Australia has a new government

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

In an unsurprising but still massive landslide of 24 seats (150 total in the house), the Australian Labor Party (ALP), basically equivalent to your Democratic party, has defeated the Liberal-National coalition, ending John Howard's 11 years as Prime Minister.

The election was won by Labor mainly because people wanted a change, and because they were pissed off by Work Choices, IR reform which handed too much power from employees to business.

Now that Labor have the reigns, I just hope they don't screw it up. The Australian economy has been booming for 4 years straight on the back of global economic growth, but with the US economy headed for recession, things could get ugly across the globe.

Interesting times.

PS My prediction - everything stays pretty much the same.

[tlongII]

Bad move by the Australian public imo.

[1369]

"Work Choices", "IR" reform?

What are those?

From what I remember and have researched, the unions have lost a lot of their influence. Could they be making a comeback?

[ashbeeigh]

And will this have an influence on the support of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan? I know Howard was a pretty big supporter of Australian troops in the area.


Not that this really has any effect on me, whatsoever...the only other thing I know about Australia is that one of my favorite movies/books is Looking for Alibrandi.

[T Park]

Nice job Australia.

I pray this country doesn't make the same mistake next November.

[Slydragon]

I was watching the history channel and it was a show on cash, I did not know Australia cash was plastic. they showed a quick clip of them and they look kinda hard to fold, do they tear or crack in a wallet?

[ashbeeigh]

I was watching the history channel and it was a show on cash, I did not know Australia cash was plastic. they showed a quick clip of them and they look kinda hard to fold, do they tear or crack in a wallet?

I heard from a friend that studied abroad that you can wash their money and it won't tear/rip/get ruined. I thought that was pretty bad ass. The toilets going backwards is still probably the freakiest of them all (even though it's probably a myth.)

[tlongII]

I heard from a friend that studied abroad that you can wash their money and it won't tear/rip/get ruined. I thought that was pretty bad ass. The toilets going backwards is still probably the freakiest of them all (even though it's probably a myth.)

It's not a myth. It is the southern hemisphere.

[ashbeeigh]

It's not a myth. It is the southern hemisphere.

For them it doesn't flush backwards. That was the point I was getting at.

[Gerryatrics]

And will this have an influence on the support of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan? I know Howard was a pretty big supporter of Australian troops in the area.

I believe Kevin Rudd has said he wants to pull Australia's combat troops out of Iraq, but possibly replace them with various, not-as-combaty(?) troops. No changes in Afghanistan that I know of.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

1369 - the IR reform basically amounted to reducing the 12 basic "award" conditions in employment contracts down to 4, thus allowing businesses to remove penalties, breaks and other conditions previously guaranteed to workers. It was necessary reform that went too far, cost people money that simply shifted to their employer's balance sheet, and that was why the Labor party won. The reform also largely emasculated unions, which are less powerful today than 20-30 years ago but still have an important role in protecting worker's rights and safety (only about 25% of people now belong to unions in Aust).

tlong - why?

T Park - I thought you were a died-in-the-wool Republican? We voted for the other side this time.

ashbeigh - As for troops, our combat contribution to Iraq is set to go but I think reconstruction aid will continue, as will a presence in Afghanistan.

And our money IS PLASTIC, extremely flexible and durable plastic, multicoloured like monopoly money so you always know which note you are handing over. Best note construction in the world:

http://www.thirteenmonths.com/picturepages/auA/auA49.htm

:tu

Your money makes better gangster rolls though!

:lmao

[some_user86]

1369 - the IR reform basically amounted to reducing the 12 basic "award" conditions in employment contracts down to 4, thus allowing businesses to remove penalties, breaks and other conditions previously guaranteed to workers. It was necessary reform that went too far, cost people money that simply shifted to their employer's balance sheet, and that was why the Labor party won. The reform also largely emasculated unions, which are less powerful today than 20-30 years ago but still have an important role in protecting worker's rights and safety (only about 25% of people now belong to unions in Aust).

tlong - why?

T Park - I thought you were a died-in-the-wool Republican? We voted for the other side this time.

ashbeigh - As for troops, our combat contribution to Iraq is set to go but I think reconstruction aid will continue, as will a presence in Afghanistan.

And our money IS PLASTIC, extremely flexible and durable plastic, multicoloured like monopoly money so you always know which note you are handing over. Best note construction in the world:

http://www.thirteenmonths.com/picturepages/auA/auA49.htm

:tu

Your money makes better gangster rolls though!

:lmao

That's just badass. That also makes it 10X harder to duplicate, so forgery rates must be pretty low over there.

The question is, since it's made of PP, does it shrink when heat is applied? :)

[tlongII]

1369 - the IR reform basically amounted to reducing the 12 basic "award" conditions in employment contracts down to 4, thus allowing businesses to remove penalties, breaks and other conditions previously guaranteed to workers. It was necessary reform that went too far, cost people money that simply shifted to their employer's balance sheet, and that was why the Labor party won. The reform also largely emasculated unions, which are less powerful today than 20-30 years ago but still have an important role in protecting worker's rights and safety (only about 25% of people now belong to unions in Aust).

tlong - why?

T Park - I thought you were a died-in-the-wool Republican? We voted for the other side this time.

ashbeigh - As for troops, our combat contribution to Iraq is set to go but I think reconstruction aid will continue, as will a presence in Afghanistan.

And our money IS PLASTIC, extremely flexible and durable plastic, multicoloured like monopoly money so you always know which note you are handing over. Best note construction in the world:

http://www.thirteenmonths.com/picturepages/auA/auA49.htm

:tu

Your money makes better gangster rolls though!

