The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

Who will you vote for?

  • Liberals

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Labor

    Votes: 21 31.8%
  • Nationals

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Greens

    Votes: 21 31.8%
  • Independant

    Votes: 15 22.7%
  • The Clive Palmer shit show

    Votes: 4 6.1%
  • Shooters and Fishers Party

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • One Nation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Donkey/Invalid vote

    Votes: 3 4.5%

  • Total voters
    66

nizai

Likes Dirt
......or you can argue that Howard was much closer to correct back in 2004. Thus we needed much fewer changes over the period to present. I'm mostly joking now.


What it possibly/probably means is that the US went over the top in reducing rates so low back at that period. 1% was by any measure too low, and exacerbated US economic fluctuations/volatility.

It does mean that our economy (overall) has been smoother than the worlds largest over the period. Credit for that has to be given. Although many factors interplay here.
People have got to stop looking at interest rates as being the be all and end all of economic wellbeing. Sure its the one economic lever thats most likley to effect every man and his dog directly and immediately. But there are plenty of other factors at play here, that people either dont bother to think about or arent aware of. The howard government pushes the line that they kept interest rates low therefore the masses should be happy, but in dealing with only that one factor of the economy in the discussion, its failed to notice that so many other things are going the opposite direction.

Any government, even a labor one, could keep interest rates under control at the expense of everything else.

As for the US market, the so called genius of Alan Greenspan will be undone this year as his all time low interest rates and massive splurge in currency printing 3 years ago bites the US economy in the ass, and HARD. Youve got millions of people on 3 year fixed loans about to break out from 0-1% interest to 4.5-5% interest, in a market that is sliding downwards.

Pretty soon there will be people in the US servicing a mortgage at 5% higher interest rates, that are significantly higher in value than the property is worth.

Makes me wonder if we're about to see people mailing their keys into the bank and telling them to do their worst.

Should be an interesting 12 months in the US in particular.

N
 

dunk

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Liberal all the way, again.

...... I couldnt give two fucks about people less well off than me.
Spoken like a true Liberal:rolleyes: Just reinforces my opinion that the average Liberal voter cares more about themselves and money, than people/ethics/society etc.

Better post your bank statement up so we can decide if we care about you or not.:D
 

Sewer Cider

Likes Bikes
I see a lot of talk about selfish behaviour / liberalism.

To care for others you must first be OK yourself.

Parallel example:

On a plane in an emergency, parents of children are instructed put their own oxygen mask first, so they are not overcome with fumes and can assist their child in putting on the mask. This may seem selfish at first (still a chance the child might die), however it makes more sense when you play out the possible consequences (parent helps child with mask first, parent dies, child has no one to look after them)

In the same way, for people to be ABLE to care for other people, they must first themsleves be sorted out. That might mean putting personal values and family first before the welfare of others. That is not selfish.
 

scblack

Leucocholic
As for the US market, the so called genius of Alan Greenspan will be undone this year as his all time low interest rates and massive splurge in currency printing 3 years ago bites the US economy in the ass, and HARD. Youve got millions of people on 3 year fixed loans about to break out from 0-1% interest to 4.5-5% interest, in a market that is sliding downwards.

Pretty soon there will be people in the US servicing a mortgage at 5% higher interest rates, that are significantly higher in value than the property is worth.

Makes me wonder if we're about to see people mailing their keys into the bank and telling them to do their worst.

Should be an interesting 12 months in the US in particular.

N
Not right I'm afraid.;)

American mortgages are handled differently to Australian ones. Their base mortgage is ONLY fixed. If they signed up to a 1% mortgage three years ago, thats the interest rate for the life of that loan. No honeymoon period generally over there. Thus when rates fall, they re-set their mortgages at the lower rates.

Floating interest rate mortgages are pretty rare in the US.

US housing downturn has followed Australia and UK (and many European countries) by a few years and US market has slipped the market the last couple of years or so. It has not yet hit hard at all. Consensus is heading to the idea it is not going to be too bad, much like Australia and UK experience, in that home values will likely fall further, but due to strong economies otherwise, there will not be a recession attached.
 

Sewer Cider

Likes Bikes
By looking after the welfare of everyone you automatically look after yourself
What I am saying is, HOW can you look after other people if you are not in a fit state to do so? You must first look inward, then to others. That in itself appears selfish however in practice this will empower you to be able to attend to the welfare of others.
 

