So, the Australian election.

[AThousandLies]

I know I'm not the only Aussie here, nor the only person who's interested in politics. What are everyone's thoughts on the outcome of this election?

 

 

 

Given that I'm not of voting age I obviously don't have much of a say, nor have I invested a great deal of time in deciding whether to support Rudd or Howard.

 

 

 

I initially thought given the polls Rudd was a shoe-in, but the same thing has happened before with Beazley and Mark [bleep]alot -- err, sorry, Latham. The same deal happened with the Worm (which I am so sick of hearing about by now). But now that there's this interest rate rise, which is apparently the first to ever happen during an election campaign ... that could very well seal the deal. Thoughts? Who do you think you'll vote for?

[IGoddessI]

Rudd because he is more environmentally friendly and he puts more money in my pocket too.

[warri0r45]

They haven't been talking nearly enough about water. I'm not sure yet who to vote for.

[Guest]

I think the time may be up for Howard unfortunately. I just see Rudd as terribly fake individual who pulls the right strings to get the voters on side, but seems to me to be a squeamish fake guy.

 

 

 

Neither do I think that Labour would be able to manage an economy with such an inexperienced team (compared to Liberal that is).

 

 

 

And I couldn't imagine how bad it would be for small businesses if Rudd gets elected with so many of his team being previous Union officials. If anything that would cause problems to our economy.

 

 

 

Who knows though which way it will go, I think it will be an incredibly tight contest up to the end of counting votes.

 

 

 

 

 

*Waits for Rick's left wing views* :

[samurai_lassie]

Howard and rudd, no difference they are the same.

[nine naked men]

Howard and rudd, no difference they are the same.

 

 

 

Personally, if I were old enough, I'd vote for the lesser of two evils. It's highly likely that no matter which PM we get, they'll be a jerk. So, Rudd, I suppose. At least he has more hair on top of his head than he does on his eyebrows.

[Spazbot]

Howard all the way...Rudd's a tosser. He just copies everything Howard does and also he looks like a turtle.

[____]

*Waits for Rick's left wing views* :

You once told me not to [bleep] so much, so I have no comment on this election. But I'd say you have a pretty damn good idea of what I think of the current situation.

[jemathonical]

I'm sick of all the ads and scare campaigns these two guys are doing. They seem too busy in putting the other bloke down than actually running the country.

 

 

 

Rudd will win.

[warri0r45]

I'm sick of all the ads and scare campaigns these two guys are doing. They seem too busy in putting the other bloke down than actually running the country.

 

 

 

Rudd will win.

 

 

 

If I were to vote purely on ads I'd vote Rudd. I don't think I've seen one positive ad from Howard with no mention of Labor or which wasn't a retort of some other Labor ad. Although I don't like the smugness of Rudd's ads, at least he participates in some positive policy proclaiming rather than straight out degradation of the opposition.

[arizark]

only reason i like Rudd at the moment is because he wants a faster broadband network for Australia :XD: all that effects me currently

[DragonFirenze]

I'll vote for whoever has plans for reducing climate change. Howard lost it for me when he refused to sign Kyoto.

[Death_By_Pod]

Both major candidates are turds to be quite frank. I'll probably just invalidate my vote as usual, or I might feel generous and give a comedy vote to the liberty and democracy party :lol:

[meol]

I'll vote for whoever has plans for reducing climate change. Howard lost it for me when he refused to sign Kyoto.

 

I wouldn't be scared to bet a large sum of money that there is a "Green Australian Party" of some kind there, would you vote for them?

[Necromagus]

So where do the major candidates stand on the new standards of Knifey-spooney?

[DragonFirenze]

I'll vote for whoever has plans for reducing climate change. Howard lost it for me when he refused to sign Kyoto.

 

I wouldn't be scared to bet a large sum of money that there is a "Green Australian Party" of some kind there, would you vote for them?