:lmao

Because you're heading down the same socialistic path that many European countries have already been on. It doesn't work.

[CubanMustGo]

As opposed to the "give big business everything it wants and bankrupt the country, both morally and fiscally" approach being tried here?

[Slomo]

Because you're heading down the same socialistic path that many European countries have already been on. It doesn't work.Could you please name a few so I can understand what you mean?

[xrayzebra]

1369 - the IR reform basically amounted to reducing the 12 basic "award" conditions in employment contracts down to 4, thus allowing businesses to remove penalties, breaks and other conditions previously guaranteed to workers. It was necessary reform that went too far, cost people money that simply shifted to their employer's balance sheet, and that was why the Labor party won. The reform also largely emasculated unions, which are less powerful today than 20-30 years ago but still have an important role in protecting worker's rights and safety (only about 25% of people now belong to unions in Aust).

tlong - why?

T Park - I thought you were a died-in-the-wool Republican? We voted for the other side this time.

ashbeigh - As for troops, our combat contribution to Iraq is set to go but I think reconstruction aid will continue, as will a presence in Afghanistan.

And our money IS PLASTIC, extremely flexible and durable plastic, multicoloured like monopoly money so you always know which note you are handing over. Best note construction in the world:

http://www.thirteenmonths.com/picturepages/auA/auA49.htm

:tu

Your money makes better gangster rolls though!

:lmao

Well I know one thing about your new PM you are
ecstatic about. He is real believer in the Global Warming
thingy and said he will sign the Kyoto accords
immediately.


Hooray for Hollywood and Al Gore. And of course you
RNR.........Congratulations on the new government.

[Walter Craparita]

I guess me moving to New Zealand once America turns to complete shit is becoming questionable.

[tlongII]

As opposed to the "give big business everything it wants and bankrupt the country, both morally and fiscally" approach being tried here?

Giving business perks is not bankrupting the government whatsoever here.

[tlongII]

Could you please name a few so I can understand what you mean?

Sweden

France

Norway


That's a start.

[TDMVPDPOY]

Hey Ruff

the only reason why i didnt vote for the liberals or the coalition 2 party:
John howard wasnt going to stay the full term,

Peter costello the australian public doesnt like him

the leadership challenge fiasco between the two, you gotto earn it, you cant expect to have the leadership handed to you

the way the liberals were handling the country was moving towards the american way, GST, IR LAWS, there involvement in the war on terror, immigration issues....there was many issues internally that was needed to be resolve and immediate attention.

and they were hell as arrogant

Reason why i chose RUDD:

we needed a change

he may not have the experience for the top job, but howard never had experience for the top job and he still got selected base on the libs policies and the economy was in the red domestically and internationally when labor was in govt....

PS: interest rates, the govt doesnt have much control over it, if you study economics, you know what i mean, there are measures in place thats needed to cool down/sustain the economic activity during peaks or booms....fiscal and monetary policys...

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Because you're heading down the same socialistic path that many European countries have already been on. It doesn't work.

Sorry tlong, but you don't have a clue if you think "socialists" could come to power in Australia. The Labor Party is not "socialist", they are more like New Labor under Blair in Britain - pretty much the same as the Liberal Party, but more willing to spend on things like health, education and environment. Oh, and we do have a social welfare network (under any government), and I'm glad because by in large it works well.

Politics across the world has been dominated by the right for the last decade, but the swing to the left started in South America a few years ago and is now spreading to the developed world, and a good thing too. Moderate "left" does not mean "socialist/communist", it means recognition of the fact that there is a triple bottom line - social, environmental and economic - not just $$$$.

Oh, and I didn't vote Labor, I voted Green. Looks like they will own the balance of power in the Senate, a good thing, since the Liberals have done some horrible stuff with power over both Houses of Parliament.

[TDMVPDPOY]

only reason why u voted greens, there was this hot chick on the ballot yeh :D:D:D

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Ah, no, I voted Greens because I want them to control the balance of power in the Senate and prevent the abuse of power we see when one of the big parties owns both houses. Unfortunately, it looks like the balance of power in the Senate will go to an independent and Family First... :oops

[marini martini]

Shouldn't this be in the Politic forum?????????????????

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Yeah, sorry, didn't even think about that because I don't go there any more, and this thread is more about information than political debate, but feel free to move it.

[T Park]

T Park - I thought you were a died-in-the-wool Republican? We voted for the other side this time

sarcasm my friend.

Very very very heavy sarcasm.

Im not a died in the wool republican.

Im a died in the wool conservative, who owns abusiness, and wants the government to leave my life alone.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Ah-ha. Sarcasm not always so obvious on the internet, but that's what I figured.

Without government there is no civilisation, but I'll agree to disagree with you as this isn't the political forum. And, yes, I do think to some extent the world is over-governed.

[xcoriate]

Well I voted labour.. few key reasons..

IR laws - gave way too much power to the employer, and even as someone who may someday own there own business I can't see them being fair. I completely agree the unions are a necessary balance.

Iraq - its all been said before

I liked Rudd > Howard > Costello

Finally, We needed change.

[tlongII]

Sorry tlong, but you don't have a clue if you think "socialists" could come to power in Australia. The Labor Party is not "socialist", they are more like New Labor under Blair in Britain - pretty much the same as the Liberal Party, but more willing to spend on things like health, education and environment. Oh, and we do have a social welfare network (under any government), and I'm glad because by in large it works well.

