HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harold@cs.uq.oz.au (Andrew Wood)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy (was Re: JJJ...)
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:14:41 GMT
Reply-To: harold@cs.uq.oz.au
Distribution: aus

In <dyfl.724476401@phobos> dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam) writes:

>harold@cs.uq.oz.au (Andrew Wood) writes:
>>What debunking are you talking about?
>>Laissez-faire capitalism directly led to the impoverishment of workers
>>during the industrial revolution. It was not until the organisation of 
>>labour, and the intervention of government that some sharing of wealth
>>and prosperity occured -- well after laissez-faire went out the window.

>Let's take the second part of this assertion first.

>The intervention of governments and labour unions did not lead to
>improvement in the living conditions of the workers.  For most part
>they merely legislated what the accumulation capital goods had
>already brought about -- an increase in the marginal productivity of
>labour and hence wage rates, therefore a reduction in the necessity
>for long hours of work, atrocious working conditions and child
>labour.

Could you substantiate this. I say it didn't, and you say it did.
We are in a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" type of 
argument.

>Now to the first part.  Capitalism did not lead to the impoverishment
>of the workers.  In the precapitalist era in England there were
>numerous penniless flagrants in the countryside who, although
>able-bodied, were not able to contribute to the welfare of society
>because of the prevailing social system.  Capitalism and the factory
>system enabled these people to earn a living by becoming wage
>earners.  

So, the poor changed from being rural poor to urban poor. 
They were not changed from being poor. Becomming earners of a wage
did not change their level of poverty.

>Yes, by current standards their pay was very low, hours of
>work very long, and conditions very bad.  But there was no other way
>to improve things other than by producing, saving, and capital
>accumulation.

Oh come on, substantiate this "no other way" statement!
Of course there are other ways! The most effective "other way" that we
can look at is the way that we have been employing since the last time
that we had large numbers of poor people. That is, the system of social
welfare and taxation and economic intervention and stimulation that have 
brought conditions back from the way that they were in the 1930's. 

I have seen nobody in this debate argue that productivity is a bad thing.
Productivity does generate wealth.
However, the debate is about the control and distribution of the wealth. 

Andrew
--
  __0    _-_|\      harold@cs.uq.oz.au is: Andrew Wood
 -\<,   /     * <-- Comp Sci Dept, U. of QLD, Brisbane 
0/  0   \_.-._/     
             v      "This is a job for 'The Australian'"    Delicatessen.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy
Organization: Collaborative Information Technology Research Institute
Distribution: aus
Date: 16 Dec 92 03:50:51 GMT

brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:
>It's not "my" value judgement.  It is the value judgement of society as a
>whole.  For example, you can see it today - society at large is concerned
>about the plight of the unemployed and wants Governments to use their
>resources, funded by taxation collections, to attempt to alleviate their
>plight.

My point is that value judgements are always subjective in
character.  Do you dispute that?  Do you have some means of
ascertaining the objective value of something?  Societies and
governments are incapable of valuations.  Government involves the
valuations of certain people being the directing force over
everybody.

>Our system of democracy is an integration of the hopes, desires and wishes of
>people since the beginning of time.  Processes of government, taxation and
>welfare have come into being over time because society at large *wanted* them.

I agree completely.  It is because of the wide-spread acceptance of
the doctrines of interventionism and the emotional appeal of
anticapitalism that most people are so statist.

>Your ideas are nothing new.  Societal evolution wiped away your concepts
>hundreds of years ago - why should it have to happen again just because
>you've arrived on the planet and think you've got a *new* idea?  Society has
>voted a resounding "no" to your concepts but you don't accept the verdict.

It won't happen again just because I want it to.  If it does I
wouldn't have to try to convince the readers of aus.politics.

>I've tried hard to be restrained in my discussions here, but I'm afraid you've
>pushed me too far.

Hey, come on.  It's only a computer.

>I've seen no evidence from you, Daniel, that you have any care or compassion
>for your fellow man.  All I have seen is greed and selfishness dressed up as
>a pseudo-intellectual argument for a "freer" society.  If that's the way *you*
>want to live your life, fine, but you'll die a soulless and lonely man.

