honestly, they're not. And even if they are they only hold power for one half of the time.

You always should want money/power distributed as diversely as possible. The government/s have more than enough already.

So your radical play to solve distribution of wealth is to intentionally keep it in the hands of the Uber-wealthy where it’s definitely not diverse, because it might not be distributed as diversely as you see fit?

[Boomercm]

I'm a centrist with a science PhD. You're a left wing blowhard. You're assumption about where I sit on issues like climate change says much more about you than it does me.

The poorest people are better off right now in the western world than they have been in any culture at any time in human history. And this is very demonstrable - UNLESS - you compare them relatively to the very few uber rich people. Then they appear worse off.

But if poor people are doing better than they ever have. Where is the problem?

Answer: It is a faux problem stoked by left wing media and politicians. It is the left wingers version of 2GB - an angry campaign against rich people that really makes no sense. And just like 2GB riles up the right wing blowhards, this garbage riles up the left wing blowhards like yourself.

Could poor people do even better. Maybe. But the problem is not money. More money has never solved these problems. It is engagement with education and services. Given all the money and power left wingers have never been able to solve this. Even Castro couldn't solve this (the children of educated families had better outcomes even in his non-capitalist system where every child was provided the same resources).

[gangrenous]

I'm a centrist with a science PhD. You're a left wing blowhard. You're assumption about where I sit on issues like climate change says much more about you than it does me.

it’s not my fault that’s what you sound like. It’s really easy to just say “no, I think this”.

The poorest people are better off right now in the western world than they have been in any culture at any time in human history. And this is very demonstrable - UNLESS - you compare them relatively to the very few uber rich people. Then they appear worse off.

Straw man. I suppose those LGBTQI+ folk have had it better than they ever have too, I’ll give them a call and let them know everything is sorted because this is the best they’ve ever had it. Who else shall we call to know everything is fixed? Women?

[Boomercm]

Typical blowhard response.

You know who has figured it out. Asians. They start/ed disadvantaged in western cultures (discrimination and poorer migrants) and then within one or two generations they end up with better education, income and health outcomes than just about any other group. And this is pretty true all over the western world.

If you want to figure out how to help underprivileged people, stop blaming successful people and trying to centralise power and wealth within the political class. Instead do some reading about Asians. Then have a think about how their success could be translated to other poor and marginalised folk.

[gangrenous]

[papabear]

Rubbish. While paper pushing is an issue, there’s no way you’re convincing me blue sky research is happening more in private institutions than public.

If you're definition of blue sky is verbose word salad on gender and social issues, then you are probably spot on.

In meaningful pursuits, private equity is providing much of the seed money. Even when the research is done in public institutions. A great example is the Psychedelic research in mental health. Governments (after banning it for 50 years) are back on board now, but only after private equity has seeded it and created the momentum.

Public grant money is heavily biased toward well established labs and paradigms. And rubbish.

Odd tangent. No one’s advocating for governments to buy Twitter?

No, but you and Papa are advocating a huge centralization of money and power within governments. If you uber tax all the very rich people where does it go? Who controls the $?

A good way for you to think about the dangers of your proposal is this: you are stripping trillions of dollars from the best entrepreneurs and handing it to people like Donald Trump and Morrison to redistribute. Now I know you think your team is heaps better than the others. But honestly, they're not. And even if they are they only hold power for one half of the time.

You always should want money/power distributed as diversely as possible. The government/s have more than enough already.

To be clear as to what I am advocating is a flattening of the general tax rates.

I am just not adverse to an income tax rate of someone for example earning more then 2M per year in income tax paying 60/70c in the dollar of that to the government.

I am not advocating for a general increase or decrease in the tax system - but if you put a gun to my head I would prefer less money in govts hands and more in the peoples hands, but that wasnt the conversation I was having.

[Boomercm]

To be clear as to what I am advocating is a flattening of the general tax rates.

I'm with you on this. Simple systems leave less loopholes and minimisation becomes less of an issue.

[Mickey_Raider]

So Dan Andrews is going to equal and maybe even increase his governments majority compared to the so called “DanSlide” win of 2018.

Whilst the win was expected, the magnitude of the win surely that equates to the progressive side equivalent of the “Quiet Australian” thing, given the vocal, at times conspiratorial and often hysterical campaigning against the government by certain sections of conservative Australia.

There really must have been, IMO, an overstated projection about how divisive and unpopular Andrews was.

I don’t live in Melbourne btw so these comments are from the armchair, not on the ground.

[greeneyed]

The campaigning from the Murdoch and Nine media outlets was disgraceful. We expect Sky News to be awful, but running a so called “documentary” titled “The cult of Dan Andrews” in the lead up to an election was a brand new low. Clearly there was a swing, but the rejection by the voters of the Fox News approach to “news” was pleasing to see.

[Dr Zaius]

The campaigning from the Murdoch and Nine media outlets was disgraceful. We expect Sky News to be awful, but running a so called “documentary” titled “The cult of Dan Andrews” in the lead up to an election was a brand new low. Clearly there was a swing, but the rejection by the voters of the Fox News approach to “news” was pleasing to see.

Honest question, but do Sky actually have any influence on the results? People that watch that rubbish are always going to vote conservative, regardless of what "documentary" they run.

[BJ]

Sky News have huge influence……. over their own presenters.