Politics across the world has been dominated by the right for the last decade, but the swing to the left started in South America a few years ago and is now spreading to the developed world, and a good thing too. Moderate "left" does not mean "socialist/communist", it means recognition of the fact that there is a triple bottom line - social, environmental and economic - not just $$$$.

Oh, and I didn't vote Labor, I voted Green. Looks like they will own the balance of power in the Senate, a good thing, since the Liberals have done some horrible stuff with power over both Houses of Parliament.


I don't mean socialist as in how it would have been defined in the former Soviet Union. I'm referring to socialistic tendencies in which the government assures the populace of free/cheap medical care and tries to guarantee everyone a minimum standard of living. It doesn't work.

[DarkReign]

I don't mean socialist as in how it would have been defined in the former Soviet Union. I'm referring to socialistic tendencies in which the government assures the populace of free/cheap medical care and tries to guarantee everyone a minimum standard of living. It doesn't work.

Every great civilization in human history provided free medical care to its citizens, or at least subsidized it to an affordable degree.

America is the first not to, and is currently the last.

[tlongII]

Every great civilization in human history provided free medical care to its citizens, or at least subsidized it to an affordable degree.

America is the first not to, and is currently the last.


Isn't it interesting that the medical care in America is the best in the world (by far!) then?

[DarkReign]

Isn't it interesting that the medical care in America is the best in the world (by far!) then?

Thats a true statement....

...for those that can afford it.

Thank God we're in the group that can, yeah?

[peewee's lovechild]

We will have a Democrat in the White House in about a year's time. So, I guess this is a preview of what to expect in American politics.

T-Park will start a neo-con revolution and will be shot by the National Gaurd.

All will end well.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I guess me moving to New Zealand once America turns to complete shit is becoming questionable.i hope you aren't fat
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article474252.ece

[Viva Las Espuelas]

but I'll agree to disagree with you as this isn't the political forum. that's rich

[DarkReign]

We will have a Democrat in the White House in about a year's time. So, I guess this is a preview of what to expect in American politics.

....God help us.

[xrayzebra]

Yeah, sorry, didn't even think about that because I don't go there any more, and this thread is more about information than political debate, but feel free to move it.

Well guess we can say RNR is not altogether truthful.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81815&page=2&pp=26

He just only post once a year, so he says, but lurks all the time.

[tlongII]

Thats a true statement....

...for those that can afford it.

Thank God we're in the group that can, yeah?

The problem with cheap medical care is that it's exactly that.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The problem with cheap medical care is that it's exactly that.Moore's monkeys fail to see that.

[peewee's lovechild]

The problem with cheap medical care is that it's exactly that.

Lasik surgery in the USA = $3,000 - $4,500
Lasik surgery in Mexico = $1,100

I could go on and on with how much more expensive everything is here, but I just don't have the time.

[xrayzebra]

The problem with cheap medical care is that it's exactly that.

I just know I would like Washington taking care of my
health care, you know like they handle most things.
Hey all the liberals want them to take care of health
care, well you know like they accuse FEMA of taking
care of NO. Now doesn't that make you feel better.

[tlongII]

Lasik surgery in the USA = $3,000 - $4,500
Lasik surgery in Mexico = $1,100

I could go on and on with how much more expensive everything is here, but I just don't have the time.

If you got shot and had a collapsed lung or something would you go to Mexico for surgery?

[peewee's lovechild]

If you got shot and had a collapsed lung or something would you go to Mexico for surgery?

If I got shot in Mexico, it's because I was doing something illegal and I derserve it.

Besides, there are plenty of hospitals in the U.S. that you wouldn't go to if you got shot and had a collapsed lung.

Check the inner city hospitals were people go "to die".

Anyway, Mexico has very good hopitals if you're willing to pay (still much cheaper than in the U.S.). All the major cities in Mexico have great hospitals.

[tlongII]

If I got shot in Mexico, it's because I was doing something illegal and I derserve it.

Besides, there are plenty of hospitals in the U.S. that you wouldn't go to if you got shot and had a collapsed lung.

Check the inner city hospitals were people go "to die".

Anyway, Mexico has very good hopitals if you're willing to pay (still much cheaper than in the U.S.). All the major cities in Mexico have great hospitals.


I seriously doubt that the top mexican hospitals are equivalent to the top american hospitals. I also believe that the "worst" american hospitals are far superior to the worst mexican hospitals or any other country's for that matter.

[peewee's lovechild]

I seriously doubt that the top mexican hospitals are equivalent to the top american hospitals. I also believe that the "worst" american hospitals are far superior to the worst mexican hospitals or any other country's for that matter.

I don't think anything compares to John's Hopkins or Sinai Medical, but not every American has access to them. You're talking about hospitals Americans can't afford to go to. So, big whoop if they're the best if the greater part of the country can't afford to go there.

My point, which you apparently missed, is that you can get very good and cheap medical care outside the U.S.

[xrayzebra]

If I got shot in Mexico, it's because I was doing something illegal and I derserve it.



Well glad to know we are dealing with a rational, intelligent
individual who knows what he is talking about......


:lol :lol

[Slomo]

Whottt

Of the 3 examples you gave

- Citizens of all 3 countries have a higher life expectancy than in the US.

- GDP growth is better in 2 of them while the 3rd one is close by.

- GDP per capita in Norway is actually higher than in the US (and as you probably know the US' is pretty damn high).

Source: CIA Factbook.

Why the hell did you have to name 2 succesful Scandinavian countries as examples when everybody who has ever been there knows they have one of the best social/medical systems in the world. And as someone who has lived 12 years in France (as a foreigner I might add) I can tell you their doctors and hospitals are pretty damn good.