Dozer

Heavy machinery.
Staff member
What I am saying is, HOW can you look after other people if you are not in a fit state to do so? You must first look inward, then to others. That in itself appears selfish however in practice this will empower you to be able to attend to the welfare of others.
I understand your point and it as worthy of thinking about that type of situation but some people will think you're digging yourself a hole.
 

Dozer

Heavy machinery.
Staff member
I'm not having a go at you and there is no harm intended. It appears that the tempo of this thread is steering towards people being branded selfish if they voice their opinion about looking after themselves before others.

For me, I will vote according to what seems right at the time based on what the politicians have put forward as their policies. If a politician does his best to look after his area of the country and has the voice of the community behind him then he should be the right man for the job. If that means looking after the man / woman who earns a living for his / her family then we'd be heading in the right direction. I know there is more to it than that but hey.....who matters more? Family or Joe Blow the dole bludger hoping to get his next cheque before happy hour at the pub.


Disclaimer: No offence to Joe Blow or dole bludgers.;)
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
scblack: Sorry, your first point is over my head...., I think. Are you saying that even if I got that place two decades ago I would have seen a similar gain in capital worth? Does that also mean that no matter who is in power my assets will be pretty assured of a decent gain? So therefore, that then justifies my voting on reasons of ethics, because my wallet will still get fat no matter what! :D

1 point to the J. man! :p

The point I make about Labor is that all politicians lie, no doubt about that and I'm sure LAbor would have been the target of many barbs from me too. BUT, as I state, to allow the Libs to get away with it is to all but condone it, or be defeated by it.

As for the rest of your post, I understand what you're saying and I also have the benefit of knowing you personaly and closely. I know that you will bring your children up well and with the standards that I would expect of a friend of mine. But, for me that then begs the question of why would you accept this kind of behaviour from some one representing your family and making decisions on your behalf?

See my last paragraph for a conclusion of this part of the discussion....



In short, I have worked hard to get where I am and I couldnt give two fucks about people less well off than me.
Tall poppy syndrome? Pull your head in! I have a nicely priced piece of property, haven't worked for four years, am on my 5th year of being a leasurly student and have been around the world four times since 2000. I'm guessing (yes it is a guess) that I'm a fucking playboy compared to your self flattering short poppy arse!

From your post, you sound like the type of guy who would let an old lady get beat up as you walk on the other side of the street..., you know, fuck those less well off than you and all that stuff. This is not meant as an insult, that is truly how you come across to me with that type of attitude.

Sounds harsh as, but thats the way the real world is.
Just because you live in a selfish world doesn't mean everyone else does. Ever heard of the Salvation Army, Red Cross, Meals on Wheels, Wayside Chapel, etc. Look up the word "charity" and discover a whole world out there that you seem to think doesn't exist! Ignorance is fucking bliss, eh? Tell me how the fucking world works, you farkin ego mainiac! :mad:

Disclaimer: Yes, I do get upset by your attitude, but that is your own choice to make and it really doesn't make me that angry, a little frustrated, but not angry. But to tell me and the rest of us how the world works? Jam it up your clacker dude! IMO that's about as arrogant as it gets....which is pretty much also displayed by your attitude. I bet you get labelled arrogant quite regularly! I would never claim to know how the world works and I see myself as pretty well educated, travelled and experienced. You on the other hand think you have all the answers.....arrogance at it's best!

By looking after the welfare of everyone you automatically look after yourself
Sounds pretty straight forward to me!



In conclusion: it's really an endless argument, some have differing values and morals than others. Some don't have morals at all, see MAster of Reality's posts for a point of reference. So to argue which is the more moralistic way to vote is really pointless in the long run because morals aren't a homogenous thing. I guess the only real point worth arguing is which vote will create the best outcome; whether voting for the common good increases your own lot or voting for yourself is the way to go.
 
Last edited:

lopes

Squid
We get the politicians we deserve - especially if we ignore their lies, corruption & wrongdoings, and use self interest as the deciding factor in determining how to vote.

Self interest is human nature - very difficult to overcome - only a minority of the electorate are able to rise above it.
(Usually it is the politicians and their campaign teams that understand this best that end up the winners).
 

