HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:56:30 GMT
Distribution: aus

in article <3252@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU>, jcollier@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier) says:
> A lot of the economic problems in Victoria are a result of incautious
> deregulation, just as they are in the US and Britain. I have also seen 
> it happen in British Columbia and Alberta where I used to live.

I must agree.  I've just returned from a business trip to the UK, whose
economy appears even more stuffed than ours from my experience there.

Their unemployment is still going up (they don't give it as a percentage, and
they 'seasonally adjust' it, but as near as I could work out it was over 11%),
their interest rates are about 3 to 4% higher than ours, their inflation is 4
to 5%, and they run a trade deficit on goods and services (we run a surplus).
Their social safety nets don't appear to be as nearly as good as ours.

Britain doesn't have tax breaks for R&D like we do.  There is no Government
science policy.  They don't have accelerated plant and equipment depreciation.
I saw little evidence of an agressive export psyche, as we are building here.

Australia isn't a utopia, but it was eye opening to see that a lot of what we
do appears to be so much better than what other countries do (despite our
almost universal cultural cringe that every other country in the world is
doing better than ours).

Britain is still sliding deeper into recession - Australia is slowly coming
out.  Britain has to now cope with a markedly devalued pound at the depth of
a recession.  Australia adjusted to the realities of a floating exchange rate
years ago.

All this goes to prove that adoption of rationalist economic policies, a GST
(or VAT as its called in England) and a Conservative Government don't prevent
recessions, bankruptcies and unemployment.  England's had a Conservative
Government, rationalist policies and a VAT for the past 11 years, and they're
in a worse state than we are.

So blaming Labor for all of our economic ills is stupidity.  Other countries
have fared worse with politicians of exactly the opposite colour.

The most amusing thing about my stay over in the UK was that the opposition
(Labour) is saying exactly the same things about the Government over there
that the Liberals are saying about the Government here!!!

Indeed we can learn a lot from the reality and experiences of other countries.
The fact is, regardless of who was in power in Australia over the past 10
years, there is little that anyone could have done to have averted what is a
global phenomenon.  We can only hope to minimise the impact.
-- 
Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | What does
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | your
Services R&D   |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-3299   | company
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | export?
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Subject: Re: GST - Bloody Stupid
Reply-To: yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:16:17 GMT

In article <chris.717926721@suite.sw.oz.au: chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
:In <1992Sep29.234035.27782@cs.su.oz.au: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
:
::In article <chris.717723968@suite.sw.oz.au: chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
:[ stuff about increased taxation ]
:::Religious Approach 1: Everyone knows that if you tax the rich they lose
:::incentive and you get a recession. That means we'll have to tax the poor.
:::
:::Religious Approach 2: The richer you are the more you can afford to pay,
:::and the more you are likely to consume. Make the new tax progressive.
::
::It is, if you consume more you pay more.
::
:::Practical Approach: New taxes are political suicide. If we must do it, wait
:::until after the election when you have 3 years to face the voters again, and
:::when they've most likely forgotten who did it.
:::
:::Which of these approaches is better?
::
::RA2 degenerates to RA1 doesn't it??? If you make the tax progressive,
::the rich will be taxed more, therefore loss of incentive and by your
::analysis, recession.
:
:I think I'll rest my case here. I think that RA1 & RA2 are diametrically
:opposed. Is Ray's the kind of upside down thinking that characterises
:a lot of the debate in the media (including this newsgroup).