Top medical institutions in the US are in did top notch (in some fields even the best in the world), but sadly the number of US citizens that can afford their services is getting smaller. And while the "free" medical care is not as plush or sophisticated as in the US private sector it is available to all and actually performs many procedures just as well without requiring second mortgages from those who need them.
If you're so rich that you just have to have the absolute best - well good for you and you can! There's plenty of private clinics in all of the European countries that will gladly take your money and offer top notch (compared to the best US institutions) services and luxury.

As a rich person you have the luxury of choice - in the US or in Europe. Middle class people don't. So why take away a decent affordable medical system as well?

[peewee's lovechild]

Well glad to know we are dealing with a rational, intelligent
individual who knows what he is talking about......


:lol :lol

I'm glad that such an intelligent individual as yourself thinks that the U.S. is immune to bad hospitals.

I bow to your intelligence.

[peewee's lovechild]

Whottt

Of the 3 examples you gave

- Citizens of all 3 countries have a higher life expectancy than in the US.

- GDP growth is better in 2 of them while the 3rd one is close by.

- GDP per capita in Norway is actually higher than in the US (and as you probably know the US' is pretty damn high).

Source: CIA Factbook.

Why the hell did you have to name 2 succesful Scandinavian countries as examples when everybody who has ever been there knows they have one of the best social/medical systems in the world. And as someone who has lived 12 years in France (as a foreigner I might add) I can tell you their doctors and hospitals are pretty damn good.

Top medical institutions in the US are in did top notch (in some fields even the best in the world), but sadly the number of US citizens that can afford their services is getting smaller. And while the "free" medical care is not as plush or sophisticated as in the US private sector it is available to all and actually performs many procedures just as well without requiring second mortgages from those who need them.
If you're so rich that you just have to have the absolute best - well good for you and you can! There's plenty of private clinics in all of the European countries that will gladly take your money and offer top notch (compared to the best US institutions) services and luxury.

As a rich person you have the luxury of choice - in the US or in Europe. Middle class people don't. So why take away a decent affordable medical system as well?

That's exactly right, Slomo. That's what they don't understand. The rich in the US can afford the best medical care and don't have a single complaint in the world. They can't understand what we, middle and lower classes, complain about.

We don't have the necessary means for good medical care, and I think the European model would help us have access to much better medical care.

[tlongII]

Whottt

Of the 3 examples you gave

- Citizens of all 3 countries have a higher life expectancy than in the US.

- GDP growth is better in 2 of them while the 3rd one is close by.

- GDP per capita in Norway is actually higher than in the US (and as you probably know the US' is pretty damn high).

Source: CIA Factbook.

Why the hell did you have to name 2 succesful Scandinavian countries as examples when everybody who has ever been there knows they have one of the best social/medical systems in the world. And as someone who has lived 12 years in France (as a foreigner I might add) I can tell you their doctors and hospitals are pretty damn good.

Top medical institutions in the US are in did top notch (in some fields even the best in the world), but sadly the number of US citizens that can afford their services is getting smaller. And while the "free" medical care is not as plush or sophisticated as in the US private sector it is available to all and actually performs many procedures just as well without requiring second mortgages from those who need them.
If you're so rich that you just have to have the absolute best - well good for you and you can! There's plenty of private clinics in all of the European countries that will gladly take your money and offer top notch (compared to the best US institutions) services and luxury.

As a rich person you have the luxury of choice - in the US or in Europe. Middle class people don't. So why take away a decent affordable medical system as well?

I'm sure you realize that the income tax rate of both Scandinavian countries mentioned is greater than 50%. You can't directly correlate life expectancy to quality of health care. The GDP of those countries will not continue to climb.

[Shelly]

Whottt

Of the 3 examples you gave

- Citizens of all 3 countries have a higher life expectancy than in the US.

- GDP growth is better in 2 of them while the 3rd one is close by.

- GDP per capita in Norway is actually higher than in the US (and as you probably know the US' is pretty damn high).

Source: CIA Factbook.

Why the hell did you have to name 2 succesful Scandinavian countries as examples when everybody who has ever been there knows they have one of the best social/medical systems in the world. And as someone who has lived 12 years in France (as a foreigner I might add) I can tell you their doctors and hospitals are pretty damn good.

Top medical institutions in the US are in did top notch (in some fields even the best in the world), but sadly the number of US citizens that can afford their services is getting smaller. And while the "free" medical care is not as plush or sophisticated as in the US private sector it is available to all and actually performs many procedures just as well without requiring second mortgages from those who need them.
If you're so rich that you just have to have the absolute best - well good for you and you can! There's plenty of private clinics in all of the European countries that will gladly take your money and offer top notch (compared to the best US institutions) services and luxury.

As a rich person you have the luxury of choice - in the US or in Europe. Middle class people don't. So why take away a decent affordable medical system as well?

Whottt????

[Slomo]

I'm sure you realize that the income tax rate of both Scandinavian countries mentioned is greater than 50%. You can't directly correlate life expectancy to quality of health care. The GDP of those countries will not continue to climb.It has and it will. This claim has been getting old for a long time now.

You do realize that the only person who has overtaken Bill Gates as the richest man alive in the past 5 years was a guy from Sweden? The economic growth of the whole region has been pretty good for a long time now.

You can however correlate life expectancy to quality of life (of which medical care is a pretty big part).

Yes, the taxes are high, nobody is disputing it. But as a system that has been put in place democratically it works just as well or sometimes better than the US system - that's all.