Hamsta

Likes Bikes and Dirt
I see a lot of talk about selfish behaviour / liberalism.

To care for others you must first be OK yourself.

Parallel example:

On a plane in an emergency, parents of children are instructed put their own oxygen mask first, so they are not overcome with fumes and can assist their child in putting on the mask. This may seem selfish at first (still a chance the child might die), however it makes more sense when you play out the possible consequences (parent helps child with mask first, parent dies, child has no one to look after them)

In the same way, for people to be ABLE to care for other people, they must first themsleves be sorted out. That might mean putting personal values and family first before the welfare of others. That is not selfish.
You won my vote with that post Sewer Cider. Mind you, I would not piss on some people if they were on fire.
 

scblack

Leucocholic
scblack: Sorry, your first point is over my head...., I think. Are you saying that even if I got that place two decades ago I would have seen a similar gain in capital worth? Does that also mean that no matter who is in power my assets will be pretty assured of a decent gain? So therefore, that then justifies my voting on reasons of ethics, because my wallet will still get fat no matter what! :D

My point is that you have quoted a big nominal dollar gain, and saying that you could never afford it again. BUT your gain is a standard gain that has stood for decades, in the property market. People have had to save for property deposits with the same conditions for decades.

I am afraid you are seeing this period as abnormally good and Howard has delivered profits to landowners and shareholders at the EXPENSE of others. That is not true. You have to take your gains in context of over 100years of market cycles, and asset returns to see that it is not really that abnormal at all. 100% return would be similar, nominal dollars different.

You are trying to say new players could never afford to buy. I am saying that is a perception that has been in place for over 100years. Yet people still buy their homes, cars and have kids.

Thats the thing, it is only a PERCEPTION, reality is people will manage always.

1 point to the J. man! :p
Refuted!

The point I make about Labor is that all politicians lie, no doubt about that and I'm sure LAbor would have been the target of many barbs from me too. BUT, as I state, to allow the Libs to get away with it is to all but condone it, or be defeated by it.

As for the rest of your post, I understand what you're saying and I also have the benefit of knowing you personaly and closely. I know that you will bring your children up well and with the standards that I would expect of a friend of mine. But, for me that then begs the question of why would you accept this kind of behaviour from some one representing your family and making decisions on your behalf?

See my last paragraph for a conclusion of this part of the discussion....

In conclusion: it's really an endless argument, some have differing values and morals than others. Some don't have morals at all, see MAster of Reality's posts for a point of reference. So to argue which is the more moralistic way to vote is really pointless in the long run because morals aren't a homogenous thing. I guess the only real point worth arguing is which vote will create the best outcome; whether voting for the common good increases your own lot or voting for yourself is the way to go.
The main point I am trying to pass on especially in my main reply to you, Post #425 - is that I take a PRAGMATIC view in voting.

Basically I look at what each party offers, and how will that ACTUALLY in practice, change matters materially. If I had voted for Labour, as you have said, it would have actually been very little different in practice. It is not condoning such stuff, but what REALLY would change? Very little in my view.

Quote: Johnny
I guess the only real point worth arguing is which vote will create the best outcome; whether voting for the common good increases your own lot or voting for yourself is the way to go.
That is the crux of my argument - what is the common good? Drizz answers my view better than I could have expressed:

Quote: Drizz
I agree with you on this, and TBH this is a question that only each individual can answer. Some believe that a secure economy will provide opportunity for everyone and hence its important to maintain "persistent but not rapid" economic growth. Some believe that social goods like HECS and employment protection such as collective bargaining are the way to go.
I see the best common good to be a strong economy, with more jobs and opportunities for all. Then issues such as welfare are incidental.
 

scblack

Leucocholic
I have a question for the people who are taking the "Moral High Ground" in this thread.

How many of you have a family? How many have children I mean? And how many own property?

Once you have children and have other mouths who are totally and utterly dependent on you for every little thing they need, many peoples' perspective will quickly change. I know many of you will say - oh no, I have my opinions and they won't change, but in reality it will. Not completely, I won't be that over the top, but perspectives will change.