 

 

 

I think you're referring to the party that plan to legalize cannabis, not implement effecting climate change measures. I also meant out of Labour and Liberal (which I thought was the basis of the discussion :? )

[Obsessive_Passion]

Politics and economics intertwined. I'm definitely up for this. :D I'm voting for Kevin Rudd for the lower house. In the Senate, I'm going the Greens. This country needs a change of government. On a two-party-preferred basis, let's break this down.

 

 

 

The Coalition boasts experience. What about when they first took over from Labor? Were they not inexperienced then?

 

 

 

The Coalition boasts excellent economic management. In fact, the PM does little. It's the bureaucrats who make most of the decisions. Ok, 16 years of sustained economic growth. Sure. Thanks to who? The PM? No. The resources boom and China. Ok, strong economic growth. Unemployment is at its lowest. What about hidden unemployment - those who do not fit the ABS' definition of "unemployment", and therefore are not counted in the unemployment rate? And structural unemployment? Shortage of skilled labour?

 

 

 

What about external stability, the problem of the current account deficit? Yes, I'm sure you've all heard problems with Australia's "CAD". It can affect international competitiveness and increase currency volatility. Environmental management? What about Australia's unequal distribution of income? Indeed, the only economic objectives the government seems to have successfully achieved are economic growth and price stability (i.e. low inflation).

 

 

 

Now, onto the Coalition's smear and fear campaigns. I'm sick of them. 70% of ALP members were ex-union officials. It's officially embedded in my memory now. However... Surely some of the Coalition's party members were members in a union before? Surely?

 

 

 

Onto Kevin Rudd's "me too-ism". I don't blame him. Let's look at the first week of the election campaign. Yes, big tax breaks by the Coalition on the first day. Tax breaks are one of the ways to win votes. What else could Labor have done? Increase tax rates? Tighten fiscal policy?

 

 

 

Peter Garrett. And his little gaff. I blame Steve Price (2UE) for inflating the problem. Totally.

 

 

 

But now that there's this interest rate rise, which is apparently the first to ever happen during an election campaign ... that could very well seal the deal.

 

Personally, the interest rate rise was necessary. Ok, yes, it proved the RBA operates independently from the government, which is good. It's operating as it should be. But it was necessary because inflation was getting out of hand. Sure, CPI Inflation is at 1.9%, which is well between the RBA's inflationary target of 2-3%. However, it's a false indicator. Underlying core inflation was well above that figure, nearing the borderline of 3% as a result of some one-off health care changes, I think?

 

 

 

Ok, 6 interest rate rises since the last election. Howard promised to "keep interest rates low." He made a promise, and broke it. Now, one can argue that since the RBA acts independently from the government, party leaders should refrain from making such promises due to their limited influence on monetary policy. If so, why make the promise? Simply, to win votes.

 

 

 

Most people don't understand the whole "interest rates" thing. Many think that a rise is bad. Sure, it is - theoretically, the AUD would appreciate, deterioration of Australia's terms of trade index, worsening of CAD, etc. However, what's worse? Paying more on your mortgage or seeing inflation raise all prices?

 

 

 

Edited to add: I thought I'd put in a quick word on labour market reforms, since there was a frankly lame essay question on it in the HSC Economics paper on Tuesday.

 

 

 

Put simply, the changes made to the Workplace Relations Act (i.e. essentially, "WorkChoices") can be deemed as anti-union. You've seen the ACTU's protests. You've heard the complaints from workers. Industrial conflict only during the enterprise bargaining period. Let's look at a business - Qantas. Look at the number of disputes they've had recently over their decision to move workers (and pilots) onto AWAs. Lots of lost productivity there, I should think.

[AThousandLies]

Politics and economics intertwined. I'm definitely up for this. :D I'm voting for Kevin Rudd for the lower house. In the Senate, I'm going the Greens. This country needs a change of government. On a two-party-preferred basis, let's break this down.

 

 

 

The Coalition boasts experience. What about when they first took over from Labor? Were they not inexperienced then?

 

 

 

Fair point, but Howard did have a decent amount of experience as Treasurer - it seems as though he was adequately prepared in his first term.