I know this notion scares the shit out of some people and I'm not saying you have to change yours - just don't make crazy claims how it's the only one that works.

[CuckingFunt]

Don't even fucking get me started on medical insurance and/or policies.

I am exactly the kind of person who all insurance companies would love -- a ridiculously healthy 20-something female in great shape who never goes to the hospital and would be willing to pay excessive fees for services I'd never use -- but haven't been able to get insurance on my own, ever, because I've got asthma. I've been treating my one medical condition for years with unhealthy over-the-counter medicines (my favorite of which is probably not too far from being banned completely because it's an aerosol) because no one will insure me. The whole thing is fucking insane.

And, without insurance, I pray that I continue to stay healthy. One accident/condition would bankrupt me.

[peewee's lovechild]

Don't even fucking get me started on medical insurance and/or policies.

I am exactly the kind of person who all insurance companies would love -- a ridiculously healthy 20-something female in great shape who never goes to the hospital and would be willing to pay excessive fees for services I'd never use -- but haven't been able to get insurance on my own, ever, because I've got asthma. I've been treating my one medical condition for years with unhealthy over-the-counter medicines (my favorite of which is probably not too far from being banned completely because it's an aerosol) because no one will insure me. The whole thing is fucking insane.

And, without insurance, I pray that I continue to stay healthy. One accident/condition would bankrupt me.

I've been bankrupted because of my ashthma. I've been doing good for the past few months, but now I have this bulging disk that requires surgery.

That's going to cost me about $4,000.

The medical field is a racket in this country.

[xrayzebra]

I'm glad that such an intelligent individual as yourself thinks that the U.S. is immune to bad hospitals.

I bow to your intelligence.

You were talking about getting shot in Mexico.......not
hospitals. Oh, forget it. I wished sometimes people
would read what they posted.

[peewee's lovechild]

You were talking about getting shot in Mexico.......not
hospitals. Oh, forget it. I wished sometimes people
would read what they posted.

And, I was just being sarcastic about your previous post.

Oh, forget it.

I wish sometimes people would read what they posted.

[tlongII]

It has and it will. This claim has been getting old for a long time now.

You do realize that the only person who has overtaken Bill Gates as the richest man alive in the past 5 years was a guy from Sweden? The economic growth of the whole region has been pretty good for a long time now.

You can however correlate life expectancy to quality of life (of which medical care is a pretty big part).

Yes, the taxes are high, nobody is disputing it. But as a system that has been put in place democratically it works just as well or sometimes better than the US system - that's all.

I know this notion scares the shit out of some people and I'm not saying you have to change yours - just don't make crazy claims how it's the only one that works.

Life expectancy is not greater there than in the US because of the medical care. I believe you know that.

GDP will not continue to grow at anywhere near their current rate in those countries either. I will try to remember to revisit this thread in 2 years time so I can say "I told you so!"

[Slomo]

Life expectancy is not greater there than in the US because of the medical care. I believe you know that.
You can however correlate life expectancy to quality of life (of which medical care is a pretty big part) As I said before not the only factor but a big part non the less.



GDP will not continue to grow at anywhere near their current rate in those countries either. I will try to remember to revisit this thread in 2 years time so I can say "I told you so!"We both stated opinions, we'll see in a few years. Just to clarify what my crystal ball is telling me in rgds to the future growth rate of the 3 examples:
France: You're probably right
Sweden: Possible, but will be at least in step with other strong economies (US, UK and similar).
Norway has the potential to pwn us all (oil industry).
The Scandinavian region should be doing quite well as a whole because of telecommunications and oil.

Of course if I was never wrong on this subjects I'd be giving my pal Bill Gates a run for his money instead of trying to win this argument against you :lol

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

tlong - I know you didn't mean "communist", and you are talking nonsense. Australia has had public health care, public tertiary education, and a very basic welfare safety net for about 30 years and we are getting it pretty right. Public health needs more money, but anyone can get a degree (you borrow the money from the govt. and pay back + inflation - ie. no cost loan), we have record low unemployment, very low government debt and have been running surpluses for years, and our economy has never been healthier. Obviously you despair for the cost of providing a safety net for the poor, but our economy is running beautifully and we don't have homeless people everywhere as I have experienced overseas (US, UK especially). I say again, we've had this safety net for 30 years, so what's failing again?

Also, tlong, the state of the Scandanavian economies you refer to, and the Australian economy, is largely dependent upon the strength of the "global" economy, which basically equates to American consumer demand. When you go into recession because of the financial market mismanagement that led to the credit bubble, that will reduce your demand for imports from the booming Chinese, which will reduce demand for primary products, which will hurt the world, etc. Most of the planet will be in recession soon after the US through no fault of those country's governments.

Slomo and DarkReign, thank you for speaking the truth and trying to set the neo-cons straight.

[tlongII]

tlong - I know you didn't mean "communist", and you are talking nonsense. Australia has had public health care, public tertiary education, and a very basic welfare safety net for about 30 years and we are getting it pretty right. Public health needs more money, but anyone can get a degree (you borrow the money from the govt. and pay back + inflation - ie. no cost loan), we have record low unemployment, very low government debt and have been running surpluses for years, and our economy has never been healthier. Obviously you despair for the cost of providing a safety net for the poor, but our economy is running beautifully and we don't have homeless people everywhere as I have experienced overseas (US, UK especially). I say again, we've had this safety net for 30 years, so what's failing again?