It does not matter in the slightest whether I, or you, have any care
or compassion for our fellow men.  I have deliberately tried to avoid
these questions.  I have simply argued, from a purely utilitarian
point of view, the social advantages of the economic system of
capitalism.
--
	Daniel Lam			Phone 	+61 3 2822426
	Melbourne, Australia		Fax   	+61 3 2822490

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Subject: Re: Hewson carefully shoots himself in the foot-in-mouth.
Reply-To: yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:54:21 GMT

In article <chris.724055250@suite.sw.oz.au> chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
>In <1992Dec10.213532.2226@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
>>The bottom line is, a preference to Keating is a vote for Keating,
>>there is no running away from that or the problems the country has.
>
>And a preference for Liberal is a vote for an even stronger dose of the same
>medicine. There's no running away from that or the problems the country
>has (:-)

Their policies are very different in the areas of industrial relations,
tax reform, immigration and health. The Labor Govt has always worked
closely with their financial sponsors, the ACTU, their interests and those
of the Australian community are not necessarily the same.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: raob@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (richard oxbrow)
Subject: Re: Manufacturing Consent: film on Noam Chomsky
Organization: Electrical and Electronic - University of Melbourne 
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:14:22 GMT

In article <1605@rand.mel.cocam.oz.au> adamt@auzodt3.mel.cocam.oz.au (Adam Tiller) writes:
>In article <1603@rand.mel.cocam.oz.au> adamt@auzodt3.mel.cocam.oz.au (Adam Tiller) writes:
>>In article <1602@rand.mel.cocam.oz.au> adamt@auzodt3.mel.cocam.oz.au (Adam Tiller) writes:
>>I found this article in the 'chomsky.views' newsgroup on Pegasus.
>
>I have since noticed that all of that Z magazine issue was cross posted
>from that newsgroup into 'misc.activism.progressive' which is also a 
>bloody good newsgroup to keep a watch on.
>
>I have had people ask how they get the 'chomsky.views' newsgroup.
>Well if you're not reading this message from Pegasus or another APC node,
>then, sorry, but you can't.
>

Noam was the radio last night talking about the US in africa and the
US economy..
 
and SBS is showing his film over the next 3 weeks (? friday night)

	richard/..
richard oxbrow			   |internet    raob@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU
dept. ee eng,  uni of melbourne    |uunet       ..!uunet!munnari!mullian!raob
parkville, victoria         3052   |fax         +[613] 344 6678   	   
australia               	   |phone       +[613] 344 6782
From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Fightback! the politics and the sums
Date: 20 Dec 1992 14:29:15 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
 
>>What analysis says that it is better for the poor? I challenge you to
>>show me how the poor are going to be better off under fightback. Go
>>on, prove it.
>
>OK, on the down side, GST adds 4.4 percent to costs (lets assume no tobacco).
>on the up side
 
But what if I can't accept this to be correct. This may be an average
(according to Hewson), I have little faith in a man who reckons a
basket of average household groceries includes a "fetish for
cleanliness" - Choice.
 
>- pensions rise 8% -> pensioners better off.
 
Good news, can't argue with this. But aren't social cuts going to
mean less in taxi vouchers, higher costs in medical insurance etc?
 
>- dole up 6% -> unemployed better off.
 
Cut off after 9 months. [Ok, no longer the case]
 
>- everyone earning more than $7k get at least 4.8% more money due
>  to tax changes -> low income earners better off.
 
How long before bracket creep destroys this?
 
>- austudy up 6% -> self supporting student better off.
 
Still below the poverty line.
 
>- family supplement up 6% -> poor families better off.
 
If you have kids. What of cuts in kindergarten assistance, education
spending (have they announced the actual figures yet?).
 
>- family allowance up 50% -> families earning < $40k better off.
 
See above.
 
>Who did I leave out?
 
No one, but I still maintain that this magical 4.7% figure is an
assumption to which all his compensation is based upon. If you are
higher than this figure then you are worse off.
 
I suppose I am far too skeptical but I am always beware of
"politicians bearing tax changes" and "politicians that tell me that
we will ALL be better off".
 
>>How does it reduce the cost of labour if not by reducing the wage of
>>the worker? Is this the distribution from middle to top you are
>
>How about the removal of payroll taxes and the freezing of the
>superannuation guarantee levy. They are costs that do not affect
>the workers take home pay but make labour expensive for the employer.
 
Still my question remains unanswered; how are the states going to be
forced to drop payroll tax? What is incumbent upon the states to
still apply some other form of tax upon the industry. Ok I know this
is airy-fairy stuff, but it should be considered.
 
Payroll tax also depends upon the total wages bill you incur. Many
businesses do not incur this currently so are not affected by the
abolition of payroll tax, directly.
 
The superannuation levy amount will very likely be incorporated into
the new wage of the worker when the unions negotiate either a new
award or do their little "enterprise thing". This levy was original
in replacement for a wage rise so I am sure the unions will be very
willing to get this translated to a wage after it is abolished. No
gain here.
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:42:45 GMT
Distribution: aus

in article <dyfl.724399836@phobos>, dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam) says:
>>Not everyone is as brilliant as you, Daniel, in being able to unfalteringly
>>assess every aspect of their whole life in terms of cost and benefit and
>>make decisions accordingly.
> So if someone makes a value judgement which appears to you to be "wrong" or
> "irrational," you will intervene to prevent them from acting according to
> their judgement and impose your own value judgement on them?