 

 

 

The Coalition boasts excellent economic management. In fact, the PM does little. It's the bureaucrats who make most of the decisions. Ok, 16 years of sustained economic growth. Sure. Thanks to who? The PM? No. The resources boom and China. Ok, strong economic growth. Unemployment is at its lowest. What about hidden unemployment - those who do not fit the ABS' definition of "unemployment", and therefore are not counted in the unemployment rate? And structural unemployment? Shortage of skilled labour?

 

 

 

The resources boom isn't the only thing that's aided us - Microeconomic Reform has been quite beneficial in increasing Australia's efficiency. Our output per worker (and another figure which escapes me) was higher than the OECD average between 1990 and 1999, and higher than that of the US, UK, Germany and France. Hidden unemployment will always exist, but the government does appear to have done well in lowering the unemployment rate according to the ABS.

 

 

 

What about external stability, the problem of the current account deficit? Yes, I'm sure you've all heard problems with Australia's "CAD". It can affect international competitiveness and increase currency volatility. Environmental management? What about Australia's unequal distribution of income? Indeed, the only economic objectives the government seems to have successfully achieved are economic growth and price stability (i.e. low inflation).

 

 

 

While the size of the CAD is large and can have negative impacts, it doesn't appear to have affected us a great deal. A lot of that is from the Balance on Goods & Services, and that's partly due to our high propensity to import. External viability is a goal that needs to be managed, but I don't think it's a huge problem to us at this present point in time.

 

 

 

Now, onto the Coalition's smear and fear campaigns. I'm sick of them. 70% of ALP members were ex-union officials. It's officially embedded in my memory now. However... Surely some of the Coalition's party members were members in a union before? Surely?

 

 

 

I admit that the scare campaigns on either side piss me off, and in particular the ones done by the Howard government, which I see far more often, but the unionists and former unionists in the ALP could mean increased union control, and higher unemployment as a result of them demanding above-equilibrium wages.

 

 

 

But now that there's this interest rate rise, which is apparently the first to ever happen during an election campaign ... that could very well seal the deal.

 

Personally, the interest rate rise was necessary. Ok, yes, it proved the RBA operates independently from the government, which is good. It's operating as it should be. But it was necessary because inflation was getting out of hand. Sure, CPI Inflation is at 1.9%, which is well between the RBA's inflationary target of 2-3%. However, it's a false indicator. Underlying core inflation was well above that figure, nearing the borderline of 3% as a result of some one-off health care changes, I think?

 

 

 

Oh, I wasn't saying that the interest rate rise was a bad thing. I think it was necessary, and it's good to see that the RBA is doing their job independant from the government. I was just saying that I think that's more or less the nail in the coffin for Howard, and you can bet your bottom dollar Rudd's going to use that to his advantage. He must be ecstatic.

[____]

I admit that the scare campaigns on either side piss me off, and in particular the ones done by the Howard government, which I see far more often, but the unionists and former unionists in the ALP could mean increased union control, and higher unemployment as a result of them demanding above-equilibrium wages.

 

 

 

It's rare to get unions demanding above-equilibrium wage, most of the time it's a slight push to stay just far above the cost of living to be able to have part of your annual wage (or hourly rate) not going to required goods and services. The problem is when industry knows this but refuses to budge.

[antonwhy]

Would you vote for this man?

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXaV2tU0gIU

 

 

 

- Needless to say I'm voting for Rudd, by the way has nothing to do with that video :P

[Dystopia]

For the simple answer, there is no way that I could possibly vote for Rudd. He is too much of a politician. Of course the vacant faces, and flaming comments should line up after I produced something that seems so idiotic, but I just detest him. The way he doesn't stand firm for anything. I wouldn't put him past selling his own mother if it will reflect well in the polls.

 

 

 

Does that mean I'll go for Howard?

 

 

 

Lets face it, he has been solid. Not amazing, but better then anything the opposition has put forth in my memory. I'm only a year over voting age, so that doesn't involve too many examples. Yet there is nothing he has provided us with that is overly enticing. Only the fact that he is not Rudd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But now that there's this interest rate rise, which is apparently the first to ever happen during an election campaign ... that could very well seal the deal.