Also, tlong, the state of the Scandanavian economies you refer to, and the Australian economy, is largely dependent upon the strength of the "global" economy, which basically equates to American consumer demand. When you go into recession because of the financial market mismanagement that led to the credit bubble, that will reduce your demand for imports from the booming Chinese, which will reduce demand for primary products, which will hurt the world, etc. Most of the planet will be in recession soon after the US through no fault of those country's governments.

Slomo and DarkReign, thank you for speaking the truth and trying to set the neo-cons straight.

You also have a 47% income tax rate. Nice.

[peewee's lovechild]

....God help us.

It's funny because that's what people used to say about Bill Clinton becoming President. Eight years of prosperity is a good thing.

Those same people also claimed that Dubya was going to be some sort of savior. It's all very funny now.

[DarkReign]

It's funny because that's what people used to say about Bill Clinton becoming President. Eight years of prosperity is a good thing.

Those same people also claimed that Dubya was going to be some sort of savior. It's all very funny now.

Hillary would be nothing short of an economic and constitutional nightmare.

Whomever is the next President, regardless of political affiliation, is going to preside over the steepest American decline since the depression (maybe worse, we'll see).

It doesnt matter what financial policies you pass thru, or what band-aid bullshit the American people will swallow up as long as Dancing with the Stars continues to air.

The end of American hegemony isnt 50 years or even 20 years from now, its less than 10 (thats being conservative). This government cannot run continuously and endlessly keeping ths status quo, which is exactly what Bush/Clinton are.

The same tired names being dragged into the same tired arena preaching the same tired rhetoric. I mean, I understand Americans throughly enjoy the wonders of television syndication, but I had thought our tolerance for re-runs would be much less in the real world. Silly me.

If youre a Democrat, you better hope a Republican wins the election so you have someone to blame.
If youre a Republican, you better hope a Democrat wins so you have someone to blame.

If youre neither, then you just better hope because we have no one to blame but ourselves.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

You also have a 47% income tax rate. Nice.

Um, no. You should do your research.

$1 – $6,000 Nil
$6,001 – $30,000 - 15c for each $1 over $6,000
$30,001 – $75,000 - $3,600 plus 30c for each $1 over $30,000
$75,001 – $150,000 - $17,100 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000
$150,001 and over - $47,100 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000

So, if you earn up to $75K (ie. most of the population) your marginal rate is 30c.

And those earning over 150K can't afford a marginal (note, you pay about 30c on average up to 150K) tax rate of 45c? :rolleyes And we have no State taxes.

You should check out the Gini coefficient for America, 3rd highest in the developed world (Hong Kong and Singapore are higher):

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Gini-Coefficient.html

No wonder there are so many homeless people - the rich keep getting richer in relation to everyone else, and there's no safety net for those at the bottom to get them off the streets and put a meal in their stomach. I'll take our way of doing things, thanks.

[tlongII]

Um, no. You should do your research.

$1 – $6,000 Nil
$6,001 – $30,000 - 15c for each $1 over $6,000
$30,001 – $75,000 - $3,600 plus 30c for each $1 over $30,000
$75,001 – $150,000 - $17,100 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000
$150,001 and over - $47,100 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000

So, if you earn up to $75K (ie. most of the population) your marginal rate is 30c.

And those earning over 150K can't afford a marginal (note, you pay about 30c on average up to 150K) tax rate of 45c? :rolleyes And we have no State taxes.

You should check out the Gini coefficient for America, 3rd highest in the developed world (Hong Kong and Singapore are higher):

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Gini-Coefficient.html

No wonder there are so many homeless people - the rich keep getting richer in relation to everyone else, and there's no safety net for those at the bottom to get them off the streets and put a meal in their stomach. I'll take our way of doing things, thanks.

Interesting. I got my information from the following site...
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/

I guess when you spend nothing on defense it makes sense.

Social safety nets rob the populace of the incentive to excel. I'll take our way of doing things, thanks.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Interesting. I got my information from the following site...
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/

I guess when you spend nothing on defense it makes sense.

Social safety nets rob the populace of the incentive to excel. I'll take our way of doing things, thanks.

That is UTTER BULLSHIT! The dole, as we call it, is barely enough to live on and difficult to get - you have to fill in a job interview diary, etc. Being on the dole is no fun. Sure, if you overpaid people to do nothing they would, but it's not cushy, it's a SAFETY NET, enough to put a roof over your head and eat, not much more (about $200/wk). The vast majority of people do not want to live on the poverty line, so they work.

In fact, Australia is suffering capacity constraints in most sectors because we have record low unemployment - we can't get enough people. That blows your theory out of the water.

As for spending nothing on defence, where do you get that from? We have nearly 2000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we just bought $500mil of tanks we don't need from the US. We are also part of the joint strike fighter multinational conglomerate, and basically the policeman of the Pacific. We spent $16bil on defence last year, and will spend more next year:

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=54967

Nothing personal, but please just admit that you know nothing about my country and move on. You've been wrong about everything so far.

As for the tax info, I went to the Australian Tax Office site, why didn't you?

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/12333.htm&mnu=5053&mfp=001

[Jonah]

Pucking stupid idea miss

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Is that an MI21 or excoriate troll I see? Nah, of course it's TDMVPODTPMVP! :lmao

[TDMVPDPOY]

Is that an MI21 or excoriate troll I see? Nah, of course it's TDMVPODTPMVP! :lmao

WTF

man i just sign up for the dole a couple of days ago after graduating about 6 months ago, couldnt be fckd gettin out of house to go get welfare.....so im down to my last 140 bucks......was going to spend it on the spurs dvd package...now might need it for other stuff...