Johnny is one who does own property, as we have seen but he does not have children, and has stated he has no plans for ever having children. That itself changes perspective, as he can always sell the property and survive if needed. With dependent children, economic conditions personally mean a lot more, as you can't "just get by" if that means your kids are missing out on various things.

If you can't afford new shoes for your child, the fact that David Hicks trained with terrorists means a hell of a lot less.
 

FR Drew

Not a custom title.
I have a question for the people who are taking the "Moral High Ground" in this thread.

How many of you have a family? How many have children I mean? And how many own property?

Once you have children and have other mouths who are totally and utterly dependent on you for every little thing they need, many peoples' perspective will quickly change. I know many of you will say - oh no, I have my opinions and they won't change, but in reality it will. Not completely, I won't be that over the top, but perspectives will change.

Johnny is one who does own property, as we have seen but he does not have children, and has stated he has no plans for ever having children. That itself changes perspective, as he can always sell the property and survive if needed. With dependent children, economic conditions personally mean a lot more, as you can't "just get by" if that means your kids are missing out on various things.

If you can't afford new shoes for your child, the fact that David Hicks trained with terrorists means a hell of a lot less.
Well, for one, I own a house in Canberra, have a wife and a 18 month old daughter.

I'm 35, I grew up in the Campbelltown area of Adelaide primarily so it's not what you'd call and affluent area but it's not low socio economic either.

Having completed my schooling at year 12, instesad of repeating my final year and heading to uni I got myself an electrical apprenticeship with the South Australian Railways, did my time plus one year as a tradesman and then applied for mature age entry to university in Canberra to study the Conservation of Cultural Materials (preservation of museum stuff). I finished my degree in late 98 and I've been working at the Australian War Memorial ever since. My HECS debt is paid off. Although I work in one of Australias cultural institutions I don't beleive I am a culture snob. (probably because as a technology conservator I'm welding, driving a lathe, spraypainting etc and getting grease under my nails).

My home is not yet paid off, but my wife and I were very lucky that we got into the market before the big price hike triggered by the approach of the GST. Although there was no GST on houses, there was GST on the labour costs and materials so they jumped nearly the full 10% anyway. As a proportion of the standard Canberra APS pay scale, homes have shot way up in price to the point where for folks trying to get into the market it's pretty much impossible now. This is not a case of "property has always gone up, always has, always will, nothing is any different than it ever has been." In real terms, affordability as a proportion of income is lower than it has ever been.

I have private health insurance but I wonder at the amount of money that I'm sinking into it. We were certainly glad to have it when our daughter was born premature. It didn't change the level of care we got one iota, but being private meant that the NIC Unit at the Canberra Hospital was fully funded for the services they provided, which they wouldn't have been if we were public patients.

So, my wife and I are both uni educated, but (and I beleive this is where the difference perhaps lies) she had to spend many summers in sheds cutting apricots to pay her way through uni and I worked my way through an industrial apprenticeship first before doing uni as a mature age student.

We have both worked with and seen the conditions under which some of our co-workers, their friends and partners grew up, worked and lived.

I see execs getting paid multiple hundreds of dollars and I think they ought to thank their lucky stars that circumstances have brought them to where they are today. They dont work any harder than a bloke in a foundry, a welding shop, a carpenters, a fish and chip joint. But they get paid 4 times as much for the same sweat from their brow. Certainly many have got there by hard graft, but many have got there because they were born with a silver spoon, went to the right school, went to uni, became junior partners at the right firm through family contacts etc etc. There's nothing wrong with that, but to think the world owes you something more than it owes everyone else when you do little more than anyone else to deserve it, quite frankly, sucks.

Born and raised in Burnside, went to St Peters, through Adelaide Uni and then on to a highly paid management job sets you up for life in a way that being born in Elizabeth to a single mother with 5 kids is almost never going to and anyone who argues otherwise has their head shoved so far up their date that it's terrifying. The guy working on the production line at Holdens is paying the CEO's salary at Holdens. Therefore, should there not be some reciprocal responsibility on the part of the exec to support (through higher tax rates) the needs of the workers that he can easily afford but they cannot (say, health care and education...)

Sure, I'm earning way more than most of my previous colleagues from Snail Rail probably ever will (and it's sad because some of them had soooo much untapped potential and brainpower). I know I've got it good but I don't forget what it was like to be a first year apprentice earning stuff all, or what I got paid as a cleaner in my first job.