 

Personally, the interest rate rise was necessary. Ok, yes, it proved the RBA operates independently from the government, which is good. It's operating as it should be. But it was necessary because inflation was getting out of hand. Sure, CPI Inflation is at 1.9%, which is well between the RBA's inflationary target of 2-3%. However, it's a false indicator. Underlying core inflation was well above that figure, nearing the borderline of 3% as a result of some one-off health care changes, I think?

 

 

 

Ok, 6 interest rate rises since the last election. Howard promised to "keep interest rates low." He made a promise, and broke it. Now, one can argue that since the RBA acts independently from the government, party leaders should refrain from making such promises due to their limited influence on monetary policy. If so, why make the promise? Simply, to win votes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It makes you wonder about the apparent politically unattached nature of the RBA. There is no way that the rise could not have a direct effect on the election. As far as the promise, Howard was incredibly short sighted to have made it. He doesn't have the authority to make promises like that. But hey, he is still only a politician I guess.

 

 

 

As far as the rise, I think its necessary. Too many people are just buying anything they want now. It may not so much be the new house, but the two cars and entertainment super system. You see adds on the television, about 18th months interest free, so on so forth, so why not deck out the lounge room with a sofa set and a flat screen tv. Then in 18 months time people still haven't paid the money and the interest is up even higher. People need to smarten the heck up.

 

 

 

But this of course increase the problem of the homeless, which is a lot higher then I expected in this country. We are overpopulating cities far too much, and then there are service problems. WAH, this is getting too far away from the election and I need to go study statics and dynamics.

 

 

 

Quite frankly I'm interested in politics for the few weeks before an election. After that I really don't have too much time for it. There are so many other things in the world that actually capture my interest that giving up time for the bull excrement that is politics is reserved for when I have a chance to do something about it.

[____]

Lets face it, he has been solid.

The only thing Howard has been solid with is promising the things which win votes, then doing what would've lost them after he's back in office.

[Zonorhc]

I love it how the Coalition ads make it out like people should be afraid of the union bosses as though they were all Hitler reborn.

 

 

 

However, I'm a little apprehensive about a federal Labour government when every state government is also Labour. It just doesn't seem right.

[Obsessive_Passion]

The resources boom isn't the only thing that's aided us - Microeconomic Reform has been quite beneficial in increasing Australia's efficiency. Our output per worker (and another figure which escapes me) was higher than the OECD average between 1990 and 1999, and higher than that of the US, UK, Germany and France. Hidden unemployment will always exist, but the government does appear to have done well in lowering the unemployment rate according to the ABS.

 

 

 

Statstics released by the ABS yesterday revealed unemployment rose in the month of October to 4.3%. Not sure about the NAIRU; apart from the target set between 5 and 6%, does anyone have current stats on it?

 

 

 

While the size of the CAD is large and can have negative impacts, it doesn't appear to have affected us a great deal. A lot of that is from the Balance on Goods & Services, and that's partly due to our high propensity to import. External viability is a goal that needs to be managed, but I don't think it's a huge problem to us at this present point in time.

 

 

 

Well, a poor TOT is a CAD-related problem, no? Anyway, it's a constraint on economic growth potential. Well, bringing business into this, it affects Australia's credit ratings; decrease in foreign investors' confidence. Downgrading will make future borrowings more costly. Though I suppose the valuation effect as a result of the AUD's appreciation will counter-act that. Maybe. Also: forces government to implement contractionary eco policy. MP tightened 6 times, while FP continues to be loosened, hmm... Conflict here?

 

 

 

Aside: what effect does a conflict in FP and MP have on the economy? It's just interesting that FP = loosened and MP = tightened; does it limit effectiveness? Gah. Too many essay questions.

 

 

 

I admit that the scare campaigns on either side piss me off, and in particular the ones done by the Howard government, which I see far more often, but the unionists and former unionists in the ALP could mean increased union control, and higher unemployment as a result of them demanding above-equilibrium wages.