[tlongII]

That is UTTER BULLSHIT! The dole, as we call it, is barely enough to live on and difficult to get - you have to fill in a job interview diary, etc. Being on the dole is no fun. Sure, if you overpaid people to do nothing they would, but it's not cushy, it's a SAFETY NET, enough to put a roof over your head and eat, not much more (about $200/wk). The vast majority of people do not want to live on the poverty line, so they work.

In fact, Australia is suffering capacity constraints in most sectors because we have record low unemployment - we can't get enough people. That blows your theory out of the water.

As for spending nothing on defence, where do you get that from? We have nearly 2000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we just bought $500mil of tanks we don't need from the US. We are also part of the joint strike fighter multinational conglomerate, and basically the policeman of the Pacific. We spent $16bil on defence last year, and will spend more next year:

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=54967

Nothing personal, but please just admit that you know nothing about my country and move on. You've been wrong about everything so far.

As for the tax info, I went to the Australian Tax Office site, why didn't you?

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/12333.htm&mnu=5053&mfp=001


Horseshit. The GDP per capita of Australia is nearly 20% less than that of the USA. If you have the capacity constraints you have mentioned why do you think that is? It's because the incentive to excel doesn't exist there as it does here in the USA.

[peewee's lovechild]

U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A . . .

[DarkReign]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq2_YKQGE_U

[peewee's lovechild]

Captain America will kill every socialist, comunist, facist and terrorist in the world.

America is safe.

[peewee's lovechild]

That is, until he dies of a heart attack because he couldn't afford preventive health care.

[xrayzebra]

Whottt



Why the hell did you have to name 2 succesful Scandinavian countries as examples when everybody who has ever been there knows they have one of the best social/medical systems in the world. And as someone who has lived 12 years in France (as a foreigner I might add) I can tell you their doctors and hospitals are pretty damn good.


Di will be glad to know YOU got good medical care.
She had a small problem.

[xrayzebra]

tlong - I know you didn't mean "communist", and you are talking nonsense. Australia has had public health care, public tertiary education, and a very basic welfare safety net for about 30 years and we are getting it pretty right. Public health needs more money, but anyone can get a degree (you borrow the money from the govt. and pay back + inflation - ie. no cost loan), we have record low unemployment, very low government debt and have been running surpluses for years, and our economy has never been healthier. Obviously you despair for the cost of providing a safety net for the poor, but our economy is running beautifully and we don't have homeless people everywhere as I have experienced overseas (US, UK especially). I say again, we've had this safety net for 30 years, so what's failing again?

Also, tlong, the state of the Scandanavian economies you refer to, and the Australian economy, is largely dependent upon the strength of the "global" economy, which basically equates to American consumer demand. When you go into recession because of the financial market mismanagement that led to the credit bubble, that will reduce your demand for imports from the booming Chinese, which will reduce demand for primary products, which will hurt the world, etc. Most of the planet will be in recession soon after the US through no fault of those country's governments.

Slomo and DarkReign, thank you for speaking the truth and trying to set the neo-cons straight.

You say you have been running surpluses for years and
then say you have low government debt. What did I
miss?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

We had to drop full medical for our employees. The premiums were rising at an unbelievable rate(over 10% a year the last few years).

I'm guessing that one fifth of the US population is currently uninsured . That's a pretty big number that will continue to grow in the next few years. What do you expect when denying care takes priority over giving care? The best in the world means nothing when we can't even give basic care to the ones who need it the most.

[tlongII]

We had to drop full medical for our employees. The premiums were rising at an unbelievable rate(over 10% a year the last few years).

I'm guessing that one fifth of the US population is currently uninsured . That's a pretty big number that will continue to grow in the next few years. What do you expect when denying care takes priority over giving care? The best in the world means nothing when we can't even give basic care to the ones who need it the most.

I think you are confusing issues here. The issue you speak of is related to the medical insurance industry. I agree that the insurance industry in general needs to be revamped although to do so would also require a change in our legal system. I do NOT believe the government should be responsible for providing free medical care for all citizens.

[Clandestino]

I just love how people call it FREE healthcare. NOTHING is free.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Horseshit. The GDP per capita of Australia is nearly 20% less than that of the USA. If you have the capacity constraints you have mentioned why do you think that is? It's because the incentive to excel doesn't exist there as it does here in the USA.

:lmao

"No incentive to excel". You don't have a clue. Australia excels in everything we do - sports, science, food, wine, you name it. We also have the same economic incentives you do, namely a free market, and the vast majority of people strive to better their lives just as people do in America. But we care about those at the bottom of the ladder, so we provide a SAFETY NET for them so that they don't have to live on the streets like animals.

See, the difference here is that I've been to your country 4 times - how many times have you been here? We have all the same material wealth and opportunity for excellence that you do, but we show more concern for the fringes of society in recognising that the playing field of life is not even.

You seem to think Australia is a socialist nation - it is not. It's a democratic nation basically ruled by the free market with a welfare safety net.

And when I mentioned capacity constraints I was using economic jargon - what that means is that our economy is so hot now due to the mineral boom that we do not have enough engineers, nurses, doctors, accountants, plumbers, electricians and teachers, we simply don't have enough people in a global labour market. It has nothing to do with "incentive to excel" as you so boldly claim - the incentive to excel in Australians is so strong that they are flocking overseas for the big bucks and to excel even more!

Seriously, let it go. you keep playing yourself. Can't you accept that a country can have a successful free market system and a successful welfare safety net at the same time? We, and many other countries, have proven that you can.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Quite right, clandestino, it's not free, it's funded by taxpayers (ie. public healthcare, which is the phrase I've used all along).