It's not "my" value judgement.  It is the value judgement of society as a
whole.  For example, you can see it today - society at large is concerned
about the plight of the unemployed and wants Governments to use their
resources, funded by taxation collections, to attempt to alleviate their
plight.

Our system of democracy is an integration of the hopes, desires and wishes of
people since the beginning of time.  Processes of government, taxation and
welfare have come into being over time because society at large *wanted* them.

Your ideas are nothing new.  Societal evolution wiped away your concepts
hundreds of years ago - why should it have to happen again just because
you've arrived on the planet and think you've got a *new* idea?  Society has
voted a resounding "no" to your concepts but you don't accept the verdict.

I've tried hard to be restrained in my discussions here, but I'm afraid you've
pushed me too far.

I've seen no evidence from you, Daniel, that you have any care or compassion
for your fellow man.  All I have seen is greed and selfishness dressed up as
a pseudo-intellectual argument for a "freer" society.  If that's the way *you*
want to live your life, fine, but you'll die a soulless and lonely man.

Goodbye.
-- 
Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | This space
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | for lease
Network Access |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-3299   | pending new
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | .sig
From: hoconnel@iti.org (Heath O'Connell)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Hewson carefully shoots himself in the foot-in-mouth.
Date: 17 Dec 1992 00:05:31 GMT
Organization: The University of Adelaide
NNTP-Posting-Host: adelphi.itd.adelaide.edu.au

mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:

>yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:

>>Why are private school education and shares investments limited to Liberal
>>voters? Do you actually believe this? Do you actually believe that Liberals
>>are toffy nosed bozos that send their kids to private schools, invest oodles
>>into the stockmarket, own a home or two, and use private medicine exclusively?
>>I suppose you also believe in the counter stereo-type that Labor voters
>>are uneducated welfare recipients, who don't invest, go to public school
>>until they are legally able to leave, can barely read/write, vote in ticks
>>and crosses and sit around waiting for the government to do more for them.

>No I certainly don't believe in either of these stereotypes,
>but many of the people high up in the liberal party do fit
>them, and there is usually some truth in stereotypes (after
>all that's how they come about). The problem is to step back
>and see if the stereotype is out of date, or if the
>idividual fits it.

	People high up in the Labor Party would also fit this "Liberal Party
stereotype" (unrepresentative swill?).


	
--
		hoconnel@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Subject: Re: GST - double tax?
Organization: Collaborative Information Technology Research Institute
Date: 16 Dec 92 04:53:50 GMT

Oops!  Let me correct an omission which may cause confusion.

I said:

>The general argument goes: in order to produce goods which consumers
>want, which perhaps require a lengthy produciton process, it is
>necessarily to save and accumulate capital, i.e. to have an excess of
>production over consumption.  Therefore production is good and
>consumption is bad.  This is nothing but faulty logic.  The end of
>production is consumption.  There is no point in producing anything
>which will be ultimately result in additional consumption.
	   ^
	  not

Insert "not" in position shown.
--
	Daniel Lam			Phone 	+61 3 2822426
	Melbourne, Australia		Fax   	+61 3 2822490

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
From: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Medicare == manslaughter?
Date: 11 Dec 92 00:41:24 GMT
Reply-To: brendan@cs.uq.oz.au
Distribution: aus


Proposition: The waiting lists in public hospitals are because of the
monopolistic practices of the AMA. The number of doctors are strictly
rationed to maintain the standard of living of the chosen few. The
existing body of doctors largely prefers to concentrate their scarce
resources on the more lucrative private market.

A good solution to the current problems is to double the medical school intakes.
And also to allow a wider cross-section of the community to enter by
widening the narrow academic qualifying standards (by which I don't mean
any form of affirmative action, rather I mean a more vaocational
approach, taking into account the genuine interest in caring for the sick).
Lets face it, general practice and even surgery is not really one of the more
intellectually demanding vocations. Many people could handle it who are
currently rejected from our medical schools.

--
When soldiers form lines or hollow squares, you call it reason.
When wild geese in flight take the form of a letter V, you say instinct.
When the homogeneous atoms of a mineral arrange themselves into shapes
mathematically perfect you have nothing to say. You have not even invented a name to conceal your heroic unreason."
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: brian@mel.dit.csiro.au (Brian May)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy
Organization: CSIRO DIT (Melb.)
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 04:59:22 GMT


In article <dyfl.724565784@phobos>, dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam) writes:
|> brian@mel.dit.csiro.au (Brian May) writes:
|> >Have you ever bothered to ponder the situation that a business can and will
|> >manipulate what people 'want'. That is the basis of advertising. Your 
|> >unwavering belief that a business operates on a pure reactionary basis to
|> >consumers needs shows a naieve trust.
|> 
|> Aren't you clever Brian!  You've seen through the basis of
|> advertising!  I trust that you will act against the evil manipulators
|> by only patronizing businesses which don't advertise.