I could say: "I got into the housing market at the right time, my HECS is paid off, I want more money to spend on my kid, so screw the little guy, lets up Hecs, reduce access to free or cheap healthcare and education, full fee user pays at uni from now on, lower taxes for me lets vote lib for ever."

But for me, I feel that to take the cream without supporting the guy who milks the cow is morally wrong.

One day, my daughter is going to have to grow up and fend for herself in this world, will there be prohibitively expensive health care available only to the rich, higher education available only to the rich, purchase of homes avaialble only to the rich while everyone else rents with no hope of ownership ever?

The fact that I care about my daughter and her future is precisely why I don't think Howard and his decisions are a good choice.
 
Last edited:

Cave Dweller

Eats Squid
My point is that you have quoted a big nominal dollar gain, and saying that you could never afford it again. BUT your gain is a standard gain that has stood for decades, in the property market. People have had to save for property deposits with the same conditions for decades.

I am afraid you are seeing this period as abnormally good and Howard has delivered profits to landowners and shareholders at the EXPENSE of others. That is not true. You have to take your gains in context of over 100years of market cycles, and asset returns to see that it is not really that abnormal at all. 100% return would be similar, nominal dollars different.

You are trying to say new players could never afford to buy. I am saying that is a perception that has been in place for over 100years. Yet people still buy their homes, cars and have kids.

Thats the thing, it is only a PERCEPTION, reality is people will manage always.
Eh?

To say that if wages go up at 3% a year, and houses go up say 8% year does not represent a widening gap is garbage.

30 years ago you could buy a house on a single income, now you need two and its just managable but become less so. But its still a widening gap, and those that want to buy a first house in 30 years time will not be able to, unless they can come up with 4 incomes somehow.
 

Cave Dweller

Eats Squid
http://www.smh.com.au/news/australi...ustralian-dream/2007/03/02/1172338847865.html

Parents no fix for a distant great Australian dream

It seems only yesterday the grey nomads were sporting a cheeky bumper sticker on their four-wheel-drives and campervans: SKIN - Spending the Kids' Inheritance Now - it read. The sentiment heralded a new hedonistic approach to ageing. No more self-sacrifice or frugality. The new aged were intending to grow old disgracefully. Whether this meant skiing in Aspen, or circumnavigating Australia, the emphasis was on spend, not save. And the kids? Well, after the education and money lavished on them in their growing-up years, they would have to stand on their own two feet.

Now the climate has changed. Baby boomer parents, hitting the retirement years, regard their adult children's future with alarm. The children will never be able to buy a house unless the parents pitch in. Can parents afford to help? Should they help? What's gone wrong that parents need to help - and in a big way?

The talk again is of self-sacrifice and self-denial. The last boat to the middle class is pulling out and their kids will not be on it.

The great Australian dream of home ownership has never been under such threat. Forget the era of 17 per cent interest rates. Housing affordability is at historically low levels. New research by Judith Yates, of the University of Sydney, shows the median house price would need to be at least $100,000 lower for people in their 20s and 30s to be able to save a comparable deposit (in relation to income) as their parents did. The median house price would need to be more than $150,000 lower if today's young adults are to have the same access to home ownership as their grandparents did.

They may be on average more educated, and live in prosperous times, enjoy higher wages, lower interest rates and easier credit than their parents did, but today's young adults face an almost insurmountable problem. Unlike their parents and grandparents, they cannot save enough for a deposit on a home.

The median house price for Australia last year was $350,000 (higher in Sydney). A household with an income of about $50,000 (average weekly earnings) would be permitted to borrow just over $200,000 under current lending criteria. The borrowers would be under maximum strain, spending a colossal 40 per cent of income on repayments. But even so, the loan would not be enough. They would need savings of $150,000, or three years' income, in order to bridge the deposit gap. Their parents, the baby boomer generation, needed to save only a year's income to bridge the deposit gap - and that was in the 1970s when things started getting tough.

It is no wonder home-ownership rates among the younger ages have fallen in the 30 years to 2001. Yates shows in her paper, Has the Great Australian Dream Ended?, that at the settling-down age of 30 to 34, the home-ownership rate has fallen from 67 to 57 per cent. There is debate whether this trend is a momentary blip, or represents the fading of the dream. It could be attributed to young people settling down later in life after extended education, travel and self-discovery. But even if lifestyle and delay explain some of the fall, there is no doubt housing is much less affordable than in the past.