I think you are confusing issues here. The issue you speak of is related to the medical insurance industry. I agree that the insurance industry in general needs to be revamped although to do so would also require a change in our legal system. I do NOT believe the government should be responsible for providing free medical care for all citizens.

What is the role of government then? It is not to fill the gaps left that are left by the market? Is it not to protect those least able to protect themselves within a society?

In your cruel world, who is being left out of the healthcare system - who is deserving and who is not? Well, as we clearly see in America, the rich are well catered for and the poor get screwed (60,000,000 Americans have no health coverage). Is that fair?

You seem to have a notion that all people are created equal, born with an equal chance of "succeeding" in life, but that is absurd. Life is unfair to many people for many different reasons, and that cannot be changed, but the very least that people deserve from their government is assistance with their health. It's called the SOCIAL CONTRACT.

[tlongII]

:lmao

"No incentive to excel". You don't have a clue. Australia excels in everything we do - sports, science, food, wine, you name it. We also have the same economic incentives you do, namely a free market, and the vast majority of people strive to better their lives just as people do in America. But we care about those at the bottom of the ladder, so we provide a SAFETY NET for them so that they don't have to live on the streets like animals.

See, the difference here is that I've been to your country 4 times - how many times have you been here? We have all the same material wealth and opportunity for excellence that you do, but we show more concern for the fringes of society in recognising that the playing field of life is not even.

You seem to think Australia is a socialist nation - it is not. It's a democratic nation basically ruled by the free market with a welfare safety net.

And when I mentioned capacity constraints I was using economic jargon - what that means is that our economy is so hot now due to the mineral boom that we do not have enough engineers, nurses, doctors, accountants, plumbers, electricians and teachers, we simply don't have enough people in a global labour market. It has nothing to do with "incentive to excel" as you so boldly claim - the incentive to excel in Australians is so strong that they are flocking overseas for the big bucks and to excel even more!

Seriously, let it go. you keep playing yourself. Can't you accept that a country can have a successful free market system and a successful welfare safety net at the same time? We, and many other countries, have proven that you can.


Dude, I have nothing against your country. In fact, I LOVE it. I spent a month there in '85 and had a great time. I realize that was a long time ago.

The interesting thing is that you didn't respond to my question. Why is your GDP per capita so much lower than the USA's? It is very much related to the socialistic tendencies of the government. Go on and ADMIT IT!

[DarkReign]

I just love how people call it FREE healthcare. NOTHING is free.

Nor is war, or infrastructure, or foreign policy deals, or foreign aid, or military contracts, or congressional pork spending, or (and this is the kicker) borrowing our own money at interest from a non-federal bank with no American oversight.

The list of things this country spends money on outside of our own borders could pay for healthcare for every American 3x over without raising the federal tax system.

BUT

In order for the federal government to continue to waste our tax money on other, far less important things, they'd have to raise taxes.

Which gets people's pannies in a bunch (rightfully so). When really, with some actual restraint on federal spending, we could cure ALL our domestic ills in less than year. We are the only nation in the world capable of doing that, and yet we dont.

...i wonder why... :rolleyes

[peewee's lovechild]

We are the only nation in the world capable of doing that, and yet we dont.


That is a sad fact.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Dude, I have nothing against your country. In fact, I LOVE it. I spent a month there in '85 and had a great time. I realize that was a long time ago.

The interesting thing is that you didn't respond to my question. Why is your GDP per capita so much lower than the USA's? It is very much related to the socialistic tendencies of the government. Go on and ADMIT IT!

I didn't say you have anything against my country, but you have shown that you know very little about it and I think your anti-welfare mindset blinds you from the fact that, done properly, a welfare safety net can work and makes sense for the entire society as it protects the poor from even worse privation.

Also, we have had a conservative government for the past 11 years, so you are wrong about the "socialistic tendencies" of Australian governments. Both sides of Australian politics recognise the value of publically funded health, education, and a welfare safety net. Also, the incoming Labor government is dominated by the right of the party and their policies are essentially moderate conservative.

Our GDP is lower than the US's because Australia has almost no secondary industry - we have an economy based on primary products (coal, iron, bauxite, wood, etc) - whereas the US has extensive secondary industry and thus value added products. The US is also by far the largest and most technologically advanced economy in the world, and has 300mil people for economies of scale, so I am not surprised that US GDP/capita is the highest in the world. However, GDP does not reliably mirror living standards once the basics are taken care of. Australian living standards are at least as good as those in any country I've been to (including US, UK, Japan, France, Germany, etc), and better than most.

Having a welfare safety net has nothing to do with GDP. Your idea that a basic safety net removes the will to excel and thus reduces GDP is absurd. Scott, where are you? Please explain simply why these are separate issues.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Nor is war, or infrastructure, or foreign policy deals, or foreign aid, or military contracts, or congressional pork spending, or (and this is the kicker) borrowing our own money at interest from a non-federal bank with no American oversight.

The list of things this country spends money on outside of our own borders could pay for healthcare for every American 3x over without raising the federal tax system.

BUT

In order for the federal government to continue to waste our tax money on other, far less important things, they'd have to raise taxes.

Which gets people's pannies in a bunch (rightfully so). When really, with some actual restraint on federal spending, we could cure ALL our domestic ills in less than year. We are the only nation in the world capable of doing that, and yet we dont.

...i wonder why... :rolleyes

Oil wars are expensive. Iraq has cost $473bil* to this point - imagine if that had been applied to domestic issues like weaning the US economy off cheap foreign oil, healthcare, education, etc.

* http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html