Yes, I live in a cave, eat grass & drink rainwater.

Point one - your above statement agrees my point of business' manipulation
	    of consumers (halleluljah - I saw the light)

|> BTW, business does not "react" to consumers' needs.  It must
|> anticipate them.

Bullshit - Business does manipulate it's consumers.

Point two - you contradict yourself.

|> >For god's sake - go watch "Manufacturing Consent". It's serialised on
|> >channel 2, 8:30PM Tuesdays - you did miss the introduction this week though.
|> >If you still have the same views after watching that, further discussion is
|> >pointless as you're always going to have this myopic political viewpoint.
|> 
|> So everybody who disagrees with Chomsky has a myopic political
|> viewpoint and further discussion becomes pointless with him?

(me, to brick wall) Hello?

over & out,

brian
--
| Brian.May@mel.dit.csiro.au |           Open Systems Program           |
| CSIRO/DIT, 723 Swanston st | TEL +61 3 282 2613 -- FAX +61 3 282 2600 |
|Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia|          Experimental Scientist          |
From: harold@cs.uq.oz.au (Andrew Wood)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:20:30 GMT
Reply-To: harold@cs.uq.oz.au
Distribution: aus

In <dyfl.724557659@phobos> dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam) writes:

>One last point.  People on this list, in the opinions they have
>expressed on the history of the Industrail Revolution, seem to have
>been exposed to only one historiographical tradition.  I have been
>shouted down for even suggesting that the view that the Industrialist
>Revolution led to widespread poverty is false.  This is sad indeed.

Oh please, you are enjoying every word of this debate, spare us the drama and
don't go round playing the innocent victim!

Whenever you make claims fundamental to your argument and you provide
no form of substantiation, you will be questioned.
If you sincerely believe that having people question your arguments
means that you have been "shouted down" then "This is sad indeed".

In the above paragraph, I believe that you are refering to some of my points.
If I recall, I made a statement, to which, without substantiation or example,
you replied that the real situation was completly the opposite.
Now, if you feel that my education has been blinkered, then you have chosen a
rather unconvincing way to introduce me to another 'historiographical
tradition'.

Andrew
--
  __0    _-_|\      harold@cs.uq.oz.au is: Andrew Wood
 -\<,   /     * <-- Comp Sci Dept, U. of QLD, Brisbane 
0/  0   \_.-._/     
             v      "This is a job for 'The Australian'"    Delicatessen.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Subject: Re: Hewson carefully shoots himself in the foot-in-mouth.
Reply-To: yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 21:35:32 GMT

In article <JEREMY.92Dec10082822@chook.adelaide.edu.au> jeremy@cs.adelaide.edu.au (Jeremy Webber) writes:
>In article <9234415.7354@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> crmilton@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Christopher Robert MILTON) writes:
>[lots of things in support of John Hewson and the GST]
>
>My word!  There's actually someone out there who _believes_ all that
>economic rationalist claptrap!  Poor soul!
>
>Well, if the GST is going to save us, why is it that Britain has had a
>GST (or VAT) for the last 15 years and is in a far worse mess than we
>are [we have yet to have our first serious urban poverty riots, though
>don't hold your breath...]

I thought that most of those riots had more to do with a conglomeration of
pockets of races within various industrialised cities, and the fact
that they are poor through effects of discrimination and the poor state
of the British economy. If this is the case then we have had many
cases urban poverty riots in Redfern, after all we are lucky that
we generally have only 1 socially and  economically disadvantaged
racial community.
In any case the GST is just part of a package of reforms, it is needed
to fund the removal of taxes from other areas of the economy which
currently discriminate against the cost of labour, the cost of transportation
and the cost of production. They also allow for a decrease in personal
taxes from which it is hoped that an increase in capital accumulation,
and therefore investment can occur.

>	Jeremy, who desparately wishes there were someone he could
>		direct his preferences to other than Keating.

The bottom line is, a preference to Keating is a vote for Keating,
there is no running away from that or the problems the country has.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: ajw@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh)
Subject: Re: Fightback! the politics and the sums
Organization: CSIRO, Division of Information Technology, Melbourne
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 23:48:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.221121.3410@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
>In effect, given adequate compensation, a less regressive tax system
>can be fairer to the lower tax groups. Most analyses of Fightback conclude
>that it is a win for the poor and the rich and a lose for the middle,
>who just like the above example would need to readjust their spending
>patterns to take into account the shifts. The middle class is in a good
>financial position to do this.

The first clause is the killer; "given adequate compensation". Are
you sure that the Fightback package offers "adequate compensation"?
I am not. There have been many analyses of Fightback more pessimistic
about the benefits to the poor than you are. Why should I vote for a
package which will deliver a big increase to the rich, and _might_
leave the poor, at best, no worse off?

andrew
Newsgroups: aus.politics