 

 

 

Unemployment? Hmm, ok. How about a wage-price inflationary spiral? Eep.

 

 

 

Oh, I wasn't saying that the interest rate rise was a bad thing. I think it was necessary, and it's good to see that the RBA is doing their job independant from the government. I was just saying that I think that's more or less the nail in the coffin for Howard, and you can bet your bottom dollar Rudd's going to use that to his advantage. He must be ecstatic.

 

 

 

Indeed, Morgan poll released today revealed two-point drop for the Coalition. Hm, yipee?

 

 

 

:-s Right, on another note - so you're not of voting age, yet you're just as knowledgeable as me on economic issues. Are you doing your WACE this year?

[AThousandLies]

The resources boom isn't the only thing that's aided us - Microeconomic Reform has been quite beneficial in increasing Australia's efficiency. Our output per worker (and another figure which escapes me) was higher than the OECD average between 1990 and 1999, and higher than that of the US, UK, Germany and France. Hidden unemployment will always exist, but the government does appear to have done well in lowering the unemployment rate according to the ABS.

 

 

 

Statstics released by the ABS yesterday revealed unemployment rose in the month of October to 4.3%. Not sure about the NAIRU; apart from the target set between 5 and 6%, does anyone have current stats on it?

 

 

 

Yeah, but note that that raise is using the seasonally adjusted figures. According to the non-seasonal trend, unemployment has remained at 4.3% between September and October.

 

 

 

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/6202.0

 

 

 

While the size of the CAD is large and can have negative impacts, it doesn't appear to have affected us a great deal. A lot of that is from the Balance on Goods & Services, and that's partly due to our high propensity to import. External viability is a goal that needs to be managed, but I don't think it's a huge problem to us at this present point in time.

 

 

 

Well, a poor TOT is a CAD-related problem, no? Anyway, it's a constraint on economic growth potential. Well, bringing business into this, it affects Australia's credit ratings; decrease in foreign investors' confidence. Downgrading will make future borrowings more costly. Though I suppose the valuation effect as a result of the AUD's appreciation will counter-act that. Maybe. Also: forces government to implement contractionary eco policy. MP tightened 6 times, while FP continues to be loosened, hmm... Conflict here?

 

 

 

A poor TOT is a CAD-related problem, but given that our TOT is so strong at present (120+ or something?) I don't think it's a major issue at the moment. It does decrease foreign investor's confidence, but to be honest, we don't need to increase our investment at this point in time - that would just further fuel expenditure (given multiplier effect) and would probably increase inflation, which wouldn't be too good.

 

 

 

You bring up a good point that I failed to recognise about the government's current policy, with the conflicting policies. Fiscal policy less effective when not part of an overall policy plan, and the tax cuts they've been applying have gone against those economic objectives, and perhaps even prompted the need for MP to be raised once again. Silly government.

 

 

 

Aside: what effect does a conflict in FP and MP have on the economy? It's just interesting that FP = loosened and MP = tightened; does it limit effectiveness? Gah. Too many essay questions.

 

 

 

It does limit effectiveness. I can't be bothered with the essay explanation - done enough of that.

 

 

 

I admit that the scare campaigns on either side piss me off, and in particular the ones done by the Howard government, which I see far more often, but the unionists and former unionists in the ALP could mean increased union control, and higher unemployment as a result of them demanding above-equilibrium wages.

 

 

 

Unemployment? Hmm, ok. How about a wage-price inflationary spiral? Eep.

 

 

 

Yeah, that's another potential problem we face, but even if the ALP does mismanage things, I think either government has the capacity to avoid a bad wage-price spiral like we've had before (when wages were adjusted in line with the CPI).

 

 

 

:-s Right, on another note - so you're not of voting age, yet you're just as knowledgeable as me on economic issues. Are you doing your WACE this year?

 

 

 

Just finished doing TEE Economics here in W.A.. It feels strange to actually be able to apply knowledge learnt in highschool to an actual conversation!