At the beginning point, the two schemes start at different positions,
but we aren't talking about the beginning of time are we Chris????
At some point in time RA2 will lead to loss of incentive (and more likely
the loss of the ability to accumulate capital), so the ability to
tax the "rich" is gone. Is Chris's "the rich are an endless goldmine"
thinking the sort that characterises debate in the left wing community,
the uninformed media and aspects of this group? 
What are the "rich", oh, they are the ones that pay the highest marginal
rate, i.e. anyone with an income 10% greater than the average????
The politics of envy is so easy, if any problems crop up, just tax the
rich, simple, problem fixed, of course wealth creation is a much harder
problem, one that isn't solved with a tax the rich mentality, and one
that can bring a much more rewarding, self-sustaining and equitable
improvement to the lives of the poor.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: gantony@metz.une.edu.au (George Antony)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Date: 5 Oct 92 05:23:30 GMT
Reply-To: gantony@metz.une.edu.au
Distribution: aus
Originator: gantony@metz.une.edu.au

From article <3268@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU>, by jcollier@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier):
> In <1992Oct1.003054.4992@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
> 
>>This Labor government has put this state into huge debt AT THE SAME
>>TIME as selling off huge amounts of govt assets (I'm not against
>>the latter per se but it just magnifies how much money
>>the govt has squandered). I and my children will suffer the 
>>"fallout" of this stupidity for quite a while. While you have to work hard
>>to mask Jeff Kennet and Pescott et al look good - this govt has finally
>>achieved that goal. 
> 
> Yes, and experience elsewhere shows that a more conservative
> government will continue the same policies with even greater
> alacrity. 

Wow, with this kind of infallible foresight you would be much better
off playing the stock market or speculating in foreign exchange.

> The same sort of "stupidity" was performed at roughly the same
> time (a bit earlier actually) in the US and, as I said, in
> Alberta and British Columbia. The debts and costs were of the same
> order of magnitude in all cases. An even bigger disaster is looming
> in the US as a result of Reaganomics driven de-regulation 
> of banking. Presumably this sort of disaster is perceived to benefit
> those who are supporting deregulation and economic rationalism.

Which is why it is political primitivism to look no further than the 
claimed colours of a party or a government.  For all its arch-conservative
rhetoric and its stand on social issues such as abortion, the Reagan and
Bush governments were typically socialist in their economic policies:
pamper special interest groups with borrowed money and run the economy
into the ground.  This had nothing to do with deregulation or rationalism,
economic or plain.  Meanwhile, nominally socialist governments in France
and Spain have been following policies very similar to those advocated by
Hewson & Co.  Or did I hear someone mention Queensland ? 

If Kennett can force himself to put an end to Victorian socialism, his
past sins and unpleasant personality may be at least partly forgiven, and 
future generations of Victorians may have a chance. 
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 George Antony    (gantony@metz.une.edu.au)
 Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management
 University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W. 2351, Australia
 Fax: (+61-67) 711531     Phone: (+61-67) 733222 (GMT +10 hrs)
 -------------------------------------------------------------
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:40:19 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Monash University

In article <1992Oct5.065443.3804@mel.dit.csiro.au> ajw@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh) writes:
>In article <miw.718260312@cc.uq.oz.au> miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
>>ajw@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh) writes:
>>
>>>Victorian governments have always financed assets from borrowings.
>>Yes, but public dept as a percentage of the economy is incredibly high
>>in Victoria.
>
>I quite deliberately avoided arguing about this point as it confuses the
>issue. I was attempting to point out to Dave Suter that states will always
>have public debt and that there are very good historical and political
>reasons for this. Once this point is agreed with, we could then have started
>to debate the proper level of the debt, how it should be measured and
>what it was to be compared with.
Well I don't think this needed to be pointed out to me thank you
very much. (IF you had read carefully my original posting  you
would have found that I was
complaining that the LEVEL of debt was so high that a servicing
cost of 15.5% of revenue was thought to be a good position
by Kirner et al).