And so some baby boomers, who rode the 30-year real estate boom, are talking of pitching in. One couple goes guarantor for their son's loan; another takes out a $100,000 loan using their home as security; another hands over $50,000 from their investments. "Selfish" boomers are handing the inheritance over early when their children need it most.

Reliance on the parental down payment, however, is not a sensible or fair solution to a major housing-affordability problem. It is a recipe for entrenching inequalities. Not all or even most boomer parents can afford to be so helpful and many have legitimate concerns about giving the inheritance away too early when they face a user-pays old age. Some have more than the standard two children. Others could not afford to buy a house in the heady days of the 1970s. They missed out on the easy wealth that turned middle-class people into millionaires with no effort beyond ordering a kitchen renovation or buying a negatively geared investment property.

Housing prices have been driven sky-high by population growth, scarce land (nearly everyone wants to live in six cities), a failure to invest in public and community housing and government tax policy. The Productivity Commission has pointed to the failure to tax the capital gains on homes as a major factor.

Parents want to help their children. But this problem is too big for most parents to solve. It is an issue of massive unfairness, of market failure. Home ownership, long a great equaliser in Australia, is becoming a cause of wider divisions, across the generations. Government policies have exacerbated the inequities. It is up to government to get the priorities and settings right so Australia can continue to have high home-ownership rates.

Otherwise it will be the young displaying the bumper stickers - and they'll read FLEECED.
 

lopes

Squid
I have a question for the people who are taking the "Moral High Ground" in this thread.

How many of you have a family? How many have children I mean? And how many own property?
I have 2 children, 1 wife and 1 house.

On the subject of 'greater common good', I do not see the hefty increases in housing prices and longer working hours for BOTH parents just to pay for that housing (& HECS) etc as being for a greater common good.
(not to mention entering a war on false pretences, wedge politics at every turn etc etc...............)

We are already seeing the social effects of those long working hours by both parents, including weekends - road rage, unsupervised kids & youths - who even knows their neighbours any more ?

I'm not a big fan of the ALP, but they may be able to temper the worst effects of the unbalanced rampant capitalist/globalised/free market policies being pursued by the Libs.
 

Oddjob

Merry fucking Xmas to you assholes
As much as I hate to say it I'm with scblack. I'm voting for the Libs on the basis of their economic management. Before you all go off your heads I agree that their social policy leaves a lot to be desired, but I think when Costello takes the reins he will be a moderating influence as he is a little "l" liberal.

Now to debunk some of the crap thats been sprayed in this thread. The Government does not control monetary policy. I don't know how many times it has to be said, the RBA sets interest rates based on a underlying inflation target of 2-3%. What the Government does control is fiscal and microeconomic policy which influences inflation and what we have seen is a decade and a half of uninterrupted gowth, with historically low levels of inflation. This in turn has lead to historically low interest rates even with the recent increases.

Housing affordibility is a function of supply and demand. The supply of new housing is determined by urban planning and the release of land for development, both of which are outside the Federal Government's sphere of responsibility. On the other side of the coin, demand is determined by population growth, immigration, income growth, cost of finance. Income growth and the low cost of finance have fuelled the recent housing booms and the low affordability.

Anyway who the hell said you had to own a home? Australia is one of the few places in the world where freehold title exists and this has led to a slavish desire to own property. Once you take into the oppurtunity cost of financing a home its actually far more sensible to rent and use the money saved to invest in equities.

All of this crap about people being selfish is just that, crap. Unless you believe that higher standards of living do not make a population as a whole better off than I would suggest that you take the time to read the masses of economic writing and research on markets and uility, starting with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

The previous Labor Government deserve a lot of credit for our current run of economic growth but this current Government has continued the good work to their credit. National Competition Policy, Auslink, NWI, AAA, financial deregulation, Inflation targeting, even Workchoices and the GST have made a positive impact on the economy and will continue to do so into the future.

Health is a mess and this has as much to do with state governments as the federal Government. The same goes for education although the I think the reduction in funding to tertiary institutions is folly.
 
Top