Talk about an echo chamber of befuddled views and disarranged analysis.

[Mickey_Raider]

The campaigning from the Murdoch and Nine media outlets was disgraceful. We expect Sky News to be awful, but running a so called “documentary” titled “The cult of Dan Andrews” in the lead up to an election was a brand new low. Clearly there was a swing, but the rejection by the voters of the Fox News approach to “news” was pleasing to see.

Honest question, but do Sky actually have any influence on the results? People that watch that rubbish are always going to vote conservative, regardless of what "documentary" they run.

After procession of electoral results in which they have openly campaigned for the losing LNP (QLD, WA, SA, Federal, VIC) I am starting to think that their influence is either overstated or on the wane, or both.

They would be best served by moderating their views and stop just blindly cheerleading. I’m still sure there is a election winning cohort of centre-centre right voters out there.

But when you’re promulgating “The cult of Dan Andrews” and purporting that it is “news” most people are smart enough to know that it is just partisan dribble, and stop listening.

I actually watched it ironically, for the lolz.

Credlins groundbreaking witnesses were a radio shock jock with an axe to grind because Andrews never comes on his show; the man at the centre of a public health conspiracy theory, a man who claims Andrews T-Boned him a decade ago in contravention of police evidence, and a factional enemy of the Labor party.

Absolute garbage stuff.

[Dr Zaius]

In this country, political battles are won in the centre. Sky news watchers are never going to vote Labor/Greens, just as Guardian Fanbois arr never going to vote LNP. It's a different story in the US where half the battle is mobilising voters - that's were more extremists views play well.

[Botman]

We got into this a little bit in the lead up the election but i remain as convinced as i was back then on the issue.

Not a **** soul is being "swayed" by sky news or any documentary they run. Anyone tuning into that "news" outlets made their mind up on the issues a long, LONG time ago and are simply going to a source of news that mirrors their views. Sky News and it's audience could accurately be used as the definition of the term "preaching to the choir"

[gangrenous]

I think that’s misunderstanding the role of Sky news.

I think it’s less about convincing people who will swing that what they say is true. But more about making people eating the slightly less loony **** from places like the Telegraph believe they’re in the centre.

It’s nice to see some results that seem a bit more indicative of resistance to Murdoch Bull. I’m hoping the shifting demographics and a bit more awareness post-Trump/Brexit are behind that, and that the LNP will need to return to policies serving the community or perish. But I’m not ready to believe it yet.

[Sid]

For whatever it's worth, media is a little different nowadays in that you don't need to seek it out to see it. There are sky news headlines often popping up in my social media and moreso in YouTube, depite only clicking 1 of their articles to find out in the early stages what was happening in the Ukraine war. Many people see a lot of headlines without ever clicking to read the articles of all kinds in general. Agree it has been pleasing to see that media hasn't seemed to have had the influence in the polls that they'd be capable of.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Boomercm]

In this country, political battles are won in the centre. Sky news watchers are never going to vote Labor/Greens, just as Guardian Fanbois arr never going to vote LNP. It's a different story in the US where half the battle is mobilising voters - that's were more extremists views play well.

Spot on. Compulsory voting makes our system a battle for the centre. I think that is a very good thing

[Boomercm]

We got into this a little bit in the lead up the election but i remain as convinced as i was back then on the issue.

Not a **** soul is being "swayed" by sky news or any documentary they run. Anyone tuning into that "news" outlets made their mind up on the issues a long, LONG time ago and are simply going to a source of news that mirrors their views. Sky News and it's audience could accurately be used as the definition of the term "preaching to the choir"

I think there is a reverse effect of Murdoch/Fox now, if anything. It is pretty easy to point at Sky/Murdoch and make a case that the right is a wicked bunch of angry old edit (and thus with no other logic to follow - all their policies must support only edit).

There is pretty strong evidence for this type of effect appearing in the US - the reverse Trump effect. Hilariously, the Dems recently funded some of the Trump favoured Republican candidates. This is the possibly the greatest political grift of all time, on the one hand telling voters Trump and his supporters are a threat to democracy, and on the other hand funding his fav candidates to make them more prominent.

I certainly hope the conservative side of politics do find better humans to represent them going forward. The core tenants of both sides are necessary. To get the best out of our political system/s we need both sides strong and in competitive balance

[Mickey_Raider]

Watching the Robodebt RC.

I can’t be the only person who finds it alarming that someone of Morrison’s character manages to make it all the way up the greasy pole to the highest office in the land.

A disgraceful narcissist who still to this day does. Not. Get. It.

[Boomercm]

Morrison is a disgrace, for certain.

In other news: "wight men" getting the *edit* two posts up really does say something about the modern world! Oh the irony.

[T_R]

Watching the Robodebt RC.

I can’t be the only person who finds it alarming that someone of Morrison’s character manages to make it all the way up the greasy pole to the highest office in the land.

A disgraceful narcissist who still to this day does. Not. Get. It.

I'm just glad that his appearance gave you another chance to come here and post about how much you dislike him, in case anyone hadn't picked up on that in the last 3 years.

[gangrenous]

I'm just glad that Mickey_Raider’s appearance gave you another chance to come here and post about how much you dislike him, in case anyone hadn't picked up on that in the last 3 years…

And now turtles.

All the way down.