After just watching the Four Corners "Confessions of the Guilty Party"
I am  left with the impression  that even a large portion of the former
government believes that they shouldn't have let debt rise to the levels
it has BUT NONE of them appear to be of the opinion that they should
have done something about it (though they do concede a general paralysis
over the last few years about most issues).
Most figures put the debt at a level of about 32 billion but
also concede that this does not include a number of other significant
unfunded liabilities. This means that each taxpayer in this
state owes in excess of $16k. Now I suggest that those who
think this is ok - will then go out and take out a personal
loan to that tune and contribute the loan monies to paying of
our debt.  When they they rightly see this as THEIR debt
rather than that of some mythical creature called the STATE,
then I'm sure most would change their tune.
~I don't really want to get into your promised debate
about what the level of debt should be, since I freely admit
I don't have enough information. However, if you want my opinion,
it should be around one 32nd of our current debt as
the right ball park figure - perhaps I should even go for
the 1/144 so I can justify my charge of gross irresponsibility:-)
d.s.
-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Subject: Re: Changing nature of God
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:55:45 GMT

C. G. Albone (chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU) wrote:
[ because God knew sin was going to happen it must have been part of His plan ]

That was basically your argument wasn't it?  Well, in spite of God knowing
what will happen, He may still prefer other things to happen.  We have a
choice to sin or not to sin (or at least Adam and Eve did) and God's purposes
will be worked out no matter what.  Sin is not part of God's plan, God has
the answers for whatever situation arises according to the choices that we
make.  He happens to know what those choices will be but His purpose doesn't
rest upon those particular choices.  I'm speaking of purpose in the ultimate
sense here rather than desires.  For example, God desires that all people
turn to him, but obviously that won't happen "no matter what" because of free
will.  His purpose is to establish a kingdom for those who do turn to Him.

regards,
    Callum
-- 
Callum Gibson                           callum@bain3.bain.oz.au
Eyeball Temporary Analyst/Programmer    BH : +61 2 258 1620
Fixed Income Division                   Fax: +61 2 258 1128
Bain & CO, Sydney, Australia.           AH : :-)
From: jimu@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au (James Uther)
Subject: Re: Uniting Church
Reply-To: jimu@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au (James Uther)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 09:40:56 GMT

In article <ricko.717740438@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:

|> A harsher person than I would say that it is not the law's job to make
|> killing safe and convenient. My GP father (an atheist with no Catholic background) 
|> worked for many years when abortion was illegal, and I have never heard him 
|> make these complaints.

Have you asked your father? I did.(my father, not yours) We were debating 
abortion, and that was his reason for maintaining the right to choose. He had
seen what happens if you don't.

I really don't think the law knows what it's job is. However, it has decided
that abortion is a moral issue for the woman concerned. The law, you will notice,
has not legislated against sex before marrige.
	james
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Transubstantiation again
Date: 1 Oct 92 07:12:00 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: schutz.ee.uts.edu.au

Hi John

I did some more research (i.e I phoned a mate).

Tertullan ended up a heretic (apart from many strange views
he thought that if you left the church you had to be 
rebaptised if you wanted to rejoin it, other wise you 
would not be saved). So his views, especially later,
do not reflect standard Christian tradition.

Also, if everyone thought it was merely symbolic, why did
not Christians respond to the often-heard claims of 
canabalism during services "no, its just symbolic",
at which the fuss would have died down? (Or at least the
persecutors would have looked for something less silly.)

Instead, they went underground, hiding details of the Eucharist
because it was too difficult for outsiders of bad will to
understand. It was the same as with Christ: when he said 
"my flesh is real food" many left saying this is too hard.

-ricko
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Subject: Re: Post Natal Abortion
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:55:40 GMT

kevin@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au wrote:
> 	What is the problem with you Christian dudes? It's fairly clear that
> abortion is O.K. The child doesn't feel anything and is not aware of his
> impending demise (and therefore doesn't suffer phsycologically). In fact the
> same argument can be applied to justify "post-natal abortion", since a child of
> say less than 1 year of age can not understand that he is about to die
> (provided the surgeon acts tactfully), and can be put to death in a painless
> way.

So it's all right if I go to your house tonight and kill you painlessly while
you're asleep?  You won't feel anything if I use the right drugs, you won't
be aware of your impending demise and you certainly won't suffer
phsycologically.  Is that all right by you?  Whether the victim of abortion
(or any other killing) is aware of it or not doesn't affect its wrongness.

regards,
    Callum
-- 
Callum Gibson                           callum@bain3.bain.oz.au
Eyeball Temporary Analyst/Programmer    BH : +61 2 258 1620
Fixed Income Division                   Fax: +61 2 258 1128
Bain & CO, Sydney, Australia.           AH : :-)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Subject: Re: Changing nature of God
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:24:18 GMT

In article <2076@grivel.une.edu.au> Matthew GRAY writes:
> 	"But why does God have to show the rough side and the 
> nice side?"
> That's easy. If He didn't, we wouldn't know they _was_ a nice 
> side and a rough side. Without the dramatic contrast, us thick
> creatures wouldn't respect God the way we should ("God won't 

You make it sound as though God has to show off his muscles to keep us in
line.  It is far from that.  We follow God by _choice_.  The thickness is
continuing disbelief that God is mighty (as we see in Isaiah where the
Israelites turned to Egypt to protect them from the Assyrians rather than God
because they didn't think he could save them) but not in a way that keeps
them in line, rather in a way that _protects_ them.  Remember that God is
perfectly just (as you said in your other post).  That is why He must punish
sin.  Blatant disobedience cannot go unpunished.  This morning I read in
Numbers (chapter 16:42-*) that the Israelites stoned a guy to death (on God's
command) for picking up sticks on the Sabbath!  The point was for deliberate
disobedience there was punishment, but there was atonement for unintentional
sins.  How lucky we are that Jesus died for our sins.  It makes us realise
how important it is to quickly confess our sins to God.  But I digress.
My point is that God does not use scare tactics (what's the point of free
will if He's a bully?).

Hmmm, what about Ananias and Saphira in Acts?  We seem to think that God
acted more decisively in the OT by wiping out people all the time.  However,
maybe He still does act in this way but we just fail to recognise it.  In
that Numbers passage I referred to, God sent a plague.  To the outsider it
would have looked like just a plague but Moses recognised (well, God told
them) that it was from God.  Interestingly, Moses says that God's wrath has
gone out from Him and that Aaron had better high-tail it into the middle of
the congregation and offer atonement for the sins of the people before they
were all killed.  It's as if the punishment for sins is inevitable and cannot
be stopped except by atonement for them.  Of course, since Jesus is our
atonement, the same thing cannot happen to anyone who is saved.  But I wonder
if God sometimes does act through apparently natural methods (as He did in
this example) and we fail to recognise it.

regards,
    Callum

--
Callum Gibson                           callum@bain3.bain.oz.au
Eyeball Temporary Analyst/Programmer    BH : +61 2 258 1620
Fixed Income Division                   Fax: +61 2 258 1128
Bain & CO, Sydney, Australia.           AH : :-)
-- 
Callum Gibson                           callum@bain3.bain.oz.au
Eyeball Temporary Analyst/Programmer    BH : +61 2 258 1620
Fixed Income Division                   Fax: +61 2 258 1128
Bain & CO, Sydney, Australia.           AH : :-)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: c9037395@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Helen Lee)
Subject: Confusing Concepts about God (was: Changing nature of God)
Organization: Uni of Newcastle, Australia
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:14:55 GMT

There seems to be some confusion over some basic concepts about God:
* all-knowing
* all-powerful
* omnipresent

-> It is the concepts themselves that existed first, & the words that describe
them came AFTER that. Hence confusion may arise from 'double meanings' or
different usages of these words.

1) All-knowing.
	* God knows the past cos he was there.
	* God knows the present cos he's got a really huge mind, & he can see
	  heaps of things (see (3))
	* God knows the nature of things, laws, theorems, etc. because of
	  the above 2 points & cos he runs the joint
	* God knows the future IN THAT he can predict it by the above 3 points
	  & IN THAT he has the power to change/make/determine whatever parts
	  of it he chooses
	  -> He does not know if I will roll a 6 or not IF he doesn't let
	     anyone/thing interfere with the fair roll.
	  -> He knows I will roll a 6 IF he himself makes it a 6.
(Note: these are IFs & not IFFs.)
These are the properties of God wrt knowledge.And we use the word 'all-knowing'
to summarise them INADEQUATELY.

2) All-powerful.
	* God is the source of all power/energy. His power is infinite.
	* No one/thing has more power than God
	* God can do anything he wants to cos he has the power to & no one/
	  thing can stop him.
	* Nothing happens unless God allows it
	* God can do a whole heap of things that human beings cannot
	* BUT God cannot do what he doesn't want to (His limit is his own
	  choosing)
	* AND God cannot do the LOGICALLY impossible
	  -> God can create a planet
	  -> God cannot sin
	  -> God cannot make a 4-legged tripod
These are the properties of God wrt power. And we use the word 'all-powerful'
to summarise them INADEQUATELY.

3) Ominpresent.
	* God is 'all-knowing'
	* God is 'all-powerful'
	  -> It is as if he is everywhere
IMHO, I don't believe presence in this term is the same as presence in the
everyday sense (ie. I am in this room. God is in Heaven, but everything but
his 'body' is in this room too.)
This is the concept of God's presence. And we use the word 'omnipresent'
(sorry, I can't think of a simpler term at this time) to describe it
INADEQUATELY.

This is all, of course, IMHO. And naturally I do not expect anyone who does
not believe in God to believe any of it. But hopefully it will clear up some
points of confusion.

Cheers,
Helen.
--
My .sig by H. Lee. Brackets Miss, brackets. This .sig goes as follows and
begins now. All VAXes are thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle
and then thin again at the far end. That is my .sig, it is mine, and belongs
to me and I own it, and what it is too.            c9037395@cs.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: c9037395@jupiter.newcastle.edu.au (Helen Lee)
Subject: God, man & sin (was: Changing nature of God)
Organization: Uni of Newcastle, Australia
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 06:48:14 GMT

Hi, this is just an experiment, but I thought it might make the arguement
clearer. It is meant to be in a dynamic style; input is welcome, premises &
conclusions can be changed/revised. So let's see how far we can get before pure
subjectivity comes into play.
	As you can see, premises are headed numerically, conclusions,
alphabetically. I've chosen the following format for clarity & ease of
revision. Remember: premises are assumptions; while I welcome your input,
do please try not to be *too* silly. :)

1. Existances
1.1 God exists
1.2 Satan exists
1.3 Man exists
1.4 Free will exists

2. God creates man
2.1 God's plan is to 'reproduce himself' - to make us his sons/daughters
2.2 The only way to make/build character is through time, experience &
    personal choice
2.3 At this time, God is allowing us to learn how bad sin really is &
    just how far we can get without him

3. Man the creation
3.1 Man is made/born perfect (tho not complete) ie. neither good nor evil
3.2 Man has free will
3.3 God does not 'make choices for a man' in that God does not infringe on
    this free will

4. Man & sin
4.1 Man's tendency to sin (let's call this 'human nature') is acquired & not
    inherited
4.2 Satan 'broadcasts' bad/evil/wrongful attitudes
4.3 Human nature is acquired from a v young age through these broadcasts

5. God & justice & mercy
5.1 God will (realistically) offer salvation to each and every person at
    some time
5.2 God has/does/will reward/punish accordingly
5.3 God forgives upon repentance

A. God is just
B. God is merciful

Remember: this is supposed to be dynamic!
However, here's a guideline for smoother revisions: If u have a comment on
a premise, then only comment on the premise; if you have a comment on how
the conclusions are drawn from the (assumed) premises, then only comment
on this step.

* While I will take a peak at any followups, I probably won't comment until
after I return from Terrigal in a couple of weeks' time.

Hooroo,
Helen
--
My .sig by H. Lee. Brackets Miss, brackets. This .sig goes as follows and
begins now. All VAXes are thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle
and then thin again at the far end. That is my .sig, it is mine, and belongs
to me and I own it, and what it is too.            c9037395@cs.newcastle